Fuck its silent in here.......

[Quality Start Machine]

Good delivery.

But giving a gigantic Honeydo list to a gridlocked Congress? That stuff's not gonna hai.

[BH]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".

[Internet Apex]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is near.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".

Me too.

[MAD]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is anear a halfape.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".

Me too.

TDubbs'd.

[morpheus]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

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

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. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

[Quality Start Machine]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

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

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. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

He said he believes it will, not that it did.

[Internet Apex]

Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

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

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. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

He said he believes it will, not that it did.

Nuance. Ask BC, he'll tell you all about it.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

[morpheus]

I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

[MikeC]

The AP might have something to say about the most awesome State of the Union ever....

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/fact-check-obama-and-a-toothless-commission-198652.html

When the AP is smelling bullshit in the room, you have problems.

My Favorite was this....

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

Say one thing, do a completly different thing. Wash, rinse, repeat. And you wonder why everywhere Obama steps in to help out political friends ends up losing their job. If a serial liar comes out to talk you up, you know your being played for a sucker.

And ofcourse he had to blame Bush for all his problems. You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems. Thats the difference between a real President and a total hack as one.

You got some serious balls, and some fucking stupid blind political support, to talk about trillion dollar deficiets under Bush and then not talk about what your doing....

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Obama hates everthing Bush did to him before he got in office and his idea is to accelerate everything Bush did? Why the fuck was Obama elected again? I am sure it wasn't based off the belief he was going to continue the Bush spending spree.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

That would seem to be unconstitutional now.  Given the scope of the ruling, someone could certainly challenge it.

[MikeC]

Morph it should be noted that when Obama was complaing about the Supreme Court opening up the flood gates to foriegn corporations or donors it was his campaign that removed many of the donation safe guards to prevent people from overseas from donating to his campaign.

I will have to search the internet for the work some bloggers did, but they compared the donation process of McCain and Obama and McCain had all the normal restrictions that would prevent someone from overseas donating while the Obama campaign stripped those out. Plus the Obama campaign accepted nearly anything as payment like gift cards which would be totally untraceable.

And Obama wants to bitch about the flood of forieng money into campaigns to the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama is flush with millions he recieved from over-seas in nothing more than a slick bypass of election law.

Another one of those bullshit moments from the State of the Union.

[morpheus]

I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

That would seem to be unconstitutional now.  Given the scope of the ruling, someone could certainly challenge it.

No.  The Court held that a portion of 2 USC 441a was unconstitutional.  Didn't say a thing about 441e.  The law makes the distinction between foreign entities and domestic ones for a reason, and it's a big leap to say that will be affected in any way.

[Chuck to Chuck]

No.  The Court held that a portion of 2 USC 441a was unconstitutional.  Didn't say a thing about 441e.  The law makes the distinction between foreign entities and domestic ones for a reason, and it's a big leap to say that will be affected in any way.

Agreed.  But it certainly opened the door to someone who wants to challenge 441e who didn't think there was a chance in hell of a favorable ruling before.

Please note that I'm not arguing for or against the ruling.  Frankly, I don't care who spends money on politicians or how much they spend.  I'm just for sunlight.

Places me against Coke Can Thomas, I guess.

[morpheus]

Morph it should be noted that when Obama was complaing about the Supreme Court opening up the flood gates to foriegn corporations or donors it was his campaign that removed many of the donation safe guards to prevent people from overseas from donating to his campaign.

I will have to search the internet for the work some bloggers did, but they compared the donation process of McCain and Obama and McCain had all the normal restrictions that would prevent someone from overseas donating while the Obama campaign stripped those out. Plus the Obama campaign accepted nearly anything as payment like gift cards which would be totally untraceable.

And Obama wants to bitch about the flood of forieng money into campaigns to the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama is flush with millions he recieved from over-seas in nothing more than a slick bypass of election law.

Another one of those bullshit moments from the State of the Union.

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.