The US Supreme Court

Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by joanne, Jan 22, 2010.

  1. SparrowHawk

    SparrowHawk Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Neither the right nor the left have the market on hypocrisy cornered. Both IMO are equally guilty and nauseate me.

    There is no place in government these days for a politian who actually believes they are there to actually represent the people of his.her district.

    Once you get the above through your thick heads it's much easier to function and act only in your best interests. This is why we are where we are. Not because we've become apathetic all by our lonesome.

    NO Sir, the American Public was beaten into apathy by the very hypocrites who now find themselves in trouble with the voters.

    So did anyone actually watch the "Empty Suit" speak and ruin prime time last night?
     
  2. Garfield1966

    Garfield1966 Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not watched a debate or speech given by any politician in decades. I have no interest in hearing what they have to say, only in what they do. My experience thus far has been that the two rarely if ever overlap.

    Besides, that's why I have a DVR. I always have something I can watch that is of interest to me.
     
  3. Boomer

    Boomer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    64
    Can anyone define the type and kind of contributions allowed under this ruling that were specifically illegal prior to the passage of McCain-Feingold?

    IMHO:
    1) Did the recent ruling with respect to McCain-Feingold specifically deliniate a funding source for political ads that was specifically prohibited prior to the passage of McCain-Feingold?

    LINK PROVIDED: McCain-Feingold Act- Wikipedia

    2) It seems that the dis-juncture between the laws that existed with M-F and the current SCOTUS ruling were bypassed by the 527-groups both parties fielded up to the 30 day primary and 60 day general election rules.

    3) In effect it seems that all the recent SCOTUS ruling allows is McCain-Feingold embargoed ads, 30 days before primary elections and 60 days for general elections, which were allowed before M-F was passed.

    4) I do not see, prior to McCain-Feingold, where foreign corporations or multinational corporations with US incorporations, were forbidden from directly or indirectly financing US elections prior to and during McCain-Feingold through: their US subsidiary; their US based corporate directorships; their US based boards of directors; their US employees; their contributions to US PACS; their US based Community Activists; their support and funding for consumer groups; their funding and support for consumer watchdogs; their 527 groups etc...up to the 30 day and 60 day limits for primary and general elections.

    I would appreciate any constructive information about how the SCOTUS ruling changes the rules that existed prior to McCain-Feingold.
     
  4. Tug McGroin

    Tug McGroin Senior

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    2
    Too bad you missed the State of the Union address last night Garfield. In what some are calling a “Joe Wilsonâ€￾ moment, Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when he heard Obama demagoging the First Amendment.

    You missed Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano putting the "Nap" back in Napolitano. That’s the second time in 65 days she’s been caught sleeping on the job.

    You missed seeing Harry Reid up well past his bunk time.

    The AP put together and posted a list of Obama’s 10 biggest whoppers from the State of the Union address.

    Obama didn’t say nor did anyone ask how he celebrated the closing of Gitmo on 22 January 2010.
     
  5. Garfield1966

    Garfield1966 Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    And your life was enriched by that how? Would you care to cover any of the false hoods given in previous addresses?

    As for naps, if nothing important is happening, I'd be napping also. I thought I recalled hearing that RR would doze of during briefings sometimes. I also seem to recall hearing that he dozed off twice when meeting with the pope. OH well.

    Politicians lie or are idiots. Take your pick. They move their lips and crap comes out. What else is new. What ever he said can easily be found on line and read in substantially less time if you are so inclined. Personally, I'd rather not waste my time. SOU speeches are all about blowing smoke up your dress to make you feel better. Obama will give at least more. Bush gave 8, Clinton gave 8 ..... Who cares?
     
  6. SparrowHawk

    SparrowHawk Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    face it kids!! The current "Empty Suit" make Jimmy Carter look like FDR
     
  7. joanne

    joanne Advanced

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well if your characterization of BO is "an empty suit", I'm anxiously awaiting your phrase for... W :blink: !
     
  8. SparrowHawk

    SparrowHawk Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Ohhhhh I'm going to make it real simple for ya. Since 1965, with the exception of Ronald Reagan have all been "Empty Suits". With an asterisk beside Gerald Ford as his pardon of Nixon which turned out to be a stroke of genius on his part.
     
  9. joanne

    joanne Advanced

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    1

    "Fair enough" Sparrow !

    See, we just had a little Bi-partisanship. :) It's really not all that hard .
     
  10. tech2101

    tech2101 Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Reagan was also characterized in somewhat the same way (empty suit) after his first year in office. The rest is well, history...

    Personally, I am not on the Reagan as god bandwagon.
     
  11. SparrowHawk

    SparrowHawk Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    How can there be "BiPartisanship" in what is essentially a one partry system.
     
  12. Garfield1966

    Garfield1966 Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    0

    Me either. I still cannot understand what the fascination was with him.
     
  13. SparrowHawk

    SparrowHawk Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    7,824
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    It's real simple. Words like Honesty, Trust, Loyalty, Moral, Values and Ethics were not mere puchlines for sound bites or re-rlection ptopaganda.

    Best example of what I mean was the situation with the Air Traffic Controllers.

    He said, If you go on strike, your contract says I can fire you and I will. He Did. End of story. I want to go on record that I wasn't particularly happy with the move. However it is a nice window into who the man was. If he said it! He did it.

    The sad part is that trait which to me everyone should have is now so rare that many of us Idolize a man who had very basic core beliefs and values and lived by them.
     
  14. Seatacus

    Seatacus Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    159
    I remember in the past some people referred to W as El Chimpo. I wonder if those people now have a similar endearing name for the current president. Waddya think?
     
  15. tech2101

    tech2101 Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,655
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    I have little respect for anyone who calls anyone by something other than their given name.

    In my opinion, it shows a lack of moral character or just plain childish behavior.

    I will qualify this. I have referred to George W. Bush as W in the past. I do not consider that as a derogatory term as I did not mean it as such.
     

Share This Page