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

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:25:47 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
<raymond-ohara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Wayback1918" <wayback1918@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Jan 28, 9:23 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Wayback1918" <wayback1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

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
of the Court baby-killers, now claiming that it was wrong for Obama
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


Reagan and the chimpler both castigated the SCOTUS and what facts did he
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

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.
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.

Yes, as I understand the law, a corporation is not prevented from
making contributions merely because it has foreign shareholders. I'd
guess that most companies traded on any organized stock exchange would
have some foreign shareholders.

I think the Obama mention of foreigners was a clue to the legislation
he will propose to deal with the new situation. My suggestion has been
that the government deal with corproations through corporate law. If
the point of the decision is that corporations are associations of
people, and associations have free speech derived from the people they
represent, then it would make sense to require the consent of those
people and to prohibit corporations from making contributions on
behalf of foreign shareholders.

By the way, corporations are currently prohibited from taking a tax
deduction for electioneering and grassroots lobbying.

Corporations are created to limit personal liability. with that protection
there should be some restrictions on them.
a men who incorprate can kill through negilgence like Ford did with the
Pinto but no individual was liable for those killings nor even financially
at risk.
now they have all the benefits and none of the risks you or I have,.