Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was correct in saying not true to President Obama during his SOTU speech. Democrats " getting uptight " about Alito saying it without shouting at the president is typical liberal whining. The Democrats are against freedom of speech, they want to take Fox News & Rush Limbaugh off the air, because they want only their opinions, kind of like Chavez & Castro. Obama wants to stop corporations & the American people from having their say in politics. The public seems to be for the SCOTUS ruling, while the president & his party seem to be against it.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Alito Was Right & Calling It An Outburst Is Crazy.
- Thread starter Wayne64
- Start date
Werbung:
Is it possible for you state your opinion without lying?
It is a blatant lie, even if you're so stupid you don't understand it, it's still a blatant lie that "Obama wants to stop the American people from having their say in politics". Even a moronic opinion such as that is still a lie.
It is a blatant lie, even if you're so stupid you don't understand it, it's still a blatant lie that "Obama wants to stop the American people from having their say in politics". Even a moronic opinion such as that is still a lie.
Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
I know. The GOP has taken to lying so much and in such an obvious fashion lately that they are quite seriously undermining their own credibility even with the half-wit crowd. Even the dullest of the dull was shocked to learn that their elections can now be bought and sold on the auction block to the highest corporate bidder. Even they woke up to that one..
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Did you hear any Republicans complaining or were they some of the crowd doing the 'BOOOING'...
Your observation is right on!
All this ruling did was set us all back 100 years. In 100 years of upheld precedent even with numerous challenges in front of many many many different justices, to now say this ludicrous ruling is a good thing is the epitome of crazy talk.
Here's the thing and I'm sure you'll agree. Right at this moment the Republicans see this as a good thing because they think they will be in line now for extra big corporation campaign money... and that's probably true to some extent.
But in their always short sighted way what they fail to recognize is the sword just handed out can cut both ways over time. Much like the computer industry Green technology will eventually be bigger than probably any single thing that has come before it and that mindset almost always leans to the Democrats because the Republicans have a long history of trying to run down most anything Green to help out their Big Oil buddies.
So I won't be surprised that in say 10 years the pubbies will probably be crying bloody murder that it's the the Democrats that are taking unfair advantage from this decision. The key word here is unfair.
I'm against this decision because it's wrong headed and hurts America by pushing the regular voter down to insignificance more than ever before.
If 90% of the money that this stupid decision brings into play were to go straight to Democrats I'd say the exact same thing. This isn't a Party thing... this is an American voter thing.
This descision does not change money regulation, it just allows free speech in the form of ads. This point is what Alito was correcting Obama on as the president was putting forward the lie that you too are making.
The regular voter may still have his free speech and far more significantly his vote.
Th only downside is that there will be even more political ads for me to ignore. Oh well...
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Right at this moment the Republicans see this as a good thing because they think they will be in line now for extra big corporation campaign money - TG
The ruling struck down the ban on political commercials 30/60/90 days out from an election. Organizations (527's, corporations, etc.) and individual citizens were banned from airing political ads that close to an election but now they can and that is the only thing this decision changed.
The ruling did nothing to reverse laws still in place that limit campaign donations, it did not give corporations a vote in elections, it did not overturn laws still in place that forbid foreign entities from donating to domestic elections, all it did was overturn a ban on political ads prior to an election.
Now Left wing groups, Right wing groups, and every group in between, is free to run ads for, or against, any candidate they so choose right up to the election. The hysteria over this decision is just that, hysteria. The facts are the facts and you have to completely ignore the facts of what this decision dealt with and what the decision overturned to claim that it did something else.
The ruling struck down the ban on political commercials 30/60/90 days out from an election. Organizations (527's, corporations, etc.) and individual citizens were banned from airing political ads that close to an election but now they can and that is the only thing this decision changed.
The ruling did nothing to reverse laws still in place that limit campaign donations, it did not give corporations a vote in elections, it did not overturn laws still in place that forbid foreign entities from donating to domestic elections, all it did was overturn a ban on political ads prior to an election.
Now Left wing groups, Right wing groups, and every group in between, is free to run ads for, or against, any candidate they so choose right up to the election. The hysteria over this decision is just that, hysteria. The facts are the facts and you have to completely ignore the facts of what this decision dealt with and what the decision overturned to claim that it did something else.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Even the left wing NY Times agrees with Alito...
"The regular voter may still have his free speech and far more significantly his vote."
That comment is dazzling in it's simplistic, retarded logic. Here's a scenario... you're running for office. You have two choices. #1 - You can have my one vote. #2 - You can have $1 million in campaign ads from a corporation. Which one would you chose? Which one offers the most influence over the outcome?
That comment is dazzling in it's simplistic, retarded logic. Here's a scenario... you're running for office. You have two choices. #1 - You can have my one vote. #2 - You can have $1 million in campaign ads from a corporation. Which one would you chose? Which one offers the most influence over the outcome?
Why can't I have a MULT- MILLON DOLLAR AD from a LABOR UNION" Why can't I use UNION GOONS to beat up voters they suspect are against Obama?
Corporations ARE operated by HUMANS!! not ROBOTS , CORPORATIONS MUST have the right to Present and /or Defend their Views. LABOR UNIONS SURE DO!! In fact CROOKED politicians use TAXPAYERS MONEY for CORRUPT purposes , ie G. M., Chrysler, SEIU UNION GOONS , ACORN GOONS , bought and paid for members of Congress!
So allowing a Corporation to have FREE SPEECH during a election process is JUST the minimum we MUST DO!!
Revere
Well-Known Member
Scott Brown was out fundraised by Martha Coakley.
Werbung:
Alito , Was and is Correct!!! Obama chose a Cowardly attack on a Supreme Court Justice while that justice was in no position to respond.
True to the disgusting character of Obama!
AMERICA has NEVER made a WORSE choice for President!!!
Similar threads
