Shady

Exactly. This is what I found from the NYT, hardly a bastion of conservatism. Mr. Obamas description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had 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 NYT Give it up Bubber. You're as wrong as Obama is on this particular case. But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your postings! You never have before.

Yes, thanks, but I already know that. But the Supreme Court decision that the President denounced was based on the McCain-Feingold legislation. So to describe it as a reversal of a 100 year law is a lie. I'm sorry you're only finding out now that Dear Leader's a liar. You're not learning at all.

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal broke the law The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. TOL One wonders, if global warming research is so pure, and completely on the up and up, why did these so-called scientists do their best Richard Nixon impersonation? I think we all know the answer to that one.

And the other Obama lie was his claim that a century's worth of law had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The court struck down a McCain-Fiengold provision, which is hardly a century old, unless he coinsiders a 2002 law 100 years old. Lie away Mr. President.

Foreign National: Any person other than a US citizen, US permanent or temporary legal resident alien, or person in US custody. And since The Supreme Court has already ruled that corporations are people, I can't see how the previous sub-section of the law I posted wouldn't apply. Even if the foreign company is headquartered and incorporated in the United States, they fall under that definition. You lost this case councillor. Better luck next time. And btw, I only PM people who know what they're talking about! But at the heart of the matter was the denial of constitutional rights of American citizens. You can't include U.S. citizens in a law the prohibts freedom of speech to non-U.S. citizens. That's why the law was found to be unconstitutional. Which it is.

How would a foreign-owned corporation not fall under Foreign nationals?

There is more to the law than just U.S.C. 441e. The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication….”

Unique isn't akin to unconstitutional, which is what the anti-prorogue teabagging crowd as been insisting. You may disagree with the use, but as I've already stated, a coalition takeover of government involving seperatists was also unique.

No they're not. Now you're lying. That simply isn't true.

Yes, it's a lie. He's a liar and a demagogue. The court ruled on Section 441a, but Section 441e was left untouched. That section prohibits foreign corporations from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." This man was a constitutional law professor. He should know better. He obviously knew that he wasn't just bending the truth, but outright lying to the American people. If any utterance deserved a "You lie" moment, it was this one.

My goal this year, is to setup a fake interview with the Canadian head of PETA, and then pie him or her in the face. This incident would be recorded on video, and uploaded to YouTube immediately. I say a little taste of their own medicine is in good order. Of course, I would use a meat pie.

Exactly. It exposes the anti-prorogue teabaggers for what they really are. Political opportunists and hypocrites.

No. He prevented GM and Chrysler from going through a proper organized bankruptcy, which would have put them in a much better postion going forward. Instead, he just threw billions of dollars to them, and handed majority ownership of them over to the unions. It was all about saving the unions, not about saving and bettering Government Motors and Chrysler. Again, he just threw hundreds of billions of dollars towards the banks, without any strings attached. And now he wants to pretend he's outraged. It's nice though, after a full year of economic disaster, he's finally pivoting to jobs. A little late to the show Barry. That's all people were ever concerned about from the beginning. Idiot.

What exactly is this so-called lack of independence? The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of crafted legislation. Obama deliberately lied about the court ruling. The Supreme Court is AN EQUAL BRANCH of the federal government. If Obama wants to lie and criticize it, then I think a head shake and whisper is more than justified.

AP has his lie count at around 10 last night. Which is lower than I thought it would be, so I guess that's good. The best moment of the night was when Justice Alito shook his head saying not true to one of Obama's distortions. He gets a huge thumbs up!

I thought his speech was ok, but definitely not the best one he's given. I thought it started out well, kind of died in the middle, but finished strong.

You're grossly mistaken. I didn't say that President Obama was behind the letter-writting campaign. He has more important things to do. However, the communications wing of the White House or Democratic Party is designed for this type of exercise. After all, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... The Media's Favorite Healthcare Analyst Revealed To Be On Obama's Dole MIT economist Jonathan Gruber has become the go-to economist for fans of the health care reform wending its way through congress. He regularly produces analyses showing how great reform is going to be for people buying insurance in the individual market, and has been a vocal advocate for the excise tax. His prominence made him a natural lead-in for Ron Brownstein's recent piece on the health care bill for Atlantic Politics: But he probably wouldn't have been cited with quite the same authority--particularly by mainstream media--if he'd been more upfront about the fact that he's being paid almost $300,000 by the Obama Administration for "special studies and analysis" of the health care. Link I gotta admit, paying industry professionals to shill for you policies is a very effective method of propaganda. Again, Axelrod et all should be congratulated, even though what they did was pretty bad. One can't argue it's effectiveness.

Exactly. One can't help but be a little skeptical of the source. This particular writer, picked up by the left-leanging NPR, writes for left-leaning The Nation magazine. She's also a contributor of The Huffington Post. And she doesn't exactly have a fondness for the military during good times, let alone bad times.

Nope, not at all. Are yours?

Of course it happens in all militaries. Except that all militaries don't have the same depth of study and investigation as the one posted. Also, the American military has more women serving in it than any other military in the world, so of course it's going to be more prevalent.

Your entire premise is false. So-called fake evidence wasn't used to justify a war in Iraq, and a former administration didn't reveal the identity of a CIA agent. It's perfectly acceptable to suggest that certain intelligence given higher priority than others, but the CIA produced nothing that was fake. Also, it was known for quite a while that Plame's identity was revealed Richard Armitage, not anyone from the Bush administration. That's fact. And the only liar is the whole situation, a habitual liar, was Joe Wilson.

No, this is why the U.S. military shouldn't be used as social experimentation. Adding women to a group of the most testosterone oriented men in the world was a recipe for disaster. The same goes for openly gay and lesbian individuals. I'm sorry, but these are the unintended consequences of do-gooder liberals, and at some point they need to be held responsible for their actions. :angry:

Exactly.

I'm aware that Sarah Palin had a ghost writer. What I was objecting to, was the criticizm that she used one. The vast majority of memoires involve some collaboration with multiple writers. But again, what Sarah Palin does or doesn't do, isn't a defence of Obama's ineptitude.

Have you found another example of an attempt to replace an elected government with a coalition government formed from political opponents who's goal it is to break up the country of said government? Sometimes unprecedented attacks call for unprecedented defenses. But as has already been pointed out by several posters. The political device of the prorogue is hardly new. If you don't like it, work to change the contitutional law, instead of uselessly criticizing those who follow it.