January 23, 2010
— Gabriel Malor Not content to let Chuck Schumer steal the scene by calling the Supreme Court "un-American", the President devoted his weekly address to the corrupting influence of corporations on elections.
Using terms like "the people's house", Mr. Populism goes on to decry "special interests" and claim that Citizens United will devastate "the public interest." As usual, Democrats are quick to shut down speech.
A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as IÂ’m your President, IÂ’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.
Assuming he is right that the "decks are stacked" against ordinary Americans, the President should be praising Citizens United. Now, instead of lone voices, Americans can band together to advocate for and against policies and politicians. The President is telling his skeery story about "unbridled" corporate spending while ignoring the fact that Citizens United was a group formed specifically to oppose Hillary Clinton in the election. Those people could never have made and distributed their movie unless they could do it together.
As I wrote yesterday, you have a right to speech, you have a right to associate with others, and you don't give up your right to speech when you choose to associate. The Constitution does not give to Congress the power to pick favored speakers and disfavored speakers. In fact, the First Amendment specifically prohibits such anti-democratic laws.
And yet the President protests that Citizens United will make his life more difficult:
That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time.
Did you catch that? "Any public servant", meaning Obama, will have to face opposition come election time. I can understand why that would upset him.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:03 AM
| Comments (135)
Post contains 368 words, total size 3 kb.
LOL. More proof that The Precedent doesn't have any American sensibilities about him. The guy doesn't even seem to be familiar with normal American idiomatic expressions and popular phrases. I know that remembering that we have 50 states is difficult for the Indonesian imbecile (as he can't count past 7, anyway - "profit and earnings ratios") but it seems pathetically clear that he doesn't understand what a 'stacked deck' really is and how the phrase is used in normal speech.
More kudos to Harvard and Columbia. They turn out some real winners ...
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 23, 2010 08:09 AM (A46hP)
find himself or herself under assault come election time.
Like having photos of their wife and daughters in bikinis blasted all over the internet?
Posted by: Dang Straights at January 23, 2010 08:09 AM (pszc6)
Isn't that kind of the point of having elections? If we don't think they are actually standing up for the American people we can get rid of them by having someone else run against them or campaign against them. That person or group will of course use their own actions against them in political commercials.
Posted by: Deathknyte at January 23, 2010 08:11 AM (tGCj4)
Posted by: Mord at January 23, 2010 08:14 AM (tTj19)
Keep fucking that chicken Barry.
Posted by: Darth Nihilus69 at January 23, 2010 08:14 AM (GfYt/)
He finds the Constitution to be a nasty impediment to his agenda of destroying the country and re-building it as a corruptocracy.....with him as der Leader.
Posted by: proreason at January 23, 2010 08:15 AM (Rllt+)
Like having photos of their wife and daughters in bikinis blasted all over the internet?
Or spurious ethics complaints filed by sad Democrat operatives, having your e-mail hacked, or being hung in effigy in West Hollywood?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 23, 2010 08:15 AM (OkT2m)
Posted by: Deathknyte at January 23, 2010 12:11 PM (tGCj4)
Not for would-be autocrats. Americans might think that way, but if you grew up in foreign countries, were mentored by America-hating assholes and attended rabidly left-wing universities, you might think differently. Just sayin' ...
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 08:17 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 08:17 AM (Lq6p6)
But ... they were scared of riots in the cities, so this is what we get.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 23, 2010 08:18 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: Barack Obama at January 23, 2010 08:19 AM (zxrQh)
Like having photos of their wife and daughters in bikinis blasted all over the internet?
Or spurious ethics complaints filed by sad Democrat operatives, having your e-mail hacked, or being hung in effigy in West Hollywood?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 23, 2010 12:15 PM (OkT2m)
Or being criticized by your political opponents for having their sealed divorce records unsealed?
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 08:19 AM (7+pP9)
Post Turtle
Anti-Adams
Reverse Jesus
There's a whole lot of WTF in this, a sizable chunk of 'I don't much care what that written thing says,' and only a touch of shoving his sins off on others. So... not so much Reverse Jesus here.
I'm thinking his Anti-Adamsness is most prominent here - he's happier under the rule of men, not laws.
