1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonTime and time again you've started threads here with OPs that were tainted by lies and deceitful exaggerations - often because of your penchant for cutting and pasting from sites that are manipulating YOU with lies. You've been called on it over and over again. By others, not just me. It has almost reached the stage of a joke. So, who are you, now, to lecture us on what you think were lies or not lies on the part of POTUS?
...but to blatantly lie about their decision to boot.To their face none the less!
Originally posted by FMFI am a paying member of this site and I will state my opinion all I want!
Time and time again you've started threads here with OPs that were tainted by lies and deceitful exaggerations - often because of your penchant for cutting and pasting from sites that are manipulation YOU with lies. Who are you, now, to lecture us on what you think were lies or not lies on the part of POTUS?
Obama stated something blatantly false! Being a constitutional lawyer he is aware of the decision and what it means and does not mean!
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by utherpendragonObama spoke the truth. Only a enemy of individual freedom would think otherwise.
I am a paying member of this site and I will state my opinion all I want!
Obama stated something blatantly false! Being a constitutional lawyer he is aware of the decision and what it means and does not mean!
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou are citing the fact that President Obama's a constitutional lawyer as evidence that your frothing layman's assertions about the constitution are true?
Obama stated something blatantly false! Being a constitutional lawyer he is aware of the decision and what it means and does not mean!
Originally posted by TerrierJackThe SCOTUS ruling dealt ONLY with a portion of recent law that restricted U.S. corporations (including unions) from running broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election.
Obama spoke the truth. Only a enemy of individual freedom would think otherwise.
Alito’s obvious objection was caught on camera when Obama said:
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
Alito was absolutely correct to object. Obama lied. SCOTUS did NOT overturn “a century of law” nor will the ruling “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Originally posted by utherpendragonYour post is an unattributed cut and paste from a right wing blog. Just give us the link if you can't be bothered to debate off your own bat.
The SCOTUS ruling dealt ONLY with a portion of recent law that restricted U.S. corporations (including unions) from running broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election.
Alito’s obvious objection was caught on camera when Obama said:
“With all due deference to separation of powe ...[text shortened]... r special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Originally posted by FMFTheir is nothing to debate w/ YOU about! You are an abrasive, sniveling,shuddering little twit!
Your post is an unattributed cut and paste from a right wing blog. Just give us the link if you can't be bothered to debate off your own bat.
The facts speak for themselves.
Now run along and go pay homage to Barrys little statue in Jakarta before they pull it down.
Originally posted by utherpendragonAh so we see, a mere millimetre beneath your thin, thin political skin, the true nature of a hateblog junkie. 😀
Their is nothing to debate w/ YOU about! You are an abrasive, sniveling,shuddering little twit!
The facts speak for themselves.
Now run along and go pay homage to Barrys little statue in Jakarta before they pull it down.
1 edit
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people[...]."
- Obama
If the Supreme court ruled correctly, and I'll assume for now that it did, does this mean that the President thinks another constitutional amendment might be in order?
If yes, then this is not necessarily an insult to the SC. The SC is upholding the Constitution, but the latter might need changing.
Originally posted by FMFNot so. The facts are there. Dispute them,prove them wrong or shut the hell up. Personal attacks on me and other posters is not debate.
Ah so we see, a mere millimetre beneath your thin, thin political skin, the true nature of a hateblog junkie. 😀
But thats your m.o. is it not? When the facts are in your face and you cant prove them wrong to fit your idealology you attack the posters
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's not me who has an "ideology". Your whole OP and follow up is nothing but an unsubstantaited personal attack on a president you clearly hate. You would say anything. And do. Regularly. Where are your "facts"? It is a blatant lie!!! It is a blatant lie!!! Even this 'idea' is lifted word for word from the same kind of blog that has made you a laughing stock, time after time after time, OP after OP after OP. Texas killer was Obama's Homeland Security advisor!! So and so Czar wants to kill millions with injections!!! A democrat candidate she meant the "taliban", yes she did, yes she did, yes she did!!! As USArmyParatrooper - for example - has dismantled you over and over and over again.
Not so. The facts are there. Dispute them,prove them wrong or shut the hell up. Personal attacks on me and other posters is not debate.
But thats your m.o. is it not? When the facts are in your face and you cant prove them wrong to fit your idealology you attack the posters
Originally posted by FMF1.FMF has no political ideology? 🙄
It's not me who has an "ideology". Your whole OP and follow up is nothing but an unsubstantaited personal attack on a president you clearly hate. You would say anything. And do. Regularly. Where are your "facts"? It is a blatant lie!!! It is a blatant lie!!! Even this 'idea' is lifted word for word from the same kind of blog that has made you a laughing ...[text shortened]... As USArmyParatrooper - for example - has dismantled you over and over and over again.
2.My Op is substantaited w/ facts. Prove otherwise!🙄
3.USArmyParatrooper ? 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Show us how Obama was being truthful, for one.( you are a self professed expert on the U.S. constitution it shouldn't be too hard for you)
Secondly, Show how it is appropriate to attack SCOTUS in the way he did at the state of the union and show examples of this by past Presidents
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Your post doesn't answer my question.
Even the NY Times is apparently uncomfortable about the way the President called out the Supreme court in the State of the Union.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
[/i]President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began ...[text shortened]... the decision.
At least Harry Reid had the common sense to keep his butt glued to his chair.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis protection has been extended by explicit holdings tothe context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determiningwhether speech is protected. Corporations and otherassociations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected theargument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the FirstAmendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Again, it's not about "censorship" or "free speech". It's about keeping special interests from polluting healthy political debate, and more importantly, political decision making. There are many countries where U.S. politicians would be locked up for corruption for doing what they are doing now.
Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any indication that Free Speech only applies to individuals. To censor any info put out by 'special interests' is a restriction on Free Speech. It is up to the individual to have acceass to ALL information good or bad and decide for themselves.
This is another perfect example of how some folks think it's up to the gov to do what people should be doing for themselves. Think.😛
Obama did not lie here. The statement that the decision would "open the floodgates" surely is an honest appraisal of what he thinks the likely result of the decision will be. It's possible the impact will be less than he believes, but to call that a lie is just partisan rancor; a lie requires that the statement be actually false and furthermore the speaker to know it to be false. Rather clearly, neither condition applies.
His concern over the possibility of foreign corporations being allowed to now run attack ads against individual candidates is well-founded. The statute struck down made no distinction between foreign and domestic corporations as both weren't allowed the run these types of ads. After the decision this provision is void, so presumably ANY corporation could engage in this practice. Absent a specific provision in law, foreign corporations legally doing business in the US can engage in any activity domestic ones can. Unless a statute is now enacted that applies to foreign corporations ONLY, they will be free to pay for and run attack ads. And any provision passed limiting their ability to do so may very well run afoul of commercial treaty obligations even if the SC decides their "free speech rights" are somehow less than the "free speech rights" of domestic corporations.