• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

apdst said:
It's even funnier how you seem to think it's wrong when someone else does it, yet use that as an excuse for your messiah to do it.
Click to expand...

I never said it was wrong when someone else does it. I said just the opposite.
 
Charles Martel said:
Leading on a standing ovation behind the SCJustices is inappropriate
Click to expand...

So now the President is responsible when people stand?

The State of the Union isn't the place, the fact that you can't admit this is telling. Yer normally better than this, misterman.
Click to expand...

The SOTU is the place, and has been for many many Presidents before Obama. The fact that you never noticed until now is telling.
 
apdst said:
I already know that...:rofl

Thanks for being honest about it.
Click to expand...

You're even confused about being confused. Impressive.
 
misterman said:
The SOTU is the place, and has been for many many Presidents before Obama. The fact that you never noticed until now is telling.
Click to expand...


Could you point out for us, when in history has the President of the United States ever chastised the court in an SOTU, and followed it up with demonizing their decision on a particular case, and vowed to the country to do everything he could to nullify it?


Obama's frontal assault on the Supreme Court in a State of the Union is almost unheard of for a President. Typically, Presidents who get bad Supreme Court rulings (and they've all gotten their share) grimace and bear it, taking the position that the "court has spoken." I don't ever remember a Democratic president, in a State of the Union address, take on the Supreme Court for a recent decision and dare Congress to overturn it.

Alito Winces as Obama Slams Supreme Court Ruling - Crossroads - CBS News
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Could you point out for us, when in history has the President of the United States ever chastised the court in an SOTU, and followed it up with demonizing their decision on a particular case, and vowed to the country to do everything he could to nullify it?
Click to expand...

Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."

Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:

And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:

And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?

[...]

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
Click to expand...
Media conservatives falsely claim Obama's Supreme Court criticism was "unprecedented" | Media Matters for America
 
megaprogman said:
And if Obama thinks something is a legitimate threat to the Union, he should state it, which he did. It doesn't matter where the threat comes from.
Click to expand...

Obama is THE legitimate threat to the nation.

I don't recall him saying that in his State of the Union Show.


Fact of the matter is that Obama's statement was factually wrong, since the Supreme Court did not excise those sections of the law banning foreign interference in US political campaigns.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Suuuure.

This decision will have very little impact, since corporations - and unions - were already able to spend all they want on political speech before, they just had to barely pretend it was something else.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you are wrong. The SCOTUS decision says that corporations are not restricted and can use the corporations money to run politcal ads or make political videos or movies.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the ruling, after 23 pages.
 
washunut said:
Transparency, bs. If Obama wanted to have a real give a take session it would have been behind closed doors. Posing for the cameras shows he really has no intention of finding common ground. He knew the public wanted bipartisanship, so he gave them a photo op.

Is he a snakeoil salesman or a real leader?
Click to expand...
Oh Brother... :doh You're kidding right? Posing for the cameras? He took scripted questions and bashed the repubs with off the cuff rebuttals. No teleprompter necessary, just a good old thrashing. Not to mention that it was the repubs who wanted the cameras in the room.
 
misterman said:
I had no problem with how he did that either.

But he came this close to outright lying about what the decision did. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but that was very disappointing.
Click to expand...
I think he's talking about the meeting with repubs and not the State of the Union speech.
 
misterman said:
So now the President is responsible when people stand?
Click to expand...

THe President's remarks were inappropriate, it was a State of the Union Speech. He could have honored the Court, spoken to it's newest member, and added something like...and where we don't always agree, this Court is a shining example of justice and solid interpretation as it has been for decades...and then allow everyone to applause. He didn't because he's inexperienced and an arrogant clown.

The SOTU is the place, and has been for many many Presidents before Obama. The fact that you never noticed until now is telling.
Click to expand...

It isn't the place to chastise the Supreme Court on recent decisions, sorry, that isn't true. Just like, Joint sessions of Congress aren't for rescuing your overbearing and losing politically health care fiasco. Just like, Press conferences designed for health care aren't designed to tangent off into some Cambridge Police event that turns out to be the next days main topic of discussion, thus, rather than having Repubs in to discuss health care, we had to embarrass ourselves with a beer summit at the WH so we didn't look so out of touch. Obama is such an amateur, such a disaster. The first lesson in public speaking any of us learn is to remain on topic. Obama off the teleprompter is a class one disaster of the first magnitude.

