Obama, you finally made me sick

Voegelin said:

Obama certainly did lie. The decision overturned the 30 and 60 day ban on political advertising in McCain/Feingold which was passed in 2002. It did not overturn a century of law. In addition the prohibitions on foreign money stand.

He wasn't giving an opinion. He was lying. Purposefully. Because his base doesn't know the facts and will believe anything he says.

Click to expand...

Can I get a citation? The NPR and BBC stories I listened to disagreed.

Voegelin said:

In addition the prohibitions on foreign money stand.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that foreign money can be used to create a "paper" company in the US and donate unlimited money.

Foreigners are already contributing to US campaigns. Have we all forgotten about the Clintons and their Chinese fundraisers?

The problem is not money in politics it lies in politics that cause problems. Everyone is worried about which set of lies will be best funded. Or which side and who's lies might benifits most from illegal funding.

Until something better comes along I'll stick with freedom. We do not need to trash the constitution to fix this issue. Politics is local, stop voting for crooks and liars that promise you something that's bad for the country.

Obama's take on this issue should cause you to think deeper on this. Two progressives put this law on the books, ask youself why? And think beyond how it effects you.

The assumption that corporate money will make things worse is unproven in history and fails logic considering the mess we are in today.

So, what's the real deal? Why is this so important to progressives?

ThankGodforGod said:

I am curious to find out exactly what he lied about. The court did overturn decades of presidents and made a fairly bold decisions, that is clear in the opinions of the 4.

Click to expand...

Obama said a century of law. That is a flat out lie.

Need I remind all those who are outraged that Obama actually has a doctorate of jurisprudence so it is almost a sure thing that he is far more knowledge about this stuff than you.

Click to expand...

Whoopie de doo....Lenin was a lawyer as well. Obama's biggest donor, Soros, funded Lynne Stewart's defense on charges of material aid to terrorists. Don't know if she has a doctorate in it but she is a lawyer too.

Obama is a affirmative action hire. He never wrote anything. We can't see his transcripts. We don't even know who paid for Harvard Law. He's an ideologue. Nothing more. He'll say anything to advance, he thinks, the marxist cause.

I agreed with the court's decision, but what Obama said about it was hardly a "slap in the face." The OP is way over the top. Our branches of government are in constant dispute over numerous issues. The only "respect" that the Supreme Court expects is that its rulings are upheld by the executive, and Obama will certainly do that. To think that disagreement over this issue is somehow insulting to the Supreme Court is laughable.

Voegelin said:

Obama said a century of law. That is a flat out lie.

Click to expand...

Support this claim. As already pointed out, the Tillman Act dates to 1907. Additionally, the ruling affects state laws, such as Montana's which dates to 1912. How is what Obama said a flat out lie?

eldermike said:

The problem is not money in politics it lies in politics that cause problems. Everyone is worried about which set of lies will be best funded. Or which side and who's lies might benifits most from illegal funding.

Until something better comes along I'll stick with freedom. We do not need to trash the constitution to fix this issue. Politics is local, stop voting for crooks and liars that promise you something that's bad for the country.

Obama's take on this issue should cause you to think deeper on this. Two progressives put this law on the books, ask youself why? And think beyond how it effects you.

The assumption that corporate money will make things worse is unproven in history and fails logic considering the mess we are in today.

So, what's the real deal? Why is this so important to progressives?

Click to expand...

Now we have some clear thinken....I agree 100%

Steve Petersen said:

He didn't lie. He expressed and opinion of the outcome of the decision.

Opinions are continually treated as matters of fact on this forum. Time to start noticing the difference.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was expressing an opinion and I don't know that he "lied". I do know that he is apparently misinformed.

ThankGodforGod said:

Can I get a citation? The NPR and BBC stories I listened to disagreed.

Click to expand...

NPR? BBC?

Steve Petersen said:

Foreigners are already contributing to US campaigns. Have we all forgotten about the Clintons and their Chinese fundraisers?

Click to expand...

And that was illegal. Need I remind you that people are in prison over this?

citizenthom said:

Until now the vast majority of my disagreements with Obama have been political. But the flagrant disrespect he showed for the Supreme Court last night is one of the most shockingly ignorant examples of pure partisan hackery I have ever seen or even read about.

For those of you who missed it, here's the clip of Obama slapping nine of the most educated and respected members of our judiciary in the face: Obama Criticizes Supreme Court - CBS News Video

Note that even the dissenting justices sit stone-faced and shocked as Obama uses the State of the Union address to take a cheap shot at one of the most important and time-honored institutions mandated by our Constitution. In an astounding display of hypocrisy, a man who took the vast majority of his own campaign money from corporations and "special interests" criticizes the Court's new free speech precedent to get a cheap pop from his own party, and misinforms the American people about the actual import and content of the Court's decision.

I don't see how any self-respecting Democrat can't be absolutely ashamed of this. It's disgusting, disturbing, and evidence of severe moral and intellectual decadence in our chief executive.

Also, I did not like it. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, they all sat stone-faced for pretty much the whole time, even before that part of the speech. How do you know that this is an indication of being offended?

