Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took some heat when it was discovered that he had not disclosed — as required by federal law — income-producing jobs held by his wife Virginia dating back 20 years. From 1998-2003, for example, Mrs. Thomas had worked at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which paid her a total of $686,589. But the job was never disclosed on federal documents.
It wasn’t merely a passive oversight. Each year, when filling out the form asking for disclosure of “spousal noninvestment income,” Thomas had checked a box labeled “none.” He had also failed to disclose paid work done by his wife back in the ’90s for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now a Tea Party leader.
Since then, new questions have popped up regarding Thomas’ attendance three years ago at a seminar of conservative leaders sponsored by David and Charles Koch. In one invitation to such retreats, which typically run four days, Charles Koch wrote that “twice a year our network meets to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.”
When questions were raised last month about Thomas’ attendance at the January 2008 retreat, a Supreme Court spokesman said “it was a brief drop-by. He was not a participant.”
“In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat….
Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.
“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.”
Hmmm. “A brief (four-day) drop-by”? On whose dime?
Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had failed to disclose her late husband’s employment at MoveOn.org, had attended and spoken at private affairs sponsored by George Soros, and had apparently been less than honest with the American people about what had taken place. The impeachment hearings in the House would be starting any day now.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
350 comments Add your comment
larry
February 15th, 2011
1:30 pm
So, some people arent going to be happy until grandma is out on her kister on the side of the road with her stuff.
Dont worry jm , you will get old too. You will be retired, are you going to despise yourself?
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
1:31 pm
I’d answer you if you were capable of serious debate, Doggone, which you are not. Please refrain from attempting to engage me in any of your useless banter.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:33 pm
“Please refrain from attempting to engage me in any of your useless banter”
Nope, no deal. I’ll reply whenever I see fit. If you don’t like it you are at perfect liberty to NOT REPLY…as you see fit.
there’s only one person who can stop me from replying as I wish…and YOU are not him.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:35 pm
larry 1:30 – nope. I won’t be sucking on the gov’t teat. I no problem with old people. I have a problem with old people who didn’t save for retirement. And for the old people who oppose any changes to SS & Medicare, EVEN IF SAID CHANGES WON’T AFFECT THEM!
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:40 pm
This has to be one of the most frustrating things around. Our generation (under 45) is willing to make changes to SS so that it doesn’t go broke and burden our economy with an undue amount of taxes and costs. But the old people (55 and over) have adamantly opposed any changes, even though the damn changes won’t affect them….
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:42 pm
“But the old people (55 and over) have adamantly opposed any changes, even though the damn changes won’t affect them….”
I haven’t seen that opposition. I’ve seen opposition to changes that WILL affect them, like smaller payouts. The opposition I’ve seen is to raising the cap – primarily, but funny thing about that…I haven’t seen ANY opposition to that from people who are already UNDER the existing cap. Itsn’t it odd?
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:45 pm
People can’t vote under the age of 18. I’m inclined to think you shouldn’t be able to vote when over the age of 75. Maybe even 65…. that whole senility thing. Or at minimum, they should have to take a minimum competency test.
Which brings me back to another pet peeve. All drivers, but in particular those over 65, should be required to actually retake their driving test when renewing their license every 4 years. Over 65 it should probably be every 2 years…. I almost got run over by an idiot old person with a handicapped thing in their window when crossing a street the other day. Not only did they run a red light, they came within about a foot of running my butt over….
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:46 pm
Doggone 1:42 – blather without reference…. I look forward to you posting the links to the research that shows you the exact non-opposition you purport to have seen.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:47 pm
“within about a foot of running my butt over….”
which no doubt disappoints Doggone et al
cosby smith
February 15th, 2011
1:48 pm
Poor guy has been undrer attack ever since he was nominated…but lets dig up dirt on all to the supreme court and see if any have actually read and studied the constitution. Sotomyer has not!
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:50 pm
Jay believes a significant number of retirees aren’t physically capable of working over the age of 65. If they can’t work, then logically they must not be able to think. If you can’t think, why should you be able to vote? Seems logical to me.
You can accept government hand outs, but you lose your right to vote…. (and I’m all for a business corollary, any business receiving subsidies couldn’t hire a lobbyist)
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:52 pm
“which no doubt disappoints Doggone et al”
why should it? A bad driver is a bad driver, their age has nothing to do with it.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:53 pm
“Sotomyer has not!”
