Re: OT: Funniest Right-Wing Reaction to President's Speech...


"Wayback1918" <wayback1918@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:79e8429d-7989-4421-b1d0-90f982d377d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 28, 9:23 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Wayback1918" <wayback1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:40a39ce9-87f8-4431-8099-6b49605143da@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 28, 8:24 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:54:14 -0800 (PST), LawnGuyland

<loisferr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 12:40 pm, Smithee <ssmith2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By far the funniest thing is listening to right-wingers who spend
their entire lives critizing the Roe vs Wade ruling, calling members
of the Court baby-killers, now claiming that it was wrong for Obama
to
criticize a recent SC ruling.

Proof that the right-wing still has a sense of humor...

There's a difference between private citizens exercising free speech
and the POTUS calling out the highest court on national television
where he cannot be debated.

Presidents have criticized Roe v. Wade.

In any event, that there is a difference doesn't mean that the
president was wrong to criticize a v. political decision by a very
political court.

He was wrong to do it the way he did.

The members of the court are not required to be there. They come out
respect to office of the Presidency.

They are seated down front in deference to their position. So a very
political President made a very political point when the Justices had
no way to respond.

That doesn't even address that the President was wrong on the facts as
well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------------------

Reagan and the chimpler both castigated the SCOTUS and what facts did he
get
wrong?{this should be fun}.-


President Obama said, "Well I don't think American elections should be
bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign
entities."

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all
corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign
corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation
of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied
promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a
Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which
was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also
prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or
donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited
from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement
for an electioneering communication."

Have fun Ray.....

===========================================================================

Citgo is incorporated in the U.S.{Houston Tx.} so techincally it's an
American corporation.
yet its owned by Venezuela which is run by the much esteemed Hugo Chavez.
and there are many other foriegn owned but U.S. incorporated businesses. the
Saudis and the Japanese are big players.
the ruling gives them the right to buy all the candidates they want.
so you have fun. don''t you get tired of nbeing clueless.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This is not good
    ... With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. ... Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. ... As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. ... The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: This is not good
    ... With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. ... Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. ... As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. ... The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT: Funniest Right-Wing Reaction to Presidents Speech...
    ... of the Court baby-killers, now claiming that it was wrong for Obama ... political President made a very political point when the Justices had ... Foreign nationals, ... corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: OT: Funniest Right-Wing Reaction to Presidents Speech...
    ... of the Court baby-killers, now claiming that it was wrong for Obama ... political President made a very political point when the Justices had ... Foreign nationals, ... corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Conservative Justice Alito during State of the Union Broadcast
    ... Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn't like hearing President Barack ... Alito was in the majority in the 5-4 ruling. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)