Patterico's Pontifications

1/29/2010

Obama the Ideologue

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 4:30 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Following President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 campaign finance decision during his State of the Union address, Vice President Joe Biden and the White House defended Obama’s comments:

“Vice President Joe Biden defended Obama’s remarks. “The president didn’t question the integrity of the court or the decision that they made,” Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” program. “He questioned the judgment of it.”

The White House issued a fact sheet defending Obama’s statements, noting that the four justices who dissented from the decision had raised concerns that it would open the door to unchecked spending by foreign-owned corporations.

But the majority decision in the case indicated the ruling was not addressing the question of whether the government could act to prevent foreign individuals or associations from influencing U.S. elections.”

I think this raises a real question about Obama’s willingness to listen to both sides of issues. He only listened to the 4 dissenters when it came to this opinion. Similarly, it was revealed last month that Obama likes to surf the web and read magazines but his preferences for the New Yorker, the Economist, Rolling Stone and Andrew Sullivan reveal a decided ideological tilt.

Is Obama an ideologue? Talking to Republicans today, he claims he isn’t. But that’s hard to square with reports like those above and a recent interview in which Obama said it doesn’t matter what you say or do if you are a good person who is “on the right side of history”:

“Obama, in an interview today for Washington Watch with Roland Martin set to air on TV One on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, explained why he was so ready Saturday to forgive the Nevada Democrat for telling the authors of Game Change during the ’08 campaign that Obama would run well because is a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

“For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that, makes absolutely no sense,” Obama said today in the taped interview, an excerpt aired this evening by CBS News (see it above) and on other broadcast networks. “This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.”

President Obama talks like an ideologue whether he thinks he’s one or not.

— DRJ

75 Responses to “Obama the Ideologue”

  1. I haven’t read the primary dissent, but I’ve read the majority opinion, Robert’s concurrence, and Thomas’ dissent.

    I took that comment in the primary opinion as being a reminder that the court was not ruling on the issue because the facts for that issue weren’t before it and because judicial restraint means they don’t answer questions not asked.

    That said, I think the clear implication of what the opinion did say is that Congress can’t prohibit independent expenditures by foreign corporations. The freedom of speech is not limited to citizens, and restricting independent expenditures abridges the freedom of speech, so restricting independent expenditures by non-citizens is something Congress logically can’t do.

    Which is to say: the Court said it wasn’t answering the question. That doesn’t mean it said that the answer the dissent thinks follows from their reasoning is wrong, and I think that this conclusion follows logically from their reasoning.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  2. I think Confederate Yankee appropriately named Wednesday’s speech the STFU Address. Washington is screwed up, Wall Street is screwed up, Insurance companies, Big Oil, Business, special interests, etc., etc., but ME, MYSELF, I, BARACK is not screwed up and will tell you exactly what to do to fix both the problems which were left me when I walked in the door and to guide us to a glorious future.

    Heh, such blatantly contradictory, hypocritical, responsibility dodging, incorrect history rewriting rhetoric has not been seen in a STFU Address in a long time.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  3. For a guy who thinks he’s one the right side of history, a better knowledge of it might help. For example, “All men are created equal” is not in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence.

    So much for professor Obama.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. I wonder if it’s not an intentional slip, Mike K. IMO the Declaration of Independence expresses America’s goals, and the phrase “All men are created equal” suggests equality of opportunity. Putting it in the Constitution suggests a promise of equality of outcome.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  5. He claims not to be an ideologue, therefore … do I need to finish this … he is.

    htom (412a17)

  6. I can’t seem to find a way to contact the blog correctly so I am going to leave this here. Your RSS 2.0 feed in the side bar is not working correctly. When I add it to my Google homepage I get feeds of posts made in Sept 2009. I have added and deleted it several times but it does not change. Thanks and sorry for messing up the comments with that little FYI.

    kahall (94fc2f)

  7. Unfortunately, tone-deaf Obama suckered the Republicans into his little kabuki showcase today. Shame on them. They need to do their best to present their own plans to the American people. Obama says he welcomes open discussion and an exchange of ideas out of one side of his mouth and then continues spouting his failed, partisan nonsense out of the other.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  8. Thanks, Kahall. It’s not messing anything up and I’ll pass your comment along to someone with more internet knowledge than I have.

    aphrael – Would an open-minded President join the dissent’s concern and call on Congress to oppose it without even addressing what the majority opinion held? Instead, Obama embraced the minority’s position without even acknowledging what the majority said — isn’t that what an ideologue does?