Posted by: Al at January 23, 2010 08:19 AM (0lyUI)
Posted by: TexasJew at January 23, 2010 08:19 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: Berserker at January 23, 2010 08:19 AM (gWHrG)
he knows level playing fields will hurt him.
Posted by: trailortrash at January 23, 2010 08:20 AM (2Z+7j)
That pesky Constitution thing keeps getting in his way.
Take your marbles and go home, you worthless tool. America deserves better than you.
Posted by: Chapeau du Tinfoil at January 23, 2010 08:20 AM (sfZ/A)
Posted by: Bugler at January 23, 2010 08:24 AM (YCVBL)
Posted by: Berserker at January 23, 2010 12:19 PM (gWHrG)
I attended college in the 1970s. I had the misfortune to deal with scads of lefties who thought the way Obama does. I don't really think it is just his early childhood abroad that made him so un-American. After all, plenty of military brats (myself included) either were born abroad or spent their childhoods there and still became good citizens.
I think he was raised to look at America the way he does; like a human time bomb.
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 08:24 AM (7+pP9)
Note that she's a law professor at a university. The Obamassiah was a law lecturer. One of the comments makes the difference very clear.
Ann's got some other great posts about this issue. Check her site out.
You'll have to fix the link manually or click on my name.
Posted by: Looking Glass at January 23, 2010 08:25 AM (pS1b2)
This guy is such a whiner its pitiful.
Posted by: lan sing at January 23, 2010 08:25 AM (cEOZd)
All fixed.
Posted by: Berserker at January 23, 2010 08:26 AM (gWHrG)
I think he was raised to look at America the way he does; like a human time bomb.
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 12:24 PM (7+pP9)
He sees himself as the avenging angel of the third world, brought to the US to destroy us. He's a suicide bomber on his run.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 23, 2010 08:27 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: FORGER - Racist Czar at January 23, 2010 08:28 AM (o4Xi+)
Posted by: Sparky at January 23, 2010 08:28 AM (r0u40)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 08:28 AM (Lq6p6)
Been living most our lives
Striving for the worker's paradise
Been living most our lives
Striving for the worker's paradise...
Posted by: Barack Obama at January 23, 2010 08:29 AM (554T5)
All fixed.
Posted by: Berserker at January 23, 2010 12:26 PM (gWHrG)
I think NASA wants about 28 million dollars for a shuttle. Money well spent, if we can raise it. By the way, have you considered starting a newsletter?
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 08:29 AM (7+pP9)
Woe be unto me that I might hear a point of view that adds to the zillion other points of view that I have to consider. Prez O'one must protect my delicate ears from the taxing burden of being informed. Misinformation is beyond my simple-brained capability to research. Yay Barry. I'm depending on him to keep the crime union bosses well funded to inform me.
Posted by: Agnostica at January 23, 2010 08:29 AM (gbCNS)
Big time. We haven't even scratched the surface of their coming regret, yet.
The guy is on his way down and the faster he falls the uglier he'll get because at that point he has little to lose from being diplomatic. And when that happens the person that his is and his true aims will be obvious to all.
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 12:28 PM (Lq6p6)
The Precedent wants to be taken down, since having the White House at war with the nation is the best way of cringing chaos to this nation and harming us. That's why he was pushing everything so fast and hard. Because he has no respect for our structures or our traditions and wants to destroy them all. He WANTS to break the system.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 23, 2010 08:31 AM (A46hP)
"I love the way the liberal's willingness to make a completely un-PC attack on a person, when that person is conservative, glares so painfully when it turns out that the target of the attack isn't actually conservative." - Ann Althouse.
Fix the link manually or click my name.
Posted by: Looking Glass at January 23, 2010 08:31 AM (pS1b2)
Posted by: Barry O at January 23, 2010 08:32 AM (kJLH9)
Posted by: Jinpa77 at January 23, 2010 08:34 AM (Ybhxx)
Posted by: Abe Froman at January 23, 2010 08:35 AM (fkgyi)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 12:28 PM (Lq6p6)
I keep reading comments by people tied to him about seizing 401(k) and IRA funds and substituting "safer" government bonds. Apparently there's about $3.4 Trillion to be had this way. If, in 2010, the Chinese just stop buying our bonds, or take their purchasing down to a minimal level that sends a clear message to the world, I really think that such a seizure might be implemented. It's such a nightmare scenario I keep telling myself it can't really happen, but then I never thought we'd have a president who made Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
Posted by: Josef K. at January 23, 2010 08:35 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 08:35 AM (Lq6p6)
I'm still curious about what Barney Frank was blathering about the other night. He was yammering on about the ability of Congress to to regulate corporations, particularly executive salary, and indicated that they could basically add political donations and advertisements to the list.
