President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby BobbyinTN » Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:52 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:Jesus Christ Matt and Stu- what the fuck you want?

He threw a bunch of bones out there to the Cons....

You guys must be pissed he wants to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Great speech on all fronts.


lol yea, because the military fag policy is really something that I care so deeply about (ridiculously transparent political grandstanding to silence his gay leftist critics, btw... and probably not a good idea based on the amount of homophobia that runs through much of the armed forces)

Look, I don't even like Republicans who supposedly share more of my views. What makes you think I'm gonna enjoy or credit Obama when he mentions a few things in the midst of trying to do all kinds of major programs that will fundamentally alter the rest of my life and that cut against everything I believe in? These guys are all fuckin liars. You don't see me in here waving the flag of any particular Republican either, do you? They're all liars and the system is fuckin broken. But I'm especially not gonna give one iota of credence to someone like Obama who doesn't have one true belief that I can relate to.



WOW! Fag? Really Matt?
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:56 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:How about calling out the Supreme Court, mainly the 5 conservatives who just last week ruled in favor of no limits lobbyist could pay to government reps. That was ballsy.


Yeah ballsy and stupid...even my 7 year old would know that no law can limit freedom of speech.

I know that pesky 1st Amendment bothers you libs, but SCOTUS was right sorry.

I suggest you go look up the Constitution again...it is right there in very easy to understand language..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Bolded so you can pick it out...


Corporations aren't individuals. And you should remember, unions vote liberal and now they can spend all the money they want to elect anyone they want or to bash anyone they want.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:57 am

Rockindeano wrote:What fucking nonsense. Scalia is exactly what's wrong with this Court and country. Horseshit.


Right on and with Alito's head bobbing and mouthing last night shows the country just how partisan that fuckin' court is and how impeachment proceedings should start ASAP.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:01 am

Rockindeano wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:How about calling out the Supreme Court, mainly the 5 conservatives who just last week ruled in favor of no limits lobbyist could pay to government reps. That was ballsy.


Yeah ballsy and stupid...even my 7 year old would know that no law can limit freedom of speech.

I know that pesky 1st Amendment bothers you libs, but SCOTUS was right sorry.

I suggest you go look up the Constitution again...it is right there in very easy to understand language..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Bolded so you can pick it out...


What the fuck are you rambling about? The ruling handed down by the slanted SCOTUS 5-4 had nothing to do with free speech, unless you are trying to sell me the notion that money and lobbying is a form of free speech. Go read the ruling.

I guess it's ok to you that corporations can now give as much money to the politician of their choice? I suppose that's ok because big business is in the corner of republican candidates. I can't wait to hear your rebuttal.


I read the ruling, Corporations and Unions are now no longer barred from putting up ads advocating a candidate, because it is a form of political speech, it is protected under the 1st Amendment.

To parrot you, so now I guess it's ok to UNIONS to give as much money as they want to the politician on their choice. I suppose that's ok because Unions are in the corner of democrat candidate.

And actually both statements would be wrong, the Corporations and Union will not be able to give unlimited sums of money to politicians...but only put up their own ads. I suggest YOU go read the ruling.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:02 am

BobbyinTN wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:How about calling out the Supreme Court, mainly the 5 conservatives who just last week ruled in favor of no limits lobbyist could pay to government reps. That was ballsy.


Yeah ballsy and stupid...even my 7 year old would know that no law can limit freedom of speech.

I know that pesky 1st Amendment bothers you libs, but SCOTUS was right sorry.

I suggest you go look up the Constitution again...it is right there in very easy to understand language..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Bolded so you can pick it out...


Corporations aren't individuals. And you should remember, unions vote liberal and now they can spend all the money they want to elect anyone they want or to bash anyone they want.


