(06-20-2012 09:56 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Like how he promised to stop raid on medical marijuana dispensaries, but instead has drastically increased them (after being a member of a pot-themed "gang" earlier in life).

Agree.

Quote:Or how he promised a new era of transparency, but instead has waged an unprecedented war on whistle blowers (while at the same time, leaking classified documents to filmmakers for his propagandistic film coming out this October).

I don't believe he had anything to do with those leaks himself.

Quote:Or how he chastises Wall Street after they were some of his top campaign contributors in 2008, appointed an Attorney General who used to represent them, and has overseen the lowest prosecution of financial crimes in decades.

I don't think the AG's past clientele is relevant but generally I agree. It's seemed like the Dems have some understanding that while they bash WS openly, they'll refrain from taking action so long as the contributions keep coming. (Problem is, the contributions finally appear to be drying up, possibly in response to the toothless rhetoric.) But I welcome the change in rhetoric and hope the actions follow. The Democrats may be seeing a broader shift toward populism and away from Wall Street money and cozying up to bankers as under Clinton. Wall Street's natural home is on the right anyway.

Quote:Or how he criticized lifting the debt ceiling as a senator as a failure of leadership, but now it's okay since he's in the White House.

Okay, but it was a protest vote for him in the senate because it was going to pass anyway. The GOP last year was playing with fire.

Quote:Or how he simply followed through with Bush's plans for withdrawal from Iraq after promising to bring the troops home immediately on the campaign trail. Just a few off the top of my head there.

Did he say it would be immediate? Are you thinking of Ron Paul?

(06-20-2012 10:41 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 09:56 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Or how he promised a new era of transparency, but instead has waged an unprecedented war on whistle blowers (while at the same time, leaking classified documents to filmmakers for his propagandistic film coming out this October).

I don't believe he had anything to do with those leaks himself.

He's the boss Max... This is more of Obama refusing to say the Buck Stops here and instead saying "the Buck? what Buck? I didn't see any Buck!"

Quote:Did he say it would be immediate? Are you thinking of Ron Paul?

He said, that by the end of 2009 we would be out of Iraq...

(06-20-2012 10:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The precedent that Corporations are people goes back a long, long time.

It goes back to a syllabus in a case from the 1870s, which is written by a clerk of the court and has no precedential value. The case itself didn't say that at all.

Quote:And once again, to counter the Big Lie, citizens united was not about corporate money. It was about the right to release a critical documentary film in 2008, critical of Hillary.

Should film producers who act as corporations be allowed to release films in an election year?

For the stupid or those who buy the citizens united lie

Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case which began as a challenge to various statutory provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), known as the "McCain-Feingold" law. The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[5] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.

Yea that's not an overreach of federal power..

What lie? It was absolutely about corporate money. Page 908--

Quote:Even if § 441b's expenditure ban were constitutional, wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials, although smaller corporations may not have the resources to do so. And wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. See, e.g., WRTL, 551 U.S., at 503–504, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (“In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to [26 U.S.C. § 527 organizations]”). Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.


When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

Page 913--

Quote:Austin is overruled, so it provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. As the Government appears to concede, overruling Austin “effectively invalidate[s] not only BCRA Section 203, but also 2 U.S.C. 441b's prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.” Brief for Appellee 33, n. 12. Section 441b's restrictions on corporate independent expenditures are therefore invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary.


Given our conclusion we are further required to overrule the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA § 203's extension of § 441b's restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. See 540 U.S., at 203–209, 124 S.Ct. 619. The McConnell Court relied on the antidistortion interest recognized in Austin to uphold a greater restriction on speech than the restriction upheld in Austin, see 540 U.S., at 205, 124 S.Ct. 619, and we have found this interest unconvincing and insufficient. This part of McConnell is now overruled.

(06-20-2012 10:41 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 09:56 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Or how he promised a new era of transparency, but instead has waged an unprecedented war on whistle blowers (while at the same time, leaking classified documents to filmmakers for his propagandistic film coming out this October).

I don't believe he had anything to do with those leaks himself.

Well, he probably didn't personally hand over the information, if that's how you want to justify it to yourself. The information did come, however, from top-level Obama Administration officials though, so I think it's pretty safe to say he either authorized it or at least had knowledge of it happening.

Quote:The internal administration documents — which pointedly note that the film has a “release date set for 4th Qtr 2012 (Sep-Dec)” — reveal enthusiastic cooperation with the filmmakers by top-level DoD officials, including Undersecretary of Defense Michael Vickers, all done at the direction of the White House. The very first DoD email indicates the request to work with the filmmakers came from the White House. Then-CIA Director Leon Panetta is deemed “very interested in supporting” the film. The documents also reveal a meeting between the filmmakers and Obama’s chief counter-Terrorism adviser John Brennan and National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, at which the two White House officials shared information about “command and control.” The DoD officials meeting with the filmmakers were given the White House talking points from the night of the raid, which including hailing the President’s actions as “gutsy” and stressing the heavy involvement of the White House in the raid.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/wh_leaks...singleton/

Max Power Wrote:

BlazerFan11 Wrote:Or how he simply followed through with Bush's plans for withdrawal from Iraq after promising to bring the troops home immediately on the campaign trail. Just a few off the top of my head there.

Did he say it would be immediate? Are you thinking of Ron Paul?

I would never conflate Ron Paul with the current warmonger-in-chief.





"First thing" kind of implies immediately, don't you think?

No I mean he didn't authorize or have knowledge of the leaks. It was likely someone in the White House who thought they would be doing the president a favor, but it has since backfired. If they spent any time deliberating this at all it wouldn't have been leaked because it's been a net loss.

Meh, that's from 2007. After that Bush signed the withdrawal agreement with Iraq which Obama then had to honor.

(06-20-2012 11:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  No I mean he didn't authorize or have knowledge of the leaks. It was likely someone in the White House who thought they would be doing the president a favor, but it has since backfired. If they spent any time deliberating this at all it wouldn't have been leaked because it's been a net loss.

And you know this...how?

Max Power Wrote:Meh, that's from 2007. After that Bush signed the withdrawal agreement with Iraq which Obama then had to honor.

No, the SOFA only required that troops be withdrawn by the end of 2011. It doesn't mean he couldn't have sped up the process. Of course, that hasn't stopped the left from giving Obama full credit for "ending the war." Plus,
Obama tried to get the Iraqi gov't to let the troops stay longer.

Quote:President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop...print=true

(06-20-2012 11:36 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 11:10 AM)Max Power Wrote:  No I mean he didn't authorize or have knowledge of the leaks. It was likely someone in the White House who thought they would be doing the president a favor, but it has since backfired. If they spent any time deliberating this at all it wouldn't have been leaked because it's been a net loss.

And you know this...how?

Which part?

The dominant story after the leak was made was the leak itself and bipartisan condemnation of it. It made him look bad.

Quote:No, the SOFA only required that troops be withdrawn by the end of 2011. It doesn't mean he couldn't have sped up the process. Of course, that hasn't stopped the left from giving Obama full credit for "ending the war." Plus,
Obama tried to get the Iraqi gov't to let the troops stay longer.

You're right. I thought it required us to stay but it does say Iraq respects our sovereign right to leave at any time.