Wow,I guess President Obama was right. The word of the year is SuperPac, the organization that can raise unlimited money and sway elections to their cause by running smear campaigns without any oversight.
God I despise you tea bagging faggots. Can't wait to see you a-holes have to suck it up and vote for Romney and his cult religion. You traitors really do want to see America destroyed. Yer all fags.
What can you expect from a Justice that attends political fundraisers and hangs out with the likes of Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, hedge fund millionaires; any doubt who pushed the Citizens United decision? Not that we should expect the Corporate media to do some serious journalism about this blatant conflict of interest!
Judge Alito has just made a good decision. If he cannot be judicial enough to sit through a political speech without communicating his feelings (through his expressions and mouthed words), he should not attend. (It seems the other justices knew the proper behavior at a State of the Union and only one congressman shouted during the speech.)
The State of the Union has become a political pep rally, the Supreme Court shouldn't even waste its time attending. I'm glad Alito did that. He shouldn't be restrained while the hundreds of surrounding "representatives" join in the political bullshit.
@BeyondLame If you are happy NEVER EVER NEVER having a say in who gets elected again, then I'm sure you are happy with huge mega corporations that have no ones interest in mind, OTHER THAN THERE OWN deciding our electrics for us.
I guess they should have freedom of speech, where are our voices should be drowned out by piles of money.
This isn't a dem or rep thing my friend... This is a money thing.
@Bestmanme08 The book Obama:Why Black America Should Have Doubts (at amazon) showed this of Obama! And the book Ted Kennedy:The Early Years showed he got Kennedy help in getting elected! That book is also at amazon!
"take back our country". Do you know where this phrase originated, and how it got into your head, and are now regurgitating online? Faux news. And i wonder who you're taking it back from, and how you conceptualize that you lost it in the first place. Presidents, and all elected officials, are just representative voice of masses that elected them. They are elected because the electing body, we the people, see in them what we would like to play out in our country.
I agree with the President's criticism, but I ask--If Mr. Obama really wants to reduce corporate influence in government, then why doesn't he propose a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics? The truth is that he benefits just as much as everyone else from special interest money. He is all rhetoric and no action!
So let's get this straight it is ok for the whole entire Democratic Caucus to boo President Bush when he mentions social security reform but Joe Wilson cannot call out President Obama for a flat out lieillegals get social security medicare & medicaid what would stop them from getting benefits under Obama's new entitlement program?It is also ok for Obama to criticize the supreme court for acutally ruling on what is in the Constitution not on the liberal wish list of laws that are "good for you"
How the heck did we come in this forum about what Obama said in refrence to the Supreme court to talking about dang IRAQ? Thats all rep. want to bring up is stupid war. The one thing they are good at lol
This was so rude of our president to say this with the people he's talking about sitting right in front of him! I believe this really shows what kind of a man Obama really is! This is a big red flag to me & I am really starting to pay attention. In other words, I'm thinking that it is time to take back our country!!
It is worse than rude. It is threatening the checks and balances of the US!
Obama is actually saying: "Any part of the consitution I don't like, I will fight. I do not support the separation of power and the check and balances".
This shouldn't surprise anyone though; Obama trying to take make United States of America into United Socialists of America.
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article and television show. They could even censor our posts on YouTube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
The same Supreme court who gave us Bush the puppet is at it again. Republicans want one thing, power and money to the rich, poverty and powerlessness to the middle class. I don't think republicans care if this country goes down the gutter if it means they get their power.
Alito, Roberts and the other neocon Supremes have tried to use the first amendment to repeal restrictions on Corporate funding. The Tillman Act and related law does not abridge CONTENT of Corporate speech. Repealing these laws is dangerous. Do you want Saudi Aramco Corporate oil money funding our federal campaigns? Wasn't it enough that the Saudis funded 9/11? Maybe you prefer Chinese corporate money. This ruling was pure politics - and bad politics at that.
That is so unpresidential. To insult these judges when they are not in a position where they can defend themselves whilst they are sitting right in front of Obama.
Obama is actually saying: "Any part of the consitution I don't like, I will fight. I do not support the separation of power and the check and balances".
This shouldn't surprise anyone though; Obama trying to take make United States of America into United Socialists of America.
If that is all the left-wingerscan come up with, look at Bush, he was also ignoring the constitution, you have got a serious problem.
But it doesn't really matter what I try to convince you of now. You will wake up in November. The Democratic Party will be destroyed. This will be better than November 1994.
Are you unable to see that it is a problem that the American President is turning supreme court judges into political figures as if the supreme court judges were up for election?
Obama's handling of this situation seriously violates the checks and balances and the partitioning of government power. That is why it is unpresidential.
Save the "unpresidential" crap for the morons that don't know better. Obama is 10000 times more President than Bush ever was. This was a HORRIBLE ruling. How do campaigns now NOT become corporate sponsored? You kidding me? Obama was DEAD ON to telling it to their FACE.
Save the "that is why it is unpresidential" crap for you and your buddies. I'm sure they all nod their head to the nonsense you spew.
It would have been interesting if you were actually willing to discuss my points but I see that you are only able to spew out hateful propaganda and unfounded claims, like Obama being more presidential than Bush. I was, if you read my post again, capable of explaining why Obama is both unpresidential and unconstitutional.
You don't seem to be able to even discuss my claims. Are you?
I DO have them, but it's not something that I'm willing to discuss on a Youtube comments page. At least I have a peace of mind that my President now isn't a moron who goes around saying "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
Why not discuss them on a YouTube page? I can actually be done.
No. You do not have President who said "Mission accomplished" about Iraq in 2003. But you do have a President who was vehemently opposing the troop surge which made Iraq a whole deal safer.
Pres. Obama dominated the Republican caucus in Baltimore and the cowards at FOX News stopped airing it. Fair and Balanced? When are conservatives going to regain their dignity and admit that they are being manipulated? It takes no intellect to be sheep.
New FOX News slogan. - We report (when it fits our directive), you decide.
Alito was one of the Justices who decided corporations should be allowed to get into politics as much as they want and basically buy off our government.
Great the GOV hellbent on power, the CORPs hellbent on the GOVs power. What sucks is these two entities become immensely more sophisticated and ever more curious (GOOGLE) about us, while we try to play catchup.
There is no way the Framers of the Constitution could possibly have forseen the corruptible influence that these profit-driven, monolithic corporations would have on society. It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution in the context of the age in which we live.
And so what if Obama did this? It's every person of sound mind's duty, to call out on bullshit, when they see it happen.
The marrying of state and corporation is just wrong and it's actually what defines fascism - something that conservatives oddly enough associate with Obama. Stupid people.
Allowing a corp it's rights according to the Constitution is not a marrying of state and corp. It's what our Constitution says must be done under the freedom of speech. Do you know subscribe to the laws of the Constitution?
"It is an interesting question 'who' is even speaking when a business corporation places an advertisement that endorses or attacks a particular candidate. Presumably it is not the customers or employees, who typically have no say in such matters. It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque ..."
"... to management. Perhaps the officers or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal ends. Some individuals associated with the corporation must make the decision to place the ad, but the idea that these individuals are thereby fostering their self-expression or cultivating their critical faculties is fanciful." -- Justice Stevens (Section IV, Part 1, paragraph 4)
Well, by what you posted, we are on the same page. I was (in more basic terms) making that point in the excerpt you posted. Corporations are not individuals, ans as such, should not be protected as such under the constitution.
IT IS THE DUTY of the Supreme Court Justices to act OBJECTIVELY, without emotion and without political motivation. Hence why the Justices never publicly show emotion or reaction to anything a President says in his State of the Union or other speeches. It's etiquette.
Justice Alito, in this instance, reveals his inability to contain himself and his lack of self-control... which reflects how he also lets these same traits effect his decisions and his DUTY as a Supreme Court Justice. Incompetent
It's all about interpretation. What did the men who started this amazing North American experiment intend? The rights of Man and freedom from tyranny (both governmental and commercial) are the big ones. As diverse and contentious as the group was, the constitution and eventually the bill of rights affirmed at least this much. It all went down on paper and reason won the day. Of , by, and for the people; not the corporations. This decision mocks the entire philosophy.
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech,' [quoting Scalia]. If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections ..."
"... apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1)
@sesamestreetgang Good for Justice Alito. Until Obama changes things, there is still freedom of speech and expression in this country. I am amazed people are taking him to task. Good for Alito to stand for the truth. You don't listen to outright lies and not express emotion. Good for him and shame on you and your ilk.
The scotus has a DUTY to act OBJECTIVELY in their decision making in interpreting the law. They have no such duty or public responsibilty to withhold responce to the Pres, an elected official, publically lying about their character or what the Constitution actually says, which is what he did. It isn't the President's interpretation of the constitution that stands as final judge, but the scotus', it's their job. BUT IT IS THE PRES JOB to respect and obey the Constitution, he does neither.