Proof?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:54 pm
“I look forward to you posting the links to the research that shows you the exact non-opposition you purport to have seen.”
Nah, no links…just going by what I’ve seen here…mostly. I know that *I* fit into your age category and I don’t have any opposition to what I would consider needed changes to SS.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
Doggone – “to what I would consider needed changes to SS.”
And what are those?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
“If they can’t work, then logically they must not be able to think.”
How do you define “work”? Because Stephen Hawking MIGHT want to argue your statement that “if you can’t work…you might not be able to think”
He seems to be pretty good at thinking. Don’t you think?
Nate Downes
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
Martin Ginsburg was a professor at Georgetown University, a position he’s held since 1980. Before then he worked for the Law Firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson, and represented Ross Perot for them in the 1970’s. He had never worked for moveon.org, or any other similar agency. Simple factcheck.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:58 pm
“And what are those?”
Mostly? Raise the cap, and tweak the COLA to better reflect the actually economic conditions. Maybe even raise the rate some on everyone.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:58 pm
Doggone 1:56 – “He seems to be pretty good at thinking. ” Thanks, you made my point. I agree. Hawkins can think. And Hawking works.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
1:59 pm
Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions
No he doesn’t. He’s a conservative, and a good con never admits to anything
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:59 pm
“And Hawking works”
But just because someone is retired doesn’t mean they CAN’T work and it SURE doesn’t mean they can’t think…take a line through Hawking.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:00 pm
“Raise the cap, and tweak the COLA to better reflect the actually economic conditions. Maybe even raise the rate some on everyone.”
So 2/3 tax increase. No spending cuts, but some slow down on the spending increases…. well, at least you’re willing to consider some changes (most of which don’t affect you as a retiree). As always, stick it to someone else….
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:01 pm
“As always, stick it to someone else….”
as is true of ALL insurance. Those who don’t actually use it still pay for those who do.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
2:03 pm
as is true of ALL insurance. Those who don’t actually use it still pay for those who do.
Unless they are cut from the insurance once they have to make a claim
larry
February 15th, 2011
2:05 pm
So my 90 year old grandma, who has all of faculities , can walk , talk , carry on an intellegent conversation, drive better than most folks 60 years younger, should not be allowed to vote?
Please discrmininate some more please.
Bruno
February 15th, 2011
2:07 pm
Shout out to AmVet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_nFwwjBlEc
And you know that you’re over the hill when your mind makes a promise your body can’t fill….
larry
February 15th, 2011
2:07 pm
And besides, these are not government handouts. This is money they have paid into the system.
Matti
February 15th, 2011
2:08 pm
I’m still trying to imagine why no one in the “liberal” media around here reported that my Congressman was at the Koch Bros. retreat in Palm Springs a couple of weeks ago, and that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts. (Each claimed he was at the other location.) Perhaps he was hiking the Appalachain Trail? Heh….
Whatevs. Our government does not belong to “the people.” It belongs to its corporate sponsors. Period. Once we get past the silly notion of ethics in “public service,” it all makes perfect sense.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:15 pm
Has anyone else noticed that when the Koch brothers wiggle their fingers, all the Republican’s lips move at the same time. How do they do that! It’s as though they are all on the synchronized trickle-down swim team.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:19 pm
“Unless they are cut from the insurance once they have to make a claim ”
But even in that case, they are paying for it…but not using it, and are still paying for those who DO use it!
Normal
February 15th, 2011
2:21 pm
You ever notice that when a subject like this one comes up that Lil Barry can’t argue against, be works his tail off trying to find something the “other side” did to divert attention from the subject at hand….You just can’t buy that kind of partisan loyalty…or can you…
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:24 pm
My first criticism is of Jay’s use of the “If WE did it, THEY would HATE IT!” argument. I always found it pretty weak (although, yes, I’ve used it myself a few times)
My second criticism is of Mr. Thomas and/or his wife, and failure to fill out paperwork correctly. I have a feeling that marking “no” to the question “spousal non-investment income” means that Mr. Thomas read the question quite strictly (*in his own mind*) and was quite able to mark “none” since it WAS investment income. She invested some travel time, and she got a fairly large return on that investment. It’s the same thinking that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” meant. (*in his own mind*).
My third criticism is of the whole process to either prosecute or remove a judge. From my (allegedly poor) memory, A Supreme Court judge serves for life, without a real process for removal for being dumb/ criminal/ shady. Help correct me if I am mistaken.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 15th, 2011
2:25 pm
Well, when I think of this Justice Thomas, I get the same feeling I would get from watching my mother-in-law drive off of a high cliff in my new Ford F-450. On one hand he’s a good Conservative that socks it to the libruls. On the other hand he’s one of Those People, all uppity and such.
So I’m just staying out of this fuss.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
carlosgvv
February 15th, 2011
2:25 pm
Jay, you must enjoy being a punching bag. You know all the conservatives are going to call you those bad liberal names and all the liberals will call you racist.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:26 pm
Funny how liberals rail about only AMERICAN corporations.
Do you even realize that foreign competition like Chinese and Russian state run companies dwarf our companies? We should be looking out for American interests.
Do you seriously think if we cripple American corporations without changing trade and other laws it will benefit us? I hope you’re not that naive.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:27 pm
Matti – “that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts.”
Well, either they were tired of you calling them…..ooooorrrr…they were looking out for his security…..or it was a corporate event that wasn’t open to the public….to name a few.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:28 pm
It’s not just Thomas, by the way…..
From TPM
Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering
Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:
Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. …
Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.
Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.
Libertarian
February 15th, 2011
2:30 pm
Jay you are a racist.
Oh wait, Thomas is conservative.
Nevermind.
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:31 pm
Matti – “that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts.”
Or they each didn’t know that he was getting paid to have a vacation.
Or they didn’t know he was walking the Appalachian Trail.
Or they did know and didn’t want the press to find out.
Or they did know and didn’t want anyone to find out.
Or they did know and. . . . okay, I’ll quit “imagining what happened”
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:33 pm
Granny Godzilla:
“Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement.”
Like the Tea Party? (ducking)
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:34 pm
Liberals latest strategy. Not enough members on the SCOTUS to pass their unconstitutional laws so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.
Classy. Real classy.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:35 pm
Has anyone seen DebbieDoRight lately? After her recent epic and embarassing meltdown, I haven’t caught her on here.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
“so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.”
telling the truth is not slander – not is it libel
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
Sad how foreign governments and businesses have the liberal foot soldiers doing their work for them.
Trash American corporations so they can take market share and buy them out.
Jimmy62
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
Common Cause, now there’s a bipartisan organization with no predetermined agenda or bias!
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:38 pm
So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?
So then do you agree with democrats that they should be able to use the law to ban books? That was the central issue behind SCOTUS allowing another hearing where democrats still argued banning pamphlets.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
Lord Help Us
February 15th, 2011
2:38 pm
’so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.’
Maybe Thomas knows a good lawyer to sue Jay…
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:39 pm
“So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?”
I can disagree with part of a ruling, without necessarily disagreeing with all of it.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:41 pm
“telling the truth is not slander – not is it libel”
Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told, Doggone.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:42 pm
“So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?”
I can disagree with part of a ruling, without necessarily disagreeing with all of it.
================
The issue at hand could not be decided in part. How would you rule on it in their place?
With the democrat government lawyers arguing the law gave them the right to ban books and you uphold that law you implicitly give them that right.
Sorry your scapegoat answer won’t suffice in this scenario.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:42 pm
“Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told, Doggone”
Ok, then where is his proof that Thomas did his taxes correctly?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
The “slander” I’m referring to is how the leftist media is translating attending meetings into directly influencing the decision on issues.
So if a SCOTUS member goes to see a movie can they then not rule on anything having to do with the media or recording industries? Just think how far the relevant arguments being made can be strung.
Matti
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
Wifebeater is right, of course. My duplicitous Congressman (Is he Republican? Is he Tea Party? When will he decide?) has no reason at all to want to talk to lil’ ol’ me, as I represent no large industry lobby or special interest group, and cannot pay my way in to play his game. Plus, women should be seen and not heard. Actions have consequences.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
“Sorry your scapegoat answer won’t suffice in this scenario”
No apologies from me. The only part of Citizen’s United that I am familiar with is the part affecting business contributions to candidates. I’m not familiar with any other part, so have no comment.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told,
Perhaps he would do well to just share facts and make explicit his concerns.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:45 pm
“The “slander” I’m referring to is how the leftist media is translating attending meetings into directly influencing the decision on issues.”
But that is not the focus of what Jay wrote. HE wrote about tax indiscretions
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:47 pm
Lol doggone you are horrible at deflection. Jay mentions the “4 day retreats” and I’m talking about the media in general.
You’re dodging of all the real questions makes this my last reply to your posts. You’re not worth wasting my time with. Just another simpleton who believes what they’re told without any critical thinking skills. Baaahhhhhh
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:48 pm
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
jm – is that you?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:49 pm
LYNCHING ! LYNCHING !
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
Oops! got my posters mixed up! Should have said:
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
Dave R. – is that you?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
jm – is that you?
=========
Sounds like whomever jm is knows a tool when he sees one as well.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
“jm – is that you” nope. I only have one other name I use on rare occasions… and Cryos is definitely not it….
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
Cryos 2:51 –
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
“Wifebeater is right, of course.”
“Actions have consequences.”
By golly, me thinks Matti (without an ‘e) just might be comin’ around.
Oh and the “Is he Republican? Is he Tea Party? When will he decide?” statement…it doesn’t matter what is party affiliation is, does it? They’re all bribe hungry crooks.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
That Cryos character needs to go back into the deep freeze.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
” nope. I only have one other name I use on rare occasions”
Correction has been made above
Justice Thomas as walking billboard: a conversation with Kevin Zeese of ProtectOurElections.org | Law
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
[...] February 15, 2011 By Matt J. Stannard Justice Clarence Thomas’s public stock continues to fall. The conservative Justice failed to disclose the paid political work done by his teabagger wife [...]
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Headline: “CAIRO (AP) – Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established, as the country’s new military rulers launched a panel of experts to amend the country’s constitution enough to allow democratic elections later this year.”
Well, here we go !
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Cryos
I am quite confident that the “democrat government lawyers” weren’t going all Farenheit 451 on ya, so remain calm.
As the case was about campaign contributions in money and media
I suspect the offending pamphlet was anti-Hillary and the challenge was
whether or not it could be considered campaign material.
Last book I saw anybody want to burn was poor old Harry Potter….and we know how that turned out.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
“Well, here we go !”
Nope. Here THEY go.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:55 pm
That Cryos character needs to go back into the deep freeze.
========
Wow you’re about as clever as Doggone.
Sorry but imo it is only worth debating people who can challenge my thinking and where I might learn something. Debating with kids who deflect, distract and have no factual basis for their posts is a waste of time.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
2:55 pm
“Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action.”
Yeah, ’cause we sure don’t want our elected officials learning about the Constitution from a real, live expert on that document, now do we?
Granny’s gone all senile again . . .
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:56 pm
0311/0317 – 1811/1801
Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:56 pm
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Cryos
I am quite confident that the “democrat government lawyers” weren’t going all Farenheit 451 on ya, so remain calm.
As the case was about campaign contributions in money and media
I suspect the offending pamphlet was anti-Hillary and the challenge was
whether or not it could be considered campaign material.
Last book I saw anybody want to burn was poor old Harry Potter….and we know how that turned out.
==========
Feel free to go to the links. Couple of key words search on “express advocacy” and “400 page” or “500 page.” “Pamphlet would work too.”
You are making wrong assumptions.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
Headline: “OJ BEATEN UNCONSCIOUS IN BRUTAL PRISON ATTACK!”
I’m betting it wasn’t as vicious as what he did to his wife and Ron Goldman.
“You do the crime ………… you do the time”
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
“Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established,”
But just remember, Jay said they would only get 25-30% of the vote, so they wield no real power.
Riiight.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
Wow. Politico has lots of good stuff today.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
2:58 pm
“Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.”
Then you don’t know much about either, then. Do you, Granny?
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:58 pm
“Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.”
Really, Granny? And what might those commonalities be?
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:59 pm
Obama said his budget plan would help get the country on the right fiscal path by bringing spending for everything other than interest costs into line with revenues by 2017.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49563.html#ixzz1E3kWoDv9
What a joke. 2017 is too late… and guess what, every borrow has to pay interest too….
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:59 pm
Granny :
O.K. ……….. I can play that vicious game !!!!!!!!
Seems to me the Democrat party and, and ……….. and, the Marx brothers have a lot in common.
SO THERE …….. TAKE THAT !
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:00 pm
“Debating with kids who deflect, distract and have no factual basis for their posts is a waste of time.”
You are SO right:
“Liberals latest strategy. Not enough members on the SCOTUS to pass their unconstitutional laws so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes”
“Sad how foreign governments and businesses have the liberal foot soldiers doing their work for them”
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:00 pm
Nice Guy :
She’s just funnin’ …………. like your Grandma.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
Obama also said technology has given demonstrators the upper hand over rulers in a variety of authoritarian countries—countries he said need to heed the trend towards change.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49563.html#ixzz1E3l8fYWa
Wish he would heed his own rhetoric and cut spending on entitlements… Maybe he hasn’t heard of the tea party yet.
ODDOWL
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
CLARENCE THOMAS….. A big house uncle tom who step and fetch for the extreme right wing, neo-con Republicans and the stuck on stupid Tea party clowns. Hey Clarence Thomas, you need to listen up boy. Your little minstrel show act has become embarrassing and tiresome for the 40 million African-Americans in this Country. Its time for you to go. You will either resign from the Supreme Court now or you will be impreached and remove by force. Clarence Thomas, do your race and your Country a favor. “Do the right thing.”
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established,”
Just yesterday liberals were touting how the MB wasn’t political so they couldn’t take control.
Liberals – leaves in the winds of their masters
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Obama said his budget plan would help get the country on the right fiscal path by bringing spending for everything other than interest costs into line with revenues by 2017.”
Another ‘presser, another string of lies from the least qualified person in any room to be President.
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:02 pm
Thanks for the shout out, Bruno. (I think!)
Yeah, I may be oldish, but I guarandamntee you, I can still kick some youthful ass.
And before I got terribly sick with blood clots, it wasn’t even a contest.
Back at ya with some Peter Gabriel…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts78Gg6RRHc
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
“A big house uncle tom who step and fetch for the extreme right wing, neo-con Republicans and the stuck on stupid Tea party clowns.”
And that’s where I stop reading and continue scrolling….
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
Headline: “Obama’s Media Machine: State Run Media 2.0?”
“As the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into gear, President Obama’s White House media operation is demonstrating an unprecedented ability to broadcast its message through social media and the Internet, at times doing an end-run around the traditional press.”
Hummmm …………… if ABC is concerned …………… !
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-white-house-media-operation-state-run/story?id=12913319
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
Integrity. Something Obama complimented Warren Buffett on. Something Obama knows nothing about…
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
” Hey Clarence Thomas, you need to listen up boy.”
Love the way some liberals are so . . . politically correct.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
Christie, flip flopping, jumping in?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49531.html
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
“And that’s where I stop reading and continue scrolling….”
and so did I
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
Doggone/GA you ducked away from Citizen’s United and you claimed Jay’s article was only about the tax issue even though over 1/2 is about the meetings. You can’t even see how you fail? Lol.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:05 pm
Cryos
express advocacy is about campaign material, so no I don’t think I’m making incorrect assumptions.
both terms issue advocacy and express advocacy were coined by the Supreme Court – one was subject to regulation and one was not.
No book burning…..
Night Train
February 15th, 2011
3:05 pm
JM wrote “People can’t vote under the age of 18. I’m inclined to think you shouldn’t be able to vote when over the age of 75. Maybe even 65…. that whole senility thing. Or at minimum, they should have to take a minimum competency test.”
Using that logic, let’s require everyone to take a test before they can vote, regardless of age.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
“you claimed Jay’s article was only about the tax issue even though over 1/2 is about the meetings.”
You need to re-read what Jay wrote. The meetings were only relevent in that they were relevent to the tax issue. The tax issue is the focus of the article, not the meetings.
and I’ve already explained Citizens United…I’m not doing it again.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
“Maybe he hasn’t heard of the tea party yet.”
Oh, he’s no doubt heard of them. But he lends no credibility to them, just like the Left-nuts on here, because the Tea Party is just based on a bunch of lies and misinformation.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
I’m less of a Christie fan. Let’s see the guy’s end results after 8 years. And being a “conservative” in a state with the highest taxes in the nation, is not exactly what I would call the boldest leadership, although it is historically a very blue state. Whatever. I prefer Mitch Daniels, but I’ll take Christie if I have to.