Alito Steals a Scene

Politics • Views: 3,341

It’s clear that the State of the Union speech has become a performance, and not just by the President; all the politicians in the audience are performers too, and everything they do during the speech is under the microscope: Alito’s State of the Union moment.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama’s criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words “not true.”

Politifact checked President Obama’s statement that caused Justice Alito to mouth “not true,” and ruled it “Barely True.”

Based on our reading of the court’s opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling’s immediate impact on foreign companies’ ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn’t addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama’s claim to be Barely True.

Jump to bottom

259 comments
1 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:26:40am

I'm certainly glad he didn't stand up and yell, "You lie!"

2 go_usa  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:26:48am

They are both right

3 Only The Lurker Knows  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:27:03am

Well at least he didn't shout YOU LIE!

4 RogueOne  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:27:40am

Anyone mention he didn't stand up and scream "You Lie!"?

5 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:27:44am

re: #3 Bubblehead II

Well at least he didn't shout YOU LIE!

second place is first loser

6 Only The Lurker Knows  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:27:52am

re: #1 cliffster

GMTA. 23 sec difference in posting time.

7 abbyadams  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:28:24am

I forget, do we accept Polifact or not? Or is it just a shill for the liberals/conservatives?

/

8 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:29:17am

From Politifact

So, if anything, uncertainties about how foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries would be treated only further muddies the question. Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True.

It's a wait and see situation.

9 boyo  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:30:07am

re: #7 abbyadams

shill for the other guys when their fact checking doesnt match up to your "facts"

10 harrylook  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:30:41am

I personally cringed when the President did that. I found it inappropriate (and hypocritical considering all the corporate money his campaign accepted). It would be like the justices of the SCOTUS clapping or booing to one of the President's comments. Alito's reaction was just fine by me.

11 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:32:32am

I'm willing to bet Alito wasn't the only person to not true at some point during the pep rally last night.

12 RogueOne  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:32:48am

Politifact is being a little generous.re: #8 Stanley Sea


It's a wait and see situation.

I think they're being a little generous. The citizens united case didn't cover foreign companies, that law still stands.

13 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:33:04am

I think "barely true" is barely accurate given that the majority opinion clearly wrote that it was not removing the foreign corporation restriction because it was beyond the scope of the opinion in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission .

Since the federal law banning foreign entities from contributing remains on the books undisturbed by the ruling, the President's claims are overblown.

Moreover, he's calling for Congress to overrule the Court's decision in toto in "...urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.",That's a call to do more than merely clarify the foreign corporation ban.

14 RogueOne  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:33:24am

re: #12 RogueOne


I think they're being a little generous. The citizens united case didn't cover foreign companies, that law still stands.

Bad html formatting. Sorry.

15 abbyadams  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:34:20am

re: #9 boyo

Yeah, that's what I thought. :-)

16 Ojoe  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:34:33am

Obama is eroding the mutual co-operation that would be the sign of health in the branches of our government.

And in addition the idea that spending on campaign advertising needs to be limited is an elitist attitude, assuming as it does that the people are not smart enough to see through bullshit and decide for themselves.

17 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:35:09am

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?

18 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:35:38am

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm willing to bet Alito wasn't the only person to not true at some point during the pep rally last night.

Let's start with the AP and their fact checking...

[Link: apnews.myway.com...]

(mini review... Obama doesn't get too many up dings in the article)

19 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:35:52am

So help me I would not be surprised right now to go to the grocery store and find the Rice Krispies Elves engaged in partisan politicking against Captain Crunch.

20 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:09am

It would have been different had the President called on Congress to act to close what appeared to be a loophole in the campaign finance law that allowed foreign entities and/or US subsidiaries of foreign entities to give campaign donations. He didn't take that route - which would have avoided a direct confrontation with the Court.

21 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:11am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?

They don't have to, we can hear/see that for ourselves already.

22 boyo  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:13am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?

why yes,yes they are
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

23 Robdouth  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:38am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I've got Kerry for 45 stand and claps, 3.5 crotch scratches, and 1 nose pick that he swears was just scratching the outside.

24 Ericus58  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:41am

My impression of Obama calling out the SCOTUS during the SOTU was much like grand theater... lowball and not the venue. Bad form.

25 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:36:54am

re: #20 lawhawk

It would have been different had the President called on Congress to act to close what appeared to be a loophole in the campaign finance law that allowed foreign entities and/or US subsidiaries of foreign entities to give campaign donations. He didn't take that route - which would have avoided a direct confrontation with the Court.

Actually he did.

26 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:37:12am

re: #21 Walter L. Newton

They don't have to, we can hear/see that for ourselves already.

I listened on NPR

27 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:37:19am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

They've been doing that for years- watch all the talk going back decades as one side or the other side of the aisle would stand and clap in unison while the other sat on their hands.

28 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:39:13am

People should read the poiltifact piece if they aren't already familiar with it.

Yes, the 'left' exaggerates when they claim it means the end of the world, and Obama exaggerated in the SOTU speech (hence the rating, 'barely true') but it's a decision that is troubling and that leaves the door open for lots of bad stuff.

29 harrylook  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:39:40am

re: #20 lawhawk

Maybe he wanted the confrontation - the new "populist" obama and all....

30 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:40:15am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?

I think we would be better off having the SOTU address delivered without the live audience. Its become a sideshow and a place to watch the court intrigues play out. Its pathetic.

31 vxbush  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:41:13am

re: #28 iceweasel

People should read the poiltifact piece if they aren't already familiar with it.

Yes, the 'left' exaggerates when they claim it means the end of the world, and Obama exaggerated in the SOTU speech (hence the rating, 'barely true') but it's a decision that is troubling and that leaves the door open for lots of bad stuff.

That's not my impression. The majority opinion apparently said that it was not touching other parts of the law that dealt with foreign corporation involvement.

32 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:41:58am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think we would be better off having the SOTU address delivered without the live audience. Its become a sideshow and a place to watch the court intrigues play out. Its pathetic.

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

33 Ojoe  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:42:27am

From the article linked at the top of the thread:

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

IIRC the credit card donation page on Obama's campaign website had several information fields de activated and there was quite a question about untracked foreign donations making their way in.

Maybe some other lizards have a better recollection of this than I.

34 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:42:40am

re: #8 Stanley Sea

From Politifact


It's a wait and see situation.

I think so. I'm willing to accept Obama's making it a little more solid than it is for rhetoric's sake, and I'd also accept Alito doing the same on his end.

35 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:42:53am

re: #31 vxbush

That's not my impression. The majority opinion apparently said that it was not touching other parts of the law that dealt with foreign corporation involvement.

Nothing in the opinion prevents the SC from addressing it in the future. It is not a done deal, or some sort of untouchable possibility. They should have, in the least, made it impossible to happen in the future.

36 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:14am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

[Link: topics.law.cornell.edu...]

37 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:20am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

It used to be done by letter, I don't think it can't still be done that way.

38 Girth  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:21am

re: #13 lawhawk

I think "barely true" is barely accurate given that the majority opinion clearly wrote that it was not removing the foreign corporation restriction because it was beyond the scope of the opinion in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission .

Since the federal law banning foreign entities from contributing remains on the books undisturbed by the ruling, the President's claims are overblown.

Moreover, he's calling for Congress to overrule the Court's decision in toto in "...urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.",That's a call to do more than merely clarify the foreign corporation ban.

What about foreign groups/people who own significant portions of US companies?

39 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:29am

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?

Last year, Nancy Pelosi was reading the program while Bush was talking. I thought that was tres tacky.

40 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:43am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

It just says "from time to time." There is no reference to what that means. The beginning of the calendar year has just become tradition.

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:43:50am

re: #19 EmmmieG

So help me I would not be surprised right now to go to the grocery store and find the Rice Krispies Elves engaged in partisan politicking against Captain Crunch.

The elves are unionized.

42 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:25am

re: #19 EmmmieG

So help me I would not be surprised right now to go to the grocery store and find the Rice Krispies Elves engaged in partisan politicking against Captain Crunch.

Well put!

43 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:30am

The Government does not intend these things to happen, the Commission on whose report the Bill was founded did not intend these things to happen, but in legislation intention is nothing, and the letter of the law everything, and no government has the right, whether to flatter fanatics or in mere vagueness of mind, to forge an instrument of tyranny and say that it will never be used.
--W. B. Yeats

44 Girth  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:35am

re: #37 Walter L. Newton

It used to be done by letter, I don't think it can't still be done that way.

It could, but whichever party wasn't in the WH would be outraged, OUTRAGED!

45 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:37am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

The Constitution:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:44am

re: #28 iceweasel

People should read the poiltifact piece if they aren't already familiar with it.

Yes, the 'left' exaggerates when they claim it means the end of the world, and Obama exaggerated in the SOTU speech (hence the rating, 'barely true') but it's a decision that is troubling and that leaves the door open for lots of bad stuff.