US law has for well over 100 years given Corporations the same status and individuals, it's called Corporate Personhood. I suggest you educate yourself before you make a further idiot of yourself.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:05 am

Lula wrote:the roberts court would have us believe that the founders intended to give free speech rights to the east indian tea company, rather than dumping their inventory straight into the boston harbor. what of transnational companies that rely on foreign slave labor in mexican maquiladoras or saipan sweatshops??? u mean to say they can now spend to the hilt to influence our election process??? the decision smacks of nothing less than pure judicial activism. very sad. :(


Hi TNC...please quit using Lula's account...Yes I know it is you not her typing this. Totally different style, even if you use all small case as she does.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Rockindeano » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:09 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:To parrot you, so now I guess it's ok to UNIONS to give as much money as they want to the politician on their choice. I suppose that's ok because Unions are in the corner of democrat candidate.



LOL dude, of course it isn't right if unions can do the same thing as corporation, or even a foreign corporation. All of it is wrong.

However, unions don't have nearly as much coin as a big corporation does and you know it. This decision is political, pure and simple. It favours the GOP and the Court voted surprisingly, :roll: straight down party lines.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:09 am

BobbyinTN wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:Jesus Christ Matt and Stu- what the fuck you want?

He threw a bunch of bones out there to the Cons....

You guys must be pissed he wants to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Great speech on all fronts.


lol yea, because the military fag policy is really something that I care so deeply about (ridiculously transparent political grandstanding to silence his gay leftist critics, btw... and probably not a good idea based on the amount of homophobia that runs through much of the armed forces)

Look, I don't even like Republicans who supposedly share more of my views. What makes you think I'm gonna enjoy or credit Obama when he mentions a few things in the midst of trying to do all kinds of major programs that will fundamentally alter the rest of my life and that cut against everything I believe in? These guys are all fuckin liars. You don't see me in here waving the flag of any particular Republican either, do you? They're all liars and the system is fuckin broken. But I'm especially not gonna give one iota of credence to someone like Obama who doesn't have one true belief that I can relate to.



WOW! Fag? Really Matt?


For once I agree with you Bobby...and I actually agree with Obama, the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit has to go. If ANYONE wants to serve who is physically able, then they should allowed to do so, regardless of sexual preference.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby hoagiepete » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:09 am

Rockindeano wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
The biggest canard is that he's still hawking his health care "reform" as a cost-savings measure. It's nothing of the sort -- it'd be an expansion of coverage with increased expenditures, not a cost-savings measure.



Did you even watch the speech?

He clearly said, by the estimate of the CBO, the proposed Health Care bill will trim 1 Trillion dollars off the defecit in 10 years. The CBO, not the OMB, is the office that both Congress and the White House are using as a numbers calculator.


How much of that is from "savings" of fraud and efficiencies they'll implement? If it is in the number you refer...which it was at one time...that would be a joke! If so, a simple question...why not eliminate fraud and waste with today's system? Do you really think it would happen? If so, I've got some beach front property here in KS to offer you at a great price.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:12 am

Rockindeano wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:To parrot you, so now I guess it's ok to UNIONS to give as much money as they want to the politician on their choice. I suppose that's ok because Unions are in the corner of democrat candidate.



LOL dude, of course it isn't right if unions can do the same thing as corporation, or even a foreign corporation. All of it is wrong.

However, unions don't have nearly as much coin as a big corporation does and you know it. This decision is political, pure and simple. It favours the GOP and the Court voted surprisingly, :roll: straight down party lines.


REALLY?? Kennedy was the deciding vote...he usually hangs out with your side of the isle...but he is a smart man...smarter than either of us. And he knows, as do you even if you won't admit it, that NO LAW trumps the Constitution.

If you want to change that, then get some politician to start the Constitutional Amendment process to exempt coporations and unions.

And Unions have TONS AND TONS AND TONS of money...easily as much as most corporations.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Rockindeano » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:13 am

hoagiepete wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
The biggest canard is that he's still hawking his health care "reform" as a cost-savings measure. It's nothing of the sort -- it'd be an expansion of coverage with increased expenditures, not a cost-savings measure.



Did you even watch the speech?

He clearly said, by the estimate of the CBO, the proposed Health Care bill will trim 1 Trillion dollars off the defecit in 10 years. The CBO, not the OMB, is the office that both Congress and the White House are using as a numbers calculator.


