"TIM RICHARDSON -> ROSS SAUER"  wrote in
news:14851$POL_DISORDER{at}JamNNTPd:

 EC>>> Now, could you next explain why the Court ruling is the
"very"
 EC>>> definition?


 EC>>> This could be amusing.


 SH>> I'm making some popcorn.


 RS>> Contrary to Wayne's raving, this SC ruling is not fascist.


 RS>> In fact the only SC ruling I can think of that *WAS* fascist in
 TR> nature was RS>the Dred Scott ruling, which pretty much stated,
"The US
 TR> is whites only, RS>n****** don't count."


 TR> In the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court stated that the
 TR> Dred Scott ruling was pretty much nulified by the Fourteenth
 TR> Ammendment, which reads in part:


 TR> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
 TR> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
 TR> State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
 TR> which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
 TR> United States...."

And...?

One of the key tenants of fascist regimes, is vicious racism, of one
kind or another.

The Dred Scott decision was a form of vicious racism as well.

 RS>> Now, as to this ruling, just something to remember here:


 RS>> This ruling lets unions and even Hugo Chavez dump as much money as
 TR> they RS>want to to any candidate they want to.


 TR> Unions and democrats (which is one and the same thing when you think
 TR> about it) have been doing whatever they damn well please all along.
 TR> So.....whats changed? The Supreme Court only just confirmed the rights
 TR> of republicans to do the same things as democrats do in the way of
 TR> raising funds, thats all (make that read `leveled the playing field').

Now according to this ruling, there won't be any limits as to how much
goes in bribes...I mean campaign contributions to candidates.

I feel this is legalized bribery.

--- Xnews/5.04.25