I thought that SCOTUS was clear on the issue.
Anybody got a different take?
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at January 23, 2010 08:36 AM (zxrQh)
1 used Space shuttle- $28,000,000
Delivery to the house- $1,000,000
the ability to say to your buddies "Hey lets go do a beer in the space shuttle"
fucking pricless
Posted by: Berserker at January 23, 2010 08:36 AM (gWHrG)
Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at January 23, 2010 08:36 AM (YMZjg)
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 23, 2010 08:37 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at January 23, 2010 08:37 AM (NYsdu)
It's almost as if Obama doesn't realize what 48% of us knew before the election, and what a prety big chunk of the other 52% are starting to realize:
Obama and his pals ARE the "Special Interests" he's always decrying.
Fucking asshole.
Posted by: Sharkman at January 23, 2010 08:43 AM (Zj8fM)
Note that she's a law professor at a university. The Obamassiah was a law lecturer. One of the comments makes the difference very clear.
Professor, lecturer, whatever ... if you attended law school, no explanation should be necessary.
His knowledge in this area, whatever it may be, says nothing about how he'll speak and act when he has greater political and ideological motivators than some evenhanded review of case law and doesn't make a pretense to neutrality. What in the name of god has happened in the past two years for anybody to expect maturity and cool-headed analysis in his response? It's not merely that some people where expecting a professor with this guy, they were expecting a cartoon image of a professor with a tweed jacket and coke bottle glasses out of a 1950s cartoon.
Posted by: AD at January 23, 2010 08:43 AM (yNSM/)
As much as that would make sense for the US, traditionally, the UN doesn't like the idea of the SecGen being a native-born citizen of one of the permanent members of the Security Council.
Wait a minute....
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 23, 2010 08:44 AM (I/MqP)
It is certainly amusing to watch The Won attacking corporate interests in the front room, while accepting their money behind closed doors in the backroom!
He had Bill Gates & Warren Buffet, the two richest men in the world, on his side in 2008. He was the first presidential candidate in history to refuse public financing of his campaign so that he could suck in MORE money than this opponent. (I rather enjoyed the spectacle of McCain being hoisted by his own petard....)
Rather than truly deal with health care reform, he brought the health care industry into the room to reward them with trillions of dollars if they went along with his plans to destroy health care.
He supported all the bailouts and the TARP and all the rest of the corporate welfare from the US Treasury to big banks and corporations. Goldman Saks is a lot richer today than it was two years ago.
The unions donated heavily to Obama and were rewarded handsomely with the destruction of GM and Chrysler. Union bosses and members got a huge payday, the bondholders were portrayed as greedy slobs and lost everything.
He already has the corporate money in his pocket, that's why he's so ticked off that now all of us are free to band together and support his opposition!
Posted by: Boots at January 23, 2010 08:49 AM (06JTY)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 08:50 AM (Lq6p6)
Posted by: Giacomo at January 23, 2010 08:51 AM (517kA)
I predict that he implodes politically and mentally-he knows he can't do the job and that he never could do the job. He just hoped that things would just fall into place-and could claim whatever that was as his accomplishment and if things went to hell, he would blame Bush. He will not be able to stand the public display of his incompetence and the hatred and anger it engenders and I'll wager that he does not complete his term. Desperate democrats will lead him by the ears out of the WH (like the Repubs did with Nixon) and he will "officially" bow out for health reasons. I bet he's up to four packs of cigs a day, a gram of "blow," a half-G of Vodka and that the "Gardener-in-Chief is tending some tasty weed in the White House plot soon to be discovered by some 5-year old at the Easter Egg Hunt. Joe Cool is spinning out of control before our eyes.