How much of that is from "savings" of fraud and efficiencies they'll implement? If it is in the number you refer...which it was at one time...that would be a joke! If so, a simple question...why not eliminate fraud and waste with today's system? Do you really think it would happen? If so, I've got some beach front property here in KS to offer you at a great price.


You doubting the CBO numbers? Hell, even the republicans accept their estimate.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby hoagiepete » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:16 am

Rockindeano wrote:
hoagiepete wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
The biggest canard is that he's still hawking his health care "reform" as a cost-savings measure. It's nothing of the sort -- it'd be an expansion of coverage with increased expenditures, not a cost-savings measure.



Did you even watch the speech?

He clearly said, by the estimate of the CBO, the proposed Health Care bill will trim 1 Trillion dollars off the defecit in 10 years. The CBO, not the OMB, is the office that both Congress and the White House are using as a numbers calculator.


How much of that is from "savings" of fraud and efficiencies they'll implement? If it is in the number you refer...which it was at one time...that would be a joke! If so, a simple question...why not eliminate fraud and waste with today's system? Do you really think it would happen? If so, I've got some beach front property here in KS to offer you at a great price.


You doubting the CBO numbers? Hell, even the republicans accept their estimate.


I'm just asking the question.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby S2M » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:21 am

Memo: When the repubs sit and pout like the apathetic children that they are...when hearing about a presidential policy that actually aids in a positive aspect for the country, that's about all I can take.....and I'm sure it goes the other way in Repub POTUS years.....politicians are truly all about themselves.

BTW, I'm neither Dem or Repub. I don't vote. Haven't since Perot. and I never will again. Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Rockindeano » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:38 am

StocktontoMalone wrote: Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?


That's exactly what the president was talking about last night. Trust. Too many lobbyists. He wanted every member of Congress to have a website listing the names of every lobbyist who met with said congressperson. It's also the reason why he publicly scolded the black robes- now there will be even more control and power for lobbyists and less or none for the American citizen. It is a terrible decision. I just don't understand the conservative mentality. It boggles my mind.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby separate_wayz » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:39 am

Rockindeano wrote:
hoagiepete wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
The biggest canard is that he's still hawking his health care "reform" as a cost-savings measure. It's nothing of the sort -- it'd be an expansion of coverage with increased expenditures, not a cost-savings measure.



Did you even watch the speech?

He clearly said, by the estimate of the CBO, the proposed Health Care bill will trim 1 Trillion dollars off the defecit in 10 years. The CBO, not the OMB, is the office that both Congress and the White House are using as a numbers calculator.


How much of that is from "savings" of fraud and efficiencies they'll implement? If it is in the number you refer...which it was at one time...that would be a joke! If so, a simple question...why not eliminate fraud and waste with today's system? Do you really think it would happen? If so, I've got some beach front property here in KS to offer you at a great price.


You doubting the CBO numbers? Hell, even the republicans accept their estimate.


HA HA HA HA!! NOBODY worth their salt is believing Obama's bullshit numbers on health care savings. Those figures have been effectively trashed since the CBO called out Obama and the Democrats for double-counting on the Medicare numbers in December. (See my previous post on this.) Even Democrats are running away from these figures because they know that there will not only be ZERO cost savings from this clunker, they'll be several trillion ($2.9 trillion, for the Senate bill) added to the debt in its first decade.

If you want to expand coverage, fine -- spend several trillion for another entitlement. But nobody should believe that ObamaCare will save money.
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby portland » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:40 am

Rockindeano wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote: Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?


That's exactly what the president was talking about last night. Trust. Too many lobbyists. He wanted every member of Congress to have a website listing the names of every lobbyist who met with said congressperson. It's also the reason why he publicly scolded the black robes- now there will be even more control and power for lobbyists and less or none for the American citizen. It is a terrible decision. I just don't understand the conservative mentality. It boggles my mind.




