Thoughts on the S.O.T.U.

Did any one watch the State of the Union?
If so what are your thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
I was encouraged.

I dont think he stated the bailout money was going into high speed rail. I though he said he was going to mark it for small busieness loans to build up small busieness.

KUZI = Time to make the chocolate piggy NATIONAL!!

The was a bunch of same ole rhetoric, but that happens at every one of these no matther who is in office.

I do like the fact that this was the first time I have the President specifically address his GOP counterparts and ask them for their help in a SOTU address.

I LOVE that he called out the Supreme Court for their recent HORRENDOUS decesion. I think we should make a whole thread about this one. Its a big enough topic.

Again, I was encourage and was very encouraged that he still plans on being out of Iraq by the end of his term.

Just to address the Supreme court decision, why was it so horrendous to uphold the constitution? Does freedom of speech not apply to everyone in your vision of our country? Also the SOTU is not the place to call out the Supreme Court for upholding the constitution just because you don't agree with it. If he does disagree with it, then he needs to campaign to amend the Constitution where not everyone is afforded free speech and see how well that goes over.

Also the high speed rail system he spoke of, he said there would be $8 billion spent on this. I don't think he said the amount in the SOTU speech, but it was announced later. This is a good idea? REALLY? Because we have all seen how well a government operated passenger rail system works... Just look at the history of Amtrak.

I think that this is a bit de-railed here.
Well the first paragraph was a reply to your post, but the second half was to an earlier post about what a good idea it is to build a high speed rail system. Yours was just the last post so I quoted you.

Why isnt the SOTU address a good place to address a Supreme court decesion? This was a HISTORICAL ruling overturning a law that has been in place for a long time. What did they just overlook it for the last oh hundred years? So basically you want corporations - Foreing or US based - to be able to control All Advertising surrounding elections? Not a Good Idea!

It may not be a good idea from your point of view, but it IS still freedom of speech. It was never overturned because it was never challenged at that level. The Supreme Court doesn't take on random issues... They must first be challenged. You may not like the ruling, but it is upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. Just like people can advertise against corporations, they should have the same rights. That's what made this country free for hundreds of years.

And Vulchor, it seems more and more like your version of sanity equals oppression and control.

phobicsquirrel

jlzimmerman:
phobicsquirrel:
jlzimmerman:
didn't watch but read the transcripts because:
He preaches like a southern baptist minister
I can't stand looking at Pelosi's face for more than three seconds
I can't deal with all the butt kisses clapping every other sentence (that goes for GOP Presidents too).

Did I read correctly that he wants to take money made from the bailouts and build a high-speed rail system to create jobs? I hope not only for the fact that any money made should be used to pay down debt.

Did he say taxes haven't gone up for the middle class? BS. SCHIP is one of several examples.

Double exports in five years? Huh? How?

Publish earmarks?? Are you kidding, Mr. President? Do you not know that there are over 9000 earmarks in some of the proposed Health Care bills that are on YOUR plate?

And exactly who is calling 2000-2010 "The Lost Decade"? I have never heard this before.

College Tuiton. Did I read that correctly? Pay back 10% of your income max per year, but if you dont pay it off in 20 years its wiped away? What?! What lesson are we teaching here?
lol, I agree she does have a scary face... hehe..
Why doesn't a rail system make sense? China is working on one, France is working on one that will be a hover type rail system that will go some 300plus miles per hour. I think that would be terrific to have a rail system like our highway system through the entire US. Building roads in this country was a huge benefit. Besides paying off debt without improving infrastructure and increase commerce won't do much.
Ship was BS and though I like helping out kids, I also don't like how cigars and pipe tobacco got hit. especially when we are already highly taxed. But basically middle class taxes haven't gone up. In fact we got a cut, I saw it on my checks. About 40ish or so a month. I don't make over 200k so for me I didn't see my taxes go up.