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  9. First, Obama was incorrect in his STFU address when he said the decision reversed 100 years of precedent. The decision left in place the prohibition on direct corporate contributions to individual campaigns. The only thing affected was the seven year old McCain-Feingold monstrosity.

    The audacity of Obama, the first presidential candidate since what, the 1970s, to turn down public financing for his campaign after first agreeing to it specifically to avoid limits and disclosures and them purposely disabling identification safeguards in online contributions, is absolutely breathtaking.

    The amount of special interest support devoted to the left is huge and often buried two or three layers deep. IMHO, the foreign contribution issue is more a red herring at this point, especially given the Clinton’s active pursuit of such contributions during the 1990s, and the left is more concerned over a possible leveling of the playing field through corporate donations.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  10. Most ideologues don’t think they are. They just know that they’re right.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  11. Watching that vid really displayed his temper – that jaw was tightly clenched throughout, he just sneered of condescension as he attempted to lecture his betters, and, failing that, just sneered some more. This guy is worse than Carter, because while he’s a thin – skinned wimp like him, he also manages to lie ad nauseum, confident that he’ll always get away with it.

    Dmac (539341)

  12. Whining about foreign contributions to campaigns is more of Obama’s chutzpah, given the Gaza Bank phone bank efforts.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. aphrael – Doesn’t the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1996 already prohibit independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies? Isn’t Obama just flat out wrong?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  14. Actually, the recent USSC decision does not allow foreign corporations to air any ads or participate in the electoral process.

    Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

    Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

    In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.”

    The lefist mantra that this will allow foreign interests to take over our elections, is like usual, typical libturd propaganda.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  15. poa, it’s not like Obama really has a problem with foreigners contributing to his campaign anyway.

    In fact, this is probably why he makes such a big deal out of it… he famously disabled the credit card verification to enable all sorts of fun.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. This following post from Gateway Pundit I think illustrate the type of thing the left is really trying to protect and to do so on an uneven playing field.

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/confirmed-tea-party-is-over-website-is-funded-by-seiu/

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. Yeah Dustin, I know all about that. He just wants to throw out the red herring to try and baffle America with bullshit because he can’t dazzle them with his fake brilliance anymore.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  18. “All men are created equal” is not in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence.

    Comment by Mike K — 1/29/2010 @ 4:57 pm

    Constitution, Declaration, they all look the same to me…

    Barack Hussein Obama (176445)

  19. Damn, there goes that tingle up Chris Matthews leg again.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  20. Constitution, Declaration, they all look the same to me…

    Comment by Barack Hussein Obama

    I can tell they do, Mr Constitutional Law Professor.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  21. This just in…Chris Matthews was shocked to realize he forgot he’s a white man for 10 minutes.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  22. Chris Matthews, Harry Reid, Joe Biden. Why they gotta keep the black man down?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  23. What “ideological tilt” does a preference for the Economist reveal?

    imdw (f7b257)

  24. “I think Confederate Yankee appropriately named Wednesday’s speech the STFU Address.”

    Did confederate yankee comment on how the response came from the place where the confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was sworn in? I thought that was a nice touch by the GOP.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  25. “The lefist mantra that this will allow foreign interests to take over our elections, is like usual, typical libturd propaganda.”

    You know, citing regulation and federal law doesn’t really tell us what the effect of a constitutional decision is.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  26. “Did confederate yankee comment on how the response came from the place where the confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was sworn in? I thought that was a nice touch by the GOP.”

    Yep, should have held it in Philadelphia where Obama’s NBP crew could’ve kept them at bay with guns, baseball bats and pipes, while Holder’s crew looked the other way.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  27. That was me, by the way, Mr. Mike K.

    Do you think that, by now, even all the Ron Kuby- type lawyers see through this know-nothing doofus of a POTUS. I mean, even though they are blinded by their ideology, I think those kind at least look at the Constitution before they start bastardizing it.

    Matador (176445)

  28. “One day, the president is defiant and petulant; the next day, he pleads to be understood and accepted. Barack Obama, a man of limitless self-regard, appears to be struggling with what to say and how to find his way out of the dark and deep woods he finds himself in. Such things can be almost poignant to watch.”

    – Peter Wehner

    Poignant. Very sad, as well.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  29. “Yep, should have held it in Philadelphia where Obama’s NBP crew could’ve kept them at bay with guns, baseball bats and pipes, while Holder’s crew looked the other way”

    Yes that would indeed piss off those racist dixiecrats.

    imdw (bb8086)

  30. I think the black half of Mr. President is a kind, caring, loving person, of great eloquence and compassion. The white half is an ignorant bigot who aint going change no matter what them thare supremes want. With that there busing kids across the tracks and sharing toilets. Next they going tell me I gots see un American ideas from republicans when watching the tube.

    highpockets (40ce09)

  31. “You know, citing regulation and federal law doesn’t really tell us what the effect of a constitutional decision is.”

    imdw – You know, given that Obama’s interpretation was wrong, as even the NY Times agrees, what do you believe the effect will be?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  32. Well if the NYtimes has weighed in on the constitutional issues, I guess that it is settled against the president and congress.

    imdw (f7b257)

  33. “Did confederate yankee comment on how the response came from the place where the confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was sworn in? I thought that was a nice touch by the GOP.”

    imdw – Missed this. I’m sure your guy agrees since people claim he is a post-racial president and he specifically said Wednesday night that he did not want to relitigate the past, right before he prodeeded to do just that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  34. “Well if the NYtimes has weighed in on the constitutional issues, I guess that it is settled against the president and congress.”

    imdw – But what do you think the effects will be?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  35. Imdw – Jefferson Davis was a Democrat and espoused the same racist mantra that the Democrat party continues to this day.

    The fact that the Republicans demonstrate that they have supplanted the racist Democrat party in the capital ov Virginia must really bother you.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  36. Smart liberals are already starting to put some distance between themselves and Obama, who is already being tagged as a clueless, incompetent failure. But the vast majority of the party’s unwashed continue their lockstep worship.

    It’s always beneficial when the ideology one is working against – in this case, contemporary liberalism – is in denial about the sheer character and extent of its troubles.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  37. _________________________________

    Is Obama an ideologue?

    LOL. Is the sun hot? Is the South Pole cold? Do birds fly, and is the Pope Catholic?

    A window into the mind — and ideology — of the current occupant of the White House can be best summed up by noting that it’s connected to a person who was a close confidante of, among others, Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright.

    Mark (411533)

  38. The budget deficit is not the only kind of deficit Obama is increasing. He is accumulating a huge honesty deficit, which is leading to an increasing trust deficit with the American public. The problems with his agenda items is not that he cannot explain them clearly it’s that he can’t explain them honestly. He can’t accept responsibility that people don’t like them – his reality is completely distorted and he demonstrated it again Wednesday night lecturing Congress and the American people. People get Obama, he doesn’t get them. Obama thinks Americans are stupid and treats them accordingly, but a growing percentage of the population is realizing the opposite is actually true.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  39. “Imdw – Jefferson Davis was a Democrat and espoused the same racist mantra that the Democrat party continues to this day. ”

    Indeed Jeff Davis would be proud of our current president. And that’s why I said:

    “Yes that would indeed piss off those racist dixiecrats.”

    About GeneralMalaise’s idea.

    imdw (017d51)

  40. “24.What “ideological tilt” does a preference for the Economist reveal?

    Comment by imdw — 1/29/2010 @ 7:21 pm”

    As someone who became adult in Scotland almost 40 years ago, I considered the Economist to be an excellent publication, with minimal bias … that says a lot, since British publications standardly proudly proclaim to support Conservatives or Labour or whomever …

    Then it started to tilt … until it became more and more left-biased, and less and less subtly so … by the late-80s, I stopped subscribing to it – it became too much like the LATimes, except with reasonably good grammar and editing …

    So – a preference for the Economist reveals an uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe …

    Does that help you better understand, imdw ?

    Alasdair (205079)

  41. “So – a preference for the Economist reveals an uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe …”

    Alasdair – Well said.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  42. I suppose ‘pragmatist’ to be the opposite of ‘ideologue’. Dear Leader, how are you a pragmatist?

    I hope you chose ‘bolshevik’ having read my comments in radical blogs like Patterico.

    gary gulrud (75a696)

  43. “So – a preference for the Economist reveals an uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe …”

    really. So lets look at some recent leaders:

    http://www.economist.com/leaders/

    You really would call that “uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe”? I mean, they did once run a picture of the crown with the headline “an idea whose time has passed.” — probably more of the “liberal” variety in the classical sense. But they today have a leaders on:

    “Class warrior
    Bashing the rich is bad politics and rotten economics”

    and

    “Stop!
    The size and power of the state is growing, and discontent is on the rise”

    and

    “The man who fell to earth
    After the Democrats’ stunning loss, Barack Obama has no choice but to move back to the centre”

    imdw (4fe3dc)

  44. Move back to the center? He wouldn’t know the center if it bit him in the arse. That iamadickwad thinks The Economist is centrist shows how far left it is.

    JD (7d2b58)

  45. door to unchecked spending by foreign-owned corporations.

    Obama did that during his campaign. Now it’s a problem?

    drjohn (33975b)

  46. “That iamadickwad thinks The Economist is centrist shows how far left it is.”

    Even centrist is an odd description of them. It makes it seem like their approach is a bit of “a little of this, a little of that.” Which isn’t quite true. They’re decidedly in favor free trade. I have yet to see a trade agreement they dislike. Decidedly agnostic on many moral and religious issues. They mix a sort of classical liberalism with an awareness of the reality of modern society, the modern economy and the modern state. Oh and they detest the Chavez types of the world.

    But take a look at the evidence there, which I don’t know if you looked at or wanted to address. It’s really impossible to square that with a description that someone who prefers reading those things shows “an uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe.” The evidence shows…. well… criticism of leftist tripe.

    imdw (72206b)

  47. ^cherry – picks one meme after 10 minutes of “research” and proceeds to ignore past twenty years of leftist tilts. Also ignores past Economist rants against nearly all of Bush’s foreign policies, also ridiculed Reagan’s tax cuts for years. Completely missed calls on bull markets of the 80’s, 90’s and the middle part of the past decade, all due to criticisms of US economic policies being too substandard on taxation.

    You’re an ignorant git – we get that. But to be such a willfully ignorant git takes a special kind of talent. Wear that tinfoil hat proudly.

    Dmac (539341)

  48. “^cherry – picks one meme after 10 minutes of “research” and proceeds to ignore past twenty years of leftist tilts”

    I do admit a weakness of my approach is that I just looked at what i saw today. But that’s part of the point. A look right now revealed criticism of leftist tripe. Which doesn’t really jibe with “uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe.”

    Looking back, they endorsed Bush once. Bob Dole, and Ronald Reagan. Dole! I know you got your bones to pick, and they don’t carry the ideological purity you prefer your foreign news sources carry, but this is not a record of “uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe.” Though it does seem they accept some sort of tripe uncriticially. Here is their 2000 endorsment of bush:

    ““The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush. It prefers his small government, pro-market philosophy.”

    Bush and “small government.” Ha.

    imdw (f7b257)

  49. Bush and “small government.” Ha.

    Just another illustration that when any person, of any political persuasion or party, finds him or herself suffering from a moment of weakness and foolishness — if not outright idiocy — invariably it will be due to his or her left-leaning sentiments. Of course, people of the left automatically are that way more times than not.

    Discovering recently that President Herbert Hoover, a Republican who often has been blamed for making the Great Depression truly great, absurdly and irresponsibly raised everyone’s tax burden in 1932 — which FDR then later glommed onto — merely confirms my observation.

    Then there was Ronald Reagan pulling a Jimmy-Carter stunt in the 1980s by secretly negotiating with hostage-taking Iran. Or Bush Sr’s version of Democrat/liberal Lite by saying and then renegging on “read my lips, no new taxes.”

    The lesson in all this is that when people hear that little liberal voice in the back of their mind, they should tell it “hey, you’re phony, not at all truly humane or compassionate and, worse of all, very stupid!!”

