Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

kalm wrote:Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

An attack?

Alito's not smart enough to understand the implications of his own ruling. He and his four friends should be ridiculed and chastised at every opportunity.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

An attack?

Alito's not smart enough to understand the implications of his own ruling. He and his four friends should be ridiculed and chastised at every opportunity.

I realize that "progressives" place little value on civil discourse and the rule of law, but the cost to the Republic and to your own future liberty and prosperity of your irresponsible viewpoints and tactics is immense.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, does not and should not make rulings on short term, tactical political considerations.

The free speech decision was the correct one. Remedies, if needed, should be in accordance with the Constitution.

The five justices once again showed they are incapible of rising above there corporate masters. All should be impeached

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

An attack?

Alito's not smart enough to understand the implications of his own ruling. He and his four friends should be ridiculed and chastised at every opportunity.

Once again, an attack by the left. When will the left come up with something original in regards to:

Republicans = dumb
Democrats = smart

dbackjon wrote:The five justices once again showed they are incapible of rising above there corporate masters. All should be impeached

You would stifle a companies right to free speech?

dbackjon wrote:The five justices once again showed they are incapible of rising above there corporate masters. All should be impeached

How do the justices have "corporate masters"?

"Said Obama, in triggering Alito's reaction: "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. 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. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.""

Patently false. The ruling had nothing to do with the portion of the law governing foreign influence.

What do truth, the Supreme Court, reality, and the US Constitution have in common?

Our President finds them all very inconvenient.

SeattleGriz wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The five justices once again showed they are incapible of rising above there corporate masters. All should be impeached

You would stifle a companies right to free speech?

So you have no problem with the Insurance or Drug industrry directly pumping millions of dollars into elections? You know they expect the elected to work for them.

SeattleGriz wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The five justices once again showed they are incapible of rising above there corporate masters. All should be impeached

You would stifle a companies right to free speech?

Don't believe a company is a person, therfore thay do not have a right to free speech. But, once agian, what do I know....your "legal ways" & "statutes" scare me, for I, Cirroc, am merely a caveman....



( man, I love that skit... )

CID1990 wrote:"Said Obama, in triggering Alito's reaction: "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. 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. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.""

Patently false. The ruling had nothing to do with the portion of the law governing foreign influence.

What do truth, the Supreme Court, reality, and the US Constitution have in common?

Our President finds them all very inconvenient.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain/Feingold did not distinguish between foreign and domestic corporations. Thus, SCOTUS could not have left anything open with regard to foreign influence. The opinion reads as if they wouldn't be opposed to a law limiting foreign participation but until that is passed I do believe the current state of the law would allow a foreign entity to incorporate a US entity and contribute.

It takes at most 1 day to form a US corporation, open a bank account, wire funds in from abroad, and fund a commercial.

And even more troublesome right now is that a State-run corporation (e.g. China) could do the same.

(I'm not opposed to the decision, but I think Congress needs to act fast to close that loop hole).

Ibanez wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
You would stifle a companies right to free speech?

So you have no problem with the Insurance or Drug industrry directly pumping millions of dollars into elections? You know they expect the elected to work for them.

Do you even know why Congress exists?

danefan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:"Said Obama, in triggering Alito's reaction: "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. 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. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.""

Patently false. The ruling had nothing to do with the portion of the law governing foreign influence.

What do truth, the Supreme Court, reality, and the US Constitution have in common?

Our President finds them all very inconvenient.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain/Feingold did not distinguish between foreign and domestic corporations. Thus, SCOTUS could not have left anything open with regard to foreign influence. The opinion reads as if they wouldn't be opposed to a law limiting foreign participation but until that is passed I do believe the current state of the law would allow a foreign entity to incorporate a US entity and contribute.

It takes at most 1 day to form a US corporation, open a bank account, wire funds in from abroad, and fund a commercial.

And even more troublesome right now is that a State-run corporation (e.g. China) could do the same.

