Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Race is not irrelevant. Many Blacks voted for him, because he was Black. Many Whites hate him far more than they would a White Dem with the same exact views. The guy in the video says "The Constitution says.." O.K., Right Away I know that's most likely an unfair person. 33% of Americans get an 8%say in whether that Healthcare Bill got through the Senate. That's due to the crap in the Constitution. It's biased. If your quoting it, then most likely you're for bias against some Americans. If you're quoting it with love, then you're often( but not always) backing the unfairness within it.
|
lol
it's only biased when you disagree with something that has happened. was it biased when they used it to give blacks the right to vote? or women? was it biased when slaveowners had to give up that practice? segregation? prayer in schools? whenever the minorities rights are protected altho many think 'majority rules'?
as for the most recent supreme court ruling allowing corporations
and unions (something you see virtually no mention of) the ability to spend money on advertising, the rules that were in place regarding foreign entities, and regarding donations directly to pols are still in place.
this is from factcheck.org, excerpted from their article about his state of the union address:
Foreign Corporations Donating?
The president claimed that "foreign corporations" could begin spending big money to influence U.S. elections under a recent Supreme Court decision.
Obama: Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.
Justice Samuel Alito, who with the other justices sat at the very front of the chamber last night, was seen shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words "not true" as Obama said this. Alito joined the majority in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by the Court last week, which knocked down restrictions on corporate spending on elections.
But it’s unclear whether the court’s opinion will lead to allowing foreign-based corporations to buy campaign ads and engage in other electioneering activities.
There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)), and that’s a matter likely to be litigated further. The court’s most recent decision explicitly didn’t deal with that question. But strictly speaking, Obama couched his claim as something "I believe," making it a statement of opinion and not of fact. So whether his view turns out to be right remains to be seen.