US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

IMPEACH THE LIAR

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."

It was not a century of law.

― Obama needs a John McCone (Dandy Don Weiner), Friday, 29 January 2010 22:49 (11 seconds ago)

The law at issue had been on the books for over 100 years. Yes, you can argue that this doesn't mean the "law" had been static for 100 years. But it's not a lie, dude.

Ken Burns Presents
1900-2000: A Century of Balls

tonight on PBS

guys the National Review wouldn't lie

The law at issue had been on the books for over 100 years. Yes, you can argue that this doesn't mean the "law" had been static for 100 years. But it's not a lie, dude.

The Court was not addressing a century of law or even a century of precedent. It overturned two decisions from the past 15 years. Obama's comments are so misleading--coming from a ConLaw prof--that they essentially laws. And that's my point--you couldn't make his statements in a ConLaw classroom and get away with it.

err, that "they are lies"

Obama didn't need to stretch the truth like he did. Or even lie.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go bet my balls on something else. Probably beer.

better bet

if you don't think foreign money won't find its way through "American" companies and into party coffers because of this law you are either deliberately misreading the law/being a moron/are a partisan hack. I don't even know how you credibly establish the nationality of a corporation, its not like they have birth certificates and passports.

x-posts

Is Monsanto Italian? Is Microsoft American? Is BP really British?

kinda kidding here but only sorta (yes I know Monsanto is not Italian)

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but here's Cspan's vid of the event

But from 8 to 10 PM Eastern tonight, Rachel, Chris Matthews and I will be presenting a two-hour special report on the President's remarks (and answers) to the Republican Retreat (and wow did it live up to that name).

We will be aiming for analysis and perspective for sure, but not to the point of carving this up into little soundbites. We will be running, as they say, "large chunks" and then cutting back to the studio to see which one of our jaws can drop the closest to the floor.

Parenthetically, I always said the actual "Prime Minister's Question Time" on C-SPAN was one of my favorite tv shows but the thought of doing an American version gave me the mental image of all of our politicians running screaming into the streets after the first five minutes of questioning.

Apparently that would all but one of our politicians.

"if the way these issues are being presented by the republicans--'this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government'--in every aspect of our lives, what happens then is you guys don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me. . . . many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base"
trying to imagine bush having said something like that acute the democratic caucus

um, that acute to the democratic caucus

no need since the Democrats rolled over like puppies for Dubya on every single fucking thing of import

9/11! terror! hard to stand up to that 2001-03, -04, shakey mo

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

TTT

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind,

I have zero faith in him at this point but I can't front, I still love to see him smack these fuckers down - his first answer in the q & a part is fucking priceless

XP watching that at 8!

btw, that's exactly why I liked the SOTU address, the smackdowns

"i am absolutely committed to working on these issues with you, but it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy"

these need to happen on a monthly basis imo.

"that's not how democracy works"

last twenty minutes is heroic. fuck the haters

snap! Youtube age

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0&feature=player_embedded

Ideology aside, this is a pretty brilliant political moment for Obama. If you check out drudgereport, his response is to bury the story, which is always a good sign.

i found myself wishing the meeting had been longer, with some real number crunching, and more in-depth analysis of the republican bills and simple-speak explanations of why they wouldn't benefit people.

fuck jeb hensarling

"the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign"

"that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true"

"a republican administration, a republican congress, two tax cuts that weren't paid for, a prescription drug plan passed . . . without being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals"

This is pretty awesome

ducking meet and greet with paul ryan's kids on the procession out is sweet

I used to respect you, Don, but I have no idea what you believe in.

waiting for dick cheney's rebuttal

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/m/3/3/OK-Not-to-Believe-s.jpg

I have pretty strong conservative instincts, and have so little respect for the Dems that I couldn't bring myself to vote for them in the last two cycles, even dropping my party affiliation, but for you, Don, to act like Kathryn-Jean Lopez's intern posting twaddle that isn't entertaining, much less factually accurate, is really sad for someone of your purported intelligence. At least post an intelligent conservative rebuttal!

If you want, I can post Stevens' dissent, in which he acknowledges your argument.

apparently Fox News cut away before the Q&A section was over, another good sign.

alfred your post includes Kathryn-Jean Lopez and a word that sounds like "twat" in much too close of a proximity

party foul

stop this twattdle.

At 3:07 into the video, Pence says "Now Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time....costs half as much as the democrat proposal in congress, and using your economic analyst (sic) models it would have created twice the jobs, at half the cost."

Can anyone link to this proposal and to the models (CBO's? Is that what he means by "your" economic models?)

Hmm.

CAP, at least, found that the "plan would cost over $3.1 trillion over ten years — more than three times the amount of President Barack Obama’s plan — and be largely ineffective at creating jobs."

But I'm still curious what Pence means when he says "using your economic analyst models". What is he talking about? Is it just a lie or there an actual analysis backing it up?

I used to respect you, Don, but I have no idea what you believe in.

Not really sure if you respected me for what you thought I believed in or what. Either way, I didn't intend to lose any respect that I didn't know I had, nor is it my goal to have your respect. If I earn it, great. If not, well, you're just one of many who probably think my every utterance here is twaddle. I proudly voted for Obama and yet am dismayed to see him become everything I'd feared.

I really don't have the time to get into a long winded discussion (um, this is a message board) about whether or not Obama lied in his SOTU address (Linda Greenhouse's comments were pretty illuminating, to say the least), but coming from a former professor of ConLaw, Obama's statements were unbelievably misleading. Maybe they're not outright lies to you, but the kind of intellectual dishonesty I noted is far too close to lying for my taste. Stevens' dissent isn't something that can be boiled down into a sentence or two, and Obama's casual bullying of the majority isn't impressive when he devolves it into weak political theater. Calling the rejection of what amounts to two statues over the past two decades a repudiation of a century of law wouldn't pass the laugh test in the two ConLaw classes I took. That kind of redmeat campaign bluster works from the stump, but in the SOTU it comes off as hackdom. But what do I know, right?

As for my purported intelligence--not really sure what that means. We can discuss that over beers next time I'm in your town I guess.

If anyone wants to have some beers to discuss my purported intelligence sometime, just let me know, I am ready to go

I don't mean that as a diss, I just think it would be a fun theme for a night out!

I am always up for beers. Even with people who think I twaddle.