Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Canton

Canton, OH

#31013 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never proven any of my evidence wrong. You do the same thing all liberals do which is criticize the source instead of the evidence. You liberals think you've won the debate when all you're really done is prove you can't defend what you wrote.
You have used The Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh as the source of your "facts". Now name some bogus leftwing propaganda mills that I used as my sources. Yah, that's what I thought. Just because you are too dumb to understand the difference between opinion pieces and corporate sponsored propaganda doesn't mean it's anything close to being called "facts".
Canton

Canton, OH

#31014 Jul 4, 2014
Nickled Dimed wrote:
<quoted text>
Reagan? You need to study history, sir.
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the administration's face-off with Ross Perot in its last-ditch effort to rescue the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton took on another NAFTA opponent yesterday, attacking labor unions for using "roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" to try to defeat the trade pact.
In an hour-long, Oval Office interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, Mr. Clinton conceded he is about 30 votes short of the majority needed to pass the trade legislation in the House, which will cast its decision Nov. 17.
"I think we'll make it, however," he added.
The House vote is the crucial test on Capitol Hill. Senate approval is regarded as certain.
The president said Mr. Perot, scheduled to debate the issue with Vice President Al Gore tomorrow night on CNN's "Larry King Live," has "kept things stirred up" as a loud and ubiquitous anti-NAFTA voice.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-11-08/n...
Two decades ago, the strongest critics of the North American Free Trade Agreement were members of labor unions. They warned that the trade deal would mean the loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and lower wages for U.S. workers.
Today, 20 years since NAFTA's passage, unions feel as strongly as ever that the deal was a bad idea.
Back in 1993, the labor movement was mobilized against the creation of a massive free-trade zone including the U.S., Canada and Mexico. There were union-backed protests around the U.S.— at the Capitol in Washington and especially in the industrial Midwest and in big manufacturing states.
That fall in Lansing, Mich., Ruben Burks of the United Auto Workers addressed a big crowd. "Do we care about our jobs?" he said to cheers. "Do we care about our brothers and sisters in Mexico and Canada? Brothers and sisters, we're going to stop this NAFTA — you're darn right we are."
Except they didn't. President Clinton was in his first year in the White House, having been elected with help from traditional Democrats — including union members. But he disagreed with labor on NAFTA.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251945882/what-...
Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill...
China's Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615...
Reagan broke the unions. Neat, I didn't have to use 20 links and 5 paragraphs that nobody will read to state that. It's because everybody already knows this common knowledge. Everyone except you, I guess. Oh well. Who cares.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31015 Jul 4, 2014
nobama wrote:
Nobama
CouisinHumper
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31016 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
You have used The Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh as the source of your "facts". Now name some bogus leftwing propaganda mills that I used as my sources. Yah, that's what I thought. Just because you are too dumb to understand the difference between opinion pieces and corporate sponsored propaganda doesn't mean it's anything close to being called "facts".
My evidence comes from a wide variety of sources and not just the ones stuck in your head. But even if you posted a source stating X, then I'm going to find reliable sources to disprove your evidence if I can. If I can't, then obviously your source is more reliable. If I can, then there is a question as to who's source is correct.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31017 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links. You are out of your element on this one, Donnie.
nope obviously you are.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31018 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links. You are out of your element on this one, Donnie.
I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links and you might learn something.

Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right

July 1, 2014

The real issue in this case is the free exercise of religion that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Some might argue that religious freedom only applies to individuals, not corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Yet, as John Samples at the Cato Institute points out, the Constitution clearly indicates whenever rights are limited to individuals by using the words “citizens” or “persons” such as the Fifteenth Amendment which addresses the rights of “citizens” to vote. Corporations can’t vote in a general election, only individual citizens can.

However, the First Amendment does not limit its guarantee of freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion to “citizens” or “persons.” The Supreme Court clearly indicated in the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment's prohibition against “abridging the freedom of speech” applied to corporations just as it does to individuals. The focus of the First Amendment is “ abridging the freedom of speech” regardless of who is doing the speaking.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends...
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31019 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links and you might learn something.
Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right
July 1, 2014
The real issue in this case is the free exercise of religion that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Some might argue that religious freedom only applies to individuals, not corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Yet, as John Samples at the Cato Institute points out, the Constitution clearly indicates whenever rights are limited to individuals by using the words “citizens” or “persons” such as the Fifteenth Amendment which addresses the rights of “citizens” to vote. Corporations can’t vote in a general election, only individual citizens can.
However, the First Amendment does not limit its guarantee of freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion to “citizens” or “persons.” The Supreme Court clearly indicated in the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment's prohibition against “abridging the freedom of speech” applied to corporations just as it does to individuals. The focus of the First Amendment is “ abridging the freedom of speech” regardless of who is doing the speaking.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends...
How long do you suppose it will take for one of them to criticize the source? LOL!
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Detroit, MI

#31020 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links and you might learn something.
Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right
July 1, 2014
The real issue in this case is the free exercise of religion that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Some might argue that religious freedom only applies to individuals, not corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Yet, as John Samples at the Cato Institute points out, the Constitution clearly indicates whenever rights are limited to individuals by using the words “citizens” or “persons” such as the Fifteenth Amendment which addresses the rights of “citizens” to vote. Corporations can’t vote in a general election, only individual citizens can.
However, the First Amendment does not limit its guarantee of freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion to “citizens” or “persons.” The Supreme Court clearly indicated in the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment's prohibition against “abridging the freedom of speech” applied to corporations just as it does to individuals. The focus of the First Amendment is “ abridging the freedom of speech” regardless of who is doing the speaking.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends...
What do you know, Fox and friends didn't read the opinion either. Give it a try. Start with the last paragraph of the majority opinion.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31021 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>What do you know, Fox and friends didn't read the opinion either. Give it a try. Start with the last paragraph of the majority opinion.
We know you cant see that it had to do with the 1st Amendment because the ruling goes against Liberalism as everyone knows which goes agianst the US Constitution ever since FDR redifined Liberalism and here is another article making it very clear too on case law.