I think it's a poor decision, but I'm not sure that critiquing the Supreme Court is exactly part of a SOTU.

47 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:51am

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm willing to bet Alito wasn't the only person to not true at some point during the pep rally last night.

Yup. But when the POTUS takes aim at the SCOTUS the press knows exactly where to aim the camera for a reaction. If POTUS is taking more general pot shots at the Legislature its harder to find the person who is going to give them that money shot.

48 Qabal  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:44:58am

Corporations don't even have to spend money to effectively wield this decision by SCOTUS. Just the mere fact that Exxon can now threaten to spend millions of dollars flooding a close reelection campaign for a candidate that supports some kind of AGW legislation is pretty chilling.

49 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:45:32am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think we would be better off having the SOTU address delivered without the live audience. Its become a sideshow and a place to watch the court intrigues play out. Its pathetic.

But doesn't it say in the Constitution that he's supposed to address Congress? Is it the same if he talks to them on CSPAN?

50 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:45:33am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

"Modeled after the monarch's Speech from the Throne during the State Opening of Parliament in the United Kingdom, such a report is required by the United States Constitution. The Constitution does not require that the report take the form of a speech; although virtually every president since Woodrow Wilson has made the State of the Union report in the form of a speech delivered personally before a joint session of Congress. By tradition, the President makes this report annually, even though the clause "from time to time" leaves the matter open to interpretation:"

Nothing states he has to make a live address to Congress.

51 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:45:50am

re: #39 SanFranciscoZionist

Last year, Nancy Pelosi was reading the program while Bush was talking. I thought that was tres tacky.

There isn't a thing about that woman that says "Tact" is even part of her vocabulary!

52 mj  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:45:51am

Even the NYT's Linda Greenhouse, not known for having a great amount of sympathy for the conservatives on the Court, thinks Obama wasn't exactly being true:

Justice Alito’s Reaction

[Link: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...]

53 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:46:34am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

Maybe they can do a sample instead of a census? /

54 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:47:16am

re: #51 Dragon_Lady

There isn't a thing about that woman that says "Tact" is even part of her vocabulary!

I like Nancy, but I was pretty critical about that. Put the damn program down and clap!

55 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:47:33am

re: #49 SanFranciscoZionist

But doesn't it say in the Constitution that he's supposed to address Congress? Is it the same if he talks to them on CSPAN?

He can mail them a few notes scribbled on a napkin if he really wants to.

56 wrenchwench  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:47:58am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

I think it's a poor decision, but I'm not sure that critiquing the Supreme Court is exactly part of a SOTU.

Well, there is this:

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

...but he did come close to, if not cross, the line of dissing the Supreme Court. That was tacky.

57 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:47:58am

I seem to recall that President Washington actually sought the advice and consent of Congress on something, in person. Once.

58 Mr. Crankypants  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:48:24am

I think the issue is that the court failed to address this particular issue and left it open for future cases.

This means, that someone has to first, prove it's going on, then convict, and then for the appeals to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. By then we'll all be saying the pledge of allegiance in Mandarin.

(yes, I realize I'm overstating the dangers)

59 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:48:32am

*facepalm* The other day I posted a congratulatory video for Charles' engagement. It just hit me-- this* was this perfect video to post, instead. Congratulations once again!

Youtube Video

*partly because you can see Charles from time to time in the background, banging on the ol' gut fiddle.

60 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:48:44am

re: #49 SanFranciscoZionist

But doesn't it say in the Constitution that he's supposed to address Congress? Is it the same if he talks to them on CSPAN?

Nothing stipulates a speech. He could send them a memo and call it the State of the Union address. With the internet and various IT resources able to provide this information much more readily, the speech itself is nothing but window dressing.

61 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:48:56am

re: #57 EmmmieG

I seem to recall that President Washington actually sought the advice and consent of Congress on something, in person. Once.

Revisionist history

62 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:49:06am

re: #29 harrylook

Maybe he wanted the confrontation - the new "populist" obama and all...


Next address he will wear tea bag earrings. But Herbal one's to distinguish himself from the nuts. /

63 RogueOne  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:49:15am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

I think it's a poor decision, but I'm not sure that critiquing the Supreme Court is exactly part of a SOTU.

I'm a little torn. Personally I think the executive and legislative branches should confront the USSC more often, not less. Not sure if SOTU is the correct venue though.

64 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:49:24am

re: #54 SanFranciscoZionist

I like Nancy, but I was pretty critical about that. Put the damn program down and clap!

Okay, I respect your opinion but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on "That" woman. I have never liked her, and I never will. Sorry my friend! :-(

65 Only The Lurker Knows  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:49:31am

re: #33 Ojoe

Iirc correctly, they disabled the requirement to use the 3 digit security code on the back of the card, thus enabling the use of gift type credit/debit cards that couldn't be tracked.

66 Girth  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:50:21am

re: #44 Girth

It could, but whichever party wasn't in the WH the media and pundits would be outraged, OUTRAGED!

Gave that a little more thought.

67 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:52:13am

re: #55 Soap_Man

He can mail them a few notes scribbled on a napkin if he really wants to.

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:52:48am

re: #57 EmmmieG

I seem to recall that President Washington actually sought the advice and consent of Congress on something, in person. Once.

After that he realized it was better to ride it out alone?

69 Randall Gross  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:53:04am

Personally I'm for free speech, and agree with the court's decision. If Congress wants to to do this right the answer to me is to make public who signed which checks immediately or within 48 hours of the ad.

The American Public are smart consumers of information but the current system creates too many blinds and dodges to hide behind. The way it works now the money is still there but nobody knows exactly where it's coming from without a lot of digging behind front groups and foundations.

70 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:53:28am

re: #64 Dragon_Lady

Okay, I respect your opinion but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on "That" woman. I have never liked her, and I never will. Sorry my friend! :-(

PlasticWoman needs to do quite a bit for my opinion to ever be raised for her. Even then, it's highly doubtful I'd ever grow to respect her.

71 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:53:36am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

If he tweeted his 2011 state of the union, I would vote for him in 2012.

72 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:54:22am

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist

No, after that he communicated in writing. The key phrase here was: in person.

73 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:54:35am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

I'd like to see either semaphore or Aldis Lamp.

74 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:54:37am

Then again, maybe Obama's hoping to demonize the SCt or hoping to cow them into acting in a more agreeable fashion down the road in a more light handed version of FDR's court packing scheme. While FDR got hammered for the attempt, the Court did eventually start deciding more favorably on the New Deal programs. Maybe Obama was hoping to do something similar by calling the Court on the carpet for this particular decision.

75 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:55:25am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

fellow americans-times R tuff, we R strong. will defeat enemies. pls work together. thx & god bless amrica

76 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:55:41am

re: #69 Thanos

I agree with the public revelation, and think it should be very, very, public.

I still have severe reservations about whether that would be enough, but it would be a good compromise.

77 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:56:49am

re: #28 iceweasel

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

SNIP
Looks like something to be settled, that in fact is not.

78 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:57:04am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

"Dear cngrss, Prez here. We need jobs, HC. SCOTUS are tools. LOL. :( #stateoftheunion."

79 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:57:22am

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nothing stipulates a speech. He could send them a memo and call it the State of the Union address. With the internet and various IT resources able to provide this information much more readily, the speech itself is nothing but window dressing.

I still like the custom.

80 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:57:28am

Well, I'll be leaving for work in a few minutes to shlep some more used furniture... but I wanted to make an observation before I leave.

I am going to use anecdotal evidence here to claim that Obama's SOTU speech scored a big giant ZERO.

My anecdotal evidence is the apparent lack of any insightful discussion on these LGF threads this morning.

I consider Lizards to be more politically astute than most people I know in real life, yet, except for a few vague comments about applause and rambling, no one seems to be giving this speech any real note.

Too bad. The administration had been leaking all sorts of ideas that Obama had been listening to the people, and that he was going to make adjustments, step back and reexamine things.

Didn't happen, did it?

Off to work.

81 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:57:37am

re: #74 lawhawk

You nailed it there

82 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:57:39am

OT:

I can't make head or tail out of this article about Paulson and AIG. Can someone tell me if it has any substance to it?

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

83 Firmworm  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:21am

Barely True....Barely False. Is there a difference?

84 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:24am

re: #64 Dragon_Lady

Okay, I respect your opinion but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on "That" woman. I have never liked her, and I never will. Sorry my friend! :-(

Quite all right!

85 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:28am

re: #80 Walter L. Newton

And I agree with what SanFranciscoZionist served up to you in the last thread in answer to your 'question'.