(I'm not opposed to the decision, but I think Congress needs to act fast to close that loop hole).

OK, I will.

2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)

Look it up.

Like I said, foreign contribution/influence/tampering whatever you want to call it is already illegal. McCain Feingold focused on domestic corporate contributions. Any language in McCain Feingold referring to foreign campaign contributions was moot, because it was already prohibited by federal law. Obama and his team know this, and he decided to prevaricate about it in his speech.

Alito was correct. The assertion was simply not true.

CID1990 wrote:

danefan wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain/Feingold did not distinguish between foreign and domestic corporations. Thus, SCOTUS could not have left anything open with regard to foreign influence. The opinion reads as if they wouldn't be opposed to a law limiting foreign participation but until that is passed I do believe the current state of the law would allow a foreign entity to incorporate a US entity and contribute.

It takes at most 1 day to form a US corporation, open a bank account, wire funds in from abroad, and fund a commercial.

And even more troublesome right now is that a State-run corporation (e.g. China) could do the same.

(I'm not opposed to the decision, but I think Congress needs to act fast to close that loop hole).

OK, I will.

2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)

Look it up.

Like I said, foreign contribution/influence/tampering whatever you want to call it is already illegal. McCain Feingold focused on domestic corporate contributions. Any language in McCain Feingold referring to foreign campaign contributions was moot, because it was already prohibited by federal law. Obama and his team know this, and he decided to prevaricate about it in his speech.

Alito was correct. The assertion was simply not true.

I stand corrected. I misread the opinion at page 47.

danefan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
OK, I will.

2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)

Look it up.

Like I said, foreign contribution/influence/tampering whatever you want to call it is already illegal. McCain Feingold focused on domestic corporate contributions. Any language in McCain Feingold referring to foreign campaign contributions was moot, because it was already prohibited by federal law. Obama and his team know this, and he decided to prevaricate about it in his speech.

Alito was correct. The assertion was simply not true.

I stand corrected. I misread the opinion at page 47.

Another day, another kalm ass kicking.

I agree with Cid on this one - foreign entities cannot have the influence on elections that Obama, and others, has said, erroneously, they can now do based on the SCOTUS ruling. To rip the SCOTUS, to their face, during the State of the Union speech, knowing full well that there is no avenue for rebuttal by the SCOTUS to correct such an overly simplified and wrong interpretation of thier ruling, is not just bad form, it's just cheap politics. Obama should be better than that, especially with his admitted interest in Constitutional law.

And on the ruling, whether you agree with it or not, to decry the ruling as one that now has opened the floodgates for money to pour into the elections and potentially ruin the integrity of them, well, my question is where have you been for the past few decades. One of the major failings of the mediocre McCain/Feingold fiasco was that it never succeeded in doing this - all that it did was shift the avenues for how money enters the election process. There's not any more ability for corporations and what not to pump money into the system now than there was before the SCOTUS ruling - the nice thing is that now we can have a better view of what everyone is doing rather than the convoluted, backdoor system we had before.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

An attack?

Alito's not smart enough to understand the implications of his own ruling. He and his four friends should be ridiculed and chastised at every opportunity.

Alito certainly understands that he was called out by one who doesn't

Cluck U wrote:

danefan wrote:
I stand corrected. I misread the opinion at page 47.

Another day, another kalm ass kicking.

It is impolite to say things like that about people who don't have any intelligence to insult. Personally, mine was insulted for about 94% of the whole speech last night.

(For the record, not talking about danefan... at least he had the good sense to actually read the decision)

GannonFan wrote:I agree with Cid on this one - foreign entities cannot have the influence on elections that Obama, and others, has said, erroneously, they can now do based on the SCOTUS ruling. To rip the SCOTUS, to their face, during the State of the Union speech, knowing full well that there is no avenue for rebuttal by the SCOTUS to correct such an overly simplified and wrong interpretation of thier ruling, is not just bad form, it's just cheap politics. Obama should be better than that, especially with his admitted interest in Constitutional law.