Posted by: David Spence at January 23, 2010 08:52 AM (lDtRP)
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 23, 2010 08:55 AM (nhVCV)
File this under the header of "Restoring America's 'good name'"
Posted by: Neo at January 23, 2010 08:57 AM (tE8FB)
Posted by: Tim Robbins at January 23, 2010 08:57 AM (86Yqr)
Posted by: volfan at January 23, 2010 08:58 AM (Lq6p6)
Posted by: An attack the Lefties might like at January 23, 2010 09:00 AM (Vo2Ef)
#51 Desperate democrats will lead him by the ears out of the WH (like the Repubs did with Nixon) and he will "officially" bow out for health reasons.
That will never happen in today's world, especially with the current crop of democrat "leadership". Back in the day, democrats recognized danger to the republic and acted responsibly - Henry Wallace was the sitting Vice-President under Franklin Roosevelt, and in 1944 the democrats took Henry Wallace off the ballot and replaced him with Harry Truman. It had become clear that Henry Wallace was a commie and needed to go, and it was equally clear the very ill Roosevelt would not live to finish his 4th term in office.
Today's democrat leadership agrees with Obama, so he's not going anywhere. He might, just might, face opposition in the democrat primary in 2012 if things continue the way they are going, just like Ted 'the swimmer' Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980.
Republicans need to get their stuff together patiently and plan for 2012.
Posted by: Boots at January 23, 2010 09:02 AM (06JTY)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 23, 2010 09:02 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 23, 2010 09:06 AM (QECjC)
“What amuses me is the un-called-out conflagration of the term lecturer as if it meant professor.
A lecturer is not on the tenure track, not a permanent hire, is not expected to do research or publishing, and does not supervise graduate student research or even advise students. They usually teach lower level survey courses.
A lecturer does not have academic rank and will never be peer-reviewed in the process towards tenure.
Quit using the term professor for Obama. He is anything but.
He helped UChi with their affirmative action statistics, borrowed some prestige for his halo, but didnÂ’t have any long-term serious responsibilities or peer review.
University version of Michelle ObamaÂ’s hospital job.
Perfect affirmative action couple.
I am a full professor and went through the whole process. My system has annual review regardless of rank, even after tenure and full professor. In the literature thatÂ’s called post-tenure review. ItÂ’s a good thing.
Adjuncts (=lecturers) don’t get that review.” wrote kentuckyliz.
Professors have to reach tenure after a certain number of years. That means "publish or perish." It means being productive.
Obama stood in front of a bunch of kids and scribbled on a chalkboard. That's all.
Posted by: Looking Glass at January 23, 2010 09:07 AM (pS1b2)
Posted by: awkward davies at January 23, 2010 09:08 AM (wb68R)
Anyone who wants to read a prior, closely related case involving a state law that provided criminal sanctions against a corporation attempting to influence voters through advertising, should read this 1978 decision:
The "free speech" arguments are virtually identical.
The holding, in part:
(b) The asserted justifications for the challenged statute cannot survive the exacting scrutiny required when the legislative prohibition is directed at speech itself and speech on a public issue. This statute cannot be justified by the State's asserted interest in sustaining the active role of the individual citizen in the electoral process and preventing diminution of his confidence in government. Even if it were permissible to silence one segment of society upon a sufficient showing of imminent danger, there has been no showing that the relative voice of corporations has been overwhelming or even significant in influencing referenda in Massachusetts, or that there has been any threat to the confidence of the citizenry in government. And the risk of corruption perceived in this Court's decisions involving candidate elections is not present in a popular vote on a public issue. Nor can the statute be justified on the asserted ground that it protects the rights of shareholders whose views differ from those expressed by management on behalf of the corporation. The statute is both underinclusive and overinclusive in serving this purpose, and therefore could not be sustained even if the purpose itself were deemed compelling. Pp. 788-795.
Posted by: effinayright at January 23, 2010 09:08 AM (lQRmV)
Posted by: jukin at January 23, 2010 09:09 AM (vkkNZ)
America, F Yeah!
Posted by: Barack Hussein at January 23, 2010 09:11 AM (z2I+U)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 23, 2010 09:18 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 09:28 AM (jBU7p)
Posted by: Jack Burton at January 23, 2010 09:30 AM (YxJoH)
That means that any public servant elitist who has the courage to stand up to for the special interests and stand up for to the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time.
Fixed.
Posted by: Stillwater at January 23, 2010 09:38 AM (qUdDE)
Good job, knuckleheads.