@substati8 The scotus did give corporations the same rights as an individual though. This means they can be sued, face criminal charges, etc.
@AndrewDeLong your argument is completely asinine. Maybe take a debate class in that university you're going to? You're just not understanding that had the scotus not made this decision, it would upset a balance, on top of being unconstitutional.
Obama's finally doing what his constituints wanted him to do. Screw bipartishinship and do everyhting in his power to crush the republican/conservitive agenda with an iron fist. He was elected on a liberal platform by a electorate largly made up of young liberals. Why oh why did he blow the first six months pandering to the party whose very presence was the reason his constituints got out the vote inthe first place? His new Iron rod angle is clearly pleasing more Americans than bipartishanship.
Obama sickens me. How pious of him to use that mightly platform loaned to him, to butcher the U.S. Constitution. His mindless minions also sicken me by supposing no one can publically challange the 'chosen one' but he can publically attempt to tarnish the character and decisions of opposing U.S. leaders. He only added another layer of thorns between constituion loving Americans and himself.
The level of utter ignorance festering in these comments is laughable. It's so obvious how many people here just talk out their ass and act like they "know the facts" and "know the truth", and yet it's ALL emotionally-based talking-point rhetorical bullshit.
You guys are so desperate to hate. It's shameful. You want to HATE Obama because your own lives are empty and you believe propaganda masters. You want to HATE the SC, you want to HATE it all. So go on, keep spouting your imbecilic nonsense.
YouTube has long been a haven for anonymous, jaw-dropping ignorance and bigotry.
Regarding the SC decision, the salient point is this: The ruling allows unlimited corporate expenditures on campaign advertising. Direct contributions to candidates are still illegal, but that's mostly irrelevant, because corporations can now flood the airwaves on behalf of their chosen candidates.
The ignored solution is to reclaim the public airwaves for the public interest.
I beleive the scotus made the right decision for now. Until we can cap ALL donations to campaigns you cant just limit select people. thats unconstitutional.
you're obviously not smart enough to understand what im saying. Maybe you should go down to your community college and take a political science class? just a thought.
Oh, so you want me to take a step back from the State University I'm in, GO BACK to the community college I graduated from, and take my 4th poli-sci class (and get a 4th A+ therefore) just because you wanted to challenge me by defending your idiotic statement?
Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. Add a logic class while you're at it.
A special interest group, UNLIKE a corporation, is comprised completely of people who are on the same page about a particular issue. A corporation however, only displays the viewpoints of those who run it, excluding all other viewpoints within the corporation which are below that level. In effect, the corporation is using the combined power of everyone within it, regardless of their actual positions. Tell me again, how is THAT constitutional?
Why do you support the idea that corporate entities (created by charter with the state) should have the same rights as actual people?
In the oral arguments for this case, Justice Ginsburg said, "A corporation is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights."
Why do you disagree? Since the "creator" of a corporation is the government, the opinion of Justice Kennedy regards the government like a God. Why are you OK with that?
Why did Obama take a cheap shot at the SC you ask?
Because of all the things Obama wants to jam down our throats he and Democrats are, grasping at straws really, now trying to get us to think about the steps to remove a justice.
Bottom line, Obama if you want to remove life-term SC justices b/c they differ with you on certain subjects, of which you don't fully understand, than you really are the Hitler that the extremists have labeled you to be
Ironic that Obama is called fascist when the Supreme Court has moved this country ever closer to Mussolini's definition of fascism - the marriage of corporation and state. Jefferson (and many of his compatriots) understood the dangers of corporate influence. Corporations are not people and Obama (with whom I do not always agree) as a former Constitutional Law professor has every right to criticize the court. This decision ushers in an era of more modern feudalism. We the Corporations...
I agree with you, but had the scotus not made this decision interest groups would be the ones donating as much money as they wanted to candidates and corporations would be left unable to retaliate. For example, an enviromental group donates millions to a left wing liberal candidiate, while exxon mobile is left unable to endorse their candidate who better serves their interests.
The dam has cracks, but that does not mean removing it is by any means a solution. Environmental groups and corporations are completely different entities with different goals and frankly probably should have different status. It would be interesting to see what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about it (he probably said plenty; I'll have to read some more).
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I couldn't agree more. These stupid imbecilic Republicans will do anything to make themselves look good when the Republican stacked Supreme Court reversed law that kept huge corporations at bay. SHAME!
A cheap shot? Please! Even republicans disagree with this SC decision. Those five idiots that we call justices effectively just handed the financial reigns over to whichever corporation that is willing to spend the most. the 2008 Presidential election broke records with the campaign spending...
Prepare to see that dwarfed in future elections.
You don't have to agree with Obama on everything...but come on, this is common fucking sense we're talking about.
Bring back McCain-Feingold. I thought this was suppose to be bipartisan.
But I guess a Bush-appointed judge just can't keep himself from the dollar dollar bills. Republican's supports for corporations have always been obvious. Recall the K Street Project.
obama just signed his death warrant. now you know not only attacking the judges, but doing it at the state of the union is only gonna make them all say everything he or is congress pass void. Very stupid obama, but yet again,you tell our enemys when we are leaving, so what would we expect.
The fantastic 5 allowed corporations to go crazy in giving money to politicians. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. Corporations are not people! If they are, can we divorce them? Do they have feelings? Obama simply told the truth...that this ruling stinks. The Supreme Court screwed us over in 2000 so they could screw us over again in 2010. Thanks guys. Now way should any of them, liberal or conservative, have lifetime appointments. They should be there 10 years at most.
Believe it or not Corporations are, in fact, treated as a "person" Legally. Most people are not at all aware of the legal clout given to corporations. See a video I have on my channel called "The Corporation". You'll see what I mean. It's well worth watching.
why are they so upset both sides republicans and democrats alike ?, the supreme court has now made it possible for a true 3rd party with enough funds and backing to challenge the democrats and republicans strangle hold of the white house.
I am firm believer the supreme court the stewards of the constitution are more of an authority than these slime ball politicians. That's why they are appointed for life not 4 years. Tisk-Tisk being a lawyer of constitutional law i expected more from you obama you should fully understand the separations of powers and the three branches of government separate but equal
you have no business challenging the courts decisions upholding our constitution, think of any other president in history that has opening disrespected the wisdom of the supreme court like that ? Maybe its become a game of squabble till you lie and cheat till you get what you want in Washington but not on the supreme court shut your mouth. -10 points for Obama
You're an idiot. Every branch of the government has business in challenging one another. That's the beauty of it. Separate but equal. You want to silence the executive branch?
In 2006 Daniel Estulin and James Tucker were able to predict the imfamous gas spike of 2008 and the following housing collapse thanks to leaked information from the 2006 Bilderberg conference. The proof is on youtube, look for "Endgame"
"Due difference to separation of powers" would not include an open political attack by the President on the Supreme Court. Obama is completely out of line. He politicizes the one branch of government that should be completely separate from public or political will. His actions are poisonous and dangerous.
The only saving grace is that his arrogant tongue lashing means nothing - the court has no responsibility to the will of the President, Congress, or even the people.
I personally talk about Bush because he was the president BEFORE Obama...the one that started the war in Iraq which has hindered our country in a sense as far as economy goes...once again if I'm wrong please help me see it but chill out...it's not that crucial. Oh btw...I just mentioned what Bush did to damage our economy in the previous sentence. Question: did Bush do anything as far as taxes go while in office?? Like seriously I want to know what you know
Bro chill out!! When did I say that this was about race?!? I was continuing my comment about my education & what I'm pursuing you ass!!
Yes I do remember when people called Bush dumb...because he WAS DUMB!!! Now monkey was taking it far but still he made retarded decisions. Don't assume that I'm uneducated because YOU made an assumption on one of my comments...makes you look like the ass dude. Ok thank you for the clarification about CONGRESSMAN Wilson lol
Furthermore it's disparities among African-Americans...know anything about that my friend??
And you seriously just asked me that question?! Correct me if I'm wrong please...but wasn't the Senate member who shouted out last year "YOU LIE" a Republican?!? Yeeaaaah I'm pretty sure that was disrespectful. Hmmm...so he cares about power but issues emergency funds to Haiti IMMEDIATELY...but when Katrina hit, it took Bush how many days to send help...mind you this was in our OWN country?? Thank you
Ok, now it's about race? Do you remember when everyone called Bush dumb? A monkey? You are the most uneducated fool I've ever encountered. Joe Wilson is a Congressman, not a Senator.
Inky...name one thing that Bush did to help this country!! And you're telling me that you've read & fully understood the Stimulus bill?? Granted unemployment is pretty high but I don't see how it's Obama fault considering he's only been in office for a year!! Actions taken by the Bush admini caused our economy to go down the drain before Obama came in. Oh I got an education believe that it's just not in politics...I'm dealing with health disparities.
