How do you think if will end up?

already a mention of Bull Run Battle! Go Fairfax County.

So he reads letters every night...

He always looks left right left right, never straight at the audience. Can't stand this guy

I wish the Vice President would stop fucking making faces.
And I also wish that cunt Nancy Pelosi would stop being so fucking happy about the bullshit coming out of his mouth.

Well if you hate it so much change the channel. Bear Grills is on Discovery. Maybe he'll give himself another enema and cry, "Think of England!"

Wooo... we're going to take the money we're supposedly using to pay back the TARP costs and then spend it again! And you're too stupid to notice I just spent the same fucking 30 billion dollars twice!!!

The word just went out -- call eight years of expansion a "Lost Decade," to pretend we somehow weren't expanding. Gee, maybe this recession is BETTER when you think about it...

CNN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The word just went out -- call eight years of
> expansion a "Lost Decade," to pretend we somehow
> weren't expanding. Gee, maybe this recession is
> BETTER when you think about it...


Even before the current downturn, people who worked in business were referring to the 2000s as the jobless expansion. The rate of job creation did not keep up with population growth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

China is making investments in clean energy? Does he really believe this nonsense?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60O10K20100125

Export goods? Why didn't we think of this sooner?

Obama Bin Lyin

Let's see, why might colleges be raising costs? Oh yeah, cause there's a huge pot of federal money out there they want a piece of.

Student Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, why might colleges be raising costs? Oh
> yeah, cause there's a huge pot of federal money
> out there they want a piece of.


Colleges are raising costs because States aren't subsidizing them as much due to budget shortfalls.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I seem to remember him voting on the 2006-2008 budgets AND the TARP.

hahahaha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He always looks left right left right, never
> straight at the audience. Can't stand this guy


He's looking at teleprompters

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Student Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see, why might colleges be raising costs?
> Oh
> > yeah, cause there's a huge pot of federal money
> > out there they want a piece of.
>
>
> Colleges are raising costs because States aren't
> subsidizing them as much due to budget shortfalls.


Federal govt loans have driven the tuition inflation -- for both private and public colleges.

A-freaking-HEM: "Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%.

Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Student Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see, why might colleges be raising costs?
> Oh
> > yeah, cause there's a huge pot of federal money
> > out there they want a piece of.
>
>
> Colleges are raising costs because States aren't
> subsidizing them as much due to budget shortfalls.

I don't understand, why don't the colleges just make cuts??

He knows how budgeting works. ACORN budgeting.

He did a great job keepin lobbyists out, didn't he?

Except the dozens who have gotten waivers. That's different.

this tool got TONS of overseas campaign money

Why should earmarks be published ahead of time, but not health care bills?

I just want you Republicans to shut up and get out of the way.

LOL....."some of the unity has dissipated"......8 years of Bush=Hitler will do that, Obumbles.

I don't want to blame anyone here. (But we all know who's fault it is "wink")

This is the fucking most boring SOTU speech ever. Obama's lost it. He seems tired, snarky, partisan, a bit wounded. It's not a good pose.

I guess the Arabs will really be scared us us now that we will be sending girlie men after them.

Man, this blowhard may break my 97 minute record

Biden reminds me of that bird on a fulcrum that continually bobs his head.

supreme court got pwn3d by obama.

this was there reaction:


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Who's job is it to get the cane and pull this fucker off the stage?

it's over! :D


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

GOOD NIGHT DC! YOU'VE BEEN GREAT! And Blame BUSH!

Obama doesn't want the American People to know about World Trade 7 (youtube it)

He is a puppet just like bush

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." -- President Obama

That statment alone speaks volumes about this man and his character.

I would have loved to hear him say that Federal workers were getting a 10% pay cut, and as part of the spending freeze would have to just have to deal with their already bloated salaries for the next couple of years. Private sector employees could then rejoice a bit.

Wish I could get a few rounds in at a boxing ring with this Nigger motherfucker Barack Hussein Obama.

I'd like to do the same thing he is trying to do to our country to his face.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this Molato-Boy putting his ugly mug all over the Television all the time also.

Looks like the spawn of Alfred E. Neuman if he raped a fuckin' slave.

Gays in the Military you say? We already have our first recruit. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. We will make him commander in chief of these new queer-armed services.

Does anyone else in Fairfax County believe that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20p.m on evening of 9/11 significant?

Obama of course mentioned 9/11 in his State of The Union Address. Without 9/11 the government wouldn't be SOOOO fucking big right now.

John Farmer, who was senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission recently released a book called " The Ground Truth"

He said that the American People were misled about what happened on that morning and that at some point in time, the U.S. Government decided NOT to tell the American People the truth about 9/11.

If the Patriot Act and other post 9/11 legislation continues to be reauthorized for the decades to come do you REALLY think they will "reinstate" the constitution and bill of rights? No one will be demanding it, because The US Constitution and Bill of rights will be a chapter in their history books. Perhaps years and years from now, you'll be telling kids how you remember a time when you actually had rights. HAHA

From the former FEC Commissioner, Brad Smith:

President Wrong on "Foreign Entities" Bankrolling American Elections
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... ."

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



The New York Times agrees with Smith's analysis:

Obama and the Supreme Court ruling
The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to
overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that
the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful
interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that
helps to right this wrong.”