And on the ruling, whether you agree with it or not, to decry the ruling as one that now has opened the floodgates for money to pour into the elections and potentially ruin the integrity of them, well, my question is where have you been for the past few decades. One of the major failings of the mediocre McCain/Feingold fiasco was that it never succeeded in doing this - all that it did was shift the avenues for how money enters the election process. There's not any more ability for corporations and what not to pump money into the system now than there was before the SCOTUS ruling - the nice thing is that now we can have a better view of what everyone is doing rather than the convoluted, backdoor system we had before.

The good thing is that we now understand what Obama means when he depicts himself as bi-partisan and above politics.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
So you have no problem with the Insurance or Drug industrry directly pumping millions of dollars into elections? You know they expect the elected to work for them.

Do you even know why Congress exists?

I am aware. I'm going off of my understanding of the decision and the history of what's happened. As it appears, the SCOTUS has equated a corporation to a citizen and that the corp. is entitled to the same voting rights (and it's applicable laws). Aside from foreign entities, i'm understanding as much as I can without going to the gnats ass. I wish I could blindly follow Faux News or CNN and learn this crap, but I try to do as much independent research as possible.

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote: To rip the SCOTUS, to their face, during the State of the Union speech, knowing full well that there is no avenue for rebuttal by the SCOTUS to correct such an overly simplified and wrong interpretation of thier ruling, is not just bad form, it's just cheap politics. Obama should be better than that, especially with his admitted interest in Constitutional law.

The good thing is that we now understand what Obama means when he depicts himself as bi-partisan and above politics.

Hey, I thought something just like that when it happened last night, and especially when everyone in Congress (well, the Dems at least, I didn't see the GOP reaction to it) stood up around the justices and cheered Obama's trashing of them. That was a cheap dig and, as proved on here, a slightly incorrect one at that. There is value in decorum and we should've maintained it last night rather than sinking to that level. Alito never would've had to mouth whatever he mouthed if Obama hadn't stepped over the line first.

GannonFan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The good thing is that we now understand what Obama means when he depicts himself as bi-partisan and above politics.

Hey, I thought something just like that when it happened last night, and especially when everyone in Congress (well, the Dems at least, I didn't see the GOP reaction to it) stood up around the justices and cheered Obama's trashing of them. That was a cheap dig and, as proved on here, a slightly incorrect one at that. There is value in decorum and we should've maintained it last night rather than sinking to that level. Alito never would've had to mouth whatever he mouthed if Obama hadn't stepped over the line first.

Yeah, the slights should have been done anonymously and behind closed doors. Yep, Gannon you should be good at that (AGS Board of Directors/Mod 33)

For a Harvard educated attorney the President exhibited a shocking misunderstanding of the law...

... or was it an intentional lie designed to portray a populist position?

I wonder if the mainstream media will do their homework and call the President out...

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Hey, I thought something just like that when it happened last night, and especially when everyone in Congress (well, the Dems at least, I didn't see the GOP reaction to it) stood up around the justices and cheered Obama's trashing of them. That was a cheap dig and, as proved on here, a slightly incorrect one at that. There is value in decorum and we should've maintained it last night rather than sinking to that level. Alito never would've had to mouth whatever he mouthed if Obama hadn't stepped over the line first.

Yeah, the slights should have been done anonymously and behind closed doors. Yep, Gannon you should be good at that (AGS Board of Directors/Mod 33)

Wah Wah Wah - I've never been a Mod on any site anytime in my life. And I'm pretty sure I've been very public in my slightings of you over the years. Hasn't everybody?

Besides, I never said anything about it preferrably being anonymous and behind closed doors. Obama was well within his right and within decorum to criticize the SCOTUS anywhere he wants to outside of the State of the Union. To do it there, with 300 or so of his own party to egg it on, when the SCOTUS is there as a matter of formality (and normally expected to be stoic), was the breach of decorum. But he could moan about the SCOTUS all he wants outside of that setting and no one would care.