Get your hip waders out boys 'n girls

freedom is annoying isnt it

 

it was a calculated risk that he talk some about the causes of the economic situation. but i think its warranted as part of "the state of the union" address.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

--boy, he's really ripping W a new one there.

"So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all."

--again, feel the pain, W.

"We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation. "

--just because he refers to the past does not mean he is blaming bush. he never named bush or negatively referred to his administration.

 

compromise. for example stop bitchin about the very weak abortion concerns in trade for tort reform. (although id think thats not a fair trade). sure, the majority leaders can stop things, but now its in the clear. O made a clear obvious request for the GOP to propose something, compromise, come up with some reform that they will support. if they do but the congress wont let it on the floor then Dems will lose more seats in Nov. if the GOP makes no real overtures, they will do less well in Nov.

 

That is great, I agree. But it does not mean ****. He, His speech writers, his legal team and his advisers passing a bill will not cut it. If he wanted it to happen, Call for a Constitutional Amendment to correct the loophole. Call for an Amendment that demands proof of citizenship and/or US Corp ownership for political donations. They won't do it. This is the same party that is against "proof of citizenship" to vote.

 

im a novice, but why cant new legislation be written if it has a different scope? either O was completely posturing, which is possible and not evil, or there is some way new legislation can affect this issue. more than anything O knows the constitution. if someone doesnt like it, theyll sue and the scotus may get to rule on that one.

 

But it is never free!

 

again, because the ruling was an interpretation of the first amendment right to free speech, the right to support any opinion, no matter what it is or who you are. thats what the SC does, they interpret the constitution. they cannot be overridden with legislation, they are part of the checks and balances. they have checked the power of the other branches and that is it, the game is over, they win. nothing short of killing them off and replacing them or changing the constitution can stop them.

 

"The majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was also in the audience, said it did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign corporations, because the law under review did not differentiate between domestic and foreign corporations. The dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens said the opinion "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

make a law that distinguishes between foreign and domestic companies.

History plays a role in Obama-Alito flap - washingtonpost.com

 

The problem with this administration and congressional leaders is compromise means accepting what they want without question. It does not help giving special treatment or breaks to certain states or labor unions; doesn't quite sound like compromise which includes the other political party. The GOP has proposed ideas, especially in the healthcare debate ("transparency"?), but the donkeys have opposed everything.

The problem today is way too many people will accept whatever security they think the government will provide in exchange for allowing that government to tell them what they can and can not do.

 

I'd like to free 'ole girl of those, though!