So I guess the Republicans are not in favor of US Sovereignty any more - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jim B. · #31 01-25-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

They already enjoy those rights including the right to posess fully automatic weapons and destructive devices.
destructive devices.

Holy cow!

Really?

So where are my Nukes?

Can I have them now?

Jim B. · #32 01-25-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

How is it the same sort of question ? You either support it, or you do not, which one is it? The silence of the OT right on this question is incredible .

"Predictable" would be a better word IMO.

Billybob · #33 01-25-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

It's my signature line over there!!!

A google search pulls up 1900 hits on hundreds of forums all over the net!

Billybob · #34 01-25-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Besides, it isn't bad new for Republicans, who have every reason to believe they will enjoy generous support from foreign corporations, just as they expect to bank millions of fresh crisp dollars from American corporate interests. Although they will sometimes scream about alleged or imagined foreign donations to Democrats, as some of them did in 2008, their own party’s record in soliciting support from dubious sources abroad is real, and worse.

Well Hillary must have gotten the heads up on this decision and didn't ever get the memo it was only good for Republicans!

The titular head of the Clintonistas now running the State Department together with Janet Napolitano at Department of Homeland Security somehow don’t see the perpetrator of the crime which lead to the largest fine in FEC history as a “criminal guilty of a crime of moral turpitude” which would bar him from travel to the US! Of course the Obamunists; know nothing, nothing!

”Last year, however, the Indonesian mogul finally made it to Arkansas. He traveled there during the first of two previously unreported trips he made in 2009 to the United States. He was allowed in only after receiving a waiver from a rule that forbids entry to foreigners guilty of "a crime involving moral turpitude," a term that government lawyers generally interpret to include fraud.
Riady's return to the United States poses a prickly question for Hillary Clinton's State Department: How and why did a foreign billionaire stained by Clinton-era scandals get a U.S. visa after being kept out for so long under the Bush administration?
The saga brought Riady and his family-run conglomerate, Lippo Group, an $8.6 million fine, the biggest penalty in the history of U.S. campaign finance violations.
The question of whether Riady would be able to return to the United States was first raised in 2000 during plea bargain negotiations. As part of the plea agreement, Riady agreed not to seek entry for two years. Riady, in his e-mail, said the lead prosecutor in the case, Daniel O'Brien, wrote a letter that "specifically stated that my crime was NOT moral turpitude." A copy of the letter on file with the Los Angeles court, however, includes no such statement by O'Brien. It notes only that the businessman might need a waiver if "the appropriate authorities determine that Riady has committed a crime of moral turpitude." The letter records that Riady had informed the U.S. government that he might seek to visit America in the future "for business or personal reasons" and says the businessman could use the letter to support an application for a waiver if he complies with the terms of the plea agreement.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403106.html

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm

cmac2012 · #35 01-25-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

A google search pulls up 1900 hits on hundreds of forums all over the net!

Oh no you dih-unt!! I hate it when that happens. I, for one, never use phrases that come from common usage. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

The sentence was put in quotes in the original post, sort of implying it was a quote from elsewhere. Not important enough to need exact attribution.

aklim · #36 01-25-2010, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

How is it the same sort of question ? You either support it, or you do not, which one is it? The silence of the OT right on this question is incredible.

How is it not? You are asking a loaded question. Fact is, if you consider it as foreigners influencing the vote, there has already been influence to the vote BEFORE this ruling. As I have asked before, what has changed in the real world. Have the limits been changed? Has the disclosure of payments been allowed to be kept silent? What has changed? If nothing has changed, what is the difference? Just because I don't support any special interests be they foreign or domestic doesn't mean I see this as a foreign threat. This sounds EXACTLY like the fear mongering you accused Republicans of except that now it is a Democrat issue, you not only turn a blind eye but you support it.

Since you are so vocal, why don't you tell me what the real difference is. I have shown a blub on another thread about what is kept and what is tossed. Show me, based on that, what the real world change is. When you can do that, show me what you think the real difference will be, perhaps I won't accuse you of the very same thing you accuse anyone who isn't liberal of. Fear mongering.

Jim B. · #37 01-25-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Well Hillary must have gotten the heads up on this decision

She *DID*???!!!

Hatterasguy · #38 01-25-2010, 07:15 PM

The problem as stated above is that a very high percentage of people on corperate boards are not American citizens. Now you offer them a chance to spend a ton of money to get people elected that will do favors for them.