Why do you liberals constantly talk about Bush? Bush is not president anymore. You sound like I'm Bush's keeper. You STILL can't find ONE specific thing that Bush did to damage our economy. It was the Democrats that have been in power, not the Republicans. I can tell you didn't get an ecucation in politics, that's very obvious. Yes, I have read the stimulus bill. Why don't you try it? Maybe if you would stop watching CNN all day, You might learn something!
It is sad that the recent ruling can undo all the campaign finance reform put in place the last hundred years, including the McCain-Feingold bill.
The idea that elections should be decided by who has the most money to spend is plain wrong. Or that a senator who votes the wrong way will be the victim of biased ads paid for by the displeased corporation or foreign country affected by the legislation.
@ electroman076...I never said it was ok with me...had you read the beginning of my message you would've seen that...but seeing how you're blinded by whatever ignorance you have it's evident you didn't understand what I said. Like I said waaay earlier...too sad
Circumvenscion...THANK YOU for ya comments! I guarantee some of these people are really just 12-year old kids with nothing better to do lol I could be wrong but who knows.
@inkydinkydooky Obama is nowhere NEAR like Bush! The only reason those numbers are up under Obama's name is because of the actions that Bush took like the year or two before he had to leave office! If I'm wrong then please prove it (I don't like sounding stupid about politics). If I'm right though...sit down & shut up bro
Can you explain tome babyboy4PV what actions Bush took "the year or two before he left office" to increase the budget deficit? The reason the numbers are up is because your buddy is spending money we don't have. Do you write checks with money you don't have? Sounds like You'll be apologizing another year from now for this guy.
I asked you to help me see the actions lol seeing how you know oh-so-much about what Obama is doing wrong. Only thing I could think of that increased the budget deficit is Bush continuing a war that at first started out hunting terrorists...but utimately became about getting oil & unnecessarily leaving troops over in a foreign land to try & "run" another country when the U.S. needed to be ran properly. If I'm wrong then lemme know but if I'm right then like I said before...shut ya mouth bro
God so many wildly uneducated people on YouTube. All of these 'fringe' positions about Socialism and Obama "hating" the US, and being a 'foreigner' etc etc... you people actually exist? And you spend this much time on YouTube? This is amazing. The pace of intellectual evolution in this country is staggeringly slow sometimes. Propaganda and ignorance are a powerful combination, especially when you're emotionally-based and uninformed. So sad.... Obama is no saint but you people need a damn brain.
The pace of intellectual evolution in this country is not staggeringly slow Circumvenscion, just over at your house. What Obama is doing to this country is obvious. It's a shame that You can't, or won't see it.
@inkydinkydooky it's sad that you're thinking that Obama is doing something "wrong" to this country...if anything he's trying to fix the mess that certain DISRESPECTFUL Republicans caused before he was in office.
Can you name one thing Obama is doing to help this country babyboy? Is spending money on pig odor research helping? How about Mormon crickets in Utah research? I know you don't know about these things from the Stimulus bill because, YOU HAVEN'T READ IT! Where's the job creation? 6.5% unemployment when Bush left office, now it's 10.2% in this administration? Obama as tripled the deficit in only one year! Is that Bush's fault too? Get yourself an education.
Forgot to ask you who the certain "DISRESPECTFUL" Rebublicans are babyboy? Disrespectful? If you think this fool of a president cares one bit about You, You are badly mistaken. He careS about one thing, POWER!!!!!!!!!!
I beg ALL conservative consitution loving justices to watch your back while BoBo is in office. This country cannot afford another Sotomayor nomination as a replacement to a conservative justice. Alito is awesome.
Love it! Alito's dismissive head shake and "not true" mouthing showed, what I though to be a classy response to a President who decided to chide the highest judges in the land like they were kids in a classroom. Sen. Feingold be damned.
OMG....Oh no he didn't just mouth off to our President! That's just soooooo disrespectful and unpatriotic to sit in front of the leader of the free world and call him a liar! I think Alito should resign immediately.
Obama is a liar many times over. He is an accomplished "wordsmith" nothing more. If anyone really listened to the content of his speeches the doublespeak is very evident. This current statement has already been fact checked by many and is as Justice Alito said "not true". Alito should not resign but read the actual law in question to The People and bring some kind of charge against TOTUS for lying to the public.
What's unpatriotic dangzh24 is this President telling lie after lie to the American people. He did in Baltimore repeatedly today. Just take a look at what this unqualified, inexperienced and inept person does, day after day.
He DESTROYED the GOP in Baltimore today. "Lie after lie"? When will you people stop taking your talking-point medicine and start looking at reality? All you wanna do is "hate" with this phony outrage because it makes you feel better about yourselves and your sad empty lives. Calling someone a liar and ignoring the truth might make you feel good in the short run but it does nothing to solve problems AT ALL. I suppose you think Sarah Palin WAS "qualified", huh? What a joke...
I do think that the war should've stopped a good while ago but there's only so much one man can do...and considering the mess that Bush left, you would think that Obama had an impossible task...but things are getting better each day.
Mess that Bush left babyboy4PV? Unemployment was 6.5% under Bush, it's 10.2% under Obama. 440 billion budget deficit under Bush, 1.7 trillion under Obama. He's only been in office for one year! This president is Bush on steroids!
inky, you've got your facts wrong on Bush's deficit numbers. It was 1.3 trillion dollars when Bush left office. And let's face it, the amount Obama had to spend was in large part a necessity to keep our economy from going into a depression, due to bad Republican policies, and to continue the two wars Bush started, only one of which was necessary.
Do you know the difference between The national debt and the the budget deficit sopiemarie49? What are the "bad" Republican policies? Can You name one? You need to think for yourself. Just because Obama said we had to spend money to save us from depression, does not mean it's true. He wants you to believe this.
inky, there are many examples of harmful Repub policies. Tax cuts for the wealthy they said would stimulate the economy doesn't work. Deregulating banking caused the fiasco we are still struggling with. Every credible economist said we have to spend money to save us from a depression, most said we should spend much more than we did. Our national debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush entered, it jumped to 10 trillion by the time he left, with so much new government spending that is recurring now.
You are drinking too much of the Obama Kool-Aid sopiemarie49. "Every credible economist"? Please tell me who they are. You don't understand that spending money we don't have, only increases inflation. Do you write checks with money you don't have? In relation to "tax cuts for the wealthy", who do you think pays 45% of ALL federal income tax? That's right! 2% of America's "wealthy". You are not looking at the big picture. Bush spending does not warrant more.
And on ya 2nd post...trust I have a brain...I just know the reality of this country when it comes to race & the sooner you can realize it then the more you won't be oblivious to other things my friend. You seem very intelligent on certain facts but ignorance still makes one look like a fool. Race still plays a factor & that's the flat-out TRUTH...so understand that!
I will agree that we get taxed like a motha & the economy has suffered but it's getting better as we speak too.
Ok to ya first post...sure Bush may have been criticized I'll give you that...but my question is this: was it in the same manner that Obama has gotten from people in his own country?!? Ok so Bush got a couple of shoes thrown at him in a different country but I don't recall if Bush got called out during one of his many NATIONALLY TELEVISED SPEECHES lol that's why this vid was posted bro! I never said not to criticize the man; he's not perfect by any means...but there's a proper way to criticize
there are two kinds of criticsm...constructive and destructive...what Obama did say was lack of details about the contribution and that makes Alito shaked his head. Obama get your fact first before you say the words...Get it...
Never before has a President bashed the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. Just like Richard Nixon, poor Obama has so many enemies. He's against the Supreme Court, Big Business making profits, Fox News, Big Oil, private citizens making big profits, Wall Street making big profits, Banks, and non-Govt controlled Healthcare just to name a few. Oh, but he's all for giving Terrorists who try to blow up planes full of Americans constitutional rights after 15 minutes of questioning.
No, FDR never bashed the Court in his State of the Union addresses. Back to the drawing board, eh? Your hero Urkel is the first....so much for trying to re-write history, eh?
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.
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.
@colderbeer I may not know if or when a former President has "bashed" the Supreme Court before...but if I'm not mistaken...this is the first President that has dealt with openly obvious disrespect in not one but TWO of his NATIONALLY TELEVISED speeches! Was it a Senate member or somebody who rudely interrupted Obama last year, shouting out "YOU LIE?" And now Justice Alito...all because Obama is basically telling more truth than what certain people wanna hear. So sad....
babyboy, the point is that Obama is wrong on the facts. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has no right to restrict freedom of speech of US citizens be they in groups or as individuals. The specifically rule out contributions from foreign corporations. Obama is standing here as a bully and a hypocrite. His entire campaign was funded by "special interests" like Goldman Sachs whose former employees now fill his cabinet! Just like Bush. Obama is a lying hypocrite.