86 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:30am

Despite my own personal feelings about Corporations and the concept of corporations as a person, From a 1st amendment perspective, the Supreme Court got this one right. If the Congress wants to pass a law that restricts the ability of a corporation to speak (and yes, money = speech), but then exempt certain companies (specifically companies that own media outlets), then you're going to have all sorts of issues justifying why if there's a compelling government need to restrict speech that some companies can, and some companies can't.

Some possible reasonable restrictions would be to require shareholder approval of any ads and require the CEO to personally appear on the ad, identify him or herself and the corporation involved and say, "I'm so and so, the CEO of X corporation and I approve this ad." This isn't a restriction of speech, though the second idea could be challenged under the idea that anonymous speech should also be a protected first amendment right, but that's another debate for another day.

Obama is missing the point here, just because corporate money and influence can influence an election, doesn't mean that restricting the speech of said corporation is the right thing to do. There are a lot of things we don't like that are protected by the Constitution, and just because something isn't popular doesn't take those constitutional protections away.

87 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:31am

re: #70 MrSilverDragon

PlasticWoman needs to do quite a bit for my opinion to ever be raised for her. Even then, it's highly doubtful I'd ever grow to respect her.

At the risk of pissing off SanFranciscoZionist (which I'm loath to do) every time "That" woman opens up her mouth I cringe. I sincerely don't know how she got to where she is today. And that's all I'm gonna say on it.

88 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:58:56am

Here it is: It was the advice and consent on a treaty. Remember, it was the first time, so precedent was not established yet, and he learned that day that his actually going to the Senate chamber was not a functional idea.

[Link: www.senate.gov...]

89 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:59:37am

re: #85 Obdicut

And I agree with what SanFranciscoZionist served up to you in the last thread in answer to your 'question'.

You had your chance and blew it. Big Zero.

90 Mocking Jay  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:59:45am

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

Is she your Rep, by the way?

91 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:59:58am

re: #86 bloodstar

I don't fully agree, but updinged for a very well thought-out post.

There are a lot of things we don't like that are protected by the Constitution, and just because something isn't popular doesn't take those constitutional protections away.

This should be our mantra, as a society.

92 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:59:58am

Off to work.

93 RogueOne  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:00:22am

re: #82 Obdicut

OT:

I can't make head or tail out of this article about Paulson and AIG. Can someone tell me if it has any substance to it?

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

It sure looks like there is something to it. He's getting hammered from the left and the right.

94 Randall Gross  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:00:37am

re: #83 Firmworm

Barely True...Barely False. Is there a difference?

Think of it as the difference between "North by Northwest" and "West by Northwest" -- it's a degree on the compass of moral rectitude.

95 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:00:49am

re: #79 SanFranciscoZionist

I still like the custom.

I think a speech is fine. Let him get a nice backdrop in a nice quite studio, tape the speech and deliver it to Congress. Then we can skip him playing to the crowd, watching the scyophants giving him a standing O every 2 minutes, and getting audience reaction shots and actually listen to what the man has to say.

96 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:01:27am

re: #83 Firmworm

Barely True...Barely False. Is there a difference?

"Honey, my best friend said she saw you at lunch with your ex-girlfriend? Is this true?"

"Well, it was technically brunch, so that's barely true."

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:01:39am

re: #73 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'd like to see either semaphore or Aldis Lamp.

Remember that woman Charles put up a video of, who did the history of the Ukraine in sand on a lightscreen? That would make a great SOTU.

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:02:06am

re: #75 cliffster

fellow americans-times R tuff, we R strong. will defeat enemies. pls work together. thx & god bless amrica

BRILLIANT!

99 avanti  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:02:11am

re: #63 RogueOne

I'm a little torn. Personally I think the executive and legislative branches should confront the USSC more often, not less. Not sure if SOTU is the correct venue though.

I think Obama's comment was borderline inappropriate, but not on the level of Lincoln issuing a arrest warrant for the Chief Justice for example.

100 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:03:00am

For next years SOTU...INTERPRETATIVE DANCE!

101 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:03:17am

re: #82 Obdicut

I think there's something to it; AIG and Goldman were tightly bound in all this, and it also jibes with the fact that quite a few reports in the past year have indicated that AIG was a conduit for a back door bailout to the banks separate from TARP - in part to cover the CDO mess.

102 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:03:44am

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think a speech is fine. Let him get a nice backdrop in a nice quite studio, tape the speech and deliver it to Congress. Then we can skip him playing to the crowd, watching the scyophants giving him a standing O every 2 minutes, and getting audience reaction shots and actually listen to what the man has to say.

Upding! The Kisses, hugs, playing up to the cameras and the crown was way over done, but then GWB and WJC did the same and it bugged me then too..

103 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:03:52am

re: #100 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For next years SOTU...INTERPRETATIVE DANCE!

I cannot think of any president in the last thirty years that I would have wanted to see in tights.

104 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:04:16am

As a taxpayer, I hereby demand that, beginning immediately, all occasions upon which the Senate and/or House convene in front of TV cameras (whether or not the President is on hand, but especially if he/she is), music fitting a traditional carnival or circus atmosphere shall be played. Perhaps some standard calliope music, or maybe Stravinsky's ballet, "Petrushka".

105 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:04:21am

re: #100 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For next years SOTU...INTERPRETATIVE DANCE!

If I can play the sitar while Bobby McFerrin does layered vocals in the background, hell yes.

106 lawhawk  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:04:30am

re: #94 Thanos

Think of it as the difference between "North by Northwest" and "West by Northwest" -- it's a degree on the compass of moral rectitude.

North by Northwest is an awesome movie; West by Northwest details Adam's travels and travails on an airline.

107 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:04:41am

re: #75 cliffster

fellow americans-times R tuff, we R strong. will defeat enemies. pls work together. thx & god bless amrica

Followed by

JBiden: First!
HReid: First!
NPelosi: FIRSTIES!
JBiden: LOLS, NAILED IT BITCHES!

108 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:05:06am

re: #80 Walter L. Newton

I'm sure all the liberals here are collectively remorseful that they did not immediately comply with your demands for their thoughts and insights.

109 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:05:07am

re: #101 lawhawk

Alright. I'll try to actually read it closely, then. Thank you.

110 Mocking Jay  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:05:29am

re: #103 EmmmieG

I cannot think of any president in the last thirty years that I would have wanted to see in tights.

To be fair that's only, what, six of them?

111 acacia  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:05:55am

The President was way out of line on this one. Not only was it in poor taste but you can't legislate away a constitutional right.

112 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:06:03am

re: #108 cliffster

I'm sure all the liberals here are collectively remorseful that they did not immediately comply with your demands for their thoughts and insights.

downding for snarkitude
ESPECIALLY in that Walter said goodbye!

113 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:06:37am

re: #103 EmmmieG

I cannot think of any president in the last thirty years that I would have wanted to see in tights.

LBJ.

You must hear this.

[Link: www.whitehousetapes.net...]

114 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:06:57am

re: #108 cliffster

I sure am, man. I think that zero goes on my permanent record.

115 Kragar  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:07:00am

re: #103 EmmmieG

I cannot think of any president in the last thirty years that I would have wanted to see in tights.

Bush could have come out and Riverdanced his way into the Left's hearts.

116 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:07:45am

re: #102 Dragon_Lady

PIMF! I meant to type Crowd! Sorry :-)

117 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:08:24am

Even if we accept the opinion of an online fact-checker over that of a Supreme Court justice, the verdict of “Barely True” is a great victory for Obama. At least one part of his speech had some truth to it. Well, there's also all the "Bush's fault" claims. We know they're true. [Cough, cough]

118 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:08:25am

re: #116 Dragon_Lady

PIMF! I meant to type Crowd! Sorry :-)

"It's good to be the king!"

119 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:08:48am

Over 100 comments, so I am going to post OT~

Mr. J.D. Salinger has died at age 91.
Many thanks to a literary genius who turned a light on inside my mind.

120 Girth  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:08:53am

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I like being able to see the reactions of the minority, which is why McDonnell's reaction speech seemed kind of weird to me. He had the applause breaks too, but everyone in the chamber was a supporter so it looked kind of off kilter to me.

121 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:10:35am

re: #99 avanti

I think Obama's comment was borderline inappropriate, but not on the level of Lincoln issuing a arrest warrant for the Chief Justice for example.

The Republicans did it first - Tu Quoque! /

122 Donna Ballard  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:10:47am

BBL, Lizards. Keep Laughing!

123 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:10:54am

re: #74 lawhawk

Then again, maybe Obama's hoping to demonize the SCt or hoping to cow them into acting in a more agreeable fashion down the road in a more light handed version of FDR's court packing scheme. While FDR got hammered for the attempt, the Court did eventually start deciding more favorably on the New Deal programs. Maybe Obama was hoping to do something similar by calling the Court on the carpet for this particular decision.

Of course, only Democrats would ever try such a thing. Bush would have never asked Congress to write new legislation to get around the Hamdan decision.

//

124 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:11:08am

re: #119 prairiefire

I did not know he was a Normandy veteran. Wow.

And in Hurtgen. What a mess that was.

125 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:11:55am

re: #91 Obdicut

I don't fully agree, but updinged for a very well thought-out post.

This should be our mantra, as a society.

Thank you, but really the people who helped me think about this would be Glenn Greenwald and Reason's Hit and Run commentators. It's really easy to forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court is the final arbiters of the constitutionality of a law. Whatever issues I have with different Justices, I think that overall, the group does try to avoid the worst of political excess and instead we're looking at a philosophical difference. I'd like to think that once a Justice is on the Supreme Court, the D or R bleeds away and they treat their task with the gravitas that it deserves. Sure, they're human, and they're going to have things influence them on some level; but overall, I trust them to do the best they can possibly do.

That's the other reason why I think Obama was wrong to call out the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't do this to spite Obama or McCain or Feingold, they did it because they thought that the Law was unconstitutional under the first amendment of the Constitution. Just because a law would do good things doesn't make it Constitutional and sometimes, as frustrating as it is, we have to accept that.

126 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:12:07am

re: #85 Obdicut

And I agree with what SanFranciscoZionist served up to you in the last thread in answer to your 'question'.

Thanks, but I am willing to cop to Walter's statement here that it was a pretty bland and non-ground-breaking speech. I'm just not willing to cop to the idea that I need to come up with a really great analysis of it!

127 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:12:53am

re: #87 Dragon_Lady

At the risk of pissing off SanFranciscoZionist (which I'm loath to do) every time "That" woman opens up her mouth I cringe. I sincerely don't know how she got to where she is today. And that's all I'm gonna say on it.

If I couldn't stand hearing Nancy criticized I wouldn't have stuck around here long. Really, not gonna be POed. :)

128 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:13:12am

re: #113 negativ

If I hadn't already known about LBJ's...uh...blunt and familiar ways, that might have shocked me.

129 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:13:14am

re: #89 Walter L. Newton

You had your chance and blew it. Big Zero.

And I shall never get another...

130 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:13:23am

re: #119 prairiefire

Over 100 comments, so I am going to post OT~

Mr. J.D. Salinger has died at age 91.
Many thanks to a literary genius who turned a light on inside my mind.

Sad

When my son entered public middle school several years ago, i asked if during his time there (grades 6-8) they would be reading Catcher In The Rye. They said no, it wasn't "relevent" anymore.

When he went to High School (private) last year as a Freshman one of the entrance requirmemnts was that he had to have read it the summer before that year

131 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:14:18am

re: #119 prairiefire

Over 100 comments, so I am going to post OT~

Mr. J.D. Salinger has died at age 91.
Many thanks to a literary genius who turned a light on inside my mind.

"Catcher in the Rye" was one of the few books I read in high school that kept my interest. May he rest in peace, and may his books endure.

I did hate "Ethan Frome" however, that book irritated the bejesus out of me.

132 Spider Mensch  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:14:52am

well this is a bit about nothing imho..shoot, Hilliary used to roll her eyes so much during Bushs addresses you'd think she was having some sort of epileptic seizure..as far as obama and alito..does alito's reaction mean something...maybe, but it's over, back to work today. but I will chime in my 2 cents on obama's speech, I listened and if I didn't know the date and that he is current president, I would think he's still campaigning. just my opinion.

133 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:15:10am

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Can he Twitter? Do a YouTube video? This could be fun.

PresidentObama The state of the Union is good. Economy up. Terrorist threads down. Not raising taxes this year. @alito Watch your back. #POTUS #SoTU

134 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:15:10am

Has anyone seen any morning after polls? I know the majority of people here think it was a dud, but what about the general public?

135 Buck  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:16:16am

re: #33 Ojoe

IIRC the credit card donation page on Obama's campaign website had several information fields de activated and there was quite a question about untracked foreign donations making their way in.

Maybe some other lizards have a better recollection of this than I.

I recall the same thing. With millions of Credit card donations, and the address etc fields not taken, it was impossible to trace and track.

However " America's most powerful interests" never seem to include HIS friends.... Unions for example.

136 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:16:29am

re: #134 Soap_Man

more than 80% of the people who watched it liked it.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

137 badger1970  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:16:40am

re: #134 Soap_Man

Polls would only confirm what was said last night about people prejudging the speech before it was even given.

138 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:16:49am

re: #90 JasonA

Is she your Rep, by the way?

No, I don't currently live in the City. John Garamendi. "The Proven Democrat".

139 Mocking Jay  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:16:56am

re: #134 Soap_Man

Has anyone seen any morning after polls? I know the majority of people here think it was a dud, but what about the general public?

I don't think the general public has gotten over Tiger yet...

140 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:17:18am

More Tea Party O/T news:

Due to conflicting advice on whether Congresswoman Bachmann’s participation in the upcoming Tea Party Nation Convention would be in line with the Committee on Standards, Congresswoman Bachmann has decided not to participate in the event. There is uncertainty about how any proceeds from the event may be used, and we must err on the side of caution. Some will want to portray her withdrawal as a repudiation of the Tea Party Movement, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Congresswoman Bachmann remains encouraged by all Americans, regardless of political party, who are concerned about this nation’s future and dwindling prosperity, and continues to be inspired their passion.

Bachmann not going

141 Mocking Jay  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:17:20am

re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist

Ah. Proven? Is there a formula?

142 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:17:23am

re: #136 Obdicut

more than 80% of the people who watched it liked it.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

That seems absurdly high.

143 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:17:26am

re: #134 Soap_Man

83% approve of the plans he laid out in the SOTU.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

144 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:18:01am

re: #131 MrSilverDragon
In HS we were forced to read "The Pearl" which got me thinking Steinbeck was the darkest morose author ever. After HS I picked up Cannery Row and Sweet Thursday and my opinion of his writing was elevated considerably.

I don't always get the obsession of some literature teachers I've had to select the darkest most depressing or controversial literature for students while ignoring other masterworks that could interest their charges more.

For example I would have been very excited about Shakespeare if some of his comedies were mixed in with Romeo and Juliet.

145 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:18:04am

re: #100 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For next years SOTU...INTERPRETATIVE DANCE!

I'm sorry, I'm having a vision of Obama in green tights, pretending to be a flower.

Sasha and Malia would never be able to go back to school again.

146 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:18:40am

re: #142 Soap_Man

That seems absurdly high.

It's not as if he announced anything controversial. Who doesn't like improving the education system? Cutting taxes on the middle class? Pulling combat troops out of Iraq?

Unless you're being an obstinate GOP prick, how can you not agree with those goals?

147 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:19:53am

re: #111 acacia

The President was way out of line on this one. Not only was it in poor taste but you can't legislate away a constitutional right.

See my #123.

148 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:19:59am

re: #146 drcordell

Your last line there seems kinda unnecessarily aggressive.

149 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:19:59am

re: #134 Soap_Man

Has anyone seen any morning after polls? I know the majority of people here think it was a dud, but what about the general public?

The live blog was very negative here last night.

There were parts that seemed to be geared for the center, but no one seems to have picked up much on them yet. i.e. Nuclear.

150 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:20:42am

re: #142 Soap_Man

Specific wording
CBS 83% of viewers approved of the president's proposals, 42% think he will be able to accomplish them.


CNN 48% of viewers positive on the speech
30% somewhat positive
21% negative

151 Big Steve  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:21:08am

regarding the clip of the Justices......Ginzberg didn't seem too happy with the President's comment. She didn't move a muscle. While she was on the minority of the judgment in question, she is hugely sensitive to the Supreme Courts role and my guess is even she didn't appreciate the call out.

152 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:21:13am

re: #149 Stanley Sea

The live blog was very negative here last night.

There were parts that seemed to be geared for the center, but no one seems to have picked up much on them yet. i.e. Nuclear.

Now we will have see wait and see if he gets an approval bounce from it, which will probably take a few days for the polls to catch up.

153 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:21:30am

re: #148 Obdicut

Your last line there seems kinda unnecessarily aggressive.

It was meant to convey the fact that Republicans have made it explicitly clear that they won't support ANYTHING Obama does. You're telling me it's not ridiculous they can't even applaud TAX CUTS?

154 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:21:58am

re: #151 Big Steve

She is always preternaturally still.

155 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:22:10am

re: #146 drcordell

Unless you're being an obstinate GOP prick, how can you not agree with those goals?

Stay classy DR.

156 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:22:14am

re: #144 DaddyG

In HS we were forced to read "The Pearl" which got me thinking Steinbeck was the darkest morose author ever. After HS I picked up Cannery Row and Sweet Thursday and my opinion of his writing was elevated considerably.

I don't always get the obsession of some literature teachers I've had to select the darkest most depressing or controversial literature for students while ignoring other masterworks that could interest their charges more.