This President defines flip flop. He makes John Kerry look rock solid and consistent. What a joke.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, you support PBO sucker punching someone on national TV, when those persons weren't able to defend themselves? His actions were cowardly.
Click to expand...
Were you against other presidents doing it or just democrat presidents or is it just Obama?
 
misterman said:
Media conservatives falsely claim Obama's Supreme Court criticism was "unprecedented" | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...


wow! Media Matters? Really? Is that what we are degraded to accepting as final word on something now? A hack site that purposely snips, and cuts transcripts so as to shape their biased drivel?


So let's see what it is that they are attributing Reagan with attacking....They say two times.

Once in 1984 when he attacked the decision made more than 10 years earlier, not what I would consider a direct attack on the members sitting before him. And then there is the 1988 SOTU they cite, and the citation....


Reagan 1988 SOTU said:
And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

Now, to make sure there is a full nine member Supreme Court to interpret the law, to protect the rights of all Americans, I urge the Senate to move quickly and decisively in confirming Judge Anthony Kennedy to the highest Court in the land and to also confirm 27 nominees now waiting to fill vacancies in the Federal judiciary.

Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

How in the absolute hell is that anything like this?:

Obama attacking the Court said:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Obama
Click to expand...


Now let's check what Obama said for fact.


Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site from the St. Petersburg Times, did some research when Obama first made the claim in his weekly radio address last weekend and found that it was barely true. Obama's statements on whether foreign companies can spend money in U.S. political campaigns "overstated the ruling's immediate impact."

Current federal law prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making, "directly or indirectly," a donation or expenditure "in connection with a federal, state, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

State of the Union 2010: Fact Check of President Obama's Address - ABC News
Click to expand...


I'd say untrue...But noting PolitiFact's already documented bias, this is damning.


j-mac
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Were you against other presidents doing it or just democrat presidents or is it just Obama?
Click to expand...


Regardless of what Media Matters trys to pass off here, their case is weak to say the least.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Regardless of what Media Matters trys to pass off here, their case is weak to say the least.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Right, you look so intelligent bashing media matters without disproving anything.

Instead of just pissing on your shoes, why not disprove what they say?
 
j-mac said:
Regardless of what Media Matters trys to pass off here, their case is weak to say the least.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's quite strong. Just saying it isn't doesn't change the facts.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Right, you look so intelligent bashing media matters without disproving anything.

Instead of just pissing on your shoes, why not disprove what they say?
Click to expand...


You must only read postings directed to you?


j-mac
 
misterman said:
Actually, it's quite strong. Just saying it isn't doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...


Nah, It really isn't even in the same class as what Obama did. You have Reagan talking out against Roe, and then Reagan calling for Justice Kennedy to be confirmed and you consider that to be the same thing as what Obama did? Amazing......I bet Obama could shoot someone, and all we would hear from liberals is 'well, the guy must have deserved it'.......:roll:


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
wow! Media Matters? Really? Is that what we are degraded to accepting as final word on something now? A hack site that purposely snips, and cuts transcripts so as to shape their biased drivel?
Click to expand...

Do you have a good reason to think these simple facts - INCLUDING DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE SPEECHES - are inaccurate?

You can cherry pick the weakest ones like you tried to do with Reagan, but it's still there.

Presidents have DIRECTLY criticized SCOTUS decisions in SOTU speeches several times. Deal with it.
 
misterman said:
Do you have a good reason to think these simple facts - INCLUDING DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE SPEECHES - are inaccurate?

You can cherry pick the weakest ones like you tried to do with Reagan, but it's still there.

Presidents have DIRECTLY criticized SCOTUS decisions in SOTU speeches several times. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


I think that the difference is the tone. Reagan may have done this as you say, but not with the directness of tone that caused such disrespect immediately. I think Obama is a thug, and this is the only way he knows. How sad.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I think that the difference is the tone. Reagan may have done this as you say, but not with the directness of tone that caused such disrespect immediately. I think Obama is a thug, and this is the only way he knows. How sad.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So now it's down to Obama's "tone?"

Why don't you go wag your finger at him and say "I don't care for your tone."

Did you look up the Reagan video to check on his "tone?" It's been a long time, maybe you forgot.

I didn't like your tone when you were yammering on about "baseless drivel" before you gave up and decided it was all about Obama's "tone."

Your posts reveal that you think this way because you don't like Obama. You're plainly biased. Nothing wrong with that as long as you admit it and are fair about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom