User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 8557
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:08 pm

Not trying to be daft with the spaghetti western reference here but there are few similar phrases that can capture the essence of his speech. I think it says a lot about the substance of it all that the thing I was most impressed by was the announcement of the First Lady's new initiative to tackle childhood obesity - something that if successful could save more future health care dollars than anything Congress is juggling now! Between that and her efforts to expand outreach to military families, she's certainly doing better than hubby this week.

As usual, the President delivered the speech well. There were a few good things on the economic and education front - the proposals to reinvigorate small business growth, cut their taxes, pare down capital gains penalties, and expand private alternatives to failing public schools are golden. And he made the point well about the necessity of improving educational performance overall (though I'd like to know how the WH plans to pay for forgiving student loans after 20 years!)

I think he'll have a lot of trouble with fellow Democrats on expansion of nuclear power and offshore drilling, but that's an excellent call to action as well. Of course, eradicating the idiotic DADT policy is long overdue, but he finally seems serious about it. Getting all earmarks on a single website is a fantastic idea, but he knows and we know it'll never happen.

The bad, well, let's just put it out there - this jobs bill stuff is pie in the sky! I'm not at all convinced that his heart is behind winning over the business community in general. Outsourcing is going to continue, market realities will not change the nature of foreign trade negotiations, and there's absolutely no evidence that American business can do the "green revolution" cheaper or more effectively than Asian competitors. There aren't nearly enough infrastructure projects in the lower 48 to generate the job numbers he's hoping for, so that's out as well unless we want to build ourselves into debt-ridden oblivion. These populist fees on banks?? Forget it - just show Geithner the door, and I think plenty of people on all ends of the spectrum will be happy. That rhetoric was completely lost on me.

Now for the ugly - this speech was far more partisan than I expected - and a lot of other independents I've heard from were disappointed by that as well. Presidents always use a little sarcasm in the SOTU when addressing the "other side", but this speech was chock full of it, complete with long lingering looks to the Republican rafters. I think substantive progress on health care is seriously imperiled unless he changes his tone - he still seems to be oblivious to the fact that a couple of changes to the health care plan might bring enough GOPers over to get it done, and the solutions have already been suggested though he claims he's listening.

I also call a harsh foul on his verbal rebuke to the Supreme Court - we have checks and balances for a reason. Congress can not simply pass laws to "get around" USSC decisions. That was pure political bravado and completely uncalled for. I lost quite a bit of respect for him in that moment, and frankly have to wonder who put that in the speech (calling Rahm Emanuel??) and why the President allowed it to stay in.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politi...Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

The SOTU is not the forum for taking up disagreements with the Court, period.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:19 pm

Somebody tell me what the hell Joe Biden was laughing about during much of the SOTU? Everytime I looked, he was laughing about something, even when Obama wasn't cracking a joke or making witty/sarcastic remarks.
 
Mudboy
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:51 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:26 pm

I have never been one to enjoy the annual political pep rally. It makes me realize how fake most politicians are, with their cheering and opposition by remaining seated and refusing to clap. Hearing more campaign rhetoric and promises, that never seem to be kept. And before I get flamed, I want it to be known this is not directed at President Obama, who I think is an excellent orator, but more at the clowns in the crowd on both sides of the aisle. I think I would enjoy it more if it were just the President giving the speech from the Oval Office.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:28 pm



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
Somebody tell me what the hell Joe Biden was laughing about during much of the SOTU? Everytime I looked, he was laughing about something, even when Obama wasn't cracking a joke or making witty/sarcastic remarks.

I wondered a bit about that but worked out he too had memorised the speech and he knew what was coming. I think I too would have smiled a couple of times knowing where the sentence was leading.

We watched the speech here about 6 hours ago, I can scarcely believe that a thread was only started about 16 minutes ago. Well other than an incorrect one on Foxy news not carrying it.

Astonishing. But then again, it will probably be nowhere near as astonishing as what is about to appear on this thread!

Seemed an OK speech to me, except of course for the US style of staged pauses and standing applause drives me mad. But that is hardly an Obama introduction.

The reply seemed rather mealy mouthed.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:49 pm

When did national security become discretionary spending?  confused 

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
As usual, the President delivered the speech well.

Seriously? Teleprompters helped but he still managed to fumble.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
this speech was far more partisan than I expected

What did he hope to accomplish by calling out the SCOTUS? Alito & Sotomeyer didn't like it one bit.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:04 pm

I wish I was there so when Nancy Pelosi was standing up and pretending to show support when Obama was thanking the men and women of the armed services, I could tell her to sit down and shut up because I know otherwise that she's a lying scumbag when it comes to caring about the men and women in the military. Anyway...

Yes, he did a good job at delivering the speech. That is one of Obama's best qualities. But after watching this speech, you can't tell me he's not a socialist (at least borderline) in disguise. "We're going to charge big banks a fee to cover for the little banks that haven't paid their money back yet" - so wait Obama - the ones who have paid their money back will now have to pay twice? Where's the incentive to pay off your debts in the first place? And then his "College Debt Forgiveness" - there's another incentive not to pay off your college bills. Did I miss something, or can I go to Duke University now and just take out loans and refuse to pay them off because in 20 years the debt will be "forgiven"? I'm sure banks will just love to loan out to college students now, knowing that the money may have to be "forgiven" and possibly never recovered.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
I also call a harsh foul on his verbal rebuke to the Supreme Court

I caught that as well - uncalled for. And they looked pissed about it too.

I was also fed up with "When I inherited". "In the previous eight years". "In the last decade". The people are getting fed up with "Blame George Bush", and it's not going to cut it anymore. He's been in office a year. He's in command now, and it's up to him and his administration to do stuff rather than just making excuses and pointing the finger elsewhere. He also ever did mention that the budget surplus of the late 90s was in large part due to a Republican controlled Congress that acted like responsible fiscal conservatives.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
I think it says a lot about the substance of it all that the thing I was most impressed by was the announcement of the First Lady's new initiative to tackle childhood obesity

 checkmark 
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:14 pm

Where was Hillary and who was the cabinet member in Dick Cheney's secret location?
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:42 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):

Great post Aaron and I agreed with all of your distinctions between the 'Good' the 'Bad' and the 'Ugly'.  checkmark 

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):

Great post  checkmark  Being the brother of a doctor in the Army, I can tell you I wanted to vomit when Nancy Pelosi stood up and clapped for our men in women in service. I absolutely loath that P.O.S. woman.

A few other points. What was he trying to accomplish by playing the defiant hardball and staying on course with his leftist-statist policies that the American people by in large have rejected. NO Cap and Trade. NO Health Care Reform as is stands in both bills. NO more stimulus, porkulus, bogus jobs bills, etc. Oh, and I thoroughly enjoyed his remarks on cutting taxes on '95% of Americans'.  rotfl  Really!? Have any of you fellow American members noticed a cut in your taxes?? And his bloviating about not 'raising' taxes...again  rotfl  He hasn't raised taxes YET. But tax increases most assuredly are coming. The Dems and previous Reps have spent far too much money to not raise taxes.

Also, let me get this straight. Bush ran up a $1T deficit in '08 and the Dems spend another $3T in '09 so that makes it ok?? Please Barry Obama and the Democrats, can't you come up with any better solutions than to just spend more, regulate more, and grow the Federal Government?? I'm also glad Obama is more optimistic than ever about the future...cause most Americans I know certainly don't share his optimism.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 2954
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:45 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
I also call a harsh foul on his verbal rebuke to the Supreme Court

I caught that as well - uncalled for. And they looked pissed about it too



Quoting FXramper (Reply 4):
Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
this speech was far more partisan than I expected

What did he hope to accomplish by calling out the SCOTUS? Alito & Sotomeyer didn't like it one bit

So the Supreme Court passed a highly controversial ruling that will affect this country for decades to come and Obama dosen't have the right to call them out on it ? It was better to bring that to the nations attention during this event. I was actually expecting him to mention it.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:53 pm

Obama needs to add 6 to 10 justices to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS deserved every bit of the lecture and distain. The decision is disgraceful.

That said, I saw the news clips of his speech, and just more blah, blah, blah, blah. Here's a radical idea, go actually do something, then I'll believe Obama. He's run away from his base, who are so angry at him for being a sellout chicken to the RNC that unless something changes drastically in the next 10 months, aren't interested in voting for more great speeches followed up by the President play an impotent rag doll to the Republican hate machine, while the Senate plays Pick-Up-Sticks with their butt cheeks all year.

But hey look on the bright side, Presidents can spend endless billions & trillions with the enthusiastic RNC to go wage war and send soldiers to far off places.  boggled 
 
seb146
Posts: 14049
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:03 pm



Quoting FXramper (Reply 4):
Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
As usual, the President delivered the speech well.

Seriously? Teleprompters helped but he still managed to fumble.

I guess Bush would have done well without his teleprompters....

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
I was also fed up with "When I inherited". "In the previous eight years". "In the last decade". The people are getting fed up with "Blame George Bush",

So, Obama is the only one to blame for the deficit, all the wars, failing banks, no health care.....

It was a good speech, overall. He sounds like he is starting to cave to the right. Watching his policies over the past few months makes me think he actually is a rightie and last nights SOTU address just confirmed that.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10893
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:05 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Outsourcing is going to continue

Of course they will because the DNC doesn't believe in decreasing the burden on them by slashing taxes at a time when we need to get businesses both big and small hiring. It is the fundamental that is killing us and will kill his political career. Stop listening to Nancy Pelosi and pass legistlation that rewards businesses that hire and give health care by lowering their operating costs. Not the other way around.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
this speech was far more partisan than I expected

Everyone needs to realize that this bi-partisan stuff is a sham. The second Pelosi mouthed the words "we won" it was in stone. The DNC does not want any input from the GOP. They don't want to hear their ideas, they don't even want them in the discussions. Which is why Nancy Pelosi does not want CSPAN anywhere near the debates. They want things done their way and their way only. All this stuff on CNN and MSNBC is propaganda. It is why states and counties are voting in Republican candidates in droves now. It's a total power grab and Rachel Maddow can only fool a small percentage of people when she constantly blurts out "obstructionists!" and why she wants the DNC to try to get rid of the filabuster. There is a good reason for that filabuster Rachel. To prevent the power grab that is being attempted. Which is why your health care bill crashed and burned. Obama can deliver us the talking points as good as anyone and can give a good speech but watch congress closely and how they act. Night and day.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
The SOTU is not the forum for taking up disagreements with the Court, period.

I think Obama had to throw that out there on the heels of a very bad election looming for his party. Once the bloodbath is over he needs a way to blame someone (you know instead of admitting any Dem Sen or Rep that loses sucked) for the mass losses. This is just another step in the propaganda war against big business.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
Somebody tell me what the hell Joe Biden was laughing about during much of the SOTU? Everytime I looked, he was laughing about something, even when Obama wasn't cracking a joke or making witty/sarcastic remarks.

Him and Pelosi did the same thing. I think it is a tactic used by the Dems to try to portray a positive image at a time when Pelosi has incurred an embarrassing and crushing defeat to her health care bill and the party was handed a huge loss in MA with Teddy's seat going to the GOP. I think it's just a way to make the general public think they are in a good position when in reality their wheels are flying off at highway speeds on an unpaved road.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 2):
I think I would enjoy it more if it were just the President giving the speech from the Oval Office.

I agree, last night smelled too much of a campaign stop and not a sitting president speaking to us.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
That is one of Obama's best qualities. But after watching this speech, you can't tell me he's not a socialist (at least borderline) in disguise. "We're going to charge big banks a fee to cover for the little banks that haven't paid their money back yet" - so wait Obama - the ones who have paid their money back will now have to pay twice? Where's the incentive to pay off your debts in the first place? And then his "College Debt Forgiveness" - there's another incentive not to pay off your college bills

This was part of the speech I found very interesting. I mean as far as the banks go if you catch a bank that you lended money to giving big bonuses I agree they should have to pay the bailout money back ASAP or face huge fees or taxes. For the banks that have paid the bailout back well it has to be hands off. Wasn't the college debt forgiveness for people who took certain public jobs? I don't think that is such a bad idea.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
I was also fed up with "When I inherited". "In the previous eight years". "In the last decade". The people are getting fed up with "Blame George Bush", and it's not going to cut it anymore

Well this tactic will be in use till the bitter end. You need to remember that the DNC is in serious trouble and never thought a year ago that they would be in this position. Obama has been exposed not following through on his promises, health care is dead in the water and they are about to get trounced in the mid terms basically rendering their super majority gone. They have to pull out all the tricks and you can count on blaming Bush and Cheney and an even worse propaganda campaign from CNN and MSNBC. Matthews was in rare form last night acting like the speech was some sort of religious thing fom him. Once the polls start to come out the far left will be in full attack mode.


Did you guys notice the first lady? Boy does she seem like she harbors a lot hate. She didn't smile and had a scowl most of the time. I guess she still isn't proud of her country huh?
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:13 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
I know otherwise that she's a lying scumbag when it comes to caring about the men and women in the military.



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
I can tell you I wanted to vomit when Nancy Pelosi stood up and clapped for our men in women in service.

I'll get off both of your backs once you provide some sources for you claims about Nancy Pelosi not supporting our troops. Until then, your claims are meaningless.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:19 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
I guess Bush would have done well without his teleprompters....

Doubtful. Dubya never got a whole sentence right when he was forced to talk policy on his own, without notes and without teleprompters. I still recall that even with the teleprompter, he was the least articulate politician I've ever seen in my entire life.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 11):
Him and Pelosi did the same thing. I think it is a tactic used by the Dems to try to portray a positive image at a time when Pelosi has incurred an embarrassing and crushing defeat to her health care bill and the party was handed a huge loss in MA with Teddy's seat going to the GOP. I think it's just a way to make the general public think they are in a good position when in reality their wheels are flying off at highway speeds on an unpaved road.

Not to defend Pelosi, but I saw her more restraint. At most, she smiled a lot, while it was Joe who was laughing his ass off.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:26 pm



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 11):
For the banks that have paid the bailout back well it has to be hands off. Wasn't the college debt forgiveness for people who took certain public jobs? I don't think that is such a bad idea.

There were two parts to the debt forgiveness as far as I could tell. Yes, one was for public service and I think it's a good idea as well. However, the second part (well, the way I interpreted it) was that all unpaid debt would be forgiven 20 years after college because "no one should be broke just because they chose to go to college".

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
Being the brother of a doctor in the Army, I can tell you I wanted to vomit when Nancy Pelosi stood up and clapped for our men in women in service. I absolutely loath that P.O.S. woman.

She is awful. I've posted it on this forum before but I don't feel that I can post it enough - my mom watched her lie straight faced to wounded soldiers while Pelosi was on a "Kodak Moment" tour over in Germany.

Quoting FXramper (Reply 6):
Where was Hillary and who was the cabinet member in Dick Cheney's secret location?

Secretary Shaun Donovan (Housing and Urban Development)

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
Also, let me get this straight. Bush ran up a $1T deficit in '08 and the Dems spend another $3T in '09 so that makes it ok?? Please Barry Obama and the Democrats, can't you come up with any better solutions than to just spend more, regulate more, and grow the Federal Government?? I'm also glad Obama is more optimistic than ever about the future...cause most Americans I know certainly don't share his optimism.

What I just find amusing is how when Obama does many of the same things that liberals ripped on Bush for, they still praise Obama. "How is Bush managing to cut taxes?!?!?!" Well, Obama's "cutting" taxes but the liberals aren't up in arms about that. "Bush ran up huge defecits!" But the liberals aren't mad about Obama's defecits that are making Bush's look like pocket change.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 8):
So the Supreme Court passed a highly controversial ruling that will affect this country for decades to come and Obama dosen't have the right to call them out on it ? It was better to bring that to the nations attention during this event. I was actually expecting him to mention it.

So just what can he do or is he going to do? The only way around the SCOTUS is a constitutional amendment because if Congress passed a law trying to over-ride the Supreme Court, they could just declare it unconstitutional.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10893
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:30 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
the second part (well, the way I interpreted it) was that all unpaid debt would be forgiven 20 years after college because "no one should be broke just because they chose to go to college".

There has to be conditions on that. Maybe if the debtor was making payments of has paid some of it back etc. Def need more info on that one.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
luckyone
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:34 pm



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 9):
Obama needs to add 6 to 10 justices to the SCOTUS,

I'm sorry, could you explain that further...because on the surface it would appear that you are oblivious to the fact that the SCOTUS only has 9 members, and it's been that way since 1869. If you're suggesting otherwise, be aware that the last time a president attempted to expand that was FDR in 1937 in if you ask me one of the most disturbing attempts at grabbing power in the United States I've ever read about. It was an understated disaster for him being defeated 70-20 in a Senate comprised of 69 Democrats. Given the rocky political situation at the moment it would be political suicide for Obama to even suggest a similar motion. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but there's no way in hell that would not be filibustered even if it came close to the requisite number of votes.

With reference to Obama threatening to veto, as with every veto he better be assured 2/3 of Congress won't override. Considering how catty things are in the Democratic ranks right now he's really walking a tight line in his own party.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:39 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
So just what can he do or is he going to do? The only way around the SCOTUS is a constitutional amendment because if Congress passed a law trying to over-ride the Supreme Court, they could just declare it unconstitutional.

Actually there's a number of things that can be done. 1.) The President can expand the court by adding judges, with the consent of a majority vote from Congress. 2.) They can change a few laws that will compensate for unfettered corporate cash. 3.) States themselves can force the issue as each state has their own rules on how candidates may run, be funded, etc... If the candidates don't like it, they won't be able to run, period. 4.) The federal govt can do similar steps by eliminating all soft money from politics, public financing for campaigns, and other measures.

Will anyone do anything about it? I doubt it. America is simply impotent until the country can rally around something that threatens them. In the meantime Rome burns as the status quo and vested interests snipe at each other over the proper proununciation of tomato / tomatoe.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:42 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
no health care....

Because of course we had an excellent comprehensive Health Care plane before Bush came into office that the evil Hitler incarnate blew up...Seriously, it's laughable to blame the supposed lack of health care on Dubya. It's also laughable that the financial crisis rests solely on Bush when a nice chunk of the blame needs to be set squarely on a Congress in the late 1990's that for all intents and purposes forced banks to lend money to people who were never going to be able to pay it back and people not reading their damn mortgages and not using that lump three feet above their ass when they signed ARMs or living off of their credit cards because they just had to have that Acura when a Honda would have sufficed...

[Edited 2010-01-28 09:45:51 by luckyone]
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:54 pm



Quoting FXramper (Reply 4):
What did he hope to accomplish by calling out the SCOTUS? Alito & Sotomeyer didn't like it one bit.

I don't know, but it puts them on notice that their actions will be called out in the highest arenas when they opine something strongly counter to the President's (and possibly the country's) view. I imagine that if Obama were a SCOTUS justice, he would have delivered a sharp dissent to that opinion.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:56 pm



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 17):
The President can expand the court by adding judges, with the consent of a majority vote from Congress.

I guess that would require a 2/3 majority from both the house and the senate? And even if this goes through, adding most justices to the SCOTUS is easier said than done. Apart from nominations being often political, let's not forget how long those confirmation hearings in the Senate are. It could even take years for all nominations to be confirmed and by then Obama could have lost the 2012 elections and be on the way out.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:08 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
I don't know, but it puts them on notice that their actions will be called out in the highest arenas when they opine something strongly counter to the President's (and possibly the country's) view. I imagine that if Obama were a SCOTUS justice, he would have delivered a sharp dissent to that opinion.

Ah yes, but, opinion doesn't always mean it's constitutional. The Supreme Court has a long history of delivering "unpopular" rulings, which IMHO is why we have them, to make sure we don't get carried away in the populace movement of the day. Obama might not be doing the wisest thing by picking a public fight with arguably the nine most powerful people in the country. Why, do you ask? Well, and at this point it's purely my conjecture, but they could possibly see what many people see as just arrogance and detachment as overstepping his Constitutional bounds.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:28 pm



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
What I just find amusing is how when Obama does many of the same things that liberals ripped on Bush for, they still praise Obama. "How is Bush managing to cut taxes?!?!?!" Well, Obama's "cutting" taxes but the liberals aren't up in arms about that. "Bush ran up huge defecits!" But the liberals aren't mad about Obama's defecits that are making Bush's look like pocket change.

Typical Liberal 'do as I say, not as I do' rhetoric  liar  . I can't stress again how surprised I am that Obama is sticking to his far left agenda, knowing full well that the Dems lost in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts mostly due to the crap going on in D.C. He needed to move back toward the center, but he didn't. And to be honest, I am glad he didn't cause he'll continue to fail in his agenda. I wish I could support him, but his policies are absolutely disastrous, and he and his cronies are just too arrogant, greedy, or stupid to see it.    banghead   irked   thumbsdown 

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13):
Not to defend Pelosi, but I saw her more restraint. At most, she smiled a lot, while it was Joe who was laughing his ass off.

Yeah, but her eyes had the usual 'doped up' look. She looks high as a kite, and the botox isn't helping...As for lapdog Joe Biden, when he smiles, he just looks like a total creep. The kinda of $hit talking smile a used car salesman gives you just after you bought some beater that he rolled the odometer back on.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 17):
America is simply impotent until the country can rally around something that threatens them.

Our 'impotence' has worked out fairly well for us over the last 2 and quarter centuries.  yes 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:35 pm



Quoting FXramper (Reply 4):
Seriously? Teleprompters helped but he still managed to fumble.

From Wikipedia:

"Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have the same feelings or motives, rather than what they really think.
Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. "

Your implication that Obama is so intellectually challenged he must rely on scripts at all times is absurd in the extreme and demonstrably false. On many, many occasions he has spoken extemporaneously and in doing so has demonstrated a very keen intellect.

Perhaps you are confusing him with our prior president who had difficulty forming complete sentences, making proper word choices, recognizing Slobovia isn't really a country and most likely wearing some sort of listening device during one his debates with Senator Kerry.

Perhaps you're projecting?

But then again, keep repeating this meme. Say it long enough and you'll convince a portion of the population that it's true. At least that's how the right wing media plays it.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:51 pm



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 23):
But then again, keep repeating this meme. Say it long enough and you'll convince a portion of the population that it's true. At least that's how the right wing media plays it.

 rotfl  That's how Obama and the Democrats pulled the blinders over the American public in 2008...they told the same lies enough that it became the truth. That almost sounds like something Rahm Emanuel would tell Obama as advice when addressing the public.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:22 pm



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
I guess that would require a 2/3 majority from both the house and the senate? And even if this goes through, adding most justices to the SCOTUS is easier said than done. Apart from nominations being often political, let's not forget how long those confirmation hearings in the Senate are. It could even take years for all nominations to be confirmed and by then Obama could have lost the 2012 elections and be on the way out.

No it doesn't require a 2/3 majority at all. Only a Constitutional amendment needs that many, and the Constitution doesn't set the number of judges at all, but dictates the size to be set by Congress. The Judiciary Act in 1789 set the limit at 6, and the number grew incrementally until it reached 10 in 1863. And then it went down a couple, and then settled at 9 in 1869 and was linked to the 9 circuits which were created to help ease the case burden on the justices. However, even by the measure means the USA should have at least 11 Supreme Court justices. There have been a number of good arguments on expanding the SCOTUS for the past 10 years or so and pre-dating Obama. FDR proposed adding 6 new judges to the court.

A Supreme Court justice can also be impeached and removed if necessary, and has been done before.

The filibuster can also be killed as it is a Senate rule, and not enshrined in the Constitution at all. More effective however is for Harry the coward Reid to force the Republicans to actually filibuster vs. just threaten it and killing it. Make them stand up there and shut the Senate down, day in and day out for months on end. I dare the Republicans to do it.

Pelosi is the only one that can deliver legislation, as Reid and Obama are absent on leadership and being fighters. Hence, nothing is going to get done anytime soon on anything of any import whatsoever in the US. I started a thread here a couple of months ago that the Energy Reform Bill would be far more contentious as the healthcare debacle the Senate made it. So Washington will rearrange the deck chairs a few times, go home for the mid-term elections, and repeat the do nothing approach until 2012, when it starts all over again.
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:22 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 24):
...they told the same lies enough that it became the truth.

Ah! More projection.

Congratulations!
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10893
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:29 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
I don't know, but it puts them on notice that their actions will be called out in the highest arenas when they opine something strongly counter to the President's (and possibly the country's) view

Well so far it seems only the far left is mad about it. So before you include the country I would wait for a little evidence. Schumer, Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann and the rest of the far left hardly constitutes the whole country.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:35 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 22):
I can't stress again how surprised I am that Obama is sticking to his far left agenda,

Only in the delusional world of wingnut talk radio can Obama be considered "far left". But hey, wingnuts think letting the country continue to crumble and burn is just peachy.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:25 pm



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 28):
Only in the delusional world of wingnut talk radio can Obama be considered "far left". But hey, wingnuts think letting the country continue to crumble and burn is just peachy.

Only in the delusional world outside of America could those who don't live here not consider Obama far left and his policies. Since you speak of those who listen to the 'wingnuts' on talk radio, musn't you be listening to those 'wingnuts' since you know what they talk about?? And if you're only getting your info about talk radio via sound bytes off MSNBC or left wing media outlets, perhaps you should 'actually' take the time to listen to what they say. Over 80 million listeners daily of conservative talk radio...they're doing something right. (no pun intended)  wave 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:42 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 29):
Over 80 million listeners daily of conservative talk radio...they're doing something right. (no pun intended) wave

Absolutely. Conservative talk radio is entertaining. I'm as liberal as they come, and I've listened to Rush, Michael Savage, O'Reilly and local conservative radio programs many times before, and I'll say they are very entertaining. I won't deny that for one second. They appeal to people's emotions- people like to have their buttons pushed, they like to feel like other people are why the world and the country has gone to hell, etc.

Do they encourage real debate or constructive discourse on politics? Even most conservatives would say no, and the problem is that it's not an unreasonable conjecture to assume that a majority of that 80 million people form most, if not all, of their political opinions and views from these radio sources. It leads to an uninformed populace that votes based on their (largely manipulated) emotions.

So yes, you are absolutely right. In terms of how to be successful entertainment, conservative talk radio definitely is doing something right... they've got it down to the point of being genius!

My disclaimer is that I know not ALL conservatives are like that. Those conservatives that took the time to learn and understand the issues and the current political situation are the conservatives I respect and feel are worth debating, and luckily on this site, most conservatives are of that caliber. Hopefully, you understand and respect that most people on here who are more liberal have a similar background as well.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:51 pm



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 25):
The filibuster can also be killed as it is a Senate rule, and not enshrined in the Constitution at all. More effective however is for Harry the coward Reid to force the Republicans to actually filibuster vs. just threaten it and killing it.

Ah yes, one of the many lies of the left. Blame solely the Republicans in the Senate for the filibuster when the Democrats had the Super Majority, but fact remains that the Democrats couldn't get enough of their own to be on board with healthcare (well, until they had to buy-out a couple Senators in the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase). When they finally did pass something in the Senate, the bill wasn't good enough for Nancy Pelosi and so they shot it down. Now the Republicans can filibuster, and I hope they do. Obviously the people of Massachusetts spoke loudly and said "we don't want this healthcare so we're going to do what we can to block it". But I guess it's easier to just sit around and blame only the Republicans rather than acknowledge the facts, right?
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:58 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 29):
Only in the delusional world outside of America could those who don't live here not consider Obama far left and his policies. Since you speak of those who listen to the 'wingnuts' on talk radio, musn't you be listening to those 'wingnuts' since you know what they talk about?? And if you're only getting your info about talk radio via sound bytes off MSNBC or left wing media outlets, perhaps you should 'actually' take the time to listen to what they say. Over 80 million listeners daily of conservative talk radio...they're doing something right. (no pun intended)   

I am a naturalized citizen of the USA, but hold 2 citizenships & my resident status of Singapore. Fortunately, there's this thing called the internet that Al Gore invented that allows people to watch streaming content (or in the case of wingut radio "steaming pile" of content) so from time to time enjoy laughing at the various wingnuts and "Dittoheads" that support them. My personal favorite is the idiots who use "czar" and "communist" in the same sentence about Obama. But I digress.

It's laughable that the winguts are tarring him as a socialist when he hasn't done anything. Period. You know things actually have to get done for them to be considered right, left, centrist, communist, fascist, or neo-con. So your words are just like Obama's, empty and meaningless. Rhetoric is meaningless to effective policy. If anything Obama is Bush-lite. His base is angry at him for not standing up and fighting, and the wingnuts are doing what wingnuts do when they hang out Teabagging.

I'm critical of Obama on very specific items, as I was with Bush. Sadly, I think the last conservative I had a debate with that actually knew anything beyond talking points was Henry Kissinger after he was flying home from the talk news circuit a few years back and we both were in the USAirways lounge in Charlotte, NC.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:38 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
I don't know, but it puts them on notice that their actions will be called out in the highest arenas when they opine something strongly counter to the President's (and possibly the country's) view. I imagine that if Obama were a SCOTUS justice, he would have delivered a sharp dissent to that opinion.

HHas he ever written anything of legal import? He's no judge, and while he has a law degree he has almost no experience as a lawyer either.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 25):
No it doesn't require a 2/3 majority at all. Only a Constitutional amendment needs that many, and the Constitution doesn't set the number of judges at all, but dictates the size to be set by Congress. The Judiciary Act in 1789 set the limit at 6, and the number grew incrementally until it reached 10 in 1863. And then it went down a couple, and then settled at 9 in 1869 and was linked to the 9 circuits which were created to help ease the case burden on the justices. However, even by the measure means the USA should have at least 11 Supreme Court justices. There have been a number of good arguments on expanding the SCOTUS for the past 10 years or so and pre-dating Obama. FDR proposed adding 6 new judges to the court.

If Obama does that, and tries to pack the court, he will put the Democratic Party into the minority for the next generation (thus I hope he does it). FDR, with all his power and popularity, knew he couldn't get away with it. It may be legal, but the American people will not allow such a blatant attempt at subordinating an equal branch of the government under the Executive branch. What's next, for each succeeding president to simply add a few justices so that he has a majority? Pretty soon the SCOTUS would have 50 or 60 judges.

Quoting San747 (Reply 30):
Even most conservatives would say no, and the problem is that it's not an unreasonable conjecture to assume that a majority of that 80 million people form most, if not all, of their political opinions and views from these radio sources. It leads to an uninformed populace that votes based on their (largely manipulated) emotions.

You know that the same could be said of statists and progressives, and it would make a lot more sense too. What is the more emotional attraction - "fairness" and equality - which is driven by emotions of envy and jealousy, or freedom and responsibility, which is driven by the rationalism of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' providing the maximum benefit to society as a whole?

As for the speech: I found it defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure - and it is increasingly perceived as such by the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. He cannot understand why the people are resisting. Even after all the talk lastweek after the Massachusetts election that he's been talking too much and needs to listen to the people, he actually had the gall last night to say, "I probably did not explain things well enough"!

No, Mr. President, you explained it just fine. We understand what you want, and we don't want it.

Obama did not back away from his commitment to pass health care legislation that is incoherent, wildly expensive, unpopular, and which would do enormous damage to our economy. Obama also stuck to his guns on cap-and-trade legislation, which would be a job killer. And even as he castigated Washington for being "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems," he continued to champion an agenda that would concentrate unprecedented power there. WTF? Does he really think we believe him when he said that, when he has worked so hard all his life in the opposite direction?

After having spent much of the last year blaming his predecessor for his own failures (after all the money and claims he threw at Stimulus, bailouts, unlimited guarantees to FM, the new banking taxes, etc), he said he was "not interested in re-litigating the past." Obama lamented waging a "perpetual campaign" - even though that is what the president, Axelrod, Emanuel, Gibbs and others in his employ do on a daily basis - in fact he just brought back his old campaign manager. He said, "Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game" - yet his White House has played that very game with zest and delight, more than any other former administration. How many times did GWB blame Clinton for problems? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Reagan? While some subordinates might have given the occasional snipe on Sunday talk shows, it was very rare. From the Obama administration, it is constant, all day, including from the president himself.

Having gone on a spending spree that is unprecedented in American history, the president castigated the political class for "leaving a mountain of debt" to future generations. Having helped to create the worst fiscal situation in our lifetime, he says he will "refuse to pass the problems on to another generation of Americans." He says, "If we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery" - despite the fact that future generations will have to work to undo the deficit and debt he had done so much to increase. It's like being lectured on marital fidelity by John Edwards and David Letterman.

The president criticized the "outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington" - as though he had no memory of the squalid backroom deals that were cut in order to try to secure passage of health care legislation but that helped lead to its demise.

He spoke of the need to "do our work openly," even though Obama broke his promise to allow health care negotiations to appear on C-SPAN and he worked with the House and Senate leadership behind closed doors.

He called on Congress to "continue down the path of earmark reform" – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained thousands upon thousands of them.

He claimed he is ending American involvement in the Iraq war - even though the Agreement that will end American involvement in the Iraq war was signed by President Bush.

He said the United States must "always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity" – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations. Especially Iran, when he did not lift a go&*amned finger to help the anti-regime movement in Iran who have been dying in Iranian streets and prisons for the past 6 months. Not ONCE has he told them, "Your cause is just, your demands for liberty of expression and to throw off the shackles of a religious dictatorship are the same values we hold." He doesn't need to (nor should he) send them weapons or material support, but he should have at least provided moral support.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night's speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn't happened; as if he had not been president; and as if both houses of Congress had not been controlled by Democrats, even a supermajority for 12 months. As Charles Krauthammer said yesterday, "Obama appears to suffer from Clinical Denial". (BTW, Krauthammer is a full doctor of Psychiatry.) He is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda. They are turning against his party. And they are tiring of him as well. This is something he cannot seem to process.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:48 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
FDR, with all his power and popularity, knew he couldn't get away with it. It may be legal, but the American people will not allow such a blatant attempt at subordinating an equal branch of the government under the Executive branch. What's next, for each succeeding president to simply add a few justices so that he has a majority? Pretty soon the SCOTUS would have 50 or 60 judges.

FDR most certainly did try. See the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. He even gave a Fireside chat (no. 9) about it. I feel safe in saying that any president's attempt to add numbers to the Supreme Court during his term(s) in office will be met with extreme skepticism and would never fly.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:53 pm



Quoting San747 (Reply 30):
Do they encourage real debate or constructive discourse on politics? Even most conservatives would say no,

Really?

Quoting San747 (Reply 30):
Hopefully, you understand and respect that most people on here who are more liberal have a similar background as well.

Well I can only hope those on here who claim to be Liberal can back up why they claim to be. I believe I could sit across a table with you and have constructive debate. Sadly, I don't think that's possible with many on this forum.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 32):
Fortunately, there's this thing called the internet that Al Gore invented that allows people to watch streaming content (or in the case of wingut radio "steaming pile" of content) so from time to time enjoy laughing at the various wingnuts and "Dittoheads" that support them.

 rotfl  I hope you were being facetious about Al Gore...

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 32):
My personal favorite is the idiots who use "czar" and "communist" in the same sentence about Obama.

Well Obama has created 'czars' so to speak. He's not a czar, though even in his small mind he thinks he is.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 32):
It's laughable that the winguts are tarring him as a socialist when he hasn't done anything. Period. You know things actually have to get done for them to be considered right, left, centrist, communist, fascist, or neo-con.

Really? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...well, it's a duck. He's preached his Statist policies, he's pushed for the largest out reach in Government in modern history from the Banks to the GM/Chrysler to an attempt with Energy and Health Care. So far Obama's only response is to throw trillions of dollars (that we don't have) and increase government regulation. As evidenced with his speech last night, he's pissed off and unrelenting with his leftist agenda. America has spoken and the word is: We're not comfortable with his idea of CHANGE. It's too radical left for Americans. I'm not quite sure why you knock the USA, yet you don't even live here...
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:23 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
If Obama does that, and tries to pack the court, he will put the Democratic Party into the minority for the next generation (thus I hope he does it). FDR, with all his power and popularity, knew he couldn't get away with it. It may be legal, but the American people will not allow such a blatant attempt at subordinating an equal branch of the government under the Executive branch.

Ah, but you're forgetting what happened in between FDR's announcement of the court-packing plan and the plan's defeat in the Senate--the court moved to the left. We can argue whether FDR's plan would have succeeded, but even the threat of expansion was enough for FDR to achieve his goals. (Incidentally, the court's move towards Roosevelt was dubbed "the switch in time that saved nine.")

Obama doesn't have anywhere near the political capital to do this, though, so as a modern-day issue the question is rather moot.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
he actually had the gall last night to say, "I probably did not explain things well enough"!

No, Mr. President, you explained it just fine. We understand what you want, and we don't want it.

That statement is belied by polling that found that, when presented with a list of policies and asked whether they were in the health care bill, only 40-60% of pollees tended to know whether a particular policy was in the bill.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Obama also stuck to his guns on cap-and-trade legislation, which would be a job killer.

It would require the creation of thousands of new jobs constructing green buildings, designing and manufacturing green equipment, etc. Sure, it would end some jobs, but it would make jobs as well.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
How many times did GWB blame Clinton for problems?

Bush didn't inherit a near-recession, and Bush defenders were always ready to explain how 9/11 wasn't really his fault, but also (mostly?) Clinton's.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
He says, "If we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery" - despite the fact that future generations will have to work to undo the deficit and debt he had done so much to increase.

There's no contradiction there. Fiscal Policy 101 teaches that the government should spend money in recessions (to replace private spending that isn't happening) and decrease spending in good times. Obama is quite right to say that we need to rein in the debt, but that can only be done safely after the economy recovers.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
He called on Congress to "continue down the path of earmark reform" – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained thousands upon thousands of them.

If you don't like it, start a campaign for a line-item veto amendment.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:46 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 36):
Bush didn't inherit a near-recession, and Bush defenders were always ready to explain how 9/11 wasn't really his fault, but also (mostly?) Clinton's.

Bush did indeed inherit a recession that started in 2000. From what I remember, his early tax-cuts were starting to turn things around when Sept. 11th happened.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:48 pm



Quoting FXramper (Reply 6):
Where was Hillary

In London for the Afghanistan conference.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
I absolutely loath that P.O.S. woman.

What has she done to you, pray tell?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
He hasn't raised taxes YET.

One would think that you could at least be somewhat pleased about not having to pay more taxes.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 7):
I'm also glad Obama is more optimistic than ever about the future...cause most Americans I know certainly don't share his optimism.

Shouldn't someone be optimistic?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 22):
Yeah, but her eyes had the usual 'doped up' look. She looks high as a kite, and the botox isn't helping...As for lapdog Joe Biden, when he smiles, he just looks like a total creep. The kinda of $hit talking smile a used car salesman gives you just after you bought some beater that he rolled the odometer back on.

Wow. You must have gone to charm school, or at least seen it from the parking lot.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 29):
Over 80 million listeners daily of conservative talk radio...they're doing something right.

Such as?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 35):
He's not a czar, though even in his small mind he thinks he is.

I'm pretty sure that he thinks he is the President, which he is. And, while we're on the subject, please name the last president who did not name a czar.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:20 pm



Quoting Cws818 (Reply 38):
I'm pretty sure that he thinks he is the President, which he is. And, while we're on the subject, please name the last president who did not name a czar.

It's remarkable how short people's memories are. Every modern day President has had them, and are nothing more really than advisors regardless of what you call them. Bush had 35 to 40 of them which is the same number Obama has. It's fear mongering of the masses.

Secondly, when I hear Glenn Beck and his chorus of followers cry out that all these "czars" prove Obama is a communist, it makes me wonder the average IQ of the American electorate. I know I'm asking for a lot to think American's know anything about their own history, much less world history, but it is important to note that the communists hated the czars and killed them. When I've corrected someone I've run across and mention it, they go all slack jawed and their eyes go vacant and it just doesn't compute. It's clear they've never really thought thru their rhetoric and what any of it means, which is really unfortunate.
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:35 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 35):

Well I can only hope those on here who claim to be Liberal can back up why they claim to be. I believe I could sit across a table with you and have constructive debate. Sadly, I don't think that's possible with many on this forum.

Well for me (and hopefully others), I realize that there's only so much I can do. And I also realize that the other side has validity (which I wish some of the more... shall we say, inflammatory posters on here would realize). As a liberal, I hope that leaders and policies will be enacted that reflect my views, but I accept it if and when that doesn't happen and try to make the best of it. If I'm not going to change anyone's mind on how they feel about issues, why get worked up over it?

Did I support Bush back in the day? In most cases, no. But was my life being negatively affected as a DIRECT result of him and his actions? Of course not. I don't think a single person could honestly say that the quality of their lives have suffered DIRECTLY as a result of Obama's (not Congress or other entities) actions either.

But it's part of the American culture of victimhood and not wanting to be responsible for one's own destiny. It's easier to say Obama is the reason you lost your job instead of just accepting that it happened and figuring out how to solve your problem. It's not a conservative/liberal issue, its an issue of how we as Americans deal with aspects of life that aren't easy, fun or pleasant.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:44 am



Quoting San747 (Reply 40):

But it's part of the American culture of victimhood and not wanting to be responsible for one's own destiny. It's easier to say Obama is the reason you lost your job instead of just accepting that it happened and figuring out how to solve your problem. It's not a conservative/liberal issue, its an issue of how we as Americans deal with aspects of life that aren't easy, fun or pleasant.

 checkmark  I completely agree San747. I don't think many people would admit what you posted either.  checkmark 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:08 am



Quoting San747 (Reply 40):
It's not a conservative/liberal issue, its an issue of how we as Americans deal with aspects of life that aren't easy, fun or pleasant.

You'll probably like this Op/Ed by Thomas Friedman:

Quote:

Adults Only, Please
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve found the last few weeks in American politics particularly unnerving. Our economy is still very fragile, yet you would never know that by the way the political class is acting. We’re like a patient that just got out of intensive care and is sitting up in bed for the first time when, suddenly, all the doctors and nurses at bedside start bickering.........
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27friedman.html

 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:30 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Not trying to be daft with the spaghetti western reference here

Dum dummmmmm...we whoaaa....

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Lady's new initiative to tackle childhood obesity -

Whatever happened to the Presidents Council on Physical Fitness?

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
As usual, the President delivered the speech well.

Don't know about that. Maybe from a grammatical sense but he seemed to ramble between subjects and some of the lines seemed awful contrived.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Now for the ugly - this speech was far more partisan than I expected

I figured it to be just about as partisan as it was. He can't help it, it's in his nature to campaign all day, all the time.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
he still seems to be oblivious to the fact that a couple of changes to the health care plan might bring enough GOPers over to get it done, and the solutions have already been suggested though he claims he's listening.

He's completely oblivious to any of their ideas. Last night he again called for them, even thought he GOP plan has been out there for quite some time and he has ignored it. It will be interesting to see what he has to say to the GOP at their retreat in Virginia tomorrow.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
The SOTU is not the forum for taking up disagreements with the Court, period.

Especially when you ambush them like that. Evidently the lines were added at the last minute and the Justices were not informed. I also thought it the height of rudeness for Congress to stand and applaude.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
I guess Bush would have done well without his teleprompters....

Still stuck in the idea that how a person sounds determines how well they can govern I see. If we ever had a hearing impaired person run for office I suppose you'll be just as critical.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
So, Obama is the only one to blame for the deficit, all the wars, failing banks, no health care.....

No one has said that, but how responsible is President Bush for the current deficit and the projected deficits through 2012? At what point does President Obama have to take responsibility for his (President Obama's) spending?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
Where was Hillary and who was the cabinet member in Dick Cheney's secret location?

Secretary Shaun Donovan (Housing and Urban Development)

Hillary was in London representing the U.S. at an international meeting. Probably a smart move on her part. Looking more and more like she is putting distance between herself and the administration.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
What I just find amusing is how when Obama does many of the same things that liberals ripped on Bush for, they still praise Obama. "How is Bush managing to cut taxes?!?!?!" Well, Obama's "cutting" taxes but the liberals aren't up in arms about that. "Bush ran up huge defecits!" But the liberals aren't mad about Obama's defecits that are making Bush's look like pocket change.

Agreed. But the deficits being run up are still, according to the President, not his fault. Cutting taxes is a democratic party idea now don't you know!!

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 25):
The filibuster can also be killed as it is a Senate rule, and not enshrined in the Constitution at all. More effective however is for Harry the coward Reid to force the Republicans to actually filibuster vs. just threaten it and killing it. Make them stand up there and shut the Senate down, day in and day out for months on end. I dare the Republicans to do it.

I hope they do. That way they can speak without fear of some clown from Minnesota in the chair as acting president pro tempore gaveling them down and refusing them an extra minute to complete their thought.

I was amazed that he actually called for expanding nuclear power. Perhaps he should think about find a permanent home for the radioactive waste first? As well as his call for expanded offshore drilling. Predictably the left was not amused by either suggestion.

All in all it was just another campaign speech. His line about waiting was interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/...us_obama_state_of_the_union_text_6

From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious — that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?


How about passing the laws that you can now without adding to the debt. Like outlawing pre-exsisting condition denial by insurance companies? There is complete bipartisan support for that. Passing legislation to give tax credits to lower middle income individuals and families so they can purchase health insurance? There is complete bipartisan support for that as well. Or using the commerce clause to open up insurance markets to cross State line sales? Leave the deficit increasing legislation alone until you've paid down some of the enormous debt the country has built up of the past 43 years over all administrations including this one. How about waiting until some of the trillions in unfunded liability in the entitlement programs are reduced? Those moves alone would strengthen the country, open up credit markets, and allow taxes to be reduced. Yet today the Senate passed a credit extension to the national debt.  embarrassed  Not a word about that last night.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:55 am



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 37):
Bush did indeed inherit a recession that started in 2000. From what I remember, his early tax-cuts were starting to turn things around when Sept. 11th happened.

Typo on my part - I meant to type "near depression." Sorry about that!
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:15 am



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 42):

You'll probably like this Op/Ed by Thomas Friedman:

Upon reading the entire column, yes, I do like it a lot. There is very little consensus by politicians, talking heads, and regular people over the big picture or the common interest. There is only concern for their own interests. The sooner we realize we're never going to be homogeneous and you really can't change people or their opinions/values/viewpoints (on a large scale), the sooner we can get crap done.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:06 am



Quoting San747 (Reply 45):
Upon reading the entire column, yes, I do like it a lot. There is very little consensus by politicians, talking heads, and regular people over the big picture or the common interest. There is only concern for their own interests. The sooner we realize we're never going to be homogeneous and you really can't change people or their opinions/values/viewpoints (on a large scale), the sooner we can get crap done.

The only thing the American people understand and like is a showy display of power from a leader that gets things done, and crams what he/she wants down Congress' throat. If the American people don't like it, just say "tough titties", as the Bush administration showed.

Frankly, unless you fear monger, and demonize all your opponents, you're not going to last long as President as Obama is finding out. The vested interests love gridlock, since for them, a stall is a win.
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:23 am



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 46):

Frankly, unless you fear monger, and demonize all your opponents, you're not going to last long as President as Obama is finding out. The vested interests love gridlock, since for them, a stall is a win.

True. And it's very disheartening to me. Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He's been trying to transcend that kind of pettiness and negative politics that defined has the landscape since the 80s, but as you said, it clearly hasn't worked. A large amount of people are just not willing to work with him.

So now he has to become a dick. He has to tell the Republicans and all his opponents to fuck off like the last administration did during the 6 years they controlled Congress and the White House. And even that won't work, because he'll begin to alienate even more political allies. Look how long the Democrat supermajority lasted.

I support Obama, but I am not jealous of him right now. The sad thing is, he was in a position to really do some great things, but I'll bet in 3 years, we'll be talking of all his potential and what he could have done...
Scotty doesn't know...
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:20 pm



Quoting San747 (Reply 47):
He's been trying to transcend that kind of pettiness and negative politics that defined has the landscape since the 80s

I respectfully disagree. He's been one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had. He's broken all promises on transparency, on earmarks, his back room deals with Unions. He's lost trust with Independents and many liberals because the man lies all the time. Just look at the SOTU...it was shocking the kind of garbage coming out of his mouth.

Quoting San747 (Reply 47):
Look how long the Democrat supermajority lasted.

Well they took a ride on the "Spending Orgy 2009" bus, and ignored the will of the majority, so what did they expect? They bashed Bush for his deficit spending (rightly so) and what do they do...spend 3 times as much!! As well, they kept trying to pass legislation that did nothing to create jobs and turn the economy around. Cap and Trade will kill 3 jobs for every 'green' job created. HCR was not and is not needed right now. What's needed is leadership who can turn the economy around NOW.

Quoting San747 (Reply 47):
The sad thing is, he was in a position to really do some great things, but I'll bet in 3 years, we'll be talking of all his potential and what he could have done...

Well he blew that the first major stimulus bill lined with nearly 8,000 earmarks that had to be rammed through Congress/Senate in 3 days, yet has not even been spent. 2009 was a year for failures for Obama, and he can't blame that on Republicans...he had a rare super majority.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
seb146
Posts: 14049
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly

Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:29 pm



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13):
Dubya never got a whole sentence right when he was forced to talk policy on his own, without notes and without teleprompters. I still recall that even with the teleprompter, he was the least articulate politician I've ever seen in my entire life.

It is just strange to me that when Obama speaks, the right starts shouting about "He's reading off the tele-prompter! He can not think for himself!" Yet, when the same subject is brought up about anyone on the right, it is "Well, it is fine. How are they supposed to remember an entire speech?" Just right-wing hypocracy I am pointing out.

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 18):
It's also laughable that the financial crisis rests solely on Bush when a nice chunk of the blame needs to be set squarely on a Congress in the late 1990's that for all intents and purposes forced banks to lend money to people who were never going to be able to pay it back

And, who was in control of Congress in the late 1990s? Yet, the right continues to blame Dems for that.
http://one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm
Patriotic and Proud Liberal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 14 guests