Me too and I am a independent.
portland
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:57 am
Location: Maine

Postby Ehwmatt » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:41 am

Rockindeano wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote: Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?


I just don't understand the conservative mentality. It boggles my mind.


Well Deano, if we were all the same, it'd make the world a pretty boring place now wouldn't it?

As far as corporate personhood, I'm all for exempting them from being granted status as a "citizen" if we also stop taxing them, bar all lawsuits against them, and take away any other rights and duties that flow from the legal fiction of corporate personhood. Practical and sound policy, right? :roll:
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:42 am

I really hope we pass all these programs. I've been saying for months that I hope Obama gets 8 years. I want to revel and laugh and watch all people eat their crow as he spends us into fucking oblivion. It's worth the pain to learn a hard lesson.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Saint John » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:47 am

Obama is a pussy. He just wants to suction money and benefits from those that choose to work and thrive, and freely pass it along to those that want to do next to nothing and barely survive.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby S2M » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:48 am

Ehwmatt wrote:I really hope we pass all these programs. I've been saying for months that I hope Obama gets 8 years. I want to revel and laugh and watch all people eat their crow as he spends us into fucking oblivion. It's worth the pain to learn a hard lesson.


True truism for ya: You have to spend money to make money....
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Ehwmatt » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:51 am

StocktontoMalone wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:I really hope we pass all these programs. I've been saying for months that I hope Obama gets 8 years. I want to revel and laugh and watch all people eat their crow as he spends us into fucking oblivion. It's worth the pain to learn a hard lesson.


True truism for ya: You have to spend money to make money....


Right, spend it intelligently. I'm not gonna make any money if I go out and overdraw my bank account by $100K buying rare vintage guitars
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:57 am

Rockindeano wrote:
StocktontoMalone wrote: Useless, trap of a system. The public has no say in government. No voice, and even less representation.....isn't it time we had another tea party?


That's exactly what the president was talking about last night. Trust. Too many lobbyists. He wanted every member of Congress to have a website listing the names of every lobbyist who met with said congressperson. It's also the reason why he publicly scolded the black robes- now there will be even more control and power for lobbyists and less or none for the American citizen. It is a terrible decision. I just don't understand the conservative mentality. It boggles my mind.


It is a CONSTITUTIONAL question...period...it's not a conservative or liberal decision...the crux of the matter is whether it is Constitutional. It isn't and a blind person could see it.

Now if you want to know whether I think Corporations or Unions should be able to spend freely, I say No...but the law limiting them has to past Constitutional muster, it's not too much to ask.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:31 pm

I remember a lot of people in here being emphatic in their support of the McCain - Feingold Act. Where are those voices now?

The Supreme Court's decision is atrocious and indefensible. The worst part was Knucklehead Roberts' defense of turning over the 1993 decision that went 7-2 against it...he said that because there was "dissent" (i.e. the support of ONLY Scalia and Thomas) that the verdict was not unanimous and therefore ambiguous.

I'm also puzzled that the GOP is claiming Obama is offering "more of the same" when his fiscal policies are Clintonesque in their moderate virtual conservatism.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby hoagiepete » Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

I missed the address, but in the short clips I saw, he seems to be on track. Could do without his nose in the air posing though. Biden and Pilosi are so creepy I couldn't stand to watch too much. Only way to describe Biden is creepy. Sleezy maybe? Don't think I can even comment on Pelosi. Ugh.

What is it with VPs the past decade? Gore, Cheney, Biden? We've had some doozies!
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:16 pm

7 Wishes wrote:I remember a lot of people in here being emphatic in their support of the McCain - Feingold Act. Where are those voices now?

The Supreme Court's decision is atrocious and indefensible. The worst part was Knucklehead Roberts' defense of turning over the 1993 decision that went 7-2 against it...he said that because there was "dissent" (i.e. the support of ONLY Scalia and Thomas) that the verdict was not unanimous and therefore ambiguous.

I'm also puzzled that the GOP is claiming Obama is offering "more of the same" when his fiscal policies are Clintonesque in their moderate virtual conservatism.


