Comments on: State of the Union and Bad Nuts http://www.thesoapboxers.com/bad-nuts/ A web magazine that covers a world of topics every week. New articles published daily. Thu, 09 Sep 2010 04:13:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Tiberius Kane http://www.thesoapboxers.com/bad-nuts/comment-page-1/#comment-2097 Tiberius Kane Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:23:25 +0000 http://www.thesoapboxers.com/?p=2747#comment-2097 The Angry Squirrel is definitly angry but 0bama is an ignorant squirrel. I'll use the recent Supreme Court ruling as an example. Anybody who's read the Supreme Court's ruling on Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 knows 0bama's portrayal of the decision is "simply not true". The court ruled against legislation that restricted expenditures for free speech. The fact is that the previous Supreme Court rulings affirmed that corporations have personhood and Constitutional rights. Limiting anyones rights by forbiding expenditures is a violation of our First Amendment rights. The court also acknowledged any corporation can form a PAC and subvert Campaign Finance Reform of 2002. So what purpose does it serve to abridge our First Amendment rights? Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 serves no good purpose. If anything, by creating PAC's it hides the true identity of the source of the money and speech. The court did not strike down any legislation limiting contributions to a campaign. Corporations and individuals are limited in what they can contribute to a campaign. This door has not been flung wide open as 0bama said it was. It's disturbing that our president and his wife, who are lawyers, know so little about law. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf The Angry Squirrel is definitly angry but 0bama is an ignorant squirrel. I’ll use the recent Supreme Court ruling as an example.

Anybody who’s read the Supreme Court’s ruling on Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 knows 0bama’s portrayal of the decision is “simply not true”. The court ruled against legislation that restricted expenditures for free speech. The fact is that the previous Supreme Court rulings affirmed that corporations have personhood and Constitutional rights. Limiting anyones rights by forbiding expenditures is a violation of our First Amendment rights.

The court also acknowledged any corporation can form a PAC and subvert Campaign Finance Reform of 2002. So what purpose does it serve to abridge our First Amendment rights? Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 serves no good purpose. If anything, by creating PAC’s it hides the true identity of the source of the money and speech.

The court did not strike down any legislation limiting contributions to a campaign. Corporations and individuals are limited in what they can contribute to a campaign. This door has not been flung wide open as 0bama said it was.

It’s disturbing that our president and his wife, who are lawyers, know so little about law.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Total Comments by Tiberius Kane: 6

]]> By: Squeaky http://www.thesoapboxers.com/bad-nuts/comment-page-1/#comment-2015 Squeaky Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:22:51 +0000 http://www.thesoapboxers.com/?p=2747#comment-2015 Wow, you are an angry squirrel. What the hell do you eat for breakfast? I have to say that I didn't enjoy the SOTU address much. I felt like it was another Obama Ra Ra speech and was very adversarial. One of Obama's campaign promises was to lead from the middle of the aisle, to be more transparent, etc. Well as you said in your article, "It was one of many points on the evening where the President put the opposite party on notice on the night." I'll give BO transparency on that one. He came out and said what he meant and was not behind closed doors. He's nowhere near the middle of the aisle though. He's still pushing healthcare, he's still spending like a mad man, he's still adding fees (because he can't call them taxes) which will undoubtedly trickle down to the people. He's still "putting the conservatives on notice" as you say and not working to blur those party lines. When will it stop? BTW, I have a nomination for Nut #4 Danny Glover. He actually had the lack of sense to blame the Hatian earthquake on global warming. Is it possible that the global warming has left the state of Iowa and focused all its efforts on Danny Glover's mind? That would explain the cold and ice there and it would explain why Danny Glover is talking like he has lost his mind. Wow, you are an angry squirrel. What the hell do you eat for breakfast?

I have to say that I didn’t enjoy the SOTU address much. I felt like it was another Obama Ra Ra speech and was very adversarial. One of Obama’s campaign promises was to lead from the middle of the aisle, to be more transparent, etc. Well as you said in your article,

“It was one of many points on the evening where the President put the opposite party on notice on the night.”

I’ll give BO transparency on that one. He came out and said what he meant and was not behind closed doors. He’s nowhere near the middle of the aisle though. He’s still pushing healthcare, he’s still spending like a mad man, he’s still adding fees (because he can’t call them taxes) which will undoubtedly trickle down to the people. He’s still “putting the conservatives on notice” as you say and not working to blur those party lines. When will it stop?

BTW, I have a nomination for Nut #4 Danny Glover. He actually had the lack of sense to blame the Hatian earthquake on global warming. Is it possible that the global warming has left the state of Iowa and focused all its efforts on Danny Glover’s mind? That would explain the cold and ice there and it would explain why Danny Glover is talking like he has lost his mind.
Total Comments by Squeaky: 75

]]> By: kosmo http://www.thesoapboxers.com/bad-nuts/comment-page-1/#comment-2014 kosmo Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:45:09 +0000 http://www.thesoapboxers.com/?p=2747#comment-2014 I'm a bit disturbed by Rush's comment. I have never been to Haiti, bu friends of mine have. The sad fact is that the population there struggles through a level of povery that few Americans will face. I'm not trying to minimize the problems faced by the poor in the US - but it's a whole different ballgame. It would be unfortunate to turn this into a political football. As for Robertson, that quote was just crazy, but if you had to pick a evangelist to say it, he's be the one, based on past performance. I wouldn't mind being next in line behind him at the pearly gates. I suspect that Peter might have an interesting chat with him. For those who might see Haiti as a place that is a world away ... Miami is 710 miles from Port-Au-Prince. Miami is 739 miles from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and 1178 miles from Portland, Maine, just to provide some perspective. I’m a bit disturbed by Rush’s comment. I have never been to Haiti, bu friends of mine have. The sad fact is that the population there struggles through a level of povery that few Americans will face. I’m not trying to minimize the problems faced by the poor in the US – but it’s a whole different ballgame. It would be unfortunate to turn this into a political football.

As for Robertson, that quote was just crazy, but if you had to pick a evangelist to say it, he’s be the one, based on past performance. I wouldn’t mind being next in line behind him at the pearly gates. I suspect that Peter might have an interesting chat with him.

For those who might see Haiti as a place that is a world away … Miami is 710 miles from Port-Au-Prince. Miami is 739 miles from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and 1178 miles from Portland, Maine, just to provide some perspective.
Total Comments by kosmo: 294

]]>