So no comments on the fact that someone was arrested and detained unjustly under the Patriot Act?

 

Just going to let that one slip by.

 

No comment on why you trust Obama when he's extended the Patriot Act? Just going to let that one slip by?

Perhaps you'd get more comments if you started a thread on that subject. To me, a non moderator, it seems your inquiry is a thread jacking as this thread is about the appropriateness of the President criticizing the Supreme Court during his SOU speech and not about folks getting arrested and detainen unjustly under the PA.

 

But I do understand the attempt by you to move the discussion away from Obama's comments. Perhaps if I was an Obama supporter I'd be trying the same thing.

 

With all due respect Mr. Leatherneck, the comment was a natural flow from the conversation that was taking place in the thread. But I do appreciate your effort at being the thread police. I will note it and move forward.

No comment on why you trust Obama when he's extended the Patriot Act? Just going to let that one slip by?

 

Most people have my trust until they have broken.

 

But for the record - I would prefer that no one have the authority that the Patriot Act gives.

 

I fall much more in line with Mr. Ben Franklin - paraphrasing - Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

Perhaps you'd get more comments if you started a thread on that subject. To me, a non moderator, it seems your inquiry is a thread jacking as this thread is about the appropriateness of the President criticizing the Supreme Court during his SOU speech and not about folks getting arrested and detainen unjustly under the PA.

 

But I do understand the attempt by you to move the discussion away from Obama's comments. Perhaps if I was an Obama supporter I'd be trying the same thing.

 

No comment on why you trust Obama when he's extended the Patriot Act? Just going to let that one slip by?

 

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumb:

RM, do you have anything to back up your belief that providing them with "hope", will certainly make a difference?

They do have "hope". They "hope" to meet allah and the 72 virgins.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumb:

 

Here is the little club thing again. Where do I get my card?

Yes.

 

And this is based on what?

The Supremes don't clap in reverance to the principle (at least) that the Court is to remain neutral in matters of politics and policy. I did see John Roberts clapping for the troops.

 

According to the court watchers at the ABA, the Court has never been roundly criticized for a decision by a sitting President in person at the State of the Union. I felt that it was in poor form.

 

I could care less about calling out the Supremes. I wish Bush would have done it a time or two.

 

But it would be much more effective if you called them out on something that was accurate...something Mr. O failed to do.

Here is the little club thing again. Where do I get my card?

After you start 10 threads pointing out Obama's flaws I'll send you an application and information on club levels and the various fees. Included with you membership will be a lovely 24x30 photo of Dick Cheney waterboarding a puppy.

But it would be much more effective if you called them out on something that was accurate...something Mr. O failed to do.

What was inaccurate about Obama's criticism of the decision.

What was inaccurate about Obama's criticism of the decision.

 

The Supremes did not overturn a century's law. What was restricted in the early 20th century is still restricted--direct contributions from corporations/unions to political campaigns.

The Supremes did not overturn a century's law. What was restricted in the early 20th century is still restricted--direct contributions from corporations/unions to political campaigns.

 

The ruling says that you cannot single out corporations and arbitrarily treat them differently than idividuals.

With all due respect Mr. Leatherneck, the comment was a natural flow from the conversation that was taking place in the thread. But I do appreciate your effort at being the thread police. I will note it and move forward.

 

Great idea.

Delete

The ruling says that you cannot single out corporations and arbitrarily treat them differently than idividuals.

 

And the same restrictions that applied to them "a century" (Obama's words) ago still apply. The SCOTUS overturned McCain/Feingold stuff; not a 100-year-old law.