@PresidenteCamacho: 1st off....how dare you compare Obama (who came into a position which now he has to "fix" the problems created by the former president) to Bush...who clearly didn't help America as a whole (I mean from lower to upper class). MY point is if I'm not mistaken he's the 1ST PRESIDENT who's endured disrespect like this when he speaks!! Did anybody shout out "YOU LIE" to Bush when he said something completely false...I don't think so. False statements or not give the man respect
babyboy, you have got to be kidding me, right? I hate Bush, OK, let's get that straight but he was criticized plenty during his presidency and disrespected all the time as he should have been because he is a war criminal!
Obama too is a war criminal. He has taken on Bush's wars and expanded them. He continues the same crimes against humanity as Bush. Are we supposed to not criticize the man simply because he is president? Is he a king? Or is he an elected representative of the people?
electroman076, it's so nice to find someone with a brain! Thanks for joining the discussion.
Yes, we need to stop "beating around the Bush" (pardon the pun) and start calling these people out for what they are. They are criminals! War criminals, traitors and thieves. That is what we are dealing with.
Un-Constitutional, anti-American, murderous, lying, globalist, progressive, war criminal trash!
You might be right because I don't keep up with politics that much (I'm a MSPH candidate so I deal with science just a bit more lol). If you can truly tell me what Obama said wrong & if I find out myself the same...then ok. But regardless the man doesn't get much respect in my opinion...& YES I do personally believe it has something to do with his race. You can say it's not but be real about what kind of world we still live in...we've come a long way but still have far to go & THAT is TRUTH
babyboy, grow a brain. It has nothing to do with race. Bush was a war criminal. Obama is a war criminal. We have to stop letting these criminals divide US THE PEOPLE over race and other petty issues while they send US off into illegal wars, while they tax US to the hilt and while they destroy our economy and Constitution.
These people in DC - not just Obama - are all crooks. Understand that.
Limitations against unions making donations were also lifted same by the Supreme Court decision. Shareholders have part ownership, and therefore some say in what the corporations do. Union members pay dues to an organization that does whatever it wants regardless of what its members want.
A large number of small businesses, whom Obama CLAIMS to represent, are corporations as well. "Corporation" has just become a buzz word for the democrats to demonize their opponents.
How many small businesses do you know of that can afford to hire on new employees, let alone contribute enough cash to not have their opinions drowned out by major conglomerates?
Common sense dictates that an individual who holds stock in a company will be more concerned about that company's financial returns than he or she will be about their own moral values. Business is business, and finance was just officially bumped above democratic ideals...
Speak for yourself on values. Even people who don't own stock in a co can push it in one direction by a boycott. Can we do that with unions?
One or two small businesses alone can't fight the donations from the big businesses, but small biz associations can, unless card check passes, completely killing already ailing small businesses.
As for big businesses, Obama voted for the bailout. The blame is bi-partisan. I was against the bailout, regardless of who passed it.
Oh yeah, big corporations should be able to front as much cash as they want to sway public opinion of political campaigns. What, you don't like it? Hey, it's a free country, match their bets... we've all got a spare million bucks here or there, don't we?
I feel it rather appropriate to ask those who support this Supreme Court Ruling just what country they think they live in, or what planet for that matter. This is not free speech, this is a hostile takeover of our nation's political process...
Wow,I guess President Obama was right. The word of the year is SuperPac, the organization that can raise unlimited money and sway elections to their cause by running smear campaigns without any oversight.
emedero 3 days ago
God I despise you tea bagging faggots. Can't wait to see you a-holes have to suck it up and vote for Romney and his cult religion. You traitors really do want to see America destroyed. Yer all fags.
parkplace6677 2 months ago
Blonde lady leans forward to look at Alito shake his head, like she knew he would.
savedbychrist666 5 months ago
Who cares what you believe Obummer?
Time for some CHANGE.
txsray1 6 months ago
Obama the BLITHERING IODIOT . You got , he is the great devider .
7216sp 7 months ago
Obama and Holder get an F on their knowledge of the Constitution.
mikepiazza 9 months ago
looks like Alito says "no way, not true"
s37d 1 year ago
What can you expect from a Justice that attends political fundraisers and hangs out with the likes of Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, hedge fund millionaires; any doubt who pushed the Citizens United decision? Not that we should expect the Corporate media to do some serious journalism about this blatant conflict of interest!
introduire 1 year ago
Judge Alito has just made a good decision. If he cannot be judicial enough to sit through a political speech without communicating his feelings (through his expressions and mouthed words), he should not attend. (It seems the other justices knew the proper behavior at a State of the Union and only one congressman shouted during the speech.)
SSArcher11 1 year ago
@SSArcher11 /watch?v=ARV_eHsyaHo
The State of the Union has become a political pep rally, the Supreme Court shouldn't even waste its time attending. I'm glad Alito did that. He shouldn't be restrained while the hundreds of surrounding "representatives" join in the political bullshit.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
Forget the head shake, what about the middle finger the court just jammed in everyone's ass?
MoJoSB 1 year ago 3
@MoJoSB
what middle finger? freedom of speech?
oh btw, barrack received foreign contributions for his campaign. look it up.
BeyondLame 1 year ago
@BeyondLame If you are happy NEVER EVER NEVER having a say in who gets elected again, then I'm sure you are happy with huge mega corporations that have no ones interest in mind, OTHER THAN THERE OWN deciding our electrics for us.
I guess they should have freedom of speech, where are our voices should be drowned out by piles of money.
This isn't a dem or rep thing my friend... This is a money thing.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
tis a shame the supreme court bowed to special interests. and if you disagree with someone telling them why is not rude but honest
nsdtr01 1 year ago
Obama knew somebody cured of being gay!Call 1-888-264-0877 for a genuine homosexual cure!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 The book Obama:Why Black America Should Have Doubts (at amazon) showed this of Obama! And the book Ted Kennedy:The Early Years showed he got Kennedy help in getting elected! That book is also at amazon!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
LOL, my A.P. U.S. History teacher makes jokes about this all the time
boettcherownzu 1 year ago
"take back our country". Do you know where this phrase originated, and how it got into your head, and are now regurgitating online? Faux news. And i wonder who you're taking it back from, and how you conceptualize that you lost it in the first place. Presidents, and all elected officials, are just representative voice of masses that elected them. They are elected because the electing body, we the people, see in them what we would like to play out in our country.
avatarpbst 1 year ago
Priceless!
Justice Ginsburg looks like she needs to retire soon (No disrespect to her).
VanWADebbie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with the President's criticism, but I ask--If Mr. Obama really wants to reduce corporate influence in government, then why doesn't he propose a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics? The truth is that he benefits just as much as everyone else from special interest money. He is all rhetoric and no action!
wbaltzley 1 year ago
So let's get this straight it is ok for the whole entire Democratic Caucus to boo President Bush when he mentions social security reform but Joe Wilson cannot call out President Obama for a flat out lieillegals get social security medicare & medicaid what would stop them from getting benefits under Obama's new entitlement program?It is also ok for Obama to criticize the supreme court for acutally ruling on what is in the Constitution not on the liberal wish list of laws that are "good for you"
danmol78 1 year ago
How the heck did we come in this forum about what Obama said in refrence to the Supreme court to talking about dang IRAQ? Thats all rep. want to bring up is stupid war. The one thing they are good at lol
gbaypack10 1 year ago
This was so rude of our president to say this with the people he's talking about sitting right in front of him! I believe this really shows what kind of a man Obama really is! This is a big red flag to me & I am really starting to pay attention. In other words, I'm thinking that it is time to take back our country!!
dedebiren 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is worse than rude. It is threatening the checks and balances of the US!
Obama is actually saying: "Any part of the consitution I don't like, I will fight. I do not support the separation of power and the check and balances".
This shouldn't surprise anyone though; Obama trying to take make United States of America into United Socialists of America.
He just wants more power, like Hugo Chavez.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@dedebiren You "closeted" Tea Baggers kill me. We see right through your BullShit, so get a Life!!
San47di1 1 year ago
@San47di1 Not in the closet, baby. Tell me, what do you see that I haven't already said!!
dedebiren 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dedebiren Forget the head shake, what about the middle finger the court just jammed in everyone's ass?
torque122 1 year ago
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article and television show. They could even censor our posts on YouTube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
meadbert 1 year ago
You tube states what is posted is not the opinion of the company but that of individuals.
What newspapers are supposed to do is report facts, they don't so they should be regulated, the biggest offenders of all being Fixnews.
To say what these corpses in the Supreme court did is just is beyond me.
lamrof 1 year ago
The same Supreme court who gave us Bush the puppet is at it again. Republicans want one thing, power and money to the rich, poverty and powerlessness to the middle class. I don't think republicans care if this country goes down the gutter if it means they get their power.
lamrof 1 year ago
aaa
whiskeyspray 1 year ago
this action only puts us one step closer to the inevitable.
jtack19791 1 year ago
Alito, Roberts and the other neocon Supremes have tried to use the first amendment to repeal restrictions on Corporate funding. The Tillman Act and related law does not abridge CONTENT of Corporate speech. Repealing these laws is dangerous. Do you want Saudi Aramco Corporate oil money funding our federal campaigns? Wasn't it enough that the Saudis funded 9/11? Maybe you prefer Chinese corporate money. This ruling was pure politics - and bad politics at that.