Excellent point, fishboy. I propose that we immediately prohibit political speech and political financing from labor unions. After all, are they not "abstract legal entities"?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 23, 2010 09:40 AM (I/MqP)
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 23, 2010 09:44 AM (dQdrY)
Still mind-blowing that they can't connect to anything they might be gaining here.
Posted by: Al at January 23, 2010 09:46 AM (0lyUI)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 09:50 AM (jBU7p)
But he organized ppl, not corpoations! He's a "community organizer". The Little ppl elected him! Dumbass haters. He doesn't care about money, he's got "oratory skillz"!
Rham, and Abe are the bagmen!
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 23, 2010 09:53 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at January 23, 2010 09:53 AM (B5cM9)
Gee. I'm middle class. Never been in a union. There's never been a union presence in my industry. Must be a mistake in my carrier choice somewhere.
Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2010 09:54 AM (UA4gE)
"Note that she's a law professor at a university. The Obamassiah was a law lecturer. One of the comments makes the difference very clear."
Glass, it's technically correct that he was a lecturer, not a professor. However, the University of Chicago offered him tenure, and he turned them down so he could run for the Illinois legislature. So, while he wasn't a professor, he could have been one had he chosen to do so.
Now, the U of C offered Obama tenure despite the fact that he published nothing in his field. I can can't think of another person in his field, or any other for that matter, about whom that could be said. Go figure ...
Posted by: Brown Line at January 23, 2010 09:58 AM (zUhcR)
Young knuckleheads hate unions because Daddy told them so.
I don't need anyone to help me hate communist sympathizers.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 23, 2010 09:59 AM (dQdrY)
On other topics- Brown Line, one would have to figure that some people called in favors for him and that he had some political connections prior to his hiring... seems a logical explanation.
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 23, 2010 10:00 AM (ZNj7+)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 10:00 AM (jBU7p)
Good job, knuckleheads.
Posted by: Tumescent Republican
Excellent job, peckerneck - do individuals have the freedom of speech, to assemble, and maybe even petition the Government? - only if they don't register the assembly.
Posted by: Druid at January 23, 2010 10:01 AM (Gct7d)
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 23, 2010 10:01 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 23, 2010 10:02 AM (ZNj7+)
81
Young knuckleheads hate unions because Daddy told them so.
I don't need anyone to help me hate communist sympathizers.
Or thugs.
Or organized criminals in the mafia.
Or groups of pussies too scared to man up and ask their boss for a raise in person.
Or fat-ass lazy slobs who believe its ethical to get threaten and bully their employer to pay them for not working.
Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2010 10:04 AM (UA4gE)
Ah, the indomitable core of knucklehead logic: the exception is always the rule.
But, I also fuck and murder little boys. I guess you all dknew that.
That'll be enough, TR... if you've got an argument to make, make it, but otherwise, your comments will continue to be sanitized.
Trollbuster #26
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 10:04 AM (jBU7p)
Posted by: VELVET AMBITION at January 23, 2010 10:07 AM (BcQbL)
Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2010 10:07 AM (UA4gE)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 10:10 AM (jBU7p)
88 Gee. I'm middle class. Never been in a union.
Ah, the indomitable core of knucklehead dick-head logic: the truth is whatever I say it is. It doesn't matter that only a small portion of the workforce is unionized - unions make teh middle classes!
But, you I also fuck and murder my plastic "girl-friend" little boys.
FIFY, ergie. Now fuck off.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at January 23, 2010 10:11 AM (9hSKh)
You should hook up with Kay in Maine.
It'd be like Sid and Nancy only with more stupid ,, and macbooks.
Posted by: awkward davies at January 23, 2010 10:11 AM (wb68R)
I think someone had a very bad week. So sad. So. Very. Sad.
Little playhouse starting to fall down? Your favorite super-hero not being allowed to be so super after all? Awww. So absolutely very, very... sad.
(tilts head to the side, sticks bottom lip out and sniffs)
Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2010 10:14 AM (UA4gE)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 23, 2010 10:19 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 23, 2010 10:20 AM (jBU7p)
Posted by: Ellie Light at January 23, 2010 10:23 AM (gJL6J)
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 23, 2010 10:24 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: soulpile at January 23, 2010 10:25 AM (afWhQ)
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 23, 2010 10:26 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: barry1200 at January 23, 2010 10:28 AM (F0wAq)
Posted by: MarkD at January 23, 2010 10:35 AM (nur8S)
If I get angry at a troll on a blog, does Scott Brown not get seated where Ted Kennedy used to sit in the Senate?