Especially since they are judges, the justices should know that people can and will disagree with some of their decisions.

citizenthom said:

Until now the vast majority of my disagreements with Obama have been political. But the flagrant disrespect he showed for the Supreme Court last night is one of the most shockingly ignorant examples of pure partisan hackery I have ever seen or even read about.

For those of you who missed it, here's the clip of Obama slapping nine of the most educated and respected members of our judiciary in the face: Obama Criticizes Supreme Court - CBS News Video

Note that even the dissenting justices sit stone-faced and shocked as Obama uses the State of the Union address to take a cheap shot at one of the most important and time-honored institutions mandated by our Constitution. In an astounding display of hypocrisy, a man who took the vast majority of his own campaign money from corporations and "special interests" criticizes the Court's new free speech precedent to get a cheap pop from his own party, and misinforms the American people about the actual import and content of the Court's decision.

I don't see how any self-respecting Democrat can't be absolutely ashamed of this. It's disgusting, disturbing, and evidence of severe moral and intellectual decadence in our chief executive.

Also, I did not like it. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Click to expand...

indeed.

According to NYT, Alito was right and Obama was wrong.

Justice Alito’s Reaction - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

wow, even the NYT is turning on Obama.

President Obama was a teacher of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court is officially (although not always successfully) non-partisan, which is why they displayed no emotion.

And President Obama is right. When the Supreme Court makes a decision that indicates that there is nothing in the Constitution to protect Americans from attempts by big business and foreign governments to manipulate voter opinion by unlimited advertising, then the legal redress that Americans have is to pass a federal law restricting such activity.

And whether the Supreme Court's decision was Constitutionally correct or not, the net effect of the decision would be the attempt by big business to manipulate voters into voting for the big business candidates (which would often mean voting against their own interests.)

Veritas said:

According to NYT, Alito was right and Obama was wrong.

Justice Alito’s Reaction - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

This blog only addresses the 100 year part, but ignores the far more important part about foreign money now being allowed to influence our democracy.

citizenthom said:

Until now the vast majority of my disagreements with Obama have been political. But the flagrant disrespect he showed for the Supreme Court last night is one of the most shockingly ignorant examples of pure partisan hackery I have ever seen or even read about.

For those of you who missed it, here's the clip of Obama slapping nine of the most educated and respected members of our judiciary in the face: Obama Criticizes Supreme Court - CBS News Video

Note that even the dissenting justices sit stone-faced and shocked as Obama uses the State of the Union address to take a cheap shot at one of the most important and time-honored institutions mandated by our Constitution. In an astounding display of hypocrisy, a man who took the vast majority of his own campaign money from corporations and "special interests" criticizes the Court's new free speech precedent to get a cheap pop from his own party, and misinforms the American people about the actual import and content of the Court's decision.

I don't see how any self-respecting Democrat can't be absolutely ashamed of this. It's disgusting, disturbing, and evidence of severe moral and intellectual decadence in our chief executive.

Also, I did not like it. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Click to expand...

Let's see...conservatives hate the Supreme Court's "judicial activism" when it proceeds to make decisions they don't like.

But the minute Obama says something negative about the Supreme Court it is a sacred institution, a veritable holy of holies!

Veritas said:

According to NYT, Alito was right and Obama was wrong.

Justice Alito’s Reaction - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

Yes. Linda Greenhouse has covered the Supreme Court for the New York Times for nearly three decades. She is no conservative. Kudos to her for pointing out the truth: Obama lied.

brinny said:

indeed.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Voegelin said:

Yes. Linda Greenhouse has covered the Supreme Court for the New York Times for nearly three decades. She is no conservative. Kudos to her for pointing out the truth: Obama lied.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes he did and to be honest I couldn't watch more than 5-10 min of it.

Alito's reaction to Obama was fair - CNN.com

Who's right? As for what the court decided in Citizens United v. FEC, Obama seems to be right -- mostly. In a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Alito, the court held that corporations, labor unions and other organizations had the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections........

Obama was on shakier ground when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections. The court's opinion very carefully said it was not deciding the issue with regard to foreign entities. So the court may yet give the green light to these foreign companies -- but it hasn't done so yet.

Frankly, the fact that the unions overwhelmingly support democrats (and are in reality just an arm of the democratic party) will be able to spend unlimited amounts in elections (illegally using member dues, I would point out), I don't see why liberals would be upset. After this last presidential election, you can't assume that all corporations are on the side of the republicans. A sizable number gave money to Obama's campaign as did a large number of super-weathly individuals. And even though the door HASN'T been opened to foreign entities, most other countries in the world are even more liberal that the US. So which partie's candidates do you think they would be more likely to support? That's right; you know the answer.

If anything, this ruling stands to benefit the Democrats more than the republicans. I think the real ire in the liberal camp is that they will not be able to silence FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh....their two greatest nemises. The truth is, the electorate has the ability to be better informed by use of the alternative media; something the liberal's are not nearly as successful at as conservatives.