WakeUpAmerican000s 1 year ago
thumbs up @ WakeUp...
NYCBostero 1 year ago
Ah, its okay. I shook my head when Alito was confirmed.
MrCallipygous 2 years ago
That is so unpresidential. To insult these judges when they are not in a position where they can defend themselves whilst they are sitting right in front of Obama.
Obama is actually saying: "Any part of the consitution I don't like, I will fight. I do not support the separation of power and the check and balances".
This shouldn't surprise anyone though; Obama trying to take make United States of America into United Socialists of America.
He just wants more power, like Hugo Chavez.
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
What about the Bush Doctrine??
NYCBostero 2 years ago
If that is all the left-wingerscan come up with, look at Bush, he was also ignoring the constitution, you have got a serious problem.
But it doesn't really matter what I try to convince you of now. You will wake up in November. The Democratic Party will be destroyed. This will be better than November 1994.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago 2
It's not ALL we can come up with...TRUST us. We've got PLENTY on that idiot.
Destroyed? We'll see. ;)
NYCBostero 1 year ago
Yes. We will see.
Who is "that idiot"?
Are you unable to see that it is a problem that the American President is turning supreme court judges into political figures as if the supreme court judges were up for election?
Obama's handling of this situation seriously violates the checks and balances and the partitioning of government power. That is why it is unpresidential.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
Save the "unpresidential" crap for the morons that don't know better. Obama is 10000 times more President than Bush ever was. This was a HORRIBLE ruling. How do campaigns now NOT become corporate sponsored? You kidding me? Obama was DEAD ON to telling it to their FACE.
Save the "that is why it is unpresidential" crap for you and your buddies. I'm sure they all nod their head to the nonsense you spew.
NYCBostero 1 year ago
It would have been interesting if you were actually willing to discuss my points but I see that you are only able to spew out hateful propaganda and unfounded claims, like Obama being more presidential than Bush. I was, if you read my post again, capable of explaining why Obama is both unpresidential and unconstitutional.
You don't seem to be able to even discuss my claims. Are you?
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
I DO have them, but it's not something that I'm willing to discuss on a Youtube comments page. At least I have a peace of mind that my President now isn't a moron who goes around saying "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
NYCBostero 1 year ago
Why not discuss them on a YouTube page? I can actually be done.
No. You do not have President who said "Mission accomplished" about Iraq in 2003. But you do have a President who was vehemently opposing the troop surge which made Iraq a whole deal safer.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
Made it safer? To who?!?! Oh yea, that's right, he found the WMD's so now we're a safer nation for it. I forgot about that.
If you actually are one of those people that justifies the Iraq war, then I can tell you're clueless and REALLY can't spend my time with you.
NYCBostero 1 year ago
So you do not think that Iraq was made safer by the surge? You would be the first one I have ever discussed this with who would challenge that view.
And yes. I do believe the Iraq war had a lot of positive results.
To whom, not who.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
Do you think we went into Iraq to "make it safer"? Do you think we went in for the goodwill of the Iraqi citizens?
NYCBostero 1 year ago
hahahaha! you punked NYCBostero's ASS!
BUCKWHEATOBAMA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**** FOX NEWS ALERT *****
Pres. Obama dominated the Republican caucus in Baltimore and the cowards at FOX News stopped airing it. Fair and Balanced? When are conservatives going to regain their dignity and admit that they are being manipulated? It takes no intellect to be sheep.
New FOX News slogan. - We report (when it fits our directive), you decide.
wellyuneednt 2 years ago
obama is an asshole. how much money was in his campaign folder? doesn't he go to mexico to give them progress reports on immigration.
how many houses does john mccain own?
congress and the president are one big fucking joke.
mrmassage 2 years ago
They sit there as guilty as hell. Probably because they been paid off and thinking....piss on everyone else.
spareaxe 2 years ago
Isn't obvious BHO isn't a leader?
He is still a community organizer and a bad one at that.
Here is to your hoax and change!
bkdmd 2 years ago
The supreme court did fuck us over pretty bad...
Hopefully, we can repeal this hideous act of corporate tyranny....
Fuck Alito.
treid100182 2 years ago
Alito was one of the Justices who decided corporations should be allowed to get into politics as much as they want and basically buy off our government.
Fuck Alito.
A86 2 years ago
how about corporations such as MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times...
they are in politics every second and trying to tell you how to think!!!
i give a small as fuck what CBS or NBC says about politics as colonel fuckin sanders.
obama is an ass puppet commie clown.
go community organize in kenya cocksucker
ugotpimp 2 years ago
OBAMA: "...last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..."
For anyone interested in the TRUTH, just read the text of the actual decision.
The court reversed or altered ONLY TWO previous decisions:
(1) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
(2) McConnell v. FEC (2003)
This rolls us back to... a 1976 precedent! (Buckley v. Valeo).
SINCE WHEN do decisions from 1990 and 2003 equal "a century of law"???
Is Obama stupid, or is he just a BALDFACED LIAR?
I opt for the latter.
UncleIrv 2 years ago 2
Deaths*Lobby
Welcome my friend to the lobby that never mends,
Credit and debt, corporate agendas always met,
Consumer, taxpayer and citizens pay our bills, while the environment suffers the road kill,
Airways, waterways, public health, trash it all to build our wealth,
Welcome my friend to the power and greed which rapes your future, to fulfill our lobbyist needs,
As we ship your jobs overseas, Country bleeds through halfway measures and legislative misdeeds.
Unite the C.H.A.O.S.
PeaceProfit 2 years ago
The Supreme Court should be pistol whipped for that shit.
crazypaul34 2 years ago
Great the GOV hellbent on power, the CORPs hellbent on the GOVs power. What sucks is these two entities become immensely more sophisticated and ever more curious (GOOGLE) about us, while we try to play catchup.
mbenall3 2 years ago
There is no way the Framers of the Constitution could possibly have forseen the corruptible influence that these profit-driven, monolithic corporations would have on society. It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution in the context of the age in which we live.
coltrane1972 2 years ago
And so what if Obama did this? It's every person of sound mind's duty, to call out on bullshit, when they see it happen.
The marrying of state and corporation is just wrong and it's actually what defines fascism - something that conservatives oddly enough associate with Obama. Stupid people.
quiescency 2 years ago
Allowing a corp it's rights according to the Constitution is not a marrying of state and corp. It's what our Constitution says must be done under the freedom of speech. Do you know subscribe to the laws of the Constitution?
iprazhm 2 years ago
Agreed. Most people use terms in which they know not the meaning. Good comment.
kegyota 2 years ago
If I can recall, Reagan has actually attacked the Supreme Court regarding their ruling in Roe v. Wade before.
quiescency 2 years ago
vampires, thats all they are
TookYerJob1 2 years ago
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
"It is an interesting question 'who' is even speaking when a business corporation places an advertisement that endorses or attacks a particular candidate. Presumably it is not the customers or employees, who typically have no say in such matters. It cannot realistically be said to be the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political preferences may be opaque ..."
substanti8 2 years ago 2
"... to management. Perhaps the officers or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal ends. Some individuals associated with the corporation must make the decision to place the ad, but the idea that these individuals are thereby fostering their self-expression or cultivating their critical faculties is fanciful." -- Justice Stevens (Section IV, Part 1, paragraph 4)
substanti8 2 years ago 2
@substanti8
Well, by what you posted, we are on the same page. I was (in more basic terms) making that point in the excerpt you posted. Corporations are not individuals, ans as such, should not be protected as such under the constitution.
Why were we arguing again?
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
IT IS THE DUTY of the Supreme Court Justices to act OBJECTIVELY, without emotion and without political motivation. Hence why the Justices never publicly show emotion or reaction to anything a President says in his State of the Union or other speeches. It's etiquette.
Justice Alito, in this instance, reveals his inability to contain himself and his lack of self-control... which reflects how he also lets these same traits effect his decisions and his DUTY as a Supreme Court Justice. Incompetent
sesamestreetgang 2 years ago
It's all about interpretation. What did the men who started this amazing North American experiment intend? The rights of Man and freedom from tyranny (both governmental and commercial) are the big ones. As diverse and contentious as the group was, the constitution and eventually the bill of rights affirmed at least this much. It all went down on paper and reason won the day. Of , by, and for the people; not the corporations. This decision mocks the entire philosophy.
timpipe 2 years ago
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech,' [quoting Scalia]. If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections ..."
substanti8 2 years ago 2
"... apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1)
substanti8 2 years ago 5
@sesamestreetgang Good for Justice Alito. Until Obama changes things, there is still freedom of speech and expression in this country. I am amazed people are taking him to task. Good for Alito to stand for the truth. You don't listen to outright lies and not express emotion. Good for him and shame on you and your ilk.
abata15 2 years ago
Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation. Gosh, that has a ring to it!
timpipe 2 years ago
@timpipe Of the labor union, by the labor union, for the labor union. Same thing.
abata15 2 years ago
The scotus has a DUTY to act OBJECTIVELY in their decision making in interpreting the law. They have no such duty or public responsibilty to withhold responce to the Pres, an elected official, publically lying about their character or what the Constitution actually says, which is what he did. It isn't the President's interpretation of the constitution that stands as final judge, but the scotus', it's their job. BUT IT IS THE PRES JOB to respect and obey the Constitution, he does neither.
iprazhm 2 years ago
@substati8 The scotus did give corporations the same rights as an individual though. This means they can be sued, face criminal charges, etc.
@AndrewDeLong your argument is completely asinine. Maybe take a debate class in that university you're going to? You're just not understanding that had the scotus not made this decision, it would upset a balance, on top of being unconstitutional.
MarsAttacks2035 2 years ago
@MarsAttacks
You didn't answer my questions.
substanti8 2 years ago
Obama's finally doing what his constituints wanted him to do. Screw bipartishinship and do everyhting in his power to crush the republican/conservitive agenda with an iron fist. He was elected on a liberal platform by a electorate largly made up of young liberals. Why oh why did he blow the first six months pandering to the party whose very presence was the reason his constituints got out the vote inthe first place? His new Iron rod angle is clearly pleasing more Americans than bipartishanship.
ewhssucks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama sickens me. How pious of him to use that mightly platform loaned to him, to butcher the U.S. Constitution. His mindless minions also sicken me by supposing no one can publically challange the 'chosen one' but he can publically attempt to tarnish the character and decisions of opposing U.S. leaders. He only added another layer of thorns between constituion loving Americans and himself.
iprazhm 2 years ago
The level of utter ignorance festering in these comments is laughable. It's so obvious how many people here just talk out their ass and act like they "know the facts" and "know the truth", and yet it's ALL emotionally-based talking-point rhetorical bullshit.
You guys are so desperate to hate. It's shameful. You want to HATE Obama because your own lives are empty and you believe propaganda masters. You want to HATE the SC, you want to HATE it all. So go on, keep spouting your imbecilic nonsense.
Circumvenscion 2 years ago
@Circumvenscion
YouTube has long been a haven for anonymous, jaw-dropping ignorance and bigotry.
Regarding the SC decision, the salient point is this: The ruling allows unlimited corporate expenditures on campaign advertising. Direct contributions to candidates are still illegal, but that's mostly irrelevant, because corporations can now flood the airwaves on behalf of their chosen candidates.
The ignored solution is to reclaim the public airwaves for the public interest.
substanti8 2 years ago
@substanti8
Agreed. Well said.
Circumvenscion 2 years ago
Yup.
timpipe 2 years ago
I beleive the scotus made the right decision for now. Until we can cap ALL donations to campaigns you cant just limit select people. thats unconstitutional.
MarsAttacks2035 2 years ago 3
@MarsAttacks2035
So wait...lemme get this right.
Your saying that until we get rid of the problem altogether, we should just make it even bigger than it already was?
Because in effect, that is what you just said.
Yeah, idiocy....CON-FUCKING-FIRMED!
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Comment removed
MarsAttacks2035 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ AndrewDeLong
you're obviously not smart enough to understand what im saying. Maybe you should go down to your community college and take a political science class? just a thought.
MarsAttacks2035 2 years ago
@MarsAttacks2035
Oh, so you want me to take a step back from the State University I'm in, GO BACK to the community college I graduated from, and take my 4th poli-sci class (and get a 4th A+ therefore) just because you wanted to challenge me by defending your idiotic statement?
Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. Add a logic class while you're at it.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Let me clarify though...
A special interest group, UNLIKE a corporation, is comprised completely of people who are on the same page about a particular issue. A corporation however, only displays the viewpoints of those who run it, excluding all other viewpoints within the corporation which are below that level. In effect, the corporation is using the combined power of everyone within it, regardless of their actual positions. Tell me again, how is THAT constitutional?
Yeah, thought so.....
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
"Tell me again, how is THAT constitutional?"
Exactly. See the Stevens dissent -- where he rips apart the majority opinion.
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
I'll post an excerpt in another message.
substanti8 2 years ago
@MarsAttacks
"you cant just limit select people."
Why do you support the idea that corporate entities (created by charter with the state) should have the same rights as actual people?
In the oral arguments for this case, Justice Ginsburg said, "A corporation is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights."
Why do you disagree? Since the "creator" of a corporation is the government, the opinion of Justice Kennedy regards the government like a God. Why are you OK with that?
substanti8 2 years ago
Why did Obama take a cheap shot at the SC you ask?
Because of all the things Obama wants to jam down our throats he and Democrats are, grasping at straws really, now trying to get us to think about the steps to remove a justice.
Bottom line, Obama if you want to remove life-term SC justices b/c they differ with you on certain subjects, of which you don't fully understand, than you really are the Hitler that the extremists have labeled you to be
...now go actually do something of value.
honesttalk12 2 years ago
Ironic that Obama is called fascist when the Supreme Court has moved this country ever closer to Mussolini's definition of fascism - the marriage of corporation and state. Jefferson (and many of his compatriots) understood the dangers of corporate influence. Corporations are not people and Obama (with whom I do not always agree) as a former Constitutional Law professor has every right to criticize the court. This decision ushers in an era of more modern feudalism. We the Corporations...
timpipe 2 years ago
I agree with you, but had the scotus not made this decision interest groups would be the ones donating as much money as they wanted to candidates and corporations would be left unable to retaliate. For example, an enviromental group donates millions to a left wing liberal candidiate, while exxon mobile is left unable to endorse their candidate who better serves their interests.
MarsAttacks2035 2 years ago
The dam has cracks, but that does not mean removing it is by any means a solution. Environmental groups and corporations are completely different entities with different goals and frankly probably should have different status. It would be interesting to see what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about it (he probably said plenty; I'll have to read some more).
timpipe 2 years ago 3
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I couldn't agree more. These stupid imbecilic Republicans will do anything to make themselves look good when the Republican stacked Supreme Court reversed law that kept huge corporations at bay. SHAME!
philip0460 2 years ago
@honesttalk12
A cheap shot? Please! Even republicans disagree with this SC decision. Those five idiots that we call justices effectively just handed the financial reigns over to whichever corporation that is willing to spend the most. the 2008 Presidential election broke records with the campaign spending...
Prepare to see that dwarfed in future elections.
You don't have to agree with Obama on everything...but come on, this is common fucking sense we're talking about.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Bring back McCain-Feingold. I thought this was suppose to be bipartisan.
But I guess a Bush-appointed judge just can't keep himself from the dollar dollar bills. Republican's supports for corporations have always been obvious. Recall the K Street Project.
diapasonify 2 years ago
Obama does NOT control congress or scotus!
He was WAY OUT OF LINE!
HollyTNUSA 2 years ago
so the president can instruct the congress to go around the supreme court on national TV and no one thinks thats bad? so much for check and balances
TheStrazy 2 years ago
obama just signed his death warrant. now you know not only attacking the judges, but doing it at the state of the union is only gonna make them all say everything he or is congress pass void. Very stupid obama, but yet again,you tell our enemys when we are leaving, so what would we expect.
pfriverrat 2 years ago
The fantastic 5 allowed corporations to go crazy in giving money to politicians. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. Corporations are not people! If they are, can we divorce them? Do they have feelings? Obama simply told the truth...that this ruling stinks. The Supreme Court screwed us over in 2000 so they could screw us over again in 2010. Thanks guys. Now way should any of them, liberal or conservative, have lifetime appointments. They should be there 10 years at most.
MorganKrista1 2 years ago
Believe it or not Corporations are, in fact, treated as a "person" Legally. Most people are not at all aware of the legal clout given to corporations. See a video I have on my channel called "The Corporation". You'll see what I mean. It's well worth watching.
sonygvf 2 years ago
why are they so upset both sides republicans and democrats alike ?, the supreme court has now made it possible for a true 3rd party with enough funds and backing to challenge the democrats and republicans strangle hold of the white house.
xiola6969 2 years ago
I am firm believer the supreme court the stewards of the constitution are more of an authority than these slime ball politicians. That's why they are appointed for life not 4 years. Tisk-Tisk being a lawyer of constitutional law i expected more from you obama you should fully understand the separations of powers and the three branches of government separate but equal
xiola6969 2 years ago
you have no business challenging the courts decisions upholding our constitution, think of any other president in history that has opening disrespected the wisdom of the supreme court like that ? Maybe its become a game of squabble till you lie and cheat till you get what you want in Washington but not on the supreme court shut your mouth. -10 points for Obama
xiola6969 2 years ago
On top of what you stated xiola6969, this is the ONLY president to directly mock The Supreme Court in a State of the Union speech.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
You're an idiot. Every branch of the government has business in challenging one another. That's the beauty of it. Separate but equal. You want to silence the executive branch?
diapasonify 2 years ago
Comment removed
xiola6969 2 years ago
@xiola6969
yup, and for the last 30 years our presidents have been puppets for the Bilderberg group, CFR, and Trilateral Commission.
funkmasterfive 2 years ago
Comment removed
xiola6969 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bush=Obama
Obama=Bush
Google search: Bilderberg group.
In 2006 Daniel Estulin and James Tucker were able to predict the imfamous gas spike of 2008 and the following housing collapse thanks to leaked information from the 2006 Bilderberg conference. The proof is on youtube, look for "Endgame"
funkmasterfive 2 years ago
"Due difference to separation of powers" would not include an open political attack by the President on the Supreme Court. Obama is completely out of line. He politicizes the one branch of government that should be completely separate from public or political will. His actions are poisonous and dangerous.
The only saving grace is that his arrogant tongue lashing means nothing - the court has no responsibility to the will of the President, Congress, or even the people.
FAHayek89 2 years ago 2
I personally talk about Bush because he was the president BEFORE Obama...the one that started the war in Iraq which has hindered our country in a sense as far as economy goes...once again if I'm wrong please help me see it but chill out...it's not that crucial. Oh btw...I just mentioned what Bush did to damage our economy in the previous sentence. Question: did Bush do anything as far as taxes go while in office?? Like seriously I want to know what you know
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Bro chill out!! When did I say that this was about race?!? I was continuing my comment about my education & what I'm pursuing you ass!!
Yes I do remember when people called Bush dumb...because he WAS DUMB!!! Now monkey was taking it far but still he made retarded decisions. Don't assume that I'm uneducated because YOU made an assumption on one of my comments...makes you look like the ass dude. Ok thank you for the clarification about CONGRESSMAN Wilson lol
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Furthermore it's disparities among African-Americans...know anything about that my friend??
And you seriously just asked me that question?! Correct me if I'm wrong please...but wasn't the Senate member who shouted out last year "YOU LIE" a Republican?!? Yeeaaaah I'm pretty sure that was disrespectful. Hmmm...so he cares about power but issues emergency funds to Haiti IMMEDIATELY...but when Katrina hit, it took Bush how many days to send help...mind you this was in our OWN country?? Thank you
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Ok, now it's about race? Do you remember when everyone called Bush dumb? A monkey? You are the most uneducated fool I've ever encountered. Joe Wilson is a Congressman, not a Senator.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
Inky...name one thing that Bush did to help this country!! And you're telling me that you've read & fully understood the Stimulus bill?? Granted unemployment is pretty high but I don't see how it's Obama fault considering he's only been in office for a year!! Actions taken by the Bush admini caused our economy to go down the drain before Obama came in. Oh I got an education believe that it's just not in politics...I'm dealing with health disparities.
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Why do you liberals constantly talk about Bush? Bush is not president anymore. You sound like I'm Bush's keeper. You STILL can't find ONE specific thing that Bush did to damage our economy. It was the Democrats that have been in power, not the Republicans. I can tell you didn't get an ecucation in politics, that's very obvious. Yes, I have read the stimulus bill. Why don't you try it? Maybe if you would stop watching CNN all day, You might learn something!
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
It is sad that the recent ruling can undo all the campaign finance reform put in place the last hundred years, including the McCain-Feingold bill.
The idea that elections should be decided by who has the most money to spend is plain wrong. Or that a senator who votes the wrong way will be the victim of biased ads paid for by the displeased corporation or foreign country affected by the legislation.
sophiemarie49 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..."
For anyone interested in the TRUTH you can read the text of the actual decision. The court reversed or altered ONLY TWO previous decisions:
(1) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
(2) McConnell v. FEC (2003)
This rolls us back to the previous precedent set in... 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo).
SINCE WHEN do decisions from 1990 and 2003 equal "a century of law"?
Is Obama stupid, or is he just a LIAR?
I opt for the latter.
UncleIrv 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calling All Patriots and Truthseekers!!
Please Visit:
theconspiracyexposed.blogspot. (com)
barquedust 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ electroman076...I never said it was ok with me...had you read the beginning of my message you would've seen that...but seeing how you're blinded by whatever ignorance you have it's evident you didn't understand what I said. Like I said waaay earlier...too sad
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Circumvenscion...THANK YOU for ya comments! I guarantee some of these people are really just 12-year old kids with nothing better to do lol I could be wrong but who knows.
@inkydinkydooky Obama is nowhere NEAR like Bush! The only reason those numbers are up under Obama's name is because of the actions that Bush took like the year or two before he had to leave office! If I'm wrong then please prove it (I don't like sounding stupid about politics). If I'm right though...sit down & shut up bro
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Can you explain tome babyboy4PV what actions Bush took "the year or two before he left office" to increase the budget deficit? The reason the numbers are up is because your buddy is spending money we don't have. Do you write checks with money you don't have? Sounds like You'll be apologizing another year from now for this guy.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
I asked you to help me see the actions lol seeing how you know oh-so-much about what Obama is doing wrong. Only thing I could think of that increased the budget deficit is Bush continuing a war that at first started out hunting terrorists...but utimately became about getting oil & unnecessarily leaving troops over in a foreign land to try & "run" another country when the U.S. needed to be ran properly. If I'm wrong then lemme know but if I'm right then like I said before...shut ya mouth bro
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
God so many wildly uneducated people on YouTube. All of these 'fringe' positions about Socialism and Obama "hating" the US, and being a 'foreigner' etc etc... you people actually exist? And you spend this much time on YouTube? This is amazing. The pace of intellectual evolution in this country is staggeringly slow sometimes. Propaganda and ignorance are a powerful combination, especially when you're emotionally-based and uninformed. So sad.... Obama is no saint but you people need a damn brain.
Circumvenscion 2 years ago
The pace of intellectual evolution in this country is not staggeringly slow Circumvenscion, just over at your house. What Obama is doing to this country is obvious. It's a shame that You can't, or won't see it.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
@inkydinkydooky it's sad that you're thinking that Obama is doing something "wrong" to this country...if anything he's trying to fix the mess that certain DISRESPECTFUL Republicans caused before he was in office.
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Can you name one thing Obama is doing to help this country babyboy? Is spending money on pig odor research helping? How about Mormon crickets in Utah research? I know you don't know about these things from the Stimulus bill because, YOU HAVEN'T READ IT! Where's the job creation? 6.5% unemployment when Bush left office, now it's 10.2% in this administration? Obama as tripled the deficit in only one year! Is that Bush's fault too? Get yourself an education.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
Forgot to ask you who the certain "DISRESPECTFUL" Rebublicans are babyboy? Disrespectful? If you think this fool of a president cares one bit about You, You are badly mistaken. He careS about one thing, POWER!!!!!!!!!!
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
I beg ALL conservative consitution loving justices to watch your back while BoBo is in office. This country cannot afford another Sotomayor nomination as a replacement to a conservative justice. Alito is awesome.
stvns78 2 years ago
Love it! Alito's dismissive head shake and "not true" mouthing showed, what I though to be a classy response to a President who decided to chide the highest judges in the land like they were kids in a classroom. Sen. Feingold be damned.
TheNOBAMA2012 2 years ago
OMG....Oh no he didn't just mouth off to our President! That's just soooooo disrespectful and unpatriotic to sit in front of the leader of the free world and call him a liar! I think Alito should resign immediately.
dangzh24 2 years ago
Obama is a liar many times over. He is an accomplished "wordsmith" nothing more. If anyone really listened to the content of his speeches the doublespeak is very evident. This current statement has already been fact checked by many and is as Justice Alito said "not true". Alito should not resign but read the actual law in question to The People and bring some kind of charge against TOTUS for lying to the public.
aj294 2 years ago
What's unpatriotic dangzh24 is this President telling lie after lie to the American people. He did in Baltimore repeatedly today. Just take a look at what this unqualified, inexperienced and inept person does, day after day.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
@inkydinkydooky
He DESTROYED the GOP in Baltimore today. "Lie after lie"? When will you people stop taking your talking-point medicine and start looking at reality? All you wanna do is "hate" with this phony outrage because it makes you feel better about yourselves and your sad empty lives. Calling someone a liar and ignoring the truth might make you feel good in the short run but it does nothing to solve problems AT ALL. I suppose you think Sarah Palin WAS "qualified", huh? What a joke...
Circumvenscion 2 years ago 2
You people overlook a few things !
Obama was a constituitonal scholar in LAW !
Obama knows what is and is not constitutional !
Yet he attmpts to usurpt and violate it at every turn, its as if he studied it so that he could destroy it !
FACTS...For all you knuckle draggers who will try to dispute this !
Just look up Obama+Constitution on YOU TUBE...
See and hear him for yourself !