    Mark (411533)

  50. The disastrous Rasmussen polling numbers for Obama after the STFU Address pretty much confirm that the American public believes him to be an idealogue. He can claim he isn’t all he wants, but when the only people to believe his claims of success and support his policies are Democrats, not even then a plurality of the people on any measure polled, he’s a freaking idealogue. He’s got a problem with reality. Claiming things are centrist is well and good if you are so far left that’s the way they look to you, but it has not fooled the American people who he continues to talk down to.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  51. Since ideologue seems objectionable, how about doctrinaire liberal?

    JD (af9643)

  52. Someone needs to tell Barack the bad news:

    Unlike Barack’s illustrious alma matters, the United States of America does not have an endowment.

    Amphipolis (17a9b7)

  53. Somehow, I don’t expect imdw to preface Obama’s next speech from the Oval Office with “speaking from the room where FDR signed the order to intern Japanese Citizens during WW2″ or “talking from the White House, where Andrew Jackson ordered the removal of the Cherokee Nation from the Southern Appalachian mountains.”

    Techie (43d092)

  54. “Unlike Barack’s illustrious alma matters, the United States of America does not have an endowment.”

    Or keep it simple and tell him that money does not grow on trees… or that it’s not “Obamacash” or “Obama’s stash”, as some of his more imbecilic followers call his largesse.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  55. You know, citing regulation and federal law doesn’t really tell us what the effect of a constitutional decision is.

    Comment by imdw — 1/29/2010 @ 7:32 pm

    I normally don’t reply to douchenozzles, but it does tell exactly what the effect of the SCOTUS decision is. They ruled on part of McCain/Feingold dealing with domestic corp.’s, ergo they didn’t rule on the other laws and reg’s that I cited and therefore they remain in force.

    Imadickwad, do you have to practice being a douchenozzle or do you just come by it naturally?

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  56. The Economist (fm Wiki)…

    What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? “It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper’s historical position.” That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.[20]

    20- ^ “About us”. economist.com. http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377. Retrieved 2006-12-27.

    All in all, absent economics, decidedly Leftist.
    And, in 2000, GWB was the candidate of pro small government and free markets; or, did you forget that his opponent was AlGore?

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  57. Comment by peedoffamerican — 1/30/2010 @ 11:56 am

    Since his moronic stupidity seems to be quite painful, you would think that if he is sentient, he would cease and desist; which only leads one to believe that he must be the vanguard of the zombie movement.

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  58. “All in all, absent economics, decidedly Leftist.”

    And of what importance is economics to… the Economist.

    But where on the right/left spectrum are you placing decolonization?

    “. They ruled on part of McCain/Feingold dealing with domestic corp.’s, ergo they didn’t rule on the other laws and reg’s that I cited and therefore they remain in force.”

    Yes but just because they didn’t rule on them doesn’t mean that a lower court following this case won’t rule on those.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  59. Its mendoucheity is boundless.

    JD (78634e)

  60. #52 JD:

    how about doctrinaire liberal?

    How about doctrinaire Marxist?

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  61. But where on the right/left spectrum are you placing decolonization

    Well, since it is a Human Rights issue, and the Left is a bit derelict on Human Rights,
    though they love to proclaim their fealty to Civil Rights which they wish to impose upon those they disagree with (Totalitarianism),
    I would say that Human Rights/De-Colonization would appear to be on the Right side of the divide.

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  62. “I would say that Human Rights/De-Colonization would appear to be on the Right side of the divide.”

    And the Economist places it within its “variety of liberal causes.” Of course, they are in Britain, where the nationalist, conservative right wing may be holding on to something that we never had here.

    imdw (89ba95)

  63. Yes but just because they didn’t rule on them doesn’t mean that a lower court following this case won’t rule on those.

    Comment by imdw — 1/30/2010 @ 12:43 pm

    If frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their ass when they hopped either you mendoucheous troll. Just how in the hell do you think this case made it to SCOTUS in the first place, on fairy wings?

    Clue for Imadickwaddumbass. Big Hint: It was first ruled on in a lower court and then appealed to SCOTUS.

    DUMBASS

    Do you not understand this simple statement:

    In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.

    As Walter via Jeff Dunham says,“DUMBASS”

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  64. Notice how it would rather argue about a magazine’s political leanings than Barcky’s reflexive leftism?

    JD (78634e)

  65. “Yes but just because they didn’t rule on them doesn’t mean that a lower court following this case won’t rule on those.”

    Yes, but just because imdw suffers from reflexive liberal oppositional disorder does not mean that monkeys will not fly out her butt and she will show up on this blog as a conservative tomorrow.

    This imdw style commenting is easy and refreshing!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  66. Hmmmm, I just guess that the government could not anyway, anyhow, ever show a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing a US election.

    Sarc off<

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  67. As a police officer we used to joke about the ficticious(?) charge of DWHUA.

    Driving With Head Up Ass.

    Now with Imadickwaddumbass it is now PWHUA:

    Posting With Head Up Ass

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  68. Daleyrocks,

    I am beginning to think it is a masochist since he keeps coming back for more bitchslappings?

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  69. Yes but just because they didn’t rule on them doesn’t mean that a lower court following this case won’t rule on those.

    Comment by imdw — 1/30/2010 @ 12:43 pm

    — The 2010 version of Nixon’s “Let me say this about that”. The incontinent-motorized-dick-washer seems to be suggesting that the SCOTUS should make a final ruling on any- and everything. Bring on the activist judges!

    Icy Texan (8da0db)

  70. Comment by imdw — 1/30/2010 @ 1:11 pm

    That is because “liberals” are concerned about Human Rights, Leftists – not so much.

    In case you are unaware (please, everyone stop laughing), the Progressive Movement has corrupted the political zeitgeist so that what was before Liberal (such as the political thought of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) is now Conservative, and what was before Rightist/conservative (the Divine Right of Kings, etc) is now Leftist/Progressive (the modern iteration of the totalitarian state with its’ PC/thought police/do as I say and not as I do/etc).

    You, being in the Vanguard of the Zombie, could not be aware of any of this, or be able to perceive it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  71. Yes but just because they didn’t rule on them doesn’t mean that Obama is not going to announce a 20% across the board cut in income taxes tomorrow.

    imdw – I think the above follows as logically as your original statement on this case.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  72. #71 AD – RtR/OS!:

    In case you are unaware (please, everyone stop laughing),

    Now that I have managed to stop the tears for a bit (even if a guffaw is still erupting now and then), I have to say you have hit the tack with the hammer.

    The Left doesn’t understand and can’t comprehend that they’ve picked up the banner from and even echo the arguments of the old colonialists and whatever other opressors have managed to spring up in the last few centuries.

    Noblesse oblige, y’unnerstan, ’cause us clingy bible totin’ shootin’ iron wielding rednecks ain’t smart enough to think for ourselves. So of course we need youngsters still wet behind the ears to do it for us!

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  73. “Clue for Imadickwaddumbass. Big Hint: It was first ruled on in a lower court and then appealed to SCOTUS.”

    Yes that’s how it usually works. The point is when that question does come up, a lower court will be applying the holding of this case to that. And as you note in your “simple statement” the supreme court did not discuss the govt interests.

    “Notice how it would rather argue about a magazine’s political leanings than Barcky’s reflexive leftism?”

    So reflexively leftist that he reads….the Economist. Seriously that was a good one. The Economist.

    “The incontinent-motorized-dick-washer seems to be suggesting that the SCOTUS should make a final ruling on any- and everything. ”

    Um. No actually – – the opposite. Lower courts will be making decisions based upon the first amendment doctrine that the supreme court here declared. Whether the court did or did not reach certain questions, lower courts may have to.

    “In case you are unaware (please, everyone stop laughing), the Progressive Movement has corrupted the political zeitgeist so that what was before Liberal (such as the political thought of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) is now Conservative, and what was before Rightist/conservative (the Divine Right of Kings, etc) is now Leftist/Progressive (the modern iteration of the totalitarian state with its’ PC/thought police/do as I say and not as I do/etc).”

    So the Economist — a magazine in the classical liberal tradition — is being leftist or rightist in its promotion of decolonization? I mean, I’m fine with you calling it a right wing position if you feel like you need to in order to feel better about yourself. It just adds to the point that the economist can’t be called “uncritical acceptance of leftist tripe.”

    imdw (143bb3)

  74. […] the get go he has shown himself to be a passionate ideologue with flaws that have been covered up by the press since the 1st day he began his campaign. As […]

    Why are Obama and the Democrats in such a hurry with health care | Holeinthehull (eade95)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4557 secs.