What are your thoughts of Obama's Speech?

And that, my friend, is how the United States Government is conducting

and has been doing for years. (OMG I sound like PJ)

I know that I am side tracking this a little, but everytime that I watch the President speak and I see Nancy Pelosi in the back ground, I thank goodness that she didn't choose the path of being a provider. If I showed up at an incall and saw her at the door, it would definitely cure my addition to the game.

The woman is just scary looking. Originally Posted by Woody of TX

She's 70, Woody.

I voted for Ron Paul. I've voted in every election since I was old enough. The last time I wrote my senator was four months ago, with my thoughts as a constituent on universal healthcare. Also wrote the congresscritters. With pen and paper and stamps and everything. The last time I wrote someone else's senator (and governor and congresscritters) was over the FLDS fiasco. As to what else I've done, I'm a freelance writer who specializes in political commentary and economizing. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

It was rhetorical; though, thank you for your summary.

I walk the walk. Am I entitled to speak now, or can I at least have some of that champagne? I'm merely giving a realistic view on how things are, not that I like it. I don't like it. It disgusts me that profit is more important than humanity, that lobbyists with a fat checkbook can have long heartfelt chats with my senator but I have yet to ever have one answer a letter, that our politicians are more concerned with the depth of their campaign chest than the needs and desires of their constituents. And they get away with all this because more fool those who still think everything will all turn out for the best in the end with no effort or thought on their part. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

How is profit any more or less important than humanity now, than at any other time in history? How is it a governmental fault, aside? These phrases-"Both consider the American public to be unwashed masses fit only for service to their feudal masters", being yours specifically-are colorful I suppose, but what do they mean? How does the government treat you that way? What occurs to you, daily or weekly or whatnot, that makes you think this fit-for-service-to-masters thing? You mention scorn for the Constitution; how so? It is supposed to be violated. If the government were not in some way "expressing scorn" towards other branches, I would be quite displeased. And, yes, piss on the Constitution, for the love of its incidental aims: the founders did.

that lobbyists with a fat checkbook can have long heartfelt chats with my senator but I have yet to ever have one answer a letter Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Usually form letters are standard, especially for larger issues. Otherwise...is there another thread there?...

Interesting point. Do you think that's because in a parliamentary system they are not limited to 2 terms? Btw...whilst I don't necessarily like all our prior (or even current) PM's I do like that they are not restricted to 2 terms.

C x Originally Posted by Camille

Until after Truman (the amendment to limit Presidents to 2 terms was passed during Truman's presidency so would not have affected him) US presidents were not term limited. It has to do with the form of government. In the parliamentary system leaders are selected by the party with the majority, a majority in parliament can bring down a government, a party can change their leader and de facto change the PM. With a President the voting is for a specific person and that changes the entire dynamic. A President can only be brought down during his term in office by an impeachment and conviction. Although impeachment requires a simple majority the 2/3 needed in the Senate is a hurdle that is almost impossible to reach.

-Too long as someone mentioned, by about 20 minutes
- Seemed like some interesting ideas on job growth and small biz tax credits, but not easy to understand his vision
- Seemed to sorta stagger to the ending, kind of like when you are doing a powerpoint and you know you are out of time
- Thought it interesting that Health care didn't come up for 20 minutes or so with no clarity on what he would like to see. Feels like it got tossed overboard ( and I want to see something passed)
- Thought the shot at the Supreme Court was a bit over the top,with them sitting right there, causing Dems behind and beside the justices to leap up an clap in thier ears. Also not sure if parts of the shot were factually accurate.

We will see...

It was rhetorical; though, thank you for your summary.

How is profit any more or less important than humanity now, than at any other time in history? How is it a governmental fault, aside? These phrases-"Both consider the American public to be unwashed masses fit only for service to their feudal masters", being yours specifically-are colorful I suppose, but what do they mean? How does the government treat you that way? What occurs to you, daily or weekly or whatnot, that makes you think this fit-for-service-to-masters thing? You mention scorn for the Constitution; how so? It is supposed to be violated. If the government were not in some way "expressing scorn" towards other branches, I would be quite displeased. And, yes, piss on the Constitution, for the love of its incidental aims: the founders did.



Usually form letters are standard, especially for larger issues. Otherwise...is there another thread there?... Originally Posted by Nineveh

Ah. I take it, then, that I'm dealing with a cynic who's contented with the status quo. Carry on, then.

Ah. I take it, then, that I'm dealing with a cynic who's contented with the status quo. Carry on, then. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

You made the claims...not me. How are you being held down by some master or whatever?

Back up your opinion, or don't. I remain unphased.

My thoughts about this guy are summarized below:

Alito mouthed the words ...NOT TRUE

foreign entities are already outlawed in contributing to american elections..remember clinton and al gore and the chinese connection.. and the words.."no controlling legal authority"?

As a former law professor...obama should know better..and of course he does..just the american ppl don't know better... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You're a campaign finance expert??