But in his majority opinion in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal
Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the
opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the
question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing
foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political
process,” he wrote...

President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from
taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections.

But he’s too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which
already prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or
foreign companies.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/blogging-the-presidents-address/#t20h31m (8:31pm)



PolitiFact offers a detailed analysis of the issue here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/
("Obama erred" in his explanation of the current state of the law, but his statement
could be considered "barely true" because of a lacuna in 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)'s
definition of a foreign corporation -- a problem that arises from the ambiguous statuory
language drafted by Congress, and which should be corrected by Congress, not the Court)

Ace_ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> From the former FEC Commissioner, Brad Smith:
>
> President Wrong on "Foreign Entities" Bankrolling
> American Elections
> 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
> 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... ."
>
> http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM
> 2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=
>
>
>
> The New York Times agrees with Smith's analysis:
>
> Obama and the Supreme Court ruling
> The president appeared to have mischaracterized
> the Supreme Court’s decision to
> overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political
> commercials by suggesting that
> the decision invited political advertisements by
> foreign companies, too.
>
> “I don’t think American elections should be
> bankrolled by America’s most powerful
> interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They
> should be decided by the American
> people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and
> Republicans to pass a bill that
> helps to right this wrong.”
>
> But in his majority opinion in the case, Citizens
> United vs. the Federal
> Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy
> specifically wrote that the
> opinion did not address the question of foreign
> companies. “We need not reach the
> question of whether the government has a
> compelling interesting in preventing
> foreign individuals or associations from
> influencing our Nation’s political
> process,” he wrote...
>
> President Obama called for new legislation to
> prohibit foreign companies from
> taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to
> influence American elections.
>
> But he’s too late; Congress passed the Foreign
> Agents Registration Act in 1996, which
> already prohibits independent political
> commercials by foreign nationals or
> foreign companies.
>
> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/blog
> ging-the-presidents-address/#t20h31m (8:31pm)
>
>
>
> PolitiFact offers a detailed analysis of the issue
> here:
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements
> /2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court
> -ruling-allows-foreign-com/
> ("Obama erred" in his explanation of the current
> state of the law, but his statement
> could be considered "barely true" because of a
> lacuna in 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)'s
> definition of a foreign corporation -- a problem
> that arises from the ambiguous statuory
> language drafted by Congress, and which should be
> corrected by Congress, not the Court)


There is no such thing as an "American" Corporation. Corporations are a conglomerate of stock holders..in the case of publically held corporations...the stock holders are from many/any country. Corporations do not take a citizens oath as any immigrant is required to...they do not even take the pledge of allegiance...they are not christian...they do not even believe in god.
Their loyalty is to their stock holders...and them only.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2010 02:30PM by Vince(1).

It would take two weeks for China to set up an American S-Corp and funnel funds into buying ad time. Anyone who thinks differently is fucking ignorant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

FACT.

So his opinions are worth shit.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would take two weeks for China to set up an
> American S-Corp and funnel funds into buying ad
> time. Anyone who thinks differently is fucking
> ignorant.


Current law precludes this, as noted in my 1:51am post.

To the extent there's any loophole in the law - for foreign subsidiaries, etc - it arises from the statutory language drafted by Congress, not from the Supreme Court's opinion.

Congress is free to revise that language, i.e., the language of 2 USC sec. 441e, a provision which the Court specifically declined to address in Citizens United.

IMO, Obama knows this -- knows that Congress can fix the loophole (if there is one; it's an arguable point) -- and was simply playing to his base, in classic Chicago thug-pol style, by criticizing the SC.

::Looks over at the Suprmeme Court::
::Thinks: "looks like a buncha cracker-motherfuckers to me, hm".

-notice he didn't think cracka mothafuckuz.

Ginsburg looks like something out of Harry Potter

> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Student Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Let's see, why might colleges be raising
> costs?
> > Oh
> > > yeah, cause there's a huge pot of federal
> money
> > > out there they want a piece of.
> >
> >
> > Colleges are raising costs because States
> aren't
> > subsidizing them as much due to budget
> shortfalls.
>
> I don't understand, why don't the colleges just
> make cuts??

They do. There have been layoffs, no raises, positions left vacant or eliminated, virtually no travel. There is a lot of confusion at mason, since the construction is ongoing. However, these projects are capital funding that was approved years ago.

The way it works in Virginia is budget cuts get spread out to the various areas, such as public safety, VDOT, K-12, higher ed and so on. The folks in Richmond know that higher ed can absorb more of a cut. This is due to the fact that colleges are the only 'agency' that has the ability to offset the cut with a tuition increase. The latest higher ed cut that is in the budget being worked on in Richmond is 26%. I suspect that if state revenues don't recover, things will be quite dire in higher ed in FY 11 or 12.

Here is a report on this from SCHEV:

http://www.schev.edu/Reportstats/ErosionHigherEducationFunding.pdf

George W. was a bigger douche than Obama, but Obama needs to move away from health care and start working on the economy. George W. spent money like a Democrat, but that's no excuse for the current administration.

I was going to write something intelligent and thoughtful about this, and then a TV show I wanted to watch came on, so I'm not going to do it. God bless America.

12345 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then a TV show I wanted
> to watch came on, so I'm not going to do it.

Simpsons rerun?