7/01/2014

Hobby Lobby And Harris v. Quinn -- A Pretty Good Day For The First Amendment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/0...

Not a whiff of liberalism there.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31022 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
How long do you suppose it will take for one of them to criticize the source? LOL!
it didnt take long and I post another link stating it was a 1st amendment issue too.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31023 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it didnt take long and I post another link stating it was a 1st amendment issue too.
51 minutes. I think that's a new record for holding out. Of course, it is the holiday and a beautiful day here in Northeast Ohio, so I guess we have to put that in the calculation. But....... I told you it was coming. LOL!

Do I know liberals or do I know liberals? LOL!
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#31024 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
51 minutes. I think that's a new record for holding out. Of course, it is the holiday and a beautiful day here in Northeast Ohio, so I guess we have to put that in the calculation. But....... I told you it was coming. LOL!
Do I know liberals or do I know liberals? LOL!
No, you rely on www.imakeshitup.com
Canton

Canton, OH

#31025 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
51 minutes. I think that's a new record for holding out. Of course, it is the holiday and a beautiful day here in Northeast Ohio, so I guess we have to put that in the calculation. But....... I told you it was coming. LOL!
Do I know liberals or do I know liberals? LOL!
Now if only you could spot bullsh1t propaganda, you wouldn't be such an idiot.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#31027 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>We know you cant see that it had to do with the 1st Amendment because the ruling goes against Liberalism as everyone knows which goes agianst the US Constitution ever since FDR redifined Liberalism and here is another article making it very clear too on case law.
7/01/2014
Hobby Lobby And Harris v. Quinn -- A Pretty Good Day For The First Amendment
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/0...
Not a whiff of liberalism there.
You still haven't read the decision have you? When I get back to my computer I will put this to rest. I've let you twist long enough.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31028 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it didnt take long and I post another link stating it was a 1st amendment issue too.
"One of the wrinkles in Hobby Lobby is the decision doesn’t really involve the First Amendment. The court has already spoken on how far it believes the Constitution protects religious beliefs and it was its 1990 decision in Employment Division vs. Smith, declining to protect believers against neutral laws of general applicability.(In that case, laws against the consumption of peyote that two workers fired for drug use said violated their Native American religious beliefs.)"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014...

Interestingly, it was Scalia that wrote that opinion.I guess the rights of corporation to religious freedom trump those of the individual.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31029 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it didnt take long and I post another link stating it was a 1st amendment issue too.
You and all of your links are wrong.

"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns." Slip Opinion page 49.

You just learned something from a liberal. I await your and Taliban Ray's mea culpa.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31030 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Now if only you could spot bullsh1t propaganda, you wouldn't be such an idiot.
And if only you were a conservative, you wouldn't need personal insults to try and have a debate.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31032 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You and all of your links are wrong.
"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns." Slip Opinion page 49.
You just learned something from a liberal. I await your and Taliban Ray's mea culpa.
Wrong we all know Modern Liberalism is Unconstitutional which is why Liberals hope for no legal challenges just like Hobby Lobby proved.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31033 Jul 4, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
"One of the wrinkles in Hobby Lobby is the decision doesn’t really involve the First Amendment. The court has already spoken on how far it believes the Constitution protects religious beliefs and it was its 1990 decision in Employment Division vs. Smith, declining to protect believers against neutral laws of general applicability.(In that case, laws against the consumption of peyote that two workers fired for drug use said violated their Native American religious beliefs.)"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014...
Interestingly, it was Scalia that wrote that opinion.I guess the rights of corporation to religious freedom trump those of the individual.
Has to do with the SCOTUS case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which yes Corporations have rights too.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.___(2010),(Docket No. 08-205), is a US constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. This followed a line of decisions starting with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) interpreting freedom of speech to include spending money. The case has remained intensely controversial for increasing the influence in elections that money can have, in contrast to most other developed countries where limits are imposed on all election spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_...
Poop Chit

Gainesville, GA

#31034 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me introduce you to a notion that you Tea Bagging Bible voters live in denial about. Halliburton made billions in no-bid contracts rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Seems we weren't "broke" then.
And alot of Muricans made alot of money and paid alot of taxes too. So it all just cycles back to your precious gubment overlords anyway.

What are ya belly aching over? Because that money wasn't redistributed to welfare people who just go buy drugs from drug dealers who never pay income tax on that revenue?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Xenia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Goose 19,930
Today's Leon Harrison Quotation 3 hr Fan of Leon The Man 21
I just consulted with my Fidelity Investments a... 14 hr Leon Harrison 1
"I am boycotting soccer!" 15 hr Leon Harrison 1
what year did Xenia go bad? (May '10) May 26 Neighbor_Hood 11
UNderstanding the cycle of poverty May 26 Neighbor_Hood 1
News Grand jury clears police in Wal-Mart shooting (Sep '14) May 26 Cyndi Elitist Bee... 5
More from around the web

Xenia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]