The damn law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...PERIOD...

The text of the first amendment is UNAMBIGUOUS...You libs ignore a little fact like that...because you all believe the ends justify the means...Certainly I don't like the unfettered spending power of Unions and Companies...and I am perfectly FINE will limiting them...provided it is done within the constitutional framework.

You also ignore that the ruling doesn't allow corporations or unions to GIVE money to politicans beyond what the limits for individuals allow...it merely restores their RIGHT to air ads, which never should have been taken away...do you people even READ what you are blathering on about?
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby JasonD » Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:22 pm

RossValoryRocks wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:Jesus Christ Matt and Stu- what the fuck you want?

He threw a bunch of bones out there to the Cons....

You guys must be pissed he wants to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Great speech on all fronts.


lol yea, because the military fag policy is really something that I care so deeply about (ridiculously transparent political grandstanding to silence his gay leftist critics, btw... and probably not a good idea based on the amount of homophobia that runs through much of the armed forces)

Look, I don't even like Republicans who supposedly share more of my views. What makes you think I'm gonna enjoy or credit Obama when he mentions a few things in the midst of trying to do all kinds of major programs that will fundamentally alter the rest of my life and that cut against everything I believe in? These guys are all fuckin liars. You don't see me in here waving the flag of any particular Republican either, do you? They're all liars and the system is fuckin broken. But I'm especially not gonna give one iota of credence to someone like Obama who doesn't have one true belief that I can relate to.



WOW! Fag? Really Matt?


For once I agree with you Bobby...and I actually agree with Obama, the "don't ask don't tell" bullshit has to go. If ANYONE wants to serve who is physically able, then they should allowed to do so, regardless of sexual preference.


I totally agree, but if the gay-hatin' straight population wanna exclude people like me from joining their military, then let ‘em all fight for MY freedom. Meanwhile, if anybody needs me, I'll be sitting on my back porch sipping on an ice cold beer & waiting for the steaks to get done grilling.
.
.

Image

Image
User avatar
JasonD
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby slucero » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:34 pm

7 Wishes wrote:I remember a lot of people in here being emphatic in their support of the McCain - Feingold Act. Where are those voices now?

The Supreme Court's decision is atrocious and indefensible. The worst part was Knucklehead Roberts' defense of turning over the 1993 decision that went 7-2 against it...he said that because there was "dissent" (i.e. the support of ONLY Scalia and Thomas) that the verdict was not unanimous and therefore ambiguous.

I'm also puzzled that the GOP is claiming Obama is offering "more of the same" when his fiscal policies are Clintonesque in their moderate virtual conservatism.


Actually... in the eyes of US Law, a corporation has the same rights as an individual (see below). So denying them the same rights to donate to campaigns (as WRONG as that is) as an individual would be a violation of their rights...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.[1]

By law, those titles of the United States Code that have not been enacted into positive law are "prima facie evidence"[6] of the law in effect. The United States Statutes at Large remains the ultimate authority. If a dispute arises as to the accuracy or completeness of the codification of an unenacted title, the courts will turn to the language in the United States Statutes at Large. Where a title has been enacted into positive law, however, a court may neither permit nor require proof of the underlying original statutes.[7] The distinction between enacted and unenacted titles is largely academic because the Code is nearly always accurate. The United States Code is routinely cited by the Supreme Court and other federal courts without mentioning this theoretical caveat. On a day-to-day basis, very few lawyers cross-reference the Code to the Statutes at Large.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

"In the case of titles that are positive law (in the restricted sense), the text of the title itself, as published in the United States Code by the United States Government Printing Office, is conclusive evidence of the exact wording and punctuation of the statute. In litigation over a provision of the United States Code, this means that to determine the actual wording of the statute the court generally will not look beyond the text as printed in the Code itself. "



Title 1 of the US Code is considered "positive law"... which gives "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies" the same rights as individuals.