THIS MAN HATES THIS COUNTRY!
electroman076 2 years ago
I do think that the war should've stopped a good while ago but there's only so much one man can do...and considering the mess that Bush left, you would think that Obama had an impossible task...but things are getting better each day.
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
What?
So you Illigaly send 30,000 troops to invade and take over a country?
You send death squad bombers into another ?
And this is ok with you?
electroman076 2 years ago
Comment removed
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Mess that Bush left babyboy4PV? Unemployment was 6.5% under Bush, it's 10.2% under Obama. 440 billion budget deficit under Bush, 1.7 trillion under Obama. He's only been in office for one year! This president is Bush on steroids!
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
inky, you've got your facts wrong on Bush's deficit numbers. It was 1.3 trillion dollars when Bush left office. And let's face it, the amount Obama had to spend was in large part a necessity to keep our economy from going into a depression, due to bad Republican policies, and to continue the two wars Bush started, only one of which was necessary.
sophiemarie49 2 years ago
Do you know the difference between The national debt and the the budget deficit sopiemarie49? What are the "bad" Republican policies? Can You name one? You need to think for yourself. Just because Obama said we had to spend money to save us from depression, does not mean it's true. He wants you to believe this.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
inky, there are many examples of harmful Repub policies. Tax cuts for the wealthy they said would stimulate the economy doesn't work. Deregulating banking caused the fiasco we are still struggling with. Every credible economist said we have to spend money to save us from a depression, most said we should spend much more than we did. Our national debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush entered, it jumped to 10 trillion by the time he left, with so much new government spending that is recurring now.
sophiemarie49 2 years ago
You are drinking too much of the Obama Kool-Aid sopiemarie49. "Every credible economist"? Please tell me who they are. You don't understand that spending money we don't have, only increases inflation. Do you write checks with money you don't have? In relation to "tax cuts for the wealthy", who do you think pays 45% of ALL federal income tax? That's right! 2% of America's "wealthy". You are not looking at the big picture. Bush spending does not warrant more.
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
And on ya 2nd post...trust I have a brain...I just know the reality of this country when it comes to race & the sooner you can realize it then the more you won't be oblivious to other things my friend. You seem very intelligent on certain facts but ignorance still makes one look like a fool. Race still plays a factor & that's the flat-out TRUTH...so understand that!
I will agree that we get taxed like a motha & the economy has suffered but it's getting better as we speak too.
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
Ok to ya first post...sure Bush may have been criticized I'll give you that...but my question is this: was it in the same manner that Obama has gotten from people in his own country?!? Ok so Bush got a couple of shoes thrown at him in a different country but I don't recall if Bush got called out during one of his many NATIONALLY TELEVISED SPEECHES lol that's why this vid was posted bro! I never said not to criticize the man; he's not perfect by any means...but there's a proper way to criticize
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
there are two kinds of criticsm...constructive and destructive...what Obama did say was lack of details about the contribution and that makes Alito shaked his head. Obama get your fact first before you say the words...Get it...
ambay1164 2 years ago
A # of Presidents have bashed the Supreme Court & its decisions in the past.
Hello -- THAT'S WHY THE BRANCHES ARE CALLED SEPARATE!
DillonX 2 years ago 2
hateful liberal pushing a racist agenda on other dark skinned Negroes. thank god im light skinned!!
TonyCook2012 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
death to america
KhyberBoy09 2 years ago
Never before has a President bashed the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. Just like Richard Nixon, poor Obama has so many enemies. He's against the Supreme Court, Big Business making profits, Fox News, Big Oil, private citizens making big profits, Wall Street making big profits, Banks, and non-Govt controlled Healthcare just to name a few. Oh, but he's all for giving Terrorists who try to blow up planes full of Americans constitutional rights after 15 minutes of questioning.
colderbeer 2 years ago
FDR did, retard.
loonmaniac 2 years ago
No, FDR never bashed the Court in his State of the Union addresses. Back to the drawing board, eh? Your hero Urkel is the first....so much for trying to re-write history, eh?
colderbeer 2 years ago
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.
Got it, asshole?
loonmaniac 2 years ago 2
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.
loonmaniac 2 years ago 2
@colderbeer I may not know if or when a former President has "bashed" the Supreme Court before...but if I'm not mistaken...this is the first President that has dealt with openly obvious disrespect in not one but TWO of his NATIONALLY TELEVISED speeches! Was it a Senate member or somebody who rudely interrupted Obama last year, shouting out "YOU LIE?" And now Justice Alito...all because Obama is basically telling more truth than what certain people wanna hear. So sad....
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
babyboy, the point is that Obama is wrong on the facts. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has no right to restrict freedom of speech of US citizens be they in groups or as individuals. The specifically rule out contributions from foreign corporations. Obama is standing here as a bully and a hypocrite. His entire campaign was funded by "special interests" like Goldman Sachs whose former employees now fill his cabinet! Just like Bush. Obama is a lying hypocrite.
PresidenteCamacho 2 years ago
@PresidenteCamacho: 1st off....how dare you compare Obama (who came into a position which now he has to "fix" the problems created by the former president) to Bush...who clearly didn't help America as a whole (I mean from lower to upper class). MY point is if I'm not mistaken he's the 1ST PRESIDENT who's endured disrespect like this when he speaks!! Did anybody shout out "YOU LIE" to Bush when he said something completely false...I don't think so. False statements or not give the man respect
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
babyboy, you have got to be kidding me, right? I hate Bush, OK, let's get that straight but he was criticized plenty during his presidency and disrespected all the time as he should have been because he is a war criminal!
Obama too is a war criminal. He has taken on Bush's wars and expanded them. He continues the same crimes against humanity as Bush. Are we supposed to not criticize the man simply because he is president? Is he a king? Or is he an elected representative of the people?
PresidenteCamacho 2 years ago
Exactly Camacho,
If by the judgement of people like babyboy Bush was a war criminal, then so is Obama....
And I agree!
If invading Iraq is a war crime then, so is invading Afghanistan with 30,000 troops !
How about all the bombing Obama is doing with his death squads and their preadator drones in PAKISTANS...
It has been doccumented by the AP and others Obamas Drones have KILLED I NNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN PAKISTAN !
electroman076 2 years ago
electroman076, it's so nice to find someone with a brain! Thanks for joining the discussion.
Yes, we need to stop "beating around the Bush" (pardon the pun) and start calling these people out for what they are. They are criminals! War criminals, traitors and thieves. That is what we are dealing with.
Un-Constitutional, anti-American, murderous, lying, globalist, progressive, war criminal trash!
PresidenteCamacho 2 years ago
You might be right because I don't keep up with politics that much (I'm a MSPH candidate so I deal with science just a bit more lol). If you can truly tell me what Obama said wrong & if I find out myself the same...then ok. But regardless the man doesn't get much respect in my opinion...& YES I do personally believe it has something to do with his race. You can say it's not but be real about what kind of world we still live in...we've come a long way but still have far to go & THAT is TRUTH
babyboy4PV 2 years ago
babyboy, grow a brain. It has nothing to do with race. Bush was a war criminal. Obama is a war criminal. We have to stop letting these criminals divide US THE PEOPLE over race and other petty issues while they send US off into illegal wars, while they tax US to the hilt and while they destroy our economy and Constitution.
These people in DC - not just Obama - are all crooks. Understand that.
PresidenteCamacho 2 years ago
Limitations against unions making donations were also lifted same by the Supreme Court decision. Shareholders have part ownership, and therefore some say in what the corporations do. Union members pay dues to an organization that does whatever it wants regardless of what its members want.
A large number of small businesses, whom Obama CLAIMS to represent, are corporations as well. "Corporation" has just become a buzz word for the democrats to demonize their opponents.
BillMonarch 2 years ago
@BillMonarch
How many small businesses do you know of that can afford to hire on new employees, let alone contribute enough cash to not have their opinions drowned out by major conglomerates?
Common sense dictates that an individual who holds stock in a company will be more concerned about that company's financial returns than he or she will be about their own moral values. Business is business, and finance was just officially bumped above democratic ideals...
berkeleyoverdrive 2 years ago
@berkeleyoverdrive
Speak for yourself on values. Even people who don't own stock in a co can push it in one direction by a boycott. Can we do that with unions?
One or two small businesses alone can't fight the donations from the big businesses, but small biz associations can, unless card check passes, completely killing already ailing small businesses.
As for big businesses, Obama voted for the bailout. The blame is bi-partisan. I was against the bailout, regardless of who passed it.
BillMonarch 2 years ago
Oh yeah, big corporations should be able to front as much cash as they want to sway public opinion of political campaigns. What, you don't like it? Hey, it's a free country, match their bets... we've all got a spare million bucks here or there, don't we?
I feel it rather appropriate to ask those who support this Supreme Court Ruling just what country they think they live in, or what planet for that matter. This is not free speech, this is a hostile takeover of our nation's political process...
berkeleyoverdrive 2 years ago