Does corrupt TSA nominee Errol Southers get confirmed, instead of dropping out?
Does Air America stay on the air?
Does the Supreme Court rule that it is constitutional for the government to ban books?
No. None of that would happen. Would it? Didn't think so. You didn't think so, did you? Because if you did, that would be... pathetic. One can not undo what has been done. Mmm. So cozy. Peaceful. Content. Yes, even a bit giddy! I think I'll take the family out to dinner and dessert. Yum.
Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2010 10:37 AM (UA4gE)
They didn't. Richard Epstein said in an interview earlier this year that that's bull.
He did say they would have been willing to offer him a "tenure track" position, which makes this half-right in that he could have obtained some sort of professor position, but he still would have had to work for tenure, which Epstein noted wasn't warranted by anything he had done so far.
Posted by: AD at January 23, 2010 10:39 AM (yNSM/)
Posted by: MarkD at January 23, 2010 10:40 AM (nur8S)
Posted by: VELVET AMBITION at January 23, 2010 10:42 AM (BcQbL)
get over it obambi, the people are standing up to your agenda. we don't like it and we are going to stop you from wrecking the country.
Posted by: mistress overdone at January 23, 2010 10:52 AM (2/oBD)
Posted by: Greg at January 23, 2010 10:53 AM (fHiua)
What makes him think that they will wait till election time ? Silly fool.
Posted by: Neo at January 23, 2010 11:18 AM (tE8FB)
Waaaah!
Posted by: Prepubescent Democrat at January 23, 2010 11:35 AM (gJL6J)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 23, 2010 11:50 AM (g/a6a)
How stupid does this community organizer think we are?
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 23, 2010 11:54 AM (k5nPY)
Well, at least now the Dem approach to the '10 and '12 elections has been uncovered -- looks like they're going for the populist appeal route. It's a load of bs if you ask me, but will the GOP and Libertarians call their bluff?
If el precedente manages to pull it off -- this "man of the people" crap he's deciding to play -- well, that would be pretty damn disheartening to put it mildly.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 23, 2010 11:59 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: An attack the Lefties might like at January 23, 2010 01:00 PM (Vo2Ef)
Good one.
Something I've been wondering...
How eager are major corporations going to be to exercise this particular manifestation of their right to free speech?
Lobbying congress seems to have worked pretty well for the mega-corps in our system of crony-capitalism,so far. It's not too high-profile, either.
I'm not so sure how quick a company like Coca-Cola or a Proctor and Gamble would be to so publicly support one candidate or party over another and risk alienating a good chunk of their consumer base when it seems fairly easy to get them to pull advertising from shows, publications etc. that are deemed "too controversial" as it is.
OTOH, I'd personally kind of like to hear from some companies about certain issues.
As a fer instance, what if Whole Foods had contributed directly to McCain's campaign because of the Democrat's position on health care deform and was explicit about the reasons? Or, I can envision a firm like Ernst & Young having something relevant to say to say about Sarbanes or Oxley...
Posted by: Deety at January 23, 2010 12:02 PM (aVzyR)
Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2010 12:29 PM (58eah)
I work for one of the largest corporations on earth. They pay me well, provide for my health, provide for my family, produce thousands of incredible products we could scarcely imagine living without. In return I give an honest day's work, provide value to my company, and behave with integrity in my professional dealings.
How is this bad?
Posted by: Macaroon at January 23, 2010 12:30 PM (F6+/O)
If they try that shit, then it's the last straw for me. No more Mr. Nice Guy. It'll be "torches & pitchforks" time.
Posted by: Macaroon at January 23, 2010 12:49 PM (F6+/O)
Why the FUCK don't Conservative Politicians rip into Obama and point out the PHARMA/AARP hundreds of millions in bribes.
AARP and PHARM spent hundreds of millions to support OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL.
NO ONE EVER SAW THE MOTHERFUCKING BILL. How would these cock bites have any clue if it was good or bad for America?????????????
Someone will BALLS needs to point out the MILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIONS that LABOR spent for Obama. What the FUCK are these PUSSIES afraid of??