U.S.C. § 1 : US Code - Section 1: Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise -
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words "insane" and "insane person" and "lunatic" shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non
compos mentis;
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and
joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

"officer" includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
"signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
"oath" includes affirmation, and "sworn" includes affirmed;
"writing" includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing,
manifolding, or otherwise.



So the SCOTUS decision was only to reaffirm what is already law... Obama knows this as a lawyer.. and supposed Constitutional professor... but blaming the SCOTUS is good political theater... and the sheeple eat it up.

BLAME CONGRESS

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:59 pm

I love how you guys come rushing to defend "free speech" when it helps, as this new law does, create a way to make the rich richer and further separate the middle class from the elite. Just the way you guys like it. How can you defend a ridiculous ruling like this when it flies in the face of the very campaign finance laws you so vehemently defended as of last year? The reverberations from the hypocritical histrionics this new law engenders will be far-reaching and extremely consequential.

You accuse Democrats of constantly toeing the party line - yet it is the refusal of moderate and "blue dog" Democrats to "fall into line" that flummoxed the House so much during the health care reform debates. The left is FAR more open-minded and conciliatory than the GOP, and Obama called you out - deservedly so. I fervently believe you would support a GOP-endorsed assassination of the Pope if your party told you that's what you needed to think.

Stop radicalizing those who "stand in the way" of impeding progress. Stop thinking only about yourselves and your wallets and have a little compassion for your fellow man. And stop falling in lockstep with these ideological troglodytes. Jesus.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:37 pm

7 Wishes wrote:I love how you guys come rushing to defend "free speech" when it helps, as this new law does, create a way to make the rich richer and further separate the middle class from the elite. Just the way you guys like it. How can you defend a ridiculous ruling like this when it flies in the face of the very campaign finance laws you so vehemently defended as of last year? The reverberations from the hypocritical histrionics this new law engenders will be far-reaching and extremely consequential.

You accuse Democrats of constantly toeing the party line - yet it is the refusal of moderate and "blue dog" Democrats to "fall into line" that flummoxed the House so much during the health care reform debates. The left is FAR more open-minded and conciliatory than the GOP, and Obama called you out - deservedly so. I fervently believe you would support a GOP-endorsed assassination of the Pope if your party told you that's what you needed to think.

Stop radicalizing those who "stand in the way" of impeding progress. Stop thinking only about yourselves and your wallets and have a little compassion for your fellow man. And stop falling in lockstep with these ideological troglodytes. Jesus.


Speaking honestly here, people on all sides use the free speech crutch to defend things they like and conveniently ignore it when trying to deride things they don't.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:52 pm

7 Wishes wrote:I love how you guys come rushing to defend "free speech" when it helps, as this new law does, create a way to make the rich richer and further separate the middle class from the elite. Just the way you guys like it. How can you defend a ridiculous ruling like this when it flies in the face of the very campaign finance laws you so vehemently defended as of last year? The reverberations from the hypocritical histrionics this new law engenders will be far-reaching and extremely consequential.

You accuse Democrats of constantly toeing the party line - yet it is the refusal of moderate and "blue dog" Democrats to "fall into line" that flummoxed the House so much during the health care reform debates. The left is FAR more open-minded and conciliatory than the GOP, and Obama called you out - deservedly so. I fervently believe you would support a GOP-endorsed assassination of the Pope if your party told you that's what you needed to think.

Stop radicalizing those who "stand in the way" of impeding progress. Stop thinking only about yourselves and your wallets and have a little compassion for your fellow man. And stop falling in lockstep with these ideological troglodytes. Jesus.


It's not a new law, it is merely finding the old law Unconstitutional. You don't like the Supreme Law of the land? Again do you read, or do you just have someone rattle off democrat talking points for you to remember?

You also don't address the real content of what was decided...they can run ADS...they cannot give unlimited monies to campaigns...and foreign companies cannot lobby congress as your idealogical brethern so maintain.

IF anyone is guilty of histrionics it is YOU.

Man I know you are intelligent, but PLEASES get educated before you open your yap, you look a buffoon when makes comments about things you obviously have NO idea about.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests