Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama wants the topic to be an issue that gets attention. He is not the one who would write a new amendment. That task is open to all sides to wrestle with. With the length of time it takes to pass an amendment it would not be Obama that signed the new amendment into law.I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.Right. Fantasy land is where you must reside. Not once, ever, have I heard Obama, or any Dem elected officials state they want the unions to quit supporting them, because it should be illegal, as they have with Citizen's United. Try again.That is just a speculation you are making with absolutely no support for it's accuracy or truth other than your fantasy and mission to mislead and misinform.So, I guess he would include unions, and super pacs such as his own was, as well? Not likely.
Quit messing with the Constitution, period.
That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.
For me this is an example of Obama derangement and hate getting in the way of doing what is best for the country.
What Obama is talking about has been talked about throughout the political spectrum. Conservative Republicans have made the same request being made by Obama. You trying to make repel of a law that makes it OK for 400 of the richest people in America to control the financing of Presidential elections an Obama issue is just silly. Defending such a system is sad and shows the extent of the Obama derangement disease.Obama wants the topic to be an issue that gets attention. He is not the one who would write a new amendment. That task is open to all sides to wrestle with. With the length of time it takes to pass an amendment it would not be Obama that signed the new amendment into law.I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.Right. Fantasy land is where you must reside. Not once, ever, have I heard Obama, or any Dem elected officials state they want the unions to quit supporting them, because it should be illegal, as they have with Citizen's United. Try again.That is just a speculation you are making with absolutely no support for it's accuracy or truth other than your fantasy and mission to mislead and misinform.
That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.
For me this is an example of Obama derangement and hate getting in the way of doing what is best for the country.
If you think Obama is doing it to make things fair, you are the one deranged. He's doing it to cripple opposition. Stop using the hackneyed premise that criticism of Obama is based in hate or prejudice or racism. This is about crippling the ability of the GOP to get obey while leaving the donors to the DNC alone. Fairness would be taking money out of the system equally. You cannot be naive enough to think Obama is trying to be for fairness.
So are you saying that political contributions from labor unions, or the super PAC contributions that Hillary is accepting should be illegal???What Obama is talking about has been talked about throughout the political spectrum. Conservative Republicans have made the same request being made by Obama. You trying to make repel of a law that makes it OK for 400 of the richest people in America to control the financing of Presidential elections an Obama issue is just silly. Defending such a system is sad and shows the extent of the Obama derangement disease.Obama wants the topic to be an issue that gets attention. He is not the one who would write a new amendment. That task is open to all sides to wrestle with. With the length of time it takes to pass an amendment it would not be Obama that signed the new amendment into law.I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.Right. Fantasy land is where you must reside. Not once, ever, have I heard Obama, or any Dem elected officials state they want the unions to quit supporting them, because it should be illegal, as they have with Citizen's United. Try again.
That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.
For me this is an example of Obama derangement and hate getting in the way of doing what is best for the country.
If you think Obama is doing it to make things fair, you are the one deranged. He's doing it to cripple opposition. Stop using the hackneyed premise that criticism of Obama is based in hate or prejudice or racism. This is about crippling the ability of the GOP to get obey while leaving the donors to the DNC alone. Fairness would be taking money out of the system equally. You cannot be naive enough to think Obama is trying to be for fairness.
So are you saying that political contributions from labor unions, or the super PAC contributions that Hillary is accepting should be illegal???What Obama is talking about has been talked about throughout the political spectrum. Conservative Republicans have made the same request being made by Obama. You trying to make repel of a law that makes it OK for 400 of the richest people in America to control the financing of Presidential elections an Obama issue is just silly. Defending such a system is sad and shows the extent of the Obama derangement disease.Obama wants the topic to be an issue that gets attention. He is not the one who would write a new amendment. That task is open to all sides to wrestle with. With the length of time it takes to pass an amendment it would not be Obama that signed the new amendment into law.I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.
That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.
For me this is an example of Obama derangement and hate getting in the way of doing what is best for the country.
If you think Obama is doing it to make things fair, you are the one deranged. He's doing it to cripple opposition. Stop using the hackneyed premise that criticism of Obama is based in hate or prejudice or racism. This is about crippling the ability of the GOP to get obey while leaving the donors to the DNC alone. Fairness would be taking money out of the system equally. You cannot be naive enough to think Obama is trying to be for fairness.
I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
What Obama is talking about has been talked about throughout the political spectrum. Conservative Republicans have made the same request being made by Obama. You trying to make repel of a law that makes it OK for 400 of the richest people in America to control the financing of Presidential elections an Obama issue is just silly. Defending such a system is sad and shows the extent of the Obama derangement disease.Obama wants the topic to be an issue that gets attention. He is not the one who would write a new amendment. That task is open to all sides to wrestle with. With the length of time it takes to pass an amendment it would not be Obama that signed the new amendment into law.I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.Right. Fantasy land is where you must reside. Not once, ever, have I heard Obama, or any Dem elected officials state they want the unions to quit supporting them, because it should be illegal, as they have with Citizen's United. Try again.
That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.
For me this is an example of Obama derangement and hate getting in the way of doing what is best for the country.
If you think Obama is doing it to make things fair, you are the one deranged. He's doing it to cripple opposition. Stop using the hackneyed premise that criticism of Obama is based in hate or prejudice or racism. This is about crippling the ability of the GOP to get obey while leaving the donors to the DNC alone. Fairness would be taking money out of the system equally. You cannot be naive enough to think Obama is trying to be for fairness.
I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
the spice must flow.... right LOL"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."
Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.
Yes they were in English government...which is where the Founders drew most of their inspiration...to not be like...The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
am glad you think so, tell obutholethug to stop doing it.The transfer of wealth isn't speech.
Yes they were in English government...which is where the Founders drew most of their inspiration...to not be like...The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
Are you sure and being not?Yes they were in English government...which is where the Founders drew most of their inspiration...to not be like...The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
Not corporations idiot, rich people. How were the founding fathers going to claim that rich people aren't people? Also, in the beginning, it was the rich who had most of the rights in this fledgling republic.
Point to any law written by the founding fathers or any of their writings that prohibited corporations from being under free speech protection.
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
Are you sure and being not?Yes they were in English government...which is where the Founders drew most of their inspiration...to not be like...The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
Not corporations idiot, rich people. How were the founding fathers going to claim that rich people aren't people? Also, in the beginning, it was the rich who had most of the rights in this fledgling republic.
Point to any law written by the founding fathers or any of their writings that prohibited corporations from being under free speech protection.
Funny that RWs were lining up in the Kim Davis threads, all but calling for an end to the First Amendment.
You can't have it both ways.
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
You really believe money and wealth shaping politics is something new?
Just like now, its has always been about the rich taking from the poor. Its just that now, the GOP is openly stealing elections to benefit the few at the top.
The Dutch East India Company raised havoc in the new world. Nobody was more powerfulThe Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....
Yeah because corporations were such a huge problem in the 18th century. Idiot.