What's wrong with the education incentive? I think it's great. Students need help, real help. Graduating with 40 and up thousand dollars and that kind of debt kills you. my wife has 26 thousand in debt and that is just for going to school and the rat basdards who bought her loan from the place she originally got it from have been raking up interest rates on her, up to 30 percent because she can't pay it off right now, and she graduated last year!!!! So yeah, this is a great thing. And she doesn't make a butt load of money, she had to accept a job making 12.00 bucks an hour and she's got a degree! Best she could get.
Spending money to get out of debt?? Not a good idea. The rail system may not be a bad idea between close cities like those in the northern and mid-atlantic region but chances are it will work in a deficit, especially if .gov is behind it.

I still have school debt too. The point I was making was that we are giving students the option to ignore their debt because it'll be relieved if it isn't paid off in time. The burden is passed to the rest of us. There were something like 6 states that loosened the cap on tuition just days after Obama said he was giving relief to students. Florida's legislature let its tuition go up something like 15% the next day!! I know because I'm looking to enroll my Son into Florida Pre-Pay.

We get screwed one way or another and people are too blind to see it because they're too busy pointing their finger at the Dems or the GOP. Most on Capital Hill work for the same cause, to *** over the American people. And we buy it because they offer it too us like candy. Just like default mortgages. I know people who have bailed on their house because they can get more for much less. And their doing so because they're not being penalized long term for it. The rest of us pick up the slack. It's about accountability. The system doesn't believe in it anymore. Everyone is entitled and nobody needs to be accountable for their actions. THAT'S BULLSHIT! That's how prosperity and independence dies.

I hear ya, but at the same time, many countries have a system where you can get a college education and not be bogged down by debt. The fact is there is way too much profit being made on the expense of united states citizens. Tuition back when say my parents were out of High School wasn't that much, in fact even in the 60's you could work at a restaurant and still have enough to go to school and have a place to live and have some extra money. Now that is so not the case. Sure take out loans or use credit cards but it will catch up to you BIG time. The banks and other institutions that make up our society have really crippled the working folk. It's beyond "their evil" its just absurdity. Thomas Jefferson was a wise man and had many warnings for America and this one is probably one of the most pivital, I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. If you look at how our elections are are run (even more so now or at least from the newly enacted power that the supreme court elected), our legislation is passed, the way we live, and how we act in the world MONEY is at the center and it's really only from a few places. Most of the large business's are connected, such as AIG, BOA, CitiBank, US Bank, Goldman and they hold much influence over our governmental body.
I believe that yes, people should be responsible for their own screw ups and their own lives but when things are staked so much out of their favor and to the select few there needs to be balance. It's just not school fees, it's healthcare (or lack there of if your going to school or hell even if you work), work (if you can find one) and even how much you can get, and how much time you are away from home and family. It all adds up. Most people who choose to go to college, leave with mountains of debt and that's before they even get a job. Some get lucky but most don't especially if you come from a family that makes too much to qualify for assistance but too little to pay for it (insert me). Healthcare is extremely expensive, I just got a 22% increase after the increase last year, and with all of the debt my wife and I have we are really stuck. Sure we're making headway but it's still a lot and we really didn't do anything wrong. Our debt is made up of going to school and using credit to live on since we had no money. If there was a national system set up for healthcare, and schooling or some sort of cap for such services that wouldn't bankrupt people than there wouldn't be such an abundance of people in debt or in bad health. Not to mention a more educated public, which I think is really important. I personally feel it stems from Greed, and it has become embedded in all facets of our lives. I think Obama has done a great job on reaching out to the GOP and even to his own party to work together. I posted a link to his time with the GOP because it seems that many of the people on here like to say that he is lying and not doing what he promised, can't get things done, is too left, was elected by idiots but if you actually watch the video, hell even watched the STOU then look at the GOP. They learn nothing and keep pushing for killing anything that move us out of the hole. Even when Obama extends his hand to them they slap it away. I can't recall any recent president being so open and so into working together, and while having majority's in all branches. I don't like everything this admin is doing, I feel a lot of it is too weak but it's something.
I'm hoping that most Americans, the middle class if you will, will see a bit of recovery this year. I'd like to see people get back to work and it looks like the US has had a 5% or so growth in GDP which is fantastic. I think things are moving but a lot needs to be done to make sure it stays out of the ditch. People need to be able to have secure jobs and have their money secure. It's not going to happen unless there are laws in place and structure to over-see it. I hope we grow manufacturing and invest more than the Chinese in developing new technologies but sadly compared to what we are pumping in these ventures pale in comparison. If people are bogged down by huge debt and live to where they are always scrambling to just make it by, then we as a society lose, and lose big. Education is what keeps the true strong, strong.

phobicsquirrel

PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
I was encouraged.

I dont think he stated the bailout money was going into high speed rail. I though he said he was going to mark it for small busieness loans to build up small busieness.

KUZI = Time to make the chocolate piggy NATIONAL!!

The was a bunch of same ole rhetoric, but that happens at every one of these no matther who is in office.

I do like the fact that this was the first time I have the President specifically address his GOP counterparts and ask them for their help in a SOTU address.

I LOVE that he called out the Supreme Court for their recent HORRENDOUS decesion. I think we should make a whole thread about this one. Its a big enough topic.

Again, I was encourage and was very encouraged that he still plans on being out of Iraq by the end of his term.

Just to address the Supreme court decision, why was it so horrendous to uphold the constitution? Does freedom of speech not apply to everyone in your vision of our country? Also the SOTU is not the place to call out the Supreme Court for upholding the constitution just because you don't agree with it. If he does disagree with it, then he needs to campaign to amend the Constitution where not everyone is afforded free speech and see how well that goes over.

Also the high speed rail system he spoke of, he said there would be $8 billion spent on this. I don't think he said the amount in the SOTU speech, but it was announced later. This is a good idea? REALLY? Because we have all seen how well a government operated passenger rail system works... Just look at the history of Amtrak.

I think that this is a bit de-railed here.
Well the first paragraph was a reply to your post, but the second half was to an earlier post about what a good idea it is to build a high speed rail system. Yours was just the last post so I quoted you.

Why isnt the SOTU address a good place to address a Supreme court decesion? This was a HISTORICAL ruling overturning a law that has been in place for a long time. What did they just overlook it for the last oh hundred years? So basically you want corporations - Foreing or US based - to be able to control All Advertising surrounding elections? Not a Good Idea!

It may not be a good idea from your point of view, but it IS still freedom of speech. It was never overturned because it was never challenged at that level. The Supreme Court doesn't take on random issues... They must first be challenged. You may not like the ruling, but it is upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. Just like people can advertise against corporations, they should have the same rights. That's what made this country free for hundreds of years.

And Vulchor, it seems more and more like your version of sanity equals oppression and control.

Well the court wasn't asked to rule on this issue, they were only to look at a case, not undue 100 years of law. And no it's not free speech. How is it free speech which is allocated to people? I don't see citibank as a live citizen. It's a corporation which does not live. Money is not speech. The people who sealed the deal on this case were the same people who elected Bush as president which is not constitutional however nothing was ever pursued on it, which is a shame. I don't think you understand what this law will really do. The baron's in the early 1900's were bad enough but what we as a country face today is much worse. 3-5 bilion dollars were spent during the 08 elections total, now think of what will be used now? Maybe more I don't know, but really what do people do when they have billions of extra dollars lying around and want things done that effect them? Well they pay out for it. Now as if we as a country aren't falling enough behind other countries such as China, what would it be like if there were only corporate masters making our laws? Or what if foreign companies were in power? What if Toyata decided to pour multi billions of dollars for a person to run for president in 12, along with many, many others for senate and congress and they all owed something to Toyota? The idea is to give more power to the people not select few or companies, otherwise what is the reason for America? This goes way beyond free speech. The govt is the people or at least it should be. And I don't see how Vulchor is saying anything about oppression and control. Your the one always defending measures that oppress yourself and we as a society.

PuroFreak

No, I am sorry but just because you choose to ignore what this country was founded on does not make what you are saying right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Tell me where in that it says the right to free speech is limited to individual persons, or limited in anyway. Also what are companies made up of? Its not made up of chess pieces, its made up of people. Once again you may not like the ruling, but if you don't, then campaign to amend the constitution, don't blame a group for upholding it.

Also I was curious how you believe the election of President George W. Bush was unconstitutional? Care to enlighten me on that one?

phobicsquirrel

Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

Vulchor

The constitution was, and is, a living document meant to be adapted and clarified as it is needed. In addition, the founding fathers could not have forseen adavnces in our society, technology, views, or greed. Therefore, it is the people alive today to interpret this the way they see fit. Since that time a justice system has seen no reason to rule on the issue being discussed here. However, the issue I think becomes that a Supreme Court seat is more with each passing year, a politically charged office----when it should not be. The fear appears this ruling is more based on political opinion, than actual interpretation of the consitituion....a fear which for many rulings in the recent hx of the court, appears at least one to discuss.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:
Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

our country was created by colonies that werre chartered by corporations.

kuzi16

Vulchor:
The constitution was, and is, a living document meant to be adapted and clarified as it is needed.

it is the supreme courts job to uphold the constitution, and clarify it. they did that.

Vulchor:
In addition, the founding fathers could not have forseen adavnces in our society, technology, views, or greed.

much like phobic claims that puro does not see what he sees in the constitution neither of you see what puro and i claim to be self interest and the interest of advancement of a company. the woord "greed" is used often in this forum to describe something that is not greed. i cannot make either of you see that.

Vulchor:
Therefore, it is the people alive today to interpret this the way they see fit.

no, the constitution was made to limit what the government can do to people.

Vulchor:
The fear appears this ruling is more based on political opinion, than actual interpretation of the consitituion....a fear which for many rulings in the recent hx of the court, appears at least one to discuss.

that IS the fear here. weather the fear is founded or not seems to be the debate at hand.
great assessment.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:
How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know.

a corporation cannot violate rights. there is always someone IN the corporation that sets the violation of rights in motion. that person could be the CEO, or board members, or higher ups, or any number of individuals in the corporation. a corporation is NOT a person, but it is run by people, and owned by people. those people that run and own the corporation can do with their money and the business they own and run what they see fit, even back a politician, so long as it does not violate the rights of others.

if you do not like the politics of that corporation, dont use its products. there are other corporations/companies/people out there that provide a similar service at a competitive price.
there are a few companies i dont buy from because i dont like their political investments. but they have every right to make those investments.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

I've noticed that everything the left doesn't agree with in the last several years is deemed "unconstitutional." President Bush was not elected by the Supreme Court, he was elected by the electoral college and the Supreme Court stopped the legal attacks from the left because it was getting ridiculous.

My point on the issue of the recent descision was that the 1st Amendment doesn't limit Free Speech to just individual people. It extends it to everyone. A corporation has just as much right to free speech as any other organization such as moveon.org or freedomworks.org. I my friend do understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights and have spent much time reading and studying it. As Kuzi pointed out, it is set up to limit the power of the government, but many on the left like to use it as a tool to limit the power of the people. Show me in the 1st Amendment where it says Freedom of speech is limited in any way. Show me where it says in the Constitution ANYWHERE that a corporation should have less rights than any other group. Like Vulchor said, the Constitution is a living document, if you don't like what it says, then petition to change it. Don't blame the courts for upholding it.

phobicsquirrel

PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261
I've noticed that everything the left doesn't agree with in the last several years is deemed "unconstitutional." President Bush was not elected by the Supreme Court, he was elected by the electoral college and the Supreme Court stopped the legal attacks from the left because it was getting ridiculous.

My point on the issue of the recent descision was that the 1st Amendment doesn't limit Free Speech to just individual people. It extends it to everyone. A corporation has just as much right to free speech as any other organization such as moveon.org or freedomworks.org. I my friend do understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights and have spent much time reading and studying it. As Kuzi pointed out, it is set up to limit the power of the government, but many on the left like to use it as a tool to limit the power of the people. Show me in the 1st Amendment where it says Freedom of speech is limited in any way. Show me where it says in the Constitution ANYWHERE that a corporation should have less rights than any other group. Like Vulchor said, the Constitution is a living document, if you don't like what it says, then petition to change it. Don't blame the courts for upholding it.

lol...

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:
The constitution was, and is, a living document meant to be adapted and clarified as it is needed. In addition, the founding fathers could not have forseen adavnces in our society, technology, views, or greed. Therefore, it is the people alive today to interpret this the way they see fit. Since that time a justice system has seen no reason to rule on the issue being discussed here. However, the issue I think becomes that a Supreme Court seat is more with each passing year, a politically charged office----when it should not be. The fear appears this ruling is more based on political opinion, than actual interpretation of the consitituion....a fear which for many rulings in the recent hx of the court, appears at least one to discuss.

Exactly. It's an opinion and therefore has been made by a body created to uphold the constitution. Once again Kuzi and puro you two seem to love to defend corporations and see government as the bad guy. Which is funny because these companies that you love so much caused much of what our current economy is made up of, including the role the united states has played for several decades. I get why mitch mconnell sits up and lies about almost everything out of his mouth, he's making money and getting plenty of donations from his masters but you two and many others get nothing but love to curse government and praise private entities.

Vulchor

Vulchor also feels (as he talks in the third person) the decisions of the court are always partly shaped by the personal biases and feelings of the justices. I worry that it is true now more than ever, and fear decisions are being based on political opinion at times, and not sound interpretation of the constitution.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261
I've noticed that everything the left doesn't agree with in the last several years is deemed "unconstitutional." President Bush was not elected by the Supreme Court, he was elected by the electoral college and the Supreme Court stopped the legal attacks from the left because it was getting ridiculous.

My point on the issue of the recent descision was that the 1st Amendment doesn't limit Free Speech to just individual people. It extends it to everyone. A corporation has just as much right to free speech as any other organization such as moveon.org or freedomworks.org. I my friend do understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights and have spent much time reading and studying it. As Kuzi pointed out, it is set up to limit the power of the government, but many on the left like to use it as a tool to limit the power of the people. Show me in the 1st Amendment where it says Freedom of speech is limited in any way. Show me where it says in the Constitution ANYWHERE that a corporation should have less rights than any other group. Like Vulchor said, the Constitution is a living document, if you don't like what it says, then petition to change it. Don't blame the courts for upholding it.
lol...

That's what I expected, you can't provide any answers to my post. You cannot show me where freedom of speech is limited anywhere in the Constitution. The arguement that we are on the side of corporations is a load of crap. If you read and knew ANYTHING about the Supreme Court ruling, you would know that it also includes unions which I despise. But my personal bias does not make me twist the Constitution to silence them. I wish you, Vulchor, and the rest of the left were as open and honest.

phobicsquirrel

PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
Considering that you can't understand what it says in the constitution and what many if not most of the founders meant I don't think I could enlighten you. They were very much against corporations taking over government just as they were against monarchy's. Also, corporations aren't people and aren't born!!!
Bush's election was unconstitutional because the surpreme court does not elect the president, the president is elected by the people and electoral college. Also the surpreme court ruled to stop the recount. They extended their power. How is a corporation a person? When you figure that out let me know. http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261
I've noticed that everything the left doesn't agree with in the last several years is deemed "unconstitutional." President Bush was not elected by the Supreme Court, he was elected by the electoral college and the Supreme Court stopped the legal attacks from the left because it was getting ridiculous.

My point on the issue of the recent descision was that the 1st Amendment doesn't limit Free Speech to just individual people. It extends it to everyone. A corporation has just as much right to free speech as any other organization such as moveon.org or freedomworks.org. I my friend do understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights and have spent much time reading and studying it. As Kuzi pointed out, it is set up to limit the power of the government, but many on the left like to use it as a tool to limit the power of the people. Show me in the 1st Amendment where it says Freedom of speech is limited in any way. Show me where it says in the Constitution ANYWHERE that a corporation should have less rights than any other group. Like Vulchor said, the Constitution is a living document, if you don't like what it says, then petition to change it. Don't blame the courts for upholding it.
lol...
That's what I expected, you can't provide any answers to my post. You cannot show me where freedom of speech is limited anywhere in the Constitution. The arguement that we are on the side of corporations is a load of crap. If you read and knew ANYTHING about the Supreme Court ruling, you would know that it also includes unions which I despise. But my personal bias does not make me twist the Constitution to silence them. I wish you, Vulchor, and the rest of the left were as open and honest.

Unions don't have half the money that AIG and Goldman, not to mention the oil companies and health insurers who all are working to stop any sort of reform. Unions have gone astray that I will agree with you on but they also have helped a lot to stem the tide so to speak. You say we aren't open and honest yet you keep singing the song and dance about the government is evil and it should just let everything be private and that will be okay. Your against a single payer health system, your against unions, your against regulations that would limit toxic gases in our environment, your against regulating the banking industry so what caused this meltdown won't happen again, your against campaign finance reform to keep lobbying money out of politics, your against most things that will benefit us as a commonwealth. If giving reign of large companies and the very rich really worked than the last couple of decades would have been fantastic. however it has not. Though it also helps to have a good governing body though it's hard to do that when they lap up the money and special interests. A very recent incident with Toyota involving bad breaks and other mis-haps was only brought to the spot light because of the government pushing and pushing. And now your right wing media friends are saying bad things about the government for doing so, at least that's coming from Glenn Beck. But I don't care if it's a union or a huge company, money shouldn't drive our politics, that's a big reason why this decision was very bad. Money is already a bad thing, but this just pushed it up many notches. Have you thought about what if a senator was against dumping toxic waste in a wildlife reserve, well now a lobbyist tell them either they change their mind or the people they represent will dump millions if not bilions of dollars against him in the next campaign. Money drives the media thus floods the airwaves thus pushes the political inept voter to pick whoever they see on TV the most. Hell their are people out there wanting someone like palin as president!

Vulchor

As stated before Puro, I am not the left-----registered Republican who has voted for McCain and R. Paul in last 2 primaries, and Pat Buchanan my first election voting for Pres. Nevertheless, say about me what you will...I feel for you.

Vulchor

And Squirrel, the fact that people believe Palin is intelligent and well spoken enough to be our President-----and there are a lot of people who do----is part of my continued loss of faith in the people of this country, and possibly humanity in general.

PuroFreak

Vulchor:
As stated before Puro, I am not the left-----registered Republican who has voted for McCain and R. Paul in last 2 primaries, and Pat Buchanan my first election voting for Pres. Nevertheless, say about me what you will...I feel for you.

You may call yourself a Republican, which I don't even consider myself, but every belief you spew on here could nominate you for the president of moveon.org. Calling yourself a republican doesn't mean you aren't a member of the left, look at Arlen Spector and Olympia Snow... Spector just finally admited what everyone already knew.

Phobic you still fail over and over to prove any point. I have asked in every post to show how freedom of speech is limited in the Constitution and you all have done nothing but detract from the issue at hand by bashing Bush, Palin, and the Supreme Court for all kinds of issues we are not discussing. The simple fact you all refuse to accept is that the Constitution grants free speech to every person, organizatio, company, corporation, co-op, and mom and pop store in the country. I'm not even saying you should want companies and unions involved with polotics, I'm just saying the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution.

PuroFreak

Vulchor:
As stated before Puro, I am not the left-----registered Republican who has voted for McCain and R. Paul in last 2 primaries, and Pat Buchanan my first election voting for Pres. Nevertheless, say about me what you will...I feel for you.

Fourtotheflush

PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
PuroFreak:
Fourtotheflush:
I was encouraged.

I dont think he stated the bailout money was going into high speed rail. I though he said he was going to mark it for small busieness loans to build up small busieness.

KUZI = Time to make the chocolate piggy NATIONAL!!

The was a bunch of same ole rhetoric, but that happens at every one of these no matther who is in office.

I do like the fact that this was the first time I have the President specifically address his GOP counterparts and ask them for their help in a SOTU address.

I LOVE that he called out the Supreme Court for their recent HORRENDOUS decesion. I think we should make a whole thread about this one. Its a big enough topic.

Again, I was encourage and was very encouraged that he still plans on being out of Iraq by the end of his term.

Just to address the Supreme court decision, why was it so horrendous to uphold the constitution? Does freedom of speech not apply to everyone in your vision of our country? Also the SOTU is not the place to call out the Supreme Court for upholding the constitution just because you don't agree with it. If he does disagree with it, then he needs to campaign to amend the Constitution where not everyone is afforded free speech and see how well that goes over.

Also the high speed rail system he spoke of, he said there would be $8 billion spent on this. I don't think he said the amount in the SOTU speech, but it was announced later. This is a good idea? REALLY? Because we have all seen how well a government operated passenger rail system works... Just look at the history of Amtrak.

I think that this is a bit de-railed here.
Well the first paragraph was a reply to your post, but the second half was to an earlier post about what a good idea it is to build a high speed rail system. Yours was just the last post so I quoted you.

Why isnt the SOTU address a good place to address a Supreme court decesion? This was a HISTORICAL ruling overturning a law that has been in place for a long time. What did they just overlook it for the last oh hundred years? So basically you want corporations - Foreing or US based - to be able to control All Advertising surrounding elections? Not a Good Idea!

It may not be a good idea from your point of view, but it IS still freedom of speech. It was never overturned because it was never challenged at that level. The Supreme Court doesn't take on random issues... They must first be challenged. You may not like the ruling, but it is upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. Just like people can advertise against corporations, they should have the same rights. That's what made this country free for hundreds of years.

And Vulchor, it seems more and more like your version of sanity equals oppression and control.

We will all soon find and I feel sorry for everyone for this that there is a BIG easiily seen line that divides freedom of speech and free and fair elections. Giving corporations the tools to control all advertising around elections is not a good idea and not up holding out constitution in any way. To hide this behind freedom of speech is ridiculous. Very soon you will see corporations controlling elections.

The only way out of this is to have a couple justices kick the bucket so that the ruling can be overturned.

PuroFreak

Seriously? Have you read anything about this ruling? How does this allow corporations to control all advertising around an election? All this does is allow them to actually advertise. The fact that you think this gives them some kind of sinister control over anything is rather sad. I've asked at least 5 times in this thread, but show me where in the Constitution that free speech is limited in any way. Blaming the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution is like blaming a calender maker for it being cold during the winter...

phobicsquirrel

PuroFreak:
Seriously? Have you read anything about this ruling? How does this allow corporations to control all advertising around an election? All this does is allow them to actually advertise. The fact that you think this gives them some kind of sinister control over anything is rather sad. I've asked at least 5 times in this thread, but show me where in the Constitution that free speech is limited in any way. Blaming the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution is like blaming a calender maker for it being cold during the winter...

You really need to read more than the headlines in the fox news forum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-kaas-boyle/earth-and-the-balance-of_b_451994.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/shelbys-blanket-hold-puts_n_450934.html --1 reason why this a bad ruling, and here (on same topic) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsWtdFv_YWF7p5PcxSAZNf-p2teQ. A senator doing the bidding of a company and holding up govt for money.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
Seriously? Have you read anything about this ruling? How does this allow corporations to control all advertising around an election? All this does is allow them to actually advertise. The fact that you think this gives them some kind of sinister control over anything is rather sad. I've asked at least 5 times in this thread, but show me where in the Constitution that free speech is limited in any way. Blaming the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution is like blaming a calender maker for it being cold during the winter...
You really need to read more than the headlines in the fox news forum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-kaas-boyle/earth-and-the-balance-of_b_451994.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/shelbys-blanket-hold-puts_n_450934.html --1 reason why this a bad ruling, and here (on same topic) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5 hsWtdFv_YWF7p5PcxSAZNf-p2teQ. A senator doing the bidding of a company and holding up govt for money.

Really? You criticize Foxnews then post a link from huffingtonpost? But in all honesty, criticizing people for what news outlet they choose is getting old and is very childish. I've asked it over and over and over but you still have no answer and nobody else does... Where in the Constituion is freedom of speech limited to include EVERYONE except Corporations and businesses? It doesn't. Thats the answer, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your left wing view of the way things should be in this country. I find it funny you pick apart and respond to my posts, but never answer that question.

phobicsquirrel

PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
Seriously? Have you read anything about this ruling? How does this allow corporations to control all advertising around an election? All this does is allow them to actually advertise. The fact that you think this gives them some kind of sinister control over anything is rather sad. I've asked at least 5 times in this thread, but show me where in the Constitution that free speech is limited in any way. Blaming the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution is like blaming a calender maker for it being cold during the winter...
You really need to read more than the headlines in the fox news forum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-kaas-boyle/earth-and-the-balance-of_b_451994.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/shelbys-blanket-hold-puts_n_450934.html --1 reason why this a bad ruling, and here (on same topic) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5 hsWtdFv_YWF7p5PcxSAZNf-p2teQ. A senator doing the bidding of a company and holding up govt for money.
Really? You criticize Foxnews then post a link from huffingtonpost? But in all honesty, criticizing people for what news outlet they choose is getting old and is very childish. I've asked it over and over and over but you still have no answer and nobody else does... Where in the Constituion is freedom of speech limited to include EVERYONE except Corporations and businesses? It doesn't. Thats the answer, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your left wing view of the way things should be in this country. I find it funny you pick apart and respond to my posts, but never answer that question.

From what I understand the const. does not specify that a company is not a person but companies aren't people. They are an institution a made up entity. I doubt you read anything I posted, and that blog post was very informative and cited facts in it, it wasn't just opinion. I critize fox because they fire their own reporters for telling the truth, lie in reporting then falsify their reporting with cutting footage together to push their agenda, among many many other things. The Founding fathers were very much against corporate control of government. As someone who claims to have studied this you should no this....

kuzi16

PuroFreak:
Where in the Constituion is freedom of speech limited to include EVERYONE except Corporations and businesses?

people tend to think that corporations can influence policy. and they can. but policy can influence corporations as well.

people can influence policy. policy can influence people.

since policy is influenced/influences people/corporations both of those groups need to share the rights of free speech.

Bill gates has more money than many corporations. if he threw everything he had in favor of a candidate by making his own commercials and airing them would there then be a call to eliminate the influence of rich people? what about small groups of people that pool their money? whats the difference who is doing the talking? so long as a corporation or individual is not violating rights they have every right spend the money they make on any candidate they wish. it does uphold the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

where in that does it say "except corporations"?

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
phobicsquirrel:
PuroFreak:
Seriously? Have you read anything about this ruling? How does this allow corporations to control all advertising around an election? All this does is allow them to actually advertise. The fact that you think this gives them some kind of sinister control over anything is rather sad. I've asked at least 5 times in this thread, but show me where in the Constitution that free speech is limited in any way. Blaming the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution is like blaming a calender maker for it being cold during the winter...
You really need to read more than the headlines in the fox news forum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-kaas-boyle/earth-and-the-balance-of_b_451994.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/shelbys-blanket-hold-puts_n_450934.html --1 reason why this a bad ruling, and here (on same topic) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5 hsWtdFv_YWF7p5PcxSAZNf-p2teQ. A senator doing the bidding of a company and holding up govt for money.
Really? You criticize Foxnews then post a link from huffingtonpost? But in all honesty, criticizing people for what news outlet they choose is getting old and is very childish. I've asked it over and over and over but you still have no answer and nobody else does... Where in the Constituion is freedom of speech limited to include EVERYONE except Corporations and businesses? It doesn't. Thats the answer, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your left wing view of the way things should be in this country. I find it funny you pick apart and respond to my posts, but never answer that question.
From what I understand the const. does not specify that a company is not a person but companies aren't people. They are an institution a made up entity. I doubt you read anything I posted, and that blog post was very informative and cited facts in it, it wasn't just opinion. I critize fox because they fire their own reporters for telling the truth, lie in reporting then falsify their reporting with cutting footage together to push their agenda, among many many other things. The Founding fathers were very much against corporate control of government. As someone who claims to have studied this you should no this....

Ok, then in your vision of freedom of speech any group of people that are not designated as "press" have no rights to free speech. Yet groups which are made up entities just like corporations, are given the right to free speech as well. My points again, moveon.org, freedomworks.org, tea party groups, arab rights groups, latino rights groups, african american rights groups, unions, gay and *** rights groups...etc...etc... Basically every civil rights movement group in history has been a "made up entity." They are allowed free speech because the Constitution grants free speech to EVERYONE. Where does it say all those people get free speech, but Corporations don't? Just because you don't like what they are saying doesn't give you, or the government, or anyone else the right to silence them. I wish moveon.org would dry up and go away, but they have just as much right to buy commercials and spend millions of dollars to say anything they want, and I would be just as pissed off if the government ever tried to tell them they can't.