What are your thoughts of Obama's Speech?

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-29/ce...html?fullstory Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Barack Obama has assured Americans that he will not accept an economic second place for the US in his State of the Union address on Thursday.

He mentioned China and Germany as possible first place rivals, but trend forecaster Gerald Celente says there is no comparison with these countries and the whole address was just a farce:

“How could you compare with what China’s doing. It has 2.5 trillion dollars in reserves, and they could afford to boost their economy. They are the number one exporter in the world. Germany? Oh, yes, try number two exporter. Where’s the United States? Oh only 12 trillion dollars in debt…”

Celente said Obama is no different from George W. Bush or Bill Clinton in staging his “political theatre” and exercising “the second oldest profession” – politics.

She's 70, Woody. Originally Posted by Nineveh

Oh I should apologize then?


Nope still scary, and be willing to bet she was in her younger days also.


Hell I grew up looking like Sonny Bono all my life, I deserve the right to be able to cirtique others looks.

My thoughts about this guy are summarized below:

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

My god.

Does everyone realize that somewhere in this world there is a "Mr. Pelosi" ?
God help him!
bigtom62

You know there is probably a Mrs. Reed as well!

Does everyone realize that somewhere in this world there is a "Mr. Pelosi" ?
God help him!
bigtom62

You know there is probably a Mrs. Reed as well! Originally Posted by bigtom62

And there is a Mrs Bush....two of'em. I still prefer the Speaker of the House. PJ knows she's sexy! Ok I promise this is the last time I will use this icon. It cracks me the fuc up though.

Does everyone realize that somewhere in this world there is a "Mr. Pelosi" ?
God help him!
bigtom62

You know there is probably a Mrs. Reed as well! Originally Posted by bigtom62

(meant as satirical)

Yes, and several of the ladies on the board know him VERY well

I have to admit.... it takes big ballz for B.O. to expect Alito to apologize for mouthing "Not True" behind B.O.'s swipe at the Court!

As if B.O.'s branch is bigger than Sam's!

Giz

nevergaveitathought, two points. Corporations are creations of the State. They can, and should, have only the powers that the state gives them. The Constitution exists to protect persons, not artificial creations of the law.

Second, at least in the mainstream jurisprudence that has prevailed in the U.S., the First Amendment isn't read literally. Hence, the Congress (or a State government) can pass a law prohibiting someone from falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The test of whether a restriction on speech is reasonable is whether the State has a compelling interest in regulating it. You can make a hell of an argument that keeping huge sums of corporate money out of elections is a compelling interest even if you grant corporations every constitutional right you grant individuals.

Considering that this activist court (they could have ruled on very narrow grounds on just the question at hand) overturned 2 of its own precedents and about 100 years of jurisprudence if it was truly intellectually honest it should have simply overturned all restrictions on campaign contributions on First Amendment grounds.

Oh I should apologize then? Originally Posted by Woody of TX

Not at all. Just providing a context.

Tush your last point is a read and accepted

Discreet gent, actually the only thing affected was since 1990, not quite 20 years. O said something abt 100 yrs in his speech but now they have backed off that or said it applied to something else not the decision.

O said something abt 100 yrs in his speech but now they have backed off that or said it applied to something else not the decision. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

DG periodically drinks the koolaid. But not always.

Tush your last point is a read and accepted

Discreet gent, actually the only thing affected was since 1990, not quite 20 years. O said something abt 100 yrs in his speech but now they have backed off that or said it applied to something else not the decision. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

On Supreme Court precedents but there have been laws in place limiting corporate and later on union donations going back to Teddy Roosevelts administration.

What I do find fascinating is no one objecting to my calling it a decision by an activist court

What I do find fascinating is no one objecting to my calling it a decision by an activist court Originally Posted by discreetgent

Ignoring is not accepting.

My thoughts about this guy are summarized below:

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Oh my goodness.