The American people should rise up and demand that this is changed. I don't care what the court ruled, in this case they are wrong. We employee them they need to fix this.

I suspect the republicans may think they can control what has come out of pandoras box and it will benifit them. They are wrong, sadly once the box is open its going to take a lot of effort to close.

MS Fowler · #39 01-25-2010, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Once again, the question is asked, and we get some moronic screed against the author instead of addressing the question at hand. Instead of doing so, could you please address the topic of the post, and tell us why you Republicans no longer believe in US sovereignty ?

I have not answered because I think your rhetoric is so far beyond reality that its just silly.

I believe your caricature the actual decision and its consequences.

Jim B. · #40 01-25-2010, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The problem as stated above is that a very high percentage of people on corperate boards are not American citizens. Now you offer them a chance to spend a ton of money to get people elected that will do favors for them.

The American people should rise up and demand that this is changed. I don't care what the court ruled, in this case they are wrong. We employee them they need to fix this.

I suspect the republicans may think they can control what has come out of pandoras box and it will benifit them. They are wrong, sadly once the box is open its going to take a lot of effort to close.

X2

Absolutely correct, and well stated, too!!!

It is giving the green light to open, naked, and unvarnished influence peddling, at the highest level, no different than any 3rd world country like Peru, Phillipines, or Nigeria.

aklim · #41 01-25-2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Now you offer them a chance to spend a ton of money to get people elected that will do favors for them.

The American people should rise up and demand that this is changed.

I don't care what the court ruled, in this case they are wrong. We employee them they need to fix this.

I suspect the republicans may think they can control what has come out of pandoras box and it will benifit them. They are wrong, sadly once the box is open its going to take a lot of effort to close.

Are you saying it was NOT an option before this ruling?

Then it is simple. Change the laws.

Very convenient for you to say that. Would they be right if they rule your way and wrong if they rule against you?

How so? How were the Reps even involved in this issue other than those judges were merely nominated by a Republican President AND approved by the Senate? How did they foretell this would happen?

aklim · #42 01-25-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

It is giving the green light to open, naked, and unvarnished influence peddling, at the highest level, no different than any 3rd world country like Peru, Phillipines, or Nigeria.

And before this there was no influence peddling? Really? Special interest groups have been in existence since when again? The last week?

JollyRoger · #43 01-26-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I have not answered because I think your rhetoric is so far beyond reality that its just silly.

I believe your caricature the actual decision and its consequences.

I believe I do not. The question, as I have stated, is simple, and you refuse to face up to it. Corporations have no allegiance to "country", many of them are equivalent to "country" in their own right. Their boards, their employee workforces, their stock holders are made up of millions of foreign nationals many of whom wield considerable power, and a small group of which wield virtually unlimited financial power. By this ruling, and I demand you show me where this statement is "beyond" reality, these corporations have now been granted the right to directly participate in our elections. For a few thousand dollars, any group of foreign nationals can go charter themselves in Delaware or Nevada, and now legally pour millions, if not billions, into our electoral processes. "Silly" you call it? Try "it's the law." It is an obvious erosion, if not the end, of our national sovereignty. Are you in favor of that, or not?

JollyRoger · #44 01-26-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

She *DID*???!!!

I have yet to figure out how Billy boy's posts have anything to do with the discussion at hand. It is as if, because he is boxed into a corner, unable to face the obvious contradiction in his own thinking, the only thing he can do is come here to twist in the wind. And post distracting drivel.

aklim · #45 01-26-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I believe I do not. The question, as I have stated, is simple, and you refuse to face up to it. Corporations have no allegiance to "country", many of them are equivalent to "country" in their own right. Their boards, their employee workforces, their stock holders are made up of millions of foreign nationals many of whom wield considerable power, and a small group of which wield virtually unlimited financial power. By this ruling, and I demand you show me where this statement is "beyond" reality, these corporations have now been granted the right to directly participate in our elections. For a few thousand dollars, any group of foreign nationals can go charter themselves in Delaware or Nevada, and now legally pour millions, if not billions, into our electoral processes. "Silly" you call it? Try "it's the law." It is an obvious erosion, if not the end, of our national sovereignty.

Are you in favor of that, or not?

We know all that. Tell us how this change affects that lot of stale news.
Have you stopped beating your wife or not?