For example I would have been very excited about Shakespeare if some of his comedies were mixed in with Romeo and Juliet.

Personally, I always considered "Romeo and Juliet" to be a comedy, "A Comedy of Errors" to be a tragedy, and "The Merchant of Venice" to be a documentary.

It's no wonder that my Literature teachers would cringe when I walked into their classrooms.

157 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:22:34am

The Onion on Salinger:

New Terminator Movie Brings J.D. Salinger Out Of Hiding

158 wrenchwench  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:22:42am

I thought the speech was good. I listened to it on the radio, so I didn't see anything. I was favorably impressed. I think Obama's speech-giving abilities have improved.

159 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:22:56am

re: #145 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm sorry, I'm having a vision of Obama in green tights, pretending to be a flower.

Sasha and Malia would never be able to go back to school again.

Good thing George Galloway didn't have school age kids back in '06.

160 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:10am

re: #155 DaddyG

Stay classy DR.

Nobody ever said the truth was always going to be beautiful, or classy.

161 subsailor68  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:28am

re: #144 DaddyG

For example I would have been very excited about Shakespeare if some of his comedies were mixed in with Romeo and Juliet.

Hi DaddyG! Couldn't agree with ya more. I'd love to have been at the conference where they picked that one:

Teacher 1: Well, folks, we need to choose the text for next semester. I think we should all remember that our classes will be filled with angst ridden teens struggling to get through puberty, spending all their disposable income on acne cream, and knowing in their hearts they'll never end up with the head cheerleader or the quarterback. Any suggestions?

Teacher 2: How about Romeo and Juliet?

Teacher 1: Perfect!!

Teacher 3: Huh?

162 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:32am

re: #159 The Sanity Inspector

Good thing George Galloway didn't have school age kids back in '06.

Because... I meant to say.

163 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:32am

re: #117 The Curmudgeon

Even if we accept the opinion of an online fact-checker over that of a Supreme Court justice (snip)

When decisions are 5-4, as so many of them are, it's a little disingenuous to be stunned at how categorically WRONGWRONGWRONG someone must be to side with the minority.

164 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:32am

re: #153 drcordell

It was meant to convey the fact that Republicans have made it explicitly clear that they won't support ANYTHING Obama does. You're telling me it's not ridiculous they can't even applaud TAX CUTS?

Yeah, us Republicans are a bunch of big dumb jerks.

165 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:47am

re: #150 prairiefire

Specific wording
CBS 83% of viewers approved of the president's proposals, 42% think he will be able to accomplish them.


CNN 48% of viewers positive on the speech
30% somewhat positive
21% negative


I think those polls tell us more about CNN and CBS viewership than they do the general populaces opinion of the SOTU. Of course the general populace was more likely to be watching NCIS reruns than the SOTU.

166 vxbush  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:23:50am

Well, I didn't watch the SOTU. I was instead spending time with my son, having fun and trying to be a family. I would rather read the SOTU and see it dissected by the press (yes, really) than sit through more than an hour's worth of pontificating.

And I did the same thing with Bush.

167 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:24:11am

re: #164 cliffster

Yeah, us Republicans are a bunch of big dumb jerks.

I beleive the word was PRICKS

168 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:24:21am

I found both the President's comments and Alitos reaction distasteful.

169 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:24:51am
Politifact checked President Obama’s statement that caused Justice Alito to mouth “not true,” and ruled it “Barely True.”


That is Obama's way. He is far from dull. He knows that statements of fact get checked and if they're just wildly wrong, he'll be called on them.

So everything is phrased in such a way that even if it's essentially false, it's not quite exactly a lie.

Eventually, listeners just tune out. It's like the offers I receive from my credit card issuer. "Use these handy checks to ...". The large print promises a low, low promotional interest rate. For a while, just out of curiosity, I read some of the offers. There was always a hook. The low interest rate applied only to the loan itself, and all payments were credited first to the loan, never to the other, high-interest-rate debt.

In effect, my grace period for paying off revolving credit was to be revoked, and a usurious rate set for the associated revolving debt. No thanks. And there were other barbs on the hook as well.

Now, I don't even read those offers. I throw them away, knowing that somehow or other, the offer of favorable terms is only "barely true".

170 gymmom  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:25:00am

re: #144 DaddyG

I just reread East of Eden. And remembered why I always said it was my favorite book. (It had been about 20 years since I read it) I tried to reread Wuthering Heights recently and had to give up due to the nightmares it induced.

171 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:25:06am

re: #168 Radicchio ad Absurdum

I found both the President's comments and Alitos reaction distasteful.

Yeah ,, becasue anytime I get kicked in the nuts I just sit and grin!!

172 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:25:11am

re: #164 cliffster

Yeah, us Republicans are a bunch of big dumb jerks.

Should have specified more clearly. Republican elected officials have made it eminently clear that they will oppose Obama's every step, regardless of whether he is raising taxes or cutting them.

173 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:25:52am

re: #166 vxbush

Well, I didn't watch the SOTU. I was instead spending time with my son, having fun and trying to be a family. I would rather read the SOTU and see it dissected by the press (yes, really) than sit through more than an hour's worth of pontificating.

And I did the same thing with Bush.

Priorities. Props to you.

174 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:26:02am

re: #160 drcordell

Nobody ever said the truth was always going to be beautiful, or classy.

The Truth™ Thus let it be said - thus let it be written!

175 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:26:51am

re: #142 Soap_Man

That seems absurdly high.

No, it's normal for a POTUS in his first year.

I posted a link to that poll in spinoffs last night. It doesn't look to be indicative of anything, imo. (and the sample was, as ever, very small).

The interesting factor might be that of the 85% or so who liked his speech, only 57% of them felt like he could keep the promises made in it.
I don't have any metric for measuring that, (the poll didn't provide one and I haven't looked into it) but if it's much lower than previous SOTU polls I reckon it could possibly indicate people's anxieties (economy), and be a useful measure of electorate discontent.

176 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:27:55am

re: #136 Obdicut

more than 80% of the people who watched it liked it.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]


I'd want to see more than one poll.

Or at least wait until Nate Silver tells us what to think.

177 SixDegrees  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:28:09am

re: #164 cliffster

Yeah, us Republicans are a bunch of big dumb jerks.

And really, really powerful big, dumb jerks, to boot. With a large majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, control of the White House and large public support, the GOP managed to keep the Dems from getting anything done for over a year...

Oh, wait...

178 albusteve  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:28:10am

re: #168 Radicchio ad Absurdum

I found both the President's comments and Alitos reaction distasteful.

I find most national politics distasteful

179 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:28:22am

re: #169 lostlakehiker

That is Obama's way. He is far from dull. He knows that statements of fact get checked and if they're just wildly wrong, he'll be called on them.

So everything is phrased in such a way that even if it's essentially false, it's not quite exactly a lie.

Eventually, listeners just tune out. It's like the offers I receive from my credit card issuer. "Use these handy checks to ...". The large print promises a low, low promotional interest rate. For a while, just out of curiosity, I read some of the offers. There was always a hook. The low interest rate applied only to the loan itself, and all payments were credited first to the loan, never to the other, high-interest-rate debt.

In effect, my grace period for paying off revolving credit was to be revoked, and a usurious rate set for the associated revolving debt. No thanks. And there were other barbs on the hook as well.

Now, I don't even read those offers. I throw them away, knowing that somehow or other, the offer of favorable terms is only "barely true".

Good read. It's smart to ask yourself: "how much money are they expecting to make off of me, that they can afford to mail me two or three come-ons every. single. day?

180 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:28:57am

re: #167 sattv4u2

I beleive the word was PRICKS

It was Biblical:

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

181 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:29:02am
Youtube Video

Kate Bush "Wuthering Heights".


Talk about interpretive dance.

182 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:29:23am

New thread!

(chuckle)

183 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:29:26am

re: #141 JasonA

Ah. Proven? Is there a formula?

I don't know, but his literature was very impressive. He was raised on a ranch, and is active in his church, and he and his lovely wife have two lovely daughters and three golden retrievers, or maybe it's the other way around.

I don't actually think Garamendi is a real person, I think he was designed by a firm to appeal to the maximum number of suburban Democrats in Northern California.

184 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:29:44am

The President said the following

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

The fact of that statement, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law" is not in dispute. The first opinion, "that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests", can be debated, but is not "barely true". It is merely the President's opinion.

President Obama believes this decision will allow unlimited money from special interest groups to influence elections in this country. He goes on to opine that "including foreign corporations" part, which is barely true if presented as fact, however that comment I interpreted as part of Obama's opinion.

I personally believe this decision is horrendous and will result in a deluge of corporate funded propaganda that would make Goebbels proud. I can almost see the "Toxic sludge is good for you" television spots now. I also believe a great many Americans will fall for it.

185 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:30:07am

re: #144 DaddyG

In HS we were forced to read "The Pearl" which got me thinking Steinbeck was the darkest morose author ever. After HS I picked up Cannery Row and Sweet Thursday and my opinion of his writing was elevated considerably.

I don't always get the obsession of some literature teachers I've had to select the darkest most depressing or controversial literature for students while ignoring other masterworks that could interest their charges more.

For example I would have been very excited about Shakespeare if some of his comedies were mixed in with Romeo and Juliet.

We do teach some of the most bleak and depressing stuff in high school. However, my freshmen get to read 'Much Ado About Nothing', which they actually like.

186 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:30:25am

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

I think it's spelled out in the constitution that the president shall address congress once a year, etc.

Shall "report to Congress". This report can be delivered in writing or in person. In the early years, it was sometimes delivered in writing, and no one objected. By the letter of the law and by precedent, a written report counts as sufficient.

It is attractive to have the chance to address not just Congress but the nation, and to present things in their best light without any back talk. We aren't likely to see written reports come back any time soon.

187 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:30:40am

re: #170 gymmom

I just reread East of Eden. And remembered why I always said it was my favorite book. (It had been about 20 years since I read it) I tried to reread Wuthering Heights recently and had to give up due to the nightmares it induced.

My literary IQ has been raised again as my children bring classics home for school. One daughter's lit teacher had them do a redacted version of A Midsummer Nights Dream on stage in 6th grade. That was very cool and the kids loved it.

188 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:31:02am

re: #182 iceweasel

New thread!

(chuckle)

His name is "weiner", Ice. That's funny. It just is

189 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:31:30am

re: #178 albusteve

I find most national politics distasteful


I bet you don't like knowing what is in your breakfast sausage too! /Sir Winston snark

190 vxbush  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:31:55am

re: #173 MrSilverDragon

Priorities. Props to you.

Thanks. I should do it more often.

191 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:32:18am

re: #185 SanFranciscoZionist

We do teach some of the most bleak and depressing stuff in high school. However, my freshmen get to read 'Much Ado About Nothing', which they actually like.


Personally I could have done without "A Separate Peace" in 8th grade. That one left me despairing. Not that it wasn't good lit. but wow!

192 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:32:28am

re: #177 SixDegrees

And really, really powerful big, dumb jerks, to boot. With a large majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, control of the White House and large public support, the GOP managed to keep the Dems from getting anything done for over a year...

Oh, wait...

Clearly the Democrats absolute spinelessness was a major contributing factor, but you can't ignore the fact that the GOP had no interest in actual governance whatsoever.

I suppose you think it's a coincidence that there were over 140 cloture motions filed in the Senate last year? More were filed than any other year in Senate history. Ever. But you're right, that has nothing to do with Republican obstructionism. Nothing at all.

[Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

193 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:32:36am

re: #187 DaddyG

My literary IQ has been raised again as my children bring classics home for school. One daughter's lit teacher had them do a redacted version of A Midsummer Nights Dream on stage in 6th grade. That was very cool and the kids loved it.

"If we shadows have offended, this but this and all is mended..."

Perhaps my favorite of Shakespeare's plays.

194 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:32:38am

re: #188 cliffster

His name is "weiner", Ice. That's funny. It just is

Have you 'found' and read those links yet? I thought it might help you when then popped up on a post here. Sweetie.

195 subsailor68  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:32:43am

re: #185 SanFranciscoZionist

We do teach some of the most bleak and depressing stuff in high school. However, my freshmen get to read 'Much Ado About Nothing', which they actually like.

Hi SFZ! Good for you! It's a truly funny play, and the Branagh film is a real treat - right down to Patrick Doyle's song.

196 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:33:06am

re: #193 MrSilverDragon

THINK but this...

dangit.

197 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:33:22am

I'm sure there are also a great number of lizards that are absolutely heartbroken over the passing of historian Howard Zinn.

198 Soap_Man  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:33:37am

re: #165 DaddyG

I think those polls tell us more about CNN and CBS viewership than they do the general populaces opinion of the SOTU. Of course the general populace was more likely to be watching NCIS reruns than the SOTU.

Just in!! New Fox News poll on SOTU:

Approve: 8%
Disapprove: 114%
No opinion: 4%

///

199 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:33:49am

re: #144 DaddyG


I don't always get the obsession of some literature teachers I've had to select the darkest most depressing or controversial literature for students while ignoring other masterworks that could interest their charges more.

For example I would have been very excited about Shakespeare if some of his comedies were mixed in with Romeo and Juliet.

I must have been very lucky; my class's first Shakespeare was "Midsummer Night's Dream". It was a combined English/Social Studies class -- later in the year we did a unit that combined "The Crucible", "Rhinocerus", and McCarthy-ism.

I have very fond memories of that teacher.

200 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:34:12am

re: #166 vxbush

Well, I didn't watch the SOTU. I was instead spending time with my son, having fun and trying to be a family. I would rather read the SOTU and see it dissected by the press (yes, really) than sit through more than an hour's worth of pontificating.

And I did the same thing with Bush.

We did much the same last night. I got home from work right about 8 p.m. Wife and son were already in the family room where we watched Modern Family and The Middle. When the speech came on we retreated to the dining room for a rousing board game

I did DVR the address and watched it this a.m at work, but the time spent with family was PRICELESS

201 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:34:13am

re: #191 DaddyG

Personally I could have done without "A Separate Peace" in 8th grade. That one left me despairing. Not that it wasn't good lit. but wow!

Then there's my juniors. "Of Mice And Men"--beautiful, but so horrible. "The Scarlet Letter"--well, it sort of ends well. "The Great Gatsby"...

202 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:34:16am

re: #198 Soap_Man

Just in!! New Fox News poll on SOTU:

Approve: 8%
Disapprove: 114%
No opinion: 4%

///

must repost on new thread. !

203 SixDegrees  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:35:16am

re: #184 American-African

All fine and good. But it doesn't excuse what many took as a frontal assault on the separation of powers. I don't quite share that view myself, but found his statement clumsy, trashy and apparently designed to agitate rather than solve anything.

I also think Alito would have done better to sit quietly, despite having been directly attacked in an unprofessional, ungentlemanly manner.

204 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:35:45am

re: #193 MrSilverDragon

"If we shadows have offended, this but this and all is mended..."

Perhaps my favorite of Shakespeare's plays.


I like Henry V - for the Lords trying to justify invading France using his Geneology, for the St Crispins Day speech (Band of Brothers), and for his scene trying to woo his cousin.

205 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:36:02am

re: #195 subsailor68

Hi SFZ! Good for you! It's a truly funny play, and the Branagh film is a real treat - right down to Patrick Doyle's song.

They used to do "As You Like It", but the cross-dressing confused them. Some year I might try them on "Twelfth Night" though, if the department agreed.

They like the relationships in "Much Ado". The ending disappoints them, though. I need to work on that this year.

206 sagehen  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:37:20am

re: #172 drcordell

Should have specified more clearly. Republican elected officials have made it eminently clear that they will oppose Obama's every step, regardless of whether he is raising taxes or cutting them.


Youtube Video
207 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:37:21am

re: #195 subsailor68

Hi SFZ! Good for you! It's a truly funny play, and the Branagh film is a real treat - right down to Patrick Doyle's song.


I have a man crush Kenneth Branagh - and that isn't something that happens to me much. My wife approves of me watching him perform shakespeare in any film.

208 SixDegrees  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:38:20am

re: #192 drcordell

Clearly the Democrats absolute spinelessness was a major contributing factor, but you can't ignore the fact that the GOP had no interest in actual governance whatsoever.

They seem to have done a better job of governing than the Democrats, having managed to control the political agenda with wide minorities in both house, little public support and no power at all in the White House. According to you, anyway.

Trying to blame the GOP for the President's string of failures is hysterically funny. Also a little sad and pathetic. But mostly, uproarious.

209 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:38:29am

re: #194 iceweasel

hell hath no fury like an iceweasel scorned.

210 acacia  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:38:43am

re: #184 American-African

We have the right to say "toxic sludge is good." We have the right to say "toxic sludge is bad." The idea of limiting speech based on what you fear might be said is precisely what the first amendment is designed to prevent.

211 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:38:48am

re: #204 DaddyG

I like Henry V - for the Lords trying to justify invading France using his Geneology, for the St Crispins Day speech (Band of Brothers), and for his scene trying to woo his cousin.

I have an unfortunate taste not only for the the St. Crispin's Day speech, but for parodies of it. The one from "Dark Ages" is fabulous.

"This day is called the feast of Engelbert..."

212 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:39:07am

re: #208 SixDegrees

They seem to have done a better job of governing than the Democrats, having managed to control the political agenda with wide minorities in both house, little public support and no power at all in the White House. According to you, anyway.

Trying to blame the GOP for the President's string of failures is hysterically funny. Also a little sad and pathetic. But mostly, uproarious.

but ,, But ,, BUT ,, you guys now have 41 senators!!!

//

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:39:26am

re: #207 DaddyG

I have a man crush Kenneth Branagh - and that isn't something that happens to me much. My wife approves of me watching him perform shakespeare in any film.

I thought he was amazing in "The Lady's Not For Burning".

214 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:39:48am

re: #171 sattv4u2

Yeah ,, becasue anytime I get kicked in the nuts I just sit and grin!!

That was no kick in the nuts, it was a grave (imho) breach of protocol and decorum which should roll off any jurists back.

A public dressing down at the State of the union made Obama look bad. Alito did not need to rise to the occasion.

215 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:39:55am

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

I thought he was amazing in "The Lady's Not For Burning".


Didn't see that one yet - thanks for the tip!

216 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:40:45am

re: #178 albusteve

Amen.

217 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:41:26am

re: #197 drcordell

My wonky liberal mummy told me that today when we were eating lunch.
She admires him quite a bit. I have not read him, I don't think.

218 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:41:37am

re: #203 SixDegrees

ungentlemanly manner.

I agree on that point. Not what I want to see from the President, but I can understand it considering my own reservations about the decision. It makes me angry so many people think this is a good thing. I just see terrible things being done to our elections as a result of this.

219 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:42:54am

re: #212 sattv4u2

but ,, But ,, BUT ,, you guys now have 41 senators!!!

//

Jesus Christ in a handbasket. Go look at THIS CHART and you can see clear as day exactly what I am talking about.

When Bush was in power, the Democrats respected the will of the electorate and actually allowed the party in power to implement their chosen policies. They could have filibustered every. single. Bush proposal. But they didn't, because they actually have a sense of shame.

The GOP does not have this sense of shame. They are shameless. They are willing to grind the governance of this country to an absolute gridlock, so long as the Democrats do not accomplish any of their goals.

If you disagree with my contentions, then explain to me why more cloture motions were filed this year than ever before in the history of the Senate?

220 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:43:54am

re: #207 DaddyG

I have a man crush Kenneth Branagh - and that isn't something that happens to me much. My wife approves of me watching him perform shakespeare in any film.

He is a wonder in " Henry V." I think I sat there slak-jawed most of the movie.

Youtube Video
221 subsailor68  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:43:59am

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

I thought he was amazing in "The Lady's Not For Burning".

The wife and I were living in L.A. when Branagh brought his troupe in to do Midsummer and Lear. We got tickets to both. The really terrific part of the evening was when he announced that he and the actors (including Emma Thompson, Jimmy Yuill (sp?), and Richard Briers) would all be available to chat. They finished the play, took a couple of minutes to change out of their costumes, and came back out to sit on the edge of the stage.

And they were all drinking beer! Great evening and much fun was had by all.

222 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:44:06am

re: #209 cliffster

hell hath no fury like an iceweasel scorned.

You're just pissy that you you were ill-informed about the subject to begin with, and then Charles happened to make a post that linked the very issues in question. Which included the politifact link I'd linked and you 'couldn't find'.
Hell hath no fury like an ignorant wingnut who's been exposed as ignorant.

223 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:47:21am

re: #221 subsailor68

Wow, wow, wow.

224 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:47:46am

re: #219 drcordell

To my mind, you can either applaud the obstructionism of the GOP or deny it. Too many people are trying to do both at once.

225 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:47:48am

re: #184 American-African

you think the decision is horrendous or the result? if you think the latter, that's fair. If you think the former, then pls explain why I don't have the right to band together with a like-minded group of individuals and exercise my right to free speech?

226 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:51:20am

re: #219 drcordell

when progress = spending, gridlock = good. not true in every case, but as a general statement, i think it works.

227 Buck  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:51:33am

re: #208 SixDegrees

They seem to have done a better job of governing than the Democrats, having managed to control the political agenda with wide minorities in both house, little public support and no power at all in the White House. According to you, anyway.

Trying to blame the GOP for the President's string of failures is hysterically funny. Also a little sad and pathetic. But mostly, uproarious.

A million updings.

How Democrats treated conservatives (from both parties) is what the past year was about.

228 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:53:04am

re: #219 drcordell

neither party is shameless. why is scott brown the 41st republican? because Dems shamelessly changed the way that sentators' vacant seats are filled in Mass.

thanks for that.

229 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:53:28am

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

neither party both parties are shameless. why is scott brown the 41st republican? because Dems shamelessly changed the way that sentators' vacant seats are filled in Mass.

thanks for that.

pimf

230 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:54:44am

re: #226 Aceofwhat?

when progress = spending, gridlock = good. not true in every case, but as a general statement, i think it works.

Right. Because that $10 trillion dollars of deficit that existed when Obama walked in the door was all his doing? What a joke.

231 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:56:23am

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

neither party is shameless. why is scott brown the 41st republican? because Dems shamelessly changed the way that sentators' vacant seats are filled in Mass.

thanks for that.

Uh, no. If they were shameless they would have changed the law back to a Governor's appointment after a Democrat became Governor. They could have simply changed the law back. But they didn't. Because they feel shame.

232 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:56:29am

re: #222 iceweasel

You're just pissy that you you were ill-informed about the subject to begin with, and then Charles happened to make a post that linked the very issues in question. Which included the politifact link I'd linked and you 'couldn't find'.
Hell hath no fury like an ignorant wingnut who's been exposed as ignorant.

Seriously, ice, you cited information, I wanted to read it. Was expecting a long analysis, so I was asking you if I was missing something. simple as that. no intention to mock your source. I'll forgive your ignorant wingnut comment, as cliffster's tone I'm sure is difficult to read.

233 sattv4u2  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:56:44am

re: #230 drcordell

Right. Because that $10 trillion dollars of deficit that existed when Obama walked in the door was all his doing? What a joke.

"Hey ,, look ,,,,, we're 10 trillion in debt. What pikers that last admin was. I'll bet we can TRIPLE that in just one year!!!"

234 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:57:13am

re: #184 American-African

The President said the following

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

The fact of that statement, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law" is not in dispute. The first opinion, "that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests", can be debated, but is not "barely true". It is merely the President's opinion.

President Obama believes this decision will allow unlimited money from special interest groups to influence elections in this country. He goes on to opine that "including foreign corporations" part, which is barely true if presented as fact, however that comment I interpreted as part of Obama's opinion.

I personally believe this decision is horrendous and will result in a deluge of corporate funded propaganda that would make Goebbels proud. I can almost see the "Toxic sludge is good for you" television spots now. I also believe a great many Americans will fall for it.

There will indeed be corporate funded propaganda. It will go into the flood of propaganda that already floods the media. You have government itself, institutes that give themselves high-blown names but are in point of fact mini-me's for the Left or the Right respectively, unions, editorial pages in newspapers that are, almost without exception, partisan, and so forth.

The whole idea of free speech is that a free people with a tradition of elections and self governance will be able to sort through this and arrive at tolerably sensible evaluations of the merits, often enough to avoid the worst errors.

Goebbels and company didn't allow anybody free speech. Corporations, unions, newspapers, they all were brought under the tutelage of the Partei and the Gestapo. While we may get more speech about how global warming is a crock (such talk itself being a crock), that's OK. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from being misled by politically misguided corporations. Government is big enough it can make its own case to the people. There are no laws forbidding the televising of a State of the Union address, for instance.

235 Mocking Jay  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:58:43am

re: #207 DaddyG

I have a man crush Kenneth Branagh - and that isn't something that happens to me much. My wife approves of me watching him perform shakespeare in any film.

His Crispin's Day speech gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

236 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:59:38am

re: #233 sattv4u2

"Hey ,, look ,,, we're 10 trillion in debt. What pikers that last admin was. I'll bet we can TRIPLE that in just one year!!!"

You do understand how debt works right? $10 trillion dollars in debt means you are paying interest on that $10 trillion. Interest that costs money. Along with funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with funding MEDICARE PART D (the largest unfunded entitlement in U.S. history).

If you were able to make even a semi-serious argument regarding the deficit, I'd be willing to listen to what you have to say. But it's become abundantly clear that you're nothing but a deficit peacock. Let anyone with your party's colors run the deficit up as much as they like. Reagan, Bush, W. Bush, give em all a platinum card! But as soon as someone you disagree with takes office... ZOMG THE DEFICIT!!!

237 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:00:39pm

re: #104 negativ

How about "Yakety Sax"?

If our government is going to act like a vaudeville show, add more slapstick!

238 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:00:49pm

re: #235 JasonA

His Crispin's Day speech gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

It makes me want to grab a sword and charge the French lines.

239 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:01:00pm

re: #225 Aceofwhat?

I believe the decision is horrendous. I support your right to assemble with your friends and exercise your right to free speech. I also believe that some transparent corporate involvement in the political process is not necessarily a bad thing.

Looking at the history of this country, I believe this decision will embolden some corporations to engage in such spending as to effectively negate any real grassroots movements American people attempt to engage in. We will still think grassroots movements are taking place, but they will all be nothing more than astroturf, and used to convince people to reject things that are bad for large, established corporations and good for individuals or competitive, smaller companies.

Electronic cigarettes, for example. These companies days may be numbered even if the win the case against the FDA.

240 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:02:39pm

re: #219 drcordell

Jesus Christ in a handbasket. Go look at THIS CHART and you can see clear as day exactly what I am talking about.

When Bush was in power, the Democrats respected the will of the electorate and actually allowed the party in power to implement their chosen policies. They could have filibustered every. single. Bush proposal. But they didn't, because they actually have a sense of shame.

The GOP does not have this sense of shame. They are shameless. They are willing to grind the governance of this country to an absolute gridlock, so long as the Democrats do not accomplish any of their goals.

If you disagree with my contentions, then explain to me why more cloture motions were filed this year than ever before in the history of the Senate?

We aren't trying to block every last attempt to govern the country. We are trying to head off what if implemented will be a terrible blow to the nation: your version of health care reform.

We expect that the national sense of betrayal and hurt that will arise should these measures pass will undercut your party's chances in elections for decades to come. If we cared only for our partisan fortunes, it would be easy enough to say that we shall never consent, while consenting, and let those measures pass. And then ride to a hollow political victory on the wave of blowback that would follow.

We are the loyal opposition.

241 prairiefire  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:04:07pm

re: #239 American-African

I'm thinking that American's natural cynicism will kick in. But it's going to be an ugly August, September, no doubt about it.

242 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:05:35pm

re: #232 cliffster

Seriously, ice, you cited information, I wanted to read it. Was expecting a long analysis, so I was asking you if I was missing something. simple as that. no intention to mock your source. I'll forgive your ignorant wingnut comment, as cliffster's tone I'm sure is difficult to read.

You can find those links, as mentioned before, in spinoffs.

Or, you can just read the post Charles made on the subject. And read the links posted there.

Seriously, cliffster, I think it's a good idea to read what's posted, and avoid comments like 'sweetie' or 'chuckle'-- if you really want information-- and not a good idea to pretend like you 'only wanted information' when it blows up in your face. Or to post comments like this and pretend you were only, always, 'wanting information'.

PS have you read any of those links yet? Do.

243 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:07:12pm

re: #234 lostlakehiker

Goebbels and company didn't allow anybody free speech. Corporations, unions, newspapers, they all were brought under the tutelage of the Partei and the Gestapo. While we may get more speech about how global warming is a crock (such talk itself being a crock), that's OK. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from being misled by politically misguided corporations. Government is big enough it can make its own case to the people. There are no laws forbidding the televising of a State of the Union address, for instance.

You are correct in this. There was an absolute lack of free speech allowing a fairly easy implementation of their agenda. Imagine how much more successful those with truly evil intent would be if they could legally spend as much of their corporate profits as they wished to attempt a stealth version of the same tactic, using our own free speech right against us.

All I am saying is I see a bad moon arisin'

244 drcordell  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:07:59pm

re: #240 lostlakehiker

We aren't trying to block every last attempt to govern the country. We are trying to head off what if implemented will be a terrible blow to the nation: your version of health care reform.

We expect that the national sense of betrayal and hurt that will arise should these measures pass will undercut your party's chances in elections for decades to come. If we cared only for our partisan fortunes, it would be easy enough to say that we shall never consent, while consenting, and let those measures pass. And then ride to a hollow political victory on the wave of blowback that would follow.

We are the loyal opposition.

BWahahahahahahahaha. So you're saying that the Republicans know that if Obama's agenda passes, it will result in a massive GOP victory. But they are purposely blocking it because they don't want to come back into power? What?

245 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:09:00pm

The McCain Feingold bill was full of good intent but misguided. You aren't going to be able to stop the funding of political speech. If you ban corporate funding then 527s will fill in the gap. If you limit the amount then corporation lobbyists will bundle individual "voluntary" contributions. Better to shed more light on the subject and require full disclosure of sources. That limits no one's speech but lets people know who is pulling the strings.

246 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:10:04pm

re: #241 prairiefire

I hope and pray you are right, but I know how dumb gullible people can be. Sarah Palin and the Iraq/9-11 connection comes immediately to mind.

247 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:12:10pm

re: #244 drcordell
Democrats and Republicans are trying to represent their constituencies and hold onto power. The Paradox is that they will sometimes fight measures in behalf of their constituents that they may think could derail their opponents if passed.

The one thing I see all bloggers can agree on is the other guy is evil and my guy is well intended. /

248 cliffster  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:12:43pm

re: #242 iceweasel

You started the sweetie bit, I just went along for the ride because I thought we were still friends.

look I thought you were referring to some sort of encyclopediatic analysis of the decision, and the article was not that, that's why I asked if I was missing something. I think you read me the wrong way, take it or leave it. Either way, I hope you have a good day.

249 DaddyG  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:13:02pm

Its embarassing to find out I'm posting to myself... better go back to the live thread.

250 Blueheron  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:15:39pm

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

I'm not crazy about the trend of audience watching in general. Where's it going to end? "John Kyle scracthed his crotch when the president mentioned a new jobs bill?"

I'm sure lots of people in the room had varied reactions at different points in times.

Are they going to start reporting who stood up and clapped at what lines?


Yeah that's easy.....Nancy Pelosi./

251 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:18:02pm

re: #248 cliffster

I'm only too delighted if this conversation makes you finally read those links, cliffster-- even though you continue to blame me for your failure to do so, and for your comments.

Have a lovely day.

252 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:23:36pm

re: #142 Soap_Man

That seems absurdly high.

If you think it's absurd that people approve of the President's (pretty mild and uncontroversial) goals, you might actually not really be in touch with most of the country. The majority of the country wants this guy to succeed. I'm sorry, but they do.

253 Raven1  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 1:05:42pm

re: #231 drcordell

I live in Massachusetts, the democrats by their corrupt maneuvering of the laws have earned the disdain of the electorate. Witness the Scott Brown election. The democrats in this state have proven themselves to be completely out of touch and insensitive to the electorate. There will be hell to pay in this state for the democrats this November.

254 ovoid  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 1:12:37pm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/supreme-court-historian-after-presidents-insult-wont-be-surprised-if-supreme-court-doesnt-attend-next-year.html

A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction

Linda Greenhouse, commenting in the New York Times, explains the problem with the claim that the SCUSA “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.

Obama's mistake was to castigate the court. While it is naive to suppose that politics don't factor into deicisions, it is decidedly unclassy to try to castigate the court for an unpopular opinion as he did.

Alito hardly stole the show; Obama did that. Alito just responded in a human way.

Obama could have explained his belief that the law must be changed rather than castigate the decision. He is, or ought to be, too well-versed in the concept of constitutional law to ignore the ugly precedent he set.

255 American-African  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 2:28:47pm

And so it begins... Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision

256 Petero1818  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 3:02:40pm

I just don't believe this is that big of an issue. The Supreme Court has been shamefully politicized over the years and I think this is just a logical step down the same road. The fact is that Obama did not criticize the Court, he disagreed with a decision of 5 members of the Court. I also don't think it is such a big deal that Alito said what he said. He is free to disagree and people who pretend that the Courts are void of personalities are fooling themselves. Perhaps this event will help people see what the Supreme Court appointment process has become. While it was supposed to be an independent branch, it merely reflects the political one these days.

257 Dr. Shalit  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 4:29:35pm

The Way I see it is that Pres. Obama's comment was too clever by half. Let us state the truth - money, like water finds its level, in Politics as Elsewhere. "Campaign Reform" Legislation gave succor if not birth to the 501(c)(3) organizations. The Way to Go, so far as I am concerned, is the same as I believed since the 1970's. Let any US Citizen or US Organization contribute what they will, same contributions being reported to the F.E.C. as received, and with today's technology - posted to the internet within 24 hours. For First Amendment Reasons, Isn't that enough?

-S-

258 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 4:51:09pm

On Mark Levin's radio show tonight, he eviscerated the President for his disingenuousness on this issue and cited statute after statute to support his position. While Levin is certainly a strident critic of Obama, he is no birther and I think he is credible.

259 kirkspencer  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:13:35pm

I may have missed it above, though I did read the thread. Assuming I'm not duplicating, I'd like to raise a point for consideration.

US law prohibits foreign entities (corporations included) from contributing to politics. However, there is no prohibition from a foreign-owned domestic entity from contributing.

In other words, France could contribute to various US political campaigns by using Vivendi's 52% ownership of Activision Blizzard, with the latter being the company that 'officially' contributed money to the campaigns.

Just a point to keep in mind.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 50 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
2 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 408 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1