Posted by: gus at January 23, 2010 12:51 PM (Vqruj)
Posted by: Lazarus Long at January 23, 2010 01:15 PM (RbtXl)
How stupid does this community organizer think we are?
Very, very stupid. But don't be too hard on him. He can't help it. It's a symptom of his NPD.
Posted by: Laura at January 23, 2010 01:29 PM (fuw6p)
@ 119 and the OP quoted therein:
This is probably related-- (link toTeresa Ghilarducci's House testimony, Oct. 7, 200
of course, she's been spouting this crap for a long time-- (link to Economic Policy Institute, Nov. 20, 2007)
I, too, wish nanny.gov would stop trying to save us all from ourselves!
Posted by: Stillwater at January 23, 2010 01:38 PM (qUdDE)
OUR RIGHT TO THINK AND SPEAK FREELY IS GOD-GIVEN, AND NO MAN AND NO COURT SHALL TAKE IT FROM US
Posted by: Jones6 (the 6 is silent) at January 23, 2010 01:48 PM (JL3qV)
They are all anti-military unless THEY get rich from it and it pushes their politics.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at January 23, 2010 07:04 PM (pU4D7)
#12 ...no dual citizen is a natural born American...
I was born in the USA of Canadian parents, and both countries count me as a citizen. How am I not a "natural born American?"
Posted by: Muskwa at January 23, 2010 08:04 PM (2sKy5)
Hey TR -
I've been both a union employee and a non-union employee. You know what - I particularly love as a non-union employee that I get to determine how I waste my own wages, and particularly that I do not have to get permission to take a piss or a crap, or (as God as my witness) see my co-workers throw-up at their deisgnated positions.
So FOIYDM
Posted by: Flodigarry at January 23, 2010 09:08 PM (ylB6T)
Posted by: sonnyspats at January 24, 2010 07:40 AM (68tQb)
Posted by: 88Cid at January 24, 2010 07:56 AM (i254c)
And as long as IÂ’m your President, IÂ’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.
Yeah, Bozo, like you and your cabal in congress are listening to us about health care and cap and trade? Get over yourself, maroon. You are just popping your bill and generally showing your ignorance about our system. If you had grown up in this country and laid off the cocaine long enough when you went to school here you would know to keep your mouth shut. Better presidents than you have had to accept the rullings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the last word. Finis.
Posted by: BarbaraS at January 24, 2010 08:53 AM (bbasO)
Posted by: Muskwa at January 24, 2010 12:04 AM (2sKy5)
Because you hold another citizenship. The Founders specifically rejected the idea of American dual citizens, so, obviously, when they created the class of citizens labeled "natural born citizens" that did not include anyone who held citizenship in another country.
When the shit hits the fan in the US and people might want to flee, you would be able to go to Canada while natural born citizens (who, by definition, hold no other citizenships) are stuck in the US. Even without that circumstance, dual citizens have many advantages that natural born citizens don't. That is one of the obvious differences between a natural born citizen who is dependent on the success of this nation and a dual citizen who can pick up and go to his other country any time he wants.
It sounds as if you are taking the idea personally that, somehow, because you hold another citizenship, that you are not as purely "American" as the Founders required for their natural born citizens. It's not personal, just common sense.
Obviously, there has never been a ruling on the actual operative definition of 'natural born citizen', but it is clear that no nation with any sense would ever allow someone to lead the executive branch if that person held citizenship in 37 other countries at the same time. That would just be sheer insanity - and our Founders were well, well aware of this.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 24, 2010 09:14 AM (A46hP)
The next book out on O'doofus (that's his real Irish name; he's the long lost Kennedy bro ya know) should be titled "BHO: How to buy the presidency and return favors, for DUMMIES".
Bought. Paid for. Payback. Now.
Things are just starting to get fun. I flipped over to see what they were saying on MSNBC and CNN about the Brown win (haven't watched them in years) and they're eating their own now. Love. It. So many goin' under the bus they're calling it the MONSTER BUS RALLY, D.C. 2010.
Posted by: timajin at January 24, 2010 10:02 AM (j/F2S)
Posted by: Carl Bone at January 24, 2010 10:55 AM (Qc93O)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2987 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Barack Obama at January 23, 2010 08:08 AM (554T5)