Perhaps you're referring to 2 U.S.C. 441e

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other 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;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term foreign national means
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

Note that neither through it's own terms nor through the definitions in subsection (b) is a domestic corporation controlled by a foreign individual prohibited from making independent expenditures. Likewise, even read as broadly, it is quite possible that (A)(1)(a) will be held unconstituional and foreign nationals will be able to make independent expenditures (as Justice Steven's decision points out).

On the same subject, from today's Washington Post:

Lost in the heat of the debate is that hundreds of foreign corporations are already heavily involved in U.S. elections.

U.S.-based subsidiaries of overseas firms have contributed more than $20 million to federal campaigns since 2007 and have spent millions more lobbying Congress on issues such as energy and free trade, according to federal disclosure reports. Donations linked to foreign firms have increased from $7.7 million in 2000 to nearly $17 million in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

So again, nvergaveitathough's claim that "foreign entities are already outlawed in contributing to american [sic] elections" is beyond preposterous and ill informed. The Citizens United decision will just make it easier for foreign interest to do this and allow even greater funds to pour in.

I see Nancy Pelosi in the back ground. . .

The woman is just scary looking. Originally Posted by Woody of TX

I agree with my man TTH but even without foreign corp's in the mix, I think it bad law to equate a cooperation with a human. You should have to put your own money in the pot, IMHO.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-29/ce...html?fullstory

On the same subject, from today's Washington Post:

Lost in the heat of the debate is that hundreds of foreign corporations are already heavily involved in U.S. elections.

U.S.-based subsidiaries of overseas firms have contributed more than $20 million to federal campaigns since 2007 and have spent millions more lobbying Congress on issues such as energy and free trade, according to federal disclosure reports. Donations linked to foreign firms have increased from $7.7 million in 2000 to nearly $17 million in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

So again, nvergaveitathough's claim that "foreign entities are already outlawed in contributing to american [sic] elections" is beyond preposterous and ill informed. The Citizens United decision will just make it easier for foreign interest to do this and allow even greater funds to pour in.
Originally Posted by TexTushHog

i dont think we will get anywhere but from where i sit i see the progressive news media is hard at work supporting the unsupportable.

of course the issue with any progressive, and obama more than several times has identified himself with progressives, is the declaration of independence and the constitution, the very same declaration which claims liberty for all and the constitution which places limits on government. they want to replace our liberty and the confidence we have in the constitution with reliance upon their superior knowledge.

Tush, the law you copied recognized the limits placed on the congress by the constitution and in the same manner the recent supreme court decision is in line with the recognized limits inherent in that law.

the constitution states plainly congress shall make no law...no law abridging the freedom of speech (among other things). the law you copied recognized this and it didn't overstep its bounds. the constitution applies to us, and american companies are us. part of the law allows only united states citizens in these corporations to make certain decisions regarding united states corporations. the supreme court didnt change anything regarding any corporation as far as any direct contribution to any politcal campaign. That is illegal for all corporations and remains so. what the decision did was throw out that part of mccain/finegold that prohibited corporations from making advocacy ads prior to an election, to allow them to present thier case. and yes while some of these corporations may be mostly or entirely foreign owned, the entities themselves are within the protection of the constitution. so while you may claim its "preposterous" to state foreigners are outlawed in making campaign contributions, as are ALL CORPORATIONS, it is the plain law.

associations in the founding fathers time were widely abundant. should the founding fathers not wish the constitution to apply to associations of americans (and yes corporations are associations) they would surely have limited free speech in some manner. remember if you will the sons of liberty, with sam adams and others in boston, that association? should their speech be muzzled as a group by king george? the founders thought not.

the issue you have is with the constitution, not me, not the supreme court.

when supreme court nominees are before the senate judiciary committee, a favorite question of the progressives on the committee is, "will you follow widely accepted precedent?" they don't wish anyone to look to the constitution, only to the past 80 years or so of some liberal judges decision and no further. Look to these latter day obfuscators and people who have a smarter idea and pay no attention to the exact words of that musty old document.

i say face the constitution straight up, garner your support for its change, make your case, but do not take the protection its words afford and twist them into muddle.

There is no doubt that President O'bama is probably the best public speaker since Ronald Regan (in american politics).

The one thing about his agenda that I take issue with, is that you cannot pay for all of his social programs without increasing taxes. At present, the fed hits me for 35% in income taxes, the state for 6%. Then what is left, the state and local governments hit me for another 9% in sales tax, then send me a bill at the end of the year for property taxes. I know I am just one american, but I simply cannot afford much more in the way of taxes.

I know that I am side tracking this a little, but everytime that I watch the President speak and I see Nancy Pelosi in the back ground, I thank goodness that she didn't choose the path of being a provider. If I showed up at an incall and saw her at the door, it would definitely cure my addition to the game.

The woman is just scary looking. Originally Posted by Woody of TX

Originally Posted by WTF

Not even with your dick WTF.

and has been doing for years. (OMG I sound like PJ) Originally Posted by discreetgent

There is hope for you yet.