You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #15: the post I replied to stated "Republicans" love it - not "Republican Politicians" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. the post I replied to stated "Republicans" love it - not "Republican Politicians"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -What's to stop a Chinese, Russian or Saudi company NJmaverick  Jan-22-10 01:30 PM   #0 
  - Absolutely nothing.  last1standing   Jan-22-10 01:32 PM   #1 
  - I agree  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:33 PM   #2 
  - Nothing. Which is why the Republicans love this ruling. nt  gateley   Jan-22-10 01:34 PM   #3 
  - They won't like it if Hugo Chavez tries it. nt  City Lights   Jan-22-10 01:38 PM   #7 
  - They'd find a way to stop it. I'm convinced of it. nt  gateley   Jan-22-10 01:49 PM   #13 
  - Yup. They'll find a way to invoke their double-standard rule.  City Lights   Jan-22-10 01:58 PM   #25 
     - They would be just as likely to do that to support Dems as repukes.  timeforpeace   Jan-22-10 03:56 PM   #47 
  - Citgo  Richard D   Jan-22-10 02:31 PM   #34 
  - not all love it - Ben Ginsberg - noted RW attorney of Bush-v-Gore fame was on am-talk this morning  DrDan   Jan-22-10 01:43 PM   #9 
  - He's not a politician. I'm guessing that there are actually some in Congress who  gateley   Jan-22-10 01:49 PM   #12 
     - the post I replied to stated "Republicans" love it - not "Republican Politicians"  DrDan   Jan-22-10 01:51 PM   #15 
     - You're right. It's my post and I apologize for not specifying 'politicians'. nt  gateley   Jan-22-10 01:55 PM   #18 
     - I believe that McCain and Olympia Snow have already spoken out against the ruling  Bjorn Against   Jan-22-10 04:32 PM   #52 
  - In That Case, Both Republicans and Party Dems  NashVegas   Jan-22-10 08:46 PM   #58 
  - I hope the Canadians take us over. Single Payer Healthcare!  leftstreet   Jan-22-10 01:35 PM   #4 
  - I for one would welcome our Canadian overlords.  treestar   Jan-22-10 01:58 PM   #22 
  - Not a damned thing. THIS is our trump card in this debate. nt  Captain Hilts   Jan-22-10 01:37 PM   #5 
  - ...or maybe a "Muslim" owned company?  Contrary1   Jan-22-10 01:37 PM   #6 
  - That might give them pause, but it's too late  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:46 PM   #10 
  - Unrestrained Greed Makes One Myopic and Unethical  Yavin4   Jan-22-10 01:38 PM   #8 
  - Yes greed and short sightedness will be our nations' epitaph  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:47 PM   #11 
  - As far as I know nothing stops them from doing this already  Hippo_Tron   Jan-22-10 01:51 PM   #14 
  - There was campaign finance law that limited the effectiveness of such a tactic  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:53 PM   #16 
     - The law said you could spend the money on "issue ads"  Hippo_Tron   Jan-22-10 01:56 PM   #19 
        - Even the issue ads had to stop 60 days before and 30 days after an election  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:57 PM   #21 
           - Yes but that was a McCain-Feingold provision, its only been that way since 2002  Hippo_Tron   Jan-22-10 02:00 PM   #26 
              - This ruling has over turned laws dating back to Teddy Roosevelt  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:13 PM   #29 
  - Like Citibank?....  HipChick   Jan-22-10 01:53 PM   #17 
  - Did the foreign bail outs come through?  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:14 PM   #30 
  - Nothing  treestar   Jan-22-10 01:57 PM   #20 
  - How hard would it be to find some republican advisors that would be willing to put $$$$  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 01:58 PM   #23 
     - That would not be difficult at all  treestar   Jan-23-10 10:56 AM   #59 
  - Amounts to possible rule by 'foreign entities'. Treasonous.  AzDar   Jan-22-10 01:58 PM   #24 
  - Treasonous is the exact word needed here.  humblebum   Jan-22-10 02:52 PM   #40 
  - Not defending the decision, but it isn't that different  Spike89   Jan-22-10 02:06 PM   #27 
  - This is a nation where many can't even find us on a map or globe  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:11 PM   #28 
  - We begin to agree again.  YOY   Jan-22-10 02:21 PM   #31 
  - Why even bother with a front group. Companies can now spend  madinmaryland   Jan-22-10 02:26 PM   #32 
  - The front groups allow the politicians to avoid looking like they are bought and paid for  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:35 PM   #35 
     - And why buy the politician, when you can go direct to advertising?  leftstreet   Jan-22-10 02:48 PM   #39 
  - While possible, reporting and disclosure laws limit their efficacy.  Xithras   Jan-22-10 02:27 PM   #33 
  - The problem is trying to get American's to understand complex shell games  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:38 PM   #37 
  - That would be jack apple shit but American owned has nothing to do with public interest anyway  TheKentuckian   Jan-22-10 02:35 PM   #36 
  - True even American companies think globally and care little about the welfare of our nation  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:46 PM   #38 
  - New York Times Article on Chinese Language  jtuck004   Jan-22-10 02:54 PM   #41 
  - Nothing. But personally I'm not concerned about the agenda of "evil foreign nations"  readmoreoften   Jan-22-10 02:54 PM   #42 
  - Well when you try to explain to a right winger how badly their 5 judges screwed up  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 02:59 PM   #44 
     - That is a good point. It is strong populist/nationalist rhetoric.  readmoreoften   Jan-22-10 04:53 PM   #56 
  - Not a damn thing. n/t  Raineyb   Jan-22-10 02:55 PM   #43 
  - What was to stop them last week?  TxRider   Jan-22-10 03:07 PM   #45 
  - there was a 100 years of campaign finance law dating back to Teddy Roosevelt's  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 03:18 PM   #46 
  - Nothing.  Odin2005   Jan-22-10 03:58 PM   #48 
  - NJmaverick, we may not agree often but we are on the same side on this issue  Bjorn Against   Jan-22-10 04:07 PM   #49 
  - nothing...n/t  BlueCollar   Jan-22-10 04:08 PM   #50 
  - Isn't this what Rupert Murdock has already done? n/t  Fla Dem   Jan-22-10 04:15 PM   #51 
  - To a degree, but we aint seen nothing yet  NJmaverick   Jan-22-10 04:36 PM   #54 
  - they will have the endorsement of the United States supreme court  spanone   Jan-22-10 04:32 PM   #53 
  - Yep. It's a deadly threat to national security. We need an immediate Presidential Directive from  Zorra   Jan-22-10 04:39 PM   #55 
  - Good point.  Quantess   Jan-22-10 08:43 PM   #57 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC