[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time! Ok this is Funny Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232 Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need "How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America" How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos. Reagan JOKE On The Homeless The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report) Sicko Transfaggots video The Englund Gambit Checkmate 20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover! "Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning" "'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success" "Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace" "Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals" what a freakin' insane asylum Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax "No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability" RIP Ozzy "Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return" "Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign" "We Hate Communism!!" "Mamdani and the Democratic Schism" "The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death" "President Badass" "Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster" "How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran" There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Video and Audio See other Video and Audio Articles Title: “Not true”: Alito mouths words as Obama hammers Supreme Court Source: Hot Air URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/ ... s-obama-hammers-supreme-court/ Published: Jan 28, 2010 Author: Allahpundit Post Date: 2010-01-28 04:11:32 by borntoweardiamonds Keywords: Alito, Supreme Court, Not True Views: 15421 Comments: 56 He’s on the far left of your screen, seated to the right of Sotomayor. Politico’s calling it his Joe Wilson moment. When you hear the president of the United States demagoging the First Amendment, you sit there and you take it, son. Update: CBS screwed up the embed code initially. If you’re seeing the bit about Afghanistan, try refreshing. You should see the Supreme Court clip then. If not, click here. That should do it. Click for Full Text! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-16) not displayed.       .       .       . #17. To: dont eat that (#16) No, just insane. Lets see how Obama blames Bush tonight.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   9:40:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: borntoweardiamonds (#0) President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith] Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." The president's statement is false. 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 prohibiting 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... ." This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind. — Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School 01/27 11:00 PM This President lies when his lips move... Lets see how Obama blames Bush tonight.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   9:42:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: war (#14) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where does it say that speech has to come from an individual? There is the word people to peacefully assemble. A corporation that is peaceably assembled is made up of people. People is plural. They have a right to petition the government. They have the right to speak. Your not a constitutionalist. Why do you hate the constitution? What has it ever done to you. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   10:42:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: A K A Stone (#19) Why do you hate the constitution? What has it ever done to you. Good luck, AKA. Just wait til he explains to you how the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean 'we the people' have a right to own a gun.... If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   10:47:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: A K A Stone (#19) (Edited) Where does it say that speech has to come from an individual? You're looking at it incorrectly. People have inherent, or "natural" rights at birth. They can exercise those rights individually or through associations. Corporations are a legislative creation. As such, they have privileges granted only by law. What a law has the power to create, another law has the power to destroy. Your [sic] not a constitutionalist. Actually, I am. Read the first three words of it... war  posted on  2010-01-28   10:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#19) (Edited) When Obama said that the court had reversed over 100 years of precedent, this is the case that he was referring to: But the Court answered that corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the clause [of the 14th amendment]; that the term "citizens," as used in the clause, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only age such attributes as the legislature has prescribed; that the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each state in the several states by the clause in question are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states, under their Constitution and laws, by virtue of their citizenship; that special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own states are not secured in other states by that provision; that it was not intended that the laws of one state should thereby have any operation in other states; that they can have such operation only by the permission, express or implied, of those states; that special privileges which are conferred must be enjoyed at home unless the assent of other states to their enjoyment therein be given, and that a grant of corporate existence was a grant of special privileges to the corporators, enabling them to act for certain specified purposes as a single individual, and exempting them, unless otherwise provided, from individual liability, which could therefore be enjoyed in other states only by their assent. In the subsequent case of Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, the Court followed this decision, and observed that the power of the state to discriminate between her own domestic corporations and those of other states desirous of transacting business within her jurisdiction, was clearly established by it and the previous case of Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, and added that "as to the nature or degree of discrimination, it belongs to the state to determine, subject only to such limitations on her sovereignty as may be found in the fundamental law of the union." ~~~~ Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888) And before you git yer panties in a bunch, this case actually GRANTED corporate citizenship for the limited purpose of due process... war  posted on  2010-01-28   11:25:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: war (#21) You're looking at it incorrectly. People have inherent, or "natural" rights at birth. They can exercise those rights individually or through associations. Corporations are a legislative creation. As such, they have privileges granted only by law. What part of "congress shall make no law....free speech" don't you understand. No law means no law. It doesn't mean corporations are a legislative creation so they can make a law pertaining to it. Be honest with yourself. No law means no law. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   13:24:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: A K A Stone (#23) Be honest with yourself. (laughing) Thats the funniest thing I've read today.... If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   13:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Badeye, war (#24) You're looking at it incorrectly. People have inherent, or "natural" rights at birth. They can exercise those rights individually or through associations. Corporations are a legislative creation. As such, they have privileges granted only by law. Well it is true. Be honest. The plain reading of the text says that they can't make any laws limiting free speech. Now if war opposes this decision and thinks it is immoral. That is ok. His position should be the constitution needs amended. The supreme courts job is supposed to be to interpret the constitution truthfully as to what the text actually says and means. They did that job correctly. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   13:40:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: A K A Stone (#25) Now if war opposes this decision and thinks it is immoral. That is ok. His position should be the constitution needs amended. It won't be, AKA. He's smarter than any Justice on the Supreme Court. Just ask him...(laughing) Wait til he educates you on the 2nd Amendment....rotfl. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   13:43:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: A K A Stone (#25) His position should be the constitution needs amended. How many times is "corporation" in the constitution? Fred Mertz  posted on  2010-01-28   14:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: A K A Stone (#23) (Edited) What part of "congress shall make no law....free speech" don't you understand. What part of "corporate personhood did not exist until 1888" don't YOU understand? This is not an extension of an individual right. A person cannot just declare himself a corporation. He has to go through several legal steps to create one and when that process is over, the corporation is an entity SEPARATE from the individual. Corporations are created BY LAW...my rights are INHERENT to my BIRTH. war  posted on  2010-01-28   14:18:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#25) They did that job correctly. Did you read the decision that I posted in #22? war  posted on  2010-01-28   14:20:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: borntoweardiamonds (#0) Told ya, AKA....(laughing) If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   14:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Fred Mertz, war (#27) How many times is "corporation" in the constitution? What does it matter. The constitution doesn't limit speech to just people. It doesn't say the congress shall make no law respecting free speech except if you form a corporation and da da da da da. It says they can't make any laws restricting free speech period. If they make a law concerning corporatoins and make them jump in this hoop and that hoop whatever the outcome one things is for sure. Because of the constitution they sure can't put any free speech restrictions on anybody anything anyhow period checkmate. If folks have a problem with that then they should amend the constitution and not try to usurp power that isn't given to the govt. According to you and wars view the president doesn't have free speech. He is president of a corporation. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   15:57:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone (#31) According to you and wars view the president doesn't have free speech. He is president of a corporation. Oh thats no big deal to em, in fact you just demoted him from 'Messiah' to 'CEO'...lol If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   15:58:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Badeye (#30) Told ya, AKA....(laughing) Yeah but your the same way on other issues. Such as the fourth amendment and your suicide pact argument. I on the other hand am consistent and support the constitution in both instances. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   15:59:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Nope, sorry. But its okay you think that. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... Badeye  posted on  2010-01-28   16:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: A K A Stone (#11) corporations are made up of people. Why can't the owner(s) of a corporation speak and say whatever they want? Owners can say what they want as individuals; why should they speak again as a corporation? lucysmom  posted on  2010-01-28   16:34:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: lucysmom (#35) Because they want to. Where is the prohibition against it. More freedom is always better then less freedom. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-28   16:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: A K A Stone (#31) What does it matter. Because what the US knows to be a "corporation" did not exist when the USCON and B/R were ratified. It is a legal creation. I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here in defending this ridiculous decision. What if a corporation declares itself to be, in fact, a religion? Hey, people believe in its products and support and promote them just as any preacher or follower does and, well fuck political speech, our corporation with the trillion dollar market cap is now tax exempt. While we're at it, since a corporation is, in fact, solely a money making enterprise, taxing it is cruel and unusual... Where does it stop? war  posted on  2010-01-28   19:13:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: A K A Stone (#31) (Edited) First off all, I have no view that is remotely similar to that fucking asshole if only because I'm not insistent on being obstinately stupid . Secondly, the POTUS is NOT the head of a corporation. He's the head of the government. Thirdly, your argument fails on any number of levels not the least of which is that the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States is the main body of law that creates and governs a good portion of corporate existence [Law of Contracts is another, and in fact, was the FIRST aspect of law to recognize a limited right of citizenship for a corporation so that it could enter into contracts.] Just as members of the military are subject to a different set of laws, restrictive in nature, e.g. you have no right of free association in the military, so, therefore, are corporations because they are wholly created and governed by legislation. Can the Congress legislate a person out of existence? No. It CAN legislate a business out of existence. war  posted on  2010-01-28   19:21:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: A K A Stone (#38) You never answered if you read post #22... war  posted on  2010-01-28   19:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: A K A Stone (#36) More freedom is always better then less freedom. Then you would give government more freedom? lucysmom  posted on  2010-01-28   19:49:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: A K A Stone (#25) They did that job correctly. Let's say that the SCOTUS upheld the law...tell me WHAT PERSON's speech was abridged? Name him or her. Name the person who could not dig into his own pocket and make that film or advocacy commercial. The fact is...not one person's speech was abridged by that law. Not one. war  posted on  2010-01-28   20:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: war (#38) the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States... has nothing to do with the free speech issue at hand. It's amazing how a dumbass with a BS in political science imagines himself smarter than the the members of the SC. dont eat that  posted on  2010-01-28   20:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Happy Quanzaa (#2) "I'm very proud of Judge Alito, I only wish he could have hollered it as loud as hero Joe Wilson did last time." I think anybody who watched FoxNewsChannel or the YouTube replay got the message just as well as if Alito'd hollered it out at the top of his lungs. HQ, Alito's got something Obama has never demonstrated...class. Regards...MUD "Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the US Constitution." Mudboy Slim  posted on  2010-01-29   5:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Happy Quanzaa (#6) "Excellent post, HQ..."...MUD "Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the US Constitution." Mudboy Slim  posted on  2010-01-29   6:02:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Mudboy Slim (#44) Galadny[sic] clained that he hurt his back and neck? At the hospital his only complaint was that his elbow hurt and that he was in no discomfort... war  posted on  2010-01-29   7:56:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: war (#41) The person (I'm not sure of their name) who made the movie about Hillary that wasn't allowed to be showed. The movie had a shelf life that is now expired. They should be compensated. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-29   7:59:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: lucysmom (#40) Then you would give government more freedom? The governments job is to protect our rights. Build roads and stuff like that. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-29   8:01:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: war (#22) I skimmed it. The constitution still clearly says no laws limiting speech. A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-29   8:03:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: A K A Stone (#46) He wasn't stopped at all...he could have bought the air time...the problem was that he didn't...a corporation did... But you raise another issue and one in which I agree...the government never suffers when it violates a right...it is simply told to stop... war  posted on  2010-01-29   8:03:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: A K A Stone (#48) The constitution still clearly says no laws limiting speech. Actually, it says abridging speech which is content... That said, the Framers would have never acquiesced in this scheme. IN fact, they warned of encroachments of monopolies, both private and religious, on civil government. Eisenhower warned of corporate encroachment on the process as well. There is no legal practice that has ever been recognized prior to this decision that gives a corporation legal status on par with a citizen. Again...NONE... What if GE - who brings good things to living and life - declares itself a religion tomorrow and tells the government "Tough...sue us"...? war  posted on  2010-01-29   8:11:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: war (#49) He wasn't stopped at all...he could have bought the air time...the problem was that he didn't...a corporation did... He was stopped. Why should someone have to pay a media corporation money in order to exercise their first amendment rights? A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-29   8:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: A K A Stone (#51) He was stopped. Not in any way shape or form was HE stopped. The law did not estop people from buying their own ads. Why should someone have to pay a media corporation money in order to exercise their first amendment rights? So anyone who wants to air a political message should be given access to national TV whenever they want it? It boils down to this...you and I walk into a voting booth...Exxon does not. You and I have a birth certificate...Exxon does not. This case was both a 14th amendment case [a citizen is entitled to equal application of laws] as much as a 1A case...now that Exxon has been granted equal status as a citizen, what is to stop "it" from registering to vote in Texas? war  posted on  2010-01-29   8:58:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: A K A Stone (#47) The governments job is to protect our rights. Remember J. Edgar? lucysmom  posted on  2010-01-29   12:34:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: A K A Stone (#47) The only institution between you and a government that will encroach upon your rights is the judiciary. Barring that institution, 2A. That body just protected trillion dollar multi national corporations by declaring that they have the same rights that you have. They wholly legalized bribery. my friend. You may not realize it today but some day it will hit you that this was all about monopolizing access and information. war  posted on  2010-01-29   12:52:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: war (#50) That said, the Framers would have never acquiesced in this scheme. IN fact, they warned of encroachments of monopolies, both private and religious, on civil government. The founding fathers lived under the boot of the East India Company long enough to make them wary of corporate influence exercised on government. lucysmom  posted on  2010-01-29   13:04:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: A K A Stone (#48) The constitution still clearly says no laws limiting speech. If the first amendment is not limited to people, then my dog's first amendment rights have been violated by city ordinance. lucysmom  posted on  2010-01-29   13:17:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com