The American Spectator

Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 12:56AM

Actually, what you're saying is not really true. In 1907, Congress moved to get corporate spending out of politics. It banned direct contributions and attempted to get some independent expenditure removed. Campaign finance involves daunting legislative challenges, and it wasn't until the late 40s that Congress clarified the difference. When considering the spirit of the law and Congress's actual (say "original") intent, SCOTUS overturned a century of law last week in a needlessly broad, reckless, unbelievably activist decision.

And the president was not lying, you twerp.

Jack| 1.28.10 @ 4:57AM

If Obama's lips were moving he was lying. Let's see at this point is were I call you some moronic name in keeping with the lib part of it.

Susan| 1.28.10 @ 10:32PM

HA! That's oh-so funny! But oh-so true! Every time Obama opens his mouth, he releases nothing but lies mixed with hot putrid air! And we're sick of listening to him grandstand with the same, old, rehashed, perfectly predictable LIES.

And it's also true that the liberal bloggers use personal attacks to deflect the fact that they can't debate the issues. So noted in the aforementioned, when he just had to get in his two-cents worth of "Twerp" name-calling. And we just had to call you OUT, too, Small Brain.

Moving on. But I'm trying to figure out why Obama never seems to be ashamed of himself or humiliated. I'll tell ya, it's stranger than strange that he would even want to get out there & humiliate himself even more with a reiterated package of lies that have been rejected overandoverandoverandover. Unless he's a Machine, that is. I know that I often feel humilated by the things Obama says and does, so why does he appear so (excessively) cavalier & nonchalant?

Due to Obama's serial lies, The Machine known as Mr. Obama might just be confused to the point that he does not really know who he is or what his true positions are on a variety of subjects. After all, Obama's words gravely and disturbingly alter reality. As chilling as this sounds, repeatedly altering one's own reality could eventually result in deep-seated confusion, denial, and separation from self.

I wonder if Obama has a strong desire to lay down on some couch?

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 1.28.10 @ 7:46AM

So Liberal Reader is admitting that the man acting as President is not a liar per se, but rather grossly ignorant - and was thus acting as well when he lectured on Constitutional Law. Hmmph... quite plausible.

For LR to claim, however, that Justice Kennedy's decision was "a needlessly broad, reckless, unbelievably activist decision" is to be imprecise in the extreme. As an incorporated self-employed individual, the Court has just returned my First Amendment protection of my God-given natural right to freedom of political speech.

Tyrants - and their lapdogs such as LR - don't like that sort of thing. Liberty is to be reserved for the ruling class, you see.

Margie| 1.28.10 @ 4:50PM

Oooh, THAT was GOOD!

Ellis Wyatt| 1.28.10 @ 11:13AM

Overturning the constitution is activist, overturning laws that are unconstitutional is not activist, it is the courts purpose. Learn the difference before you look foolish again.

The whole speech was laced with lies to the point of making the president a cartoon of himself. Looking like a jerk by calling out the supreme court was simply distasteful and amateur, especially since he was wrong.

David H| 1.28.10 @ 1:50PM

We are so fortunate to have a consititutional scholar such as Liberal Reader to educate us! Who needs a Supreme Court Justice?

David H| 1.28.10 @ 1:55PM

Did Obama mention anything about how his campaign rigged online contributions so that his
donors could evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity? Just wondering...

republicanblack| 1.28.10 @ 1:30AM

I agree with you Liberal reader. First of all the law says corporations have no limit, Alito said to Obama isn't telling the truth. The supreme court did rule there is no limit on speech by corporations. There is no law that dictates what constitutes a foreign or domestic corporation, on a detailed level, if 49% of an American company is foreign owned is it american or how about 5%. Furthermore who is to say that I a foreigner can say to an American company I will give you an oil contract with plenty $$$ to spare if you support X candidate. OOOPPSSS llooooppphole, Anyways, I saw this article on this issue that details the nasty and why obama may be right

http://wendygdphillips.wordpre.....ted-v-fec-–-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

Indiana Alex| 1.28.10 @ 9:12AM

Are my tax dollars paying for your nonsense posts? Because that would really bother me.

Warrior| 1.28.10 @ 11:31AM

You are really inane. Look up the name Charlie Trie and Norman Hsu just to name two and then tell me you are now worried about corporations. Next, answer how you would respond the multiple millions of dollars that the Obama campaign took in from foreign sources.

I guess the only thing that bothers liberals is corporations, those evil profit places that refuse to spread the wealth.

Floyd Looney| 1.28.10 @ 1:30AM

The President wanted the power to ban books, films, TV shows, Kindle downloads likely websites and talk radio. SCOTUS was not going to rule in any other way.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.28.10 @ 3:08AM

Free speech has no bounds- except in a movie
theater and similar vulnerable environs - instances where dangerous jerks present.

If imbeciles are allowed to wear a US flag on their
ass - aka jeans - then the LMSM-anointed one
cannot cry foul when the SCOTUS re-institutes
the FULL meaning of the 1st Amendment of the
CONSTITUTION.

LIberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:22PM

This is simply NOT true.

We limit speech all the time.

IF I write to a Senator and promise him a million dollars if I vote a certain way, all I've done is write something. Protected speech, right? Wrong. It's bribery, and it's a crime.

Policemen, soldiers, teachers, students, corporate officers, government officials of all kinds, lawyers, doctors, and even journalists are ALL circumscribed by laws limiting their speech.

The courts have upheld from the beginning of the Republic the power of the government to limit speech if that speech CORRUPTS or DISTORTS the democratic process.

There is no question, no question at all, that unlimitted spending by corporate interests -- domestic AND foreign -- will corrupt and disrupt and distort our elections.

Think about it:

If all this money isn't corrupting our system, WHY ARE THE CORPORATIONS SPENDING IT????

Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:24PM

ERROR "....if HE votes a certain way...." not if "I vote" a certain way

Warrior| 1.28.10 @ 4:07PM

You are truly a moron.

dingmei| 1.28.10 @ 4:11AM

I am glad to read some fantastic bifocals article like this.

I like your ideas about bifocal glasses and I hope in the future there can be more bright articles like this from you.

Siegfried X| 1.28.10 @ 11:10AM

Thanks to Obama's arrogance, the Supreme Court will stop attending State of the Union addresses. An invited guest, Obama trash-talked his hosts, the Congress, and other invited guests, the Supreme Court.

Very rude, and also a case of denial, that Obama wanted to blame others instead of admit that his first year in office was a failure.

susan| 1.28.10 @ 10:54PM

I agree with you, Siegfried. Obama has no shame. By all appearances, He doesn't even know that he should be ashamed. What a guy.

And, it's true: Obama's denial problem is waaay out of control.

This isn't the first time that Obama has publicly, rudely and grossly disparaged others. Recall the multiple times he "flipped off" various people while onstage "acting out" at nationally televised events. That's embarrassing to me but, as I talked about in an earlier comment, Obama remains aloof. I want my president to be uplifting. I want my president to show good manners to all & to behave in a manner befitting this high level, presidential office. I want this man to get a grip!

It's not in the least amusing that Obama stupidly chooses to act in ways that belong only in the gutter. Clearly, Obama does not understand that he only brings himself down with his unprecedented, bizarre acts.

JP| 1.28.10 @ 1:00PM

LR, before calling people twerps you should know what you're talking about. The court case didn't deal with direct campaign contributions, but something a bit more complicated:

"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."

Corporations pour millions in PACs, and get thier message out anyway. This 100 year old progressive artifact was meaningless drivel.

LIberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:18PM

JP --

What PACs do is insist that corporate spending is in fact undertaken by HUMAN BEINGS who voluntarily contribute money for the purposes of that political campaign.

PACs were an excellent solution to the problem. They granted corporations a limited but not paralyzing ability to participate in the political process.

No one claims corporations should be prevented from lobbying a government that often regulates their activity.

But the notion that they have individual, core CONSTITUTIONAL rights like those enjoyed by you and me is ridiculous and I reject it outright.

I called the poster a "twerp" by the way for engaging in the inflammatory Joe-Wilson style of accusing Obama of being a "liar" when Obama was offering a judgment. You can disagree -- and should -- vociferously, but it's better for the polity if we all -- on the left and on the right -- avoid as much as possible that sort of accusation. I'm the first to admit the left did it too often with our last president, especially with respect to the war, and yes, I did write in to the NY Times blogsites saying so.

SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 10:48PM

Prove it, twerp. Provide a link to some of your posts defending president Bush. And if you can't provide said link--SHUT UP!!

Jim O'Brien| 1.28.10 @ 8:30PM

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation is unconstitutional. There should be no limits on campaign contributions, by anyone, any corporation, any union, any organization, or any person ....... except those that are foreign. It's the same thing as 1st Amendment free speech.