JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
only real difference is he's
twice as smart and half as gay.
You need to readjust your gaydar...



Yeah, Hannity's a conservative, so there's NO WAY.....

The question is weather he is more gay than Obermann.. Come on, really,
try to keep up and not just use every post to be a Harry...


Quite the opposite, I'm trying to get you to see that you are acting
like an oppositeHarry. Conservative good, liberal bad. Of COURSE you'd
say Hannity was less gay than Olberman.

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
only real difference is he's
twice as smart and half as gay.
You need to readjust your gaydar...



Yeah, Hannity's a conservative, so there's NO WAY.....

The question is weather he is more gay than Obermann.. Come on, really,
try to keep up and not just use every post to be a Harry...


Quite the opposite, I'm trying to get you to see that you are acting
like an oppositeHarry. Conservative good, liberal bad. Of COURSE you'd
say Hannity was less gay than Olberman.

Come on, Boy George is less gay than Obermann... geeze..

--
Wafa free since 2009

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
only real difference is he's
twice as smart and half as gay.
You need to readjust your gaydar...



Yeah, Hannity's a conservative, so there's NO WAY.....

The question is weather he is more gay than Obermann.. Come on, really,
try to keep up and not just use every post to be a Harry...


Quite the opposite, I'm trying to get you to see that you are acting
like an oppositeHarry. Conservative good, liberal bad. Of COURSE you'd
say Hannity was less gay than Olberman.

Come on, Boy George is less gay than Obermann... geeze..

--
Wafa free since 2009

and compared to barney?

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Pgm_wD9AK3O680

have a good evening...

Hmmm.
Overturning McCain-Feingold sounds like legislating from the bench.
My, my. How times change.
It's interesting to hear McCain warn the supremes that there is their
world, and a real world.

McCain-Feingold never should have passed.

While flipping channels I noticed yesterday that immediately after
Obama's speech both CNN and Fox had anti-Obama-health-care reform
ads running. Didn't watch them after I got their drift, which took
about 3 seconds.

Freedom of speeh and freedom of association is a wonderful thing isn't it.

But to answer your question: EVERYBODY!!

--Vic

On Sep 10, 1:25*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AeFTeeZgHFLy1E...

have a good evening...

I don't know much about the law, so maybe that's the problem, but I don't
understand the issue with allowing (or not allowing) corporations to
contribute to campaigns. I guess the courts consider them the same as
individuals, but that just seems odd and wrong-headed to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

corporations aren't people and aren't mentioned in the constitution.
they are a legal fiction. their money is real and it distorts the
political process

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 1:25 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AeFTeeZgHFLy1E...

have a good evening...

I don't know much about the law, so maybe that's the problem, but I don't
understand the issue with allowing (or not allowing) corporations to
contribute to campaigns. I guess the courts consider them the same as
individuals, but that just seems odd and wrong-headed to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

corporations aren't people and aren't mentioned in the constitution.
they are a legal fiction. their money is real and it distorts the
political process


I thought I read somewhere about a Supreme Court ruling that basically
allows corps to be treated like individuals, as far as "First Amendment"
rights go.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:29:36 -0400, BAR wrote:


McCain-Feingold never should have passed.

Sure, why try to rein in corporate welfare? It only costs us @ $150
billion a year.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:29:36 -0400, BAR wrote:


McCain-Feingold never should have passed.

Sure, why try to rein in corporate welfare? It only costs us @ $150
billion a year.

It's all about paying taxes. If you pay taxes you get to play. If you
don't pay taxes then shut up.

BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:29:36 -0400, BAR wrote:


McCain-Feingold never should have passed.

Sure, why try to rein in corporate welfare? It only costs us @ $150
billion a year.

It's all about paying taxes. If you pay taxes you get to play. If you
don't pay taxes then shut up.


Moron.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:32:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:29:36 -0400, BAR wrote:


McCain-Feingold never should have passed.

Sure, why try to rein in corporate welfare? It only costs us @ $150
billion a year.

It's all about paying taxes. If you pay taxes you get to play. If you
don't pay taxes then shut up.

http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm