- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Kinda like a commander in chief that throws a fit everytime he doesn't get his way, or says that a Supreme Court decision that was based on "shall not be infringed" was wrong because there will be a competition now involving money not friendly to his party. Or that nice little bitch session he had on a radio show pre-presidency complaining about the constitutional framework not allowing him to exercise his visions for United States domination. That kind of lack of control?It shows he has no control over his emotions. Oh, and the camera is rolling.
How was it not "impartial"? Alito didn't make a political statement. Obama outright misrepresented what the Court decided. That's a factual matter, not one of opinion. The Court specifically, overtly, in plain language, did NOT address the matter of foreign influence. Obama should have known that, probably did know what, yet he said the Court made it OK. That's either a lie or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Alito wasn't arguing with him on policy or on opinion. He was reacting to a bald-face misrepresentation of verifiable fact.
They did make it ok by implication. By not addressing it, they allowed multinational corporations to buy airtime in support of their chosen issue or candidate. Any company that has public stock has at least one share that is owned by someone who isn't a citizen, its unavoidable.
Oh spare me Redress, you know whom those words were aimed at and why. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it. Sheesh you've got thin skin this morning.
Yes. You have made an accurate assessment. If this was a speech provided by the Supreme Court and Alito was speaking and Obama was in the audience, I would be disgusted with Obama as well. I stand by my assertion that this is not the venue for a Supreme Court Justice to disagree with the President.
It shows he has no control over his emotions. Oh, and the camera is rolling. I might feel differently if there weren't TV cameras all over the place. But you are a public figure when on national TV, and I think you should show restraint.
Your pathetic attempt to turn it into some kind of great political sign is as dishonest and disgusting as Disneydudes attempt to do so earlier in this thread.
Of course, it is a non-event. Make no mistake - Obama loves America just as much as Alito does. Alito loves America just as much as Obama does. However, each's philosophy is different, and each has an honest disagreement with the other. Both positions, Obama's and Alito's are honest and valid positions, in respect to the Constitution. I disagree with Obama's position, and believe Alito is correct. However, I am not going to bash Obama over such nonsense.
If the shoe was on the other foot, that is, if it was a Republican president making a statement saying a decision to uphold that law is wrong, and if a Liberal justice, who had cast a vote to uphold that law had said "Not true", you would be calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justice. That is the way hyperpartisan political hackery works.
I think the difference is Obama loves power a lot more than Alito does. Not unusual of products of the Chicago political machine.
What is your proof that on his stance on power? How can you feel justified making this assertion if you are not a mind reader?
The State of the Union is not the venue for expressing disagreement in this manner. I think it was in extremely poor taste. JMO
I agree. They should not attend these events.
How is saying that you disagree with a ruling breaking decorum?
It was not a flat out lie as you characterize it.
washingtonpost.com
The supreme court did overturn a 100 year old ruling. Whether or not it will harm our democracy is a matter of opinion, not fact.
They may not directly spend on a candidate, but they can now pretty much do want they want for or against a candidate, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
So, a corrupt judge mouths "not true" in response to the exposure of his corruption.
I would be surprised had he nodded in agreement, but I'm glad he was caught in the act here.
They did make it ok by implication. By not addressing it, they allowed multinational corporations to buy airtime in support of their chosen issue or candidate. Any company that has public stock has at least one share that is owned by someone who isn't a citizen, its unavoidable.
Well, other than the topic of the thread, massive government control of heathcare and auto industries come to mind, his sleazy dealing with the census bureau, his desire to "spread the wealth around", do you really need much more than that?
Yes I do.
Lets see, hes trying to help people get health care.
He intervened in the auto industries to try and save jobs (cue rant about unions).
What sleazy dealings with census?
Spread the wealth around is what liberals do.
Except for the census thing, which I am not sure to what you referring to, you are pretty much describing a liberal here.
Are you sure you aren't just being paranoid?
Besides, what good would power do if he has to give it up in 3 or 7 years?
And how could I forget the $800 billion patronage pit that he called a stimulus?!
Obama directly took over the census bureau immediately after taking office, moving it to the executive branch, then appropriated an additional $1B to it.
Obama shifts Census oversight, triggering angry protest by Republicans (2/6/09) -- GovExec.com
It gives him tremendous influence over elections for the next ten years.
I fail to see how the stimulus is a power grab. That's just Keynesian economics.
It looks like to me he wants to try and make sure that the census gets those who fall through the cracks. Which is in the third paragraph. I could see what they would need more funding for that.
Then there needs to be less government interference and more consumer choice, that would actually bring costs down, instead, he wants MORE government control in every aspect of it, that isn't helping.Lets see, hes trying to help people get health care.
That didn't work to begin with. But it took alot of nerve form him to make a personnel decision on behalf of GM, and a complete ignorance of the American business model.He intervened in the auto industries to try and save jobs (cue rant about unions).
How about the idea of subcontracting it to ACORN for starters.What sleazy dealings with census?
Spreading other people's wealth using confiscatory tax rates is not a noble thing to do.Spread the wealth around is what liberals do.
That didn't work to begin with. But it took alot of nerve form him to make a personnel decision on behalf of GM, and a complete ignorance of the American business model.
Where would you put your attempt to turn the term "bank roll" into some kind of great political sign? As dishonest and disgusting or more so?
:doh :rofl
What kind of "great political sign". I said it was a lie, which it was, unless we're to believe that the highly intelligent presidential scholar didn't realize what the court ruling he is talking about actually did, in which case it was just ignorant misrepresentation.
This ruling does not allow any corporation to "bank roll an election".
No ones proven me wrong on that. All they've done is go "umm, urrrrr, uhhhh, you're nit picking because you're taking exactly what he said and actually expecting it to mean what the words are defined as, grrr"
Care for a discussion, or more trollish oneliners?
For ****s sake, no they did not. Please link me to the 100 year old ruling that they overturned. I mean, if it's being mentioned everywhere, it should be easy. Let's see it.
Because it's only "judicial activism" when they do sumpin' you don't like eh?
Tillman act.
We asked Schumer's staff about the 100-year-old comment, and they pointed us toward a 1907 law called the Tillman Act. They cited the dissenting opinion issued this week, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, that said, "The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907."
...
The Tillman Act said corporations could not "make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office." Now, does this mean that independent expenditures are outlawed, or just direct contributions? We looked at several court opinions and legal articles, and everything we looked at suggested that back then, people weren't thinking of campaign contributions in those terms. And in 1947, Congress came back and passed another law, the Taft-Hartley Labor Act, banning corporations and unions from making independent expenditures.
...
So what about Schumer's comments that the Supreme Court "decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures." This glosses over a lot of detail. Yes, it was more than 100 years ago that the first law limiting corporate spending was passed. But we don't see evidence that the Tillman Act even envisioned a distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures. And the ban on direct contributions still stands.
Lobbiests have strict rules. This opens the gates for a new form of bribery.
The oldest ruling that the court reversed was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce from 1990.
This ruling does not allow any corporation to "bank roll an election".
No ones proven me wrong on that. All they've done is go "umm, urrrrr, uhhhh, you're nit picking because you're taking exactly what he said and actually expecting it to mean what the words are defined as, grrr"
Care for a discussion, or more trollish oneliners?
I just want to point out that I got this in before the lawyer did. YAY ME!
Sorry, been up about 30 hours so far and getting a bit odd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?