State of the Union

[Twodogs]

I've wrapped a towel tightly around my head to induce swami-like powers. I bet Berry tells us that he inherited a mess, wall street and insurance companies are evil monsters, and that he's going to maybe try a couple tax cut incentives to small business. I used to blame him, but now it's obvious that he needs to get some new speech writers. They're gonna bury that boy if he don't kick'em to the curb. I guess he will either try to pull a Clinton and center up some, or come out like a raging bull. It will be interesting to see how big his balls are.:)

[noonereal]

The speach will be interesting. I don't know if there is much he can say after this first year of seeming ineffectiveness. He needs to do something substantive to reclaim his popularity.

[doucanoe]

I'm looking forward to watching. The best for all is for him to make a (honest) move to the center ala Clinton with welfare reform and free trade. Other than relatively meaningless gestures, I don't believe that's going to happen.

I'm not a Dem. as you know but right now, Bill would be a welcome alternative.

RC

[finnbow]

I thing a "raging bull" routine won't serve him well. His trademark is cool eloquence and he can't let it show that the knuckledraggers have gotten him down.:cool: That said, he'd better come up with something good. Maybe a cream pie to the faces of Reid, Pelosi, Boehner and McConnell just to show bipartisanship. :D

[Twodogs]

I thing a "raging bull" routine won't serve him well. His trademark is cool eloquence and he can't let it show that the knuckledraggers have gotten him down.:cool: That said, he'd better come up with something good. Maybe a cream pie to the faces of Reid, Pelosi, Boehner and McConnell just to show bipartisanship. :D

Yep, he already threw those guys under the bus. Not sure when, but he recently told an intervierwer that "He" wasn't the one making the backroom deals. He also said something to the effect that "He hasn't had time to straighten congress out yet". I bet Palosi could have bit the head off a ten penny nail when she saw that clip.:eek: I've been a Republican ever since I got in the Union (funny huh?), but yeh, I never had any real problems with Bill, and I would have much rather had Hillary than Obama. He doesn't have the skills, plain nad simple.:(

[noonereal]

He doesn't have the skills, plain nad simple.:(

We shall see. You may be right but it is still to early to call.

[Grumpy]

Wanna bet he comes out smelling like roses ?

[d-ray657]

I've been a Republican ever since I got in the Union (funny huh?)(

It's those good union wages that put you in the moneyed class.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Did not listen 9:00 is my bedtime any more. Read bits in the Post this morning over coffee, but I have given up on Congress. People moaning about big government make me laugh, I would be happy if we had a government. That dysfunctional lot of self serving clowns make me want to throw up.

[noonereal]

It was not a good speech nor message IMHO.

Obie looks weak and lost.

[hillbilly]

It was not a good speech nor message IMHO.

Obie looks weak and lost.



Looks lost as what? :D

[noonereal]

Looks lost as what? :D

As a political leader. IMHO

[finnbow]

The speech certainly wasns't a "game-changer." More like a Kabuki dance under the Capitol dome with all the stand-up, sit-down, clap, frown, etc. Too bad the President doesn't just email the State of the Union over to Congress and spare us the political theater.

[Boreas]

There wasn't much red meat for the base in there but this is Obama. He doesn't do red meat. On balance I thought it was pretty good but he could have talked more to the people than to Congress.

John

[Grumpy]

There wasn't much red meat for the base in there but this is Obama. He doesn't do red meat. On balance I thought it was pretty good but he could have talked more to the people than to Congress.

John


Why should he talk to us. Hes a party man through and through now. Least thats how its playing out now that he got the chair he wanted.

[BlueStreak]

I thought it was a decent speech. I watched after work. And I worked late, which means I was up until 5 a.m. just to see it.

I would say that since it was broadcast all night long on much more than one channel would suggest that he was speaking to all of us...........and for the most part, I liked what he said.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Even chuckled a bit as he took jabs at the Republicans.

[Writewing]

I think Obama showed that smug arrogance he is so famous for when he went low road and singled out the Supreme Court for its recent (and correct) ruling that he as a far Lefty doesnt agree with. You just dont do that and its obvious Obama doesnt understand basic respect which is why I dont worry about showing him any respect. One needs to be respectful to be treated with respect.
He seems hell bent on bad policy still clinging to Health Care reform and Cap and Trade so looks like he has not learned his lesson, Nov 2010 looks as promising as ever for those of us who are ready to bounce the Left from office. As of now 2012 looks equally full of promise to bounce a rookie from the ofiice but first we need to minimize his ability to damage our nation and Nov is a hell of a good start.
The speech was unremarkable, somewhat defiant, too long and above all inaffective..............much like Obama's first year in office.

[noonereal]

I think Obama showed that smug arrogance he is so famous for .

I have never seen this. Not sure how famous he can be for it. :confused:

[d-ray657]

I was not able to watch the speech yet. I suppose it might be available for my viewing tonight. I will avoid the temptation to copy the talking heads and pontificate on something I know nothing about. It does, however appear that some people saw it as effective. Here are poll results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_SOTU_012710.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

I think Obama showed that smug arrogance he is so famous for ...

... among arch Conservatives. I guess it's not really all that different from many of us thinking Bush look like an ignorant and confused chimp (except of course that the latter is true). :D

[Writewing]

I was not able to watch the speech yet. I suppose it might be available for my viewing tonight. I will avoid the temptation to copy the talking heads and pontificate on something I know nothing about. It does, however appear that some people saw it as effective. Here are poll results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_SOTU_012710.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes he got good numbers but GW Bush actually scored higher in same poll at same point during his time in office at 85% and we all know how that ended.

[BlueStreak]

"YOU LIE!"----Was that disrespectful?

And about the issue you you seem to claim only a "Lefty" would be against; Do YOU think it's right that even foreign corporations can now legally pour money into our election campaigns?
At that rate, I'm sure the day will come when we'll have a State of the Union adress wherein the opening call will be, "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, brought to you by Airbus!"

I tend to think this decision, made by conservative judges-five to four, pretty much along party lines, shows where your stinking parties allegences truly lie. And I, for one think he was right for calling them out on it. It's about time someone did. Bastards.

I truly hope you have to hear Democratic Party calling for healthcare reform all of the way into your grave, and beyond. Until they succeed, that is.

Dave

[Writewing]

I was not able to watch the speech yet. I suppose it might be available for my viewing tonight. I will avoid the temptation to copy the talking heads and pontificate on something I know nothing about. It does, however appear that some people saw it as effective. Here are poll results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_SOTU_012710.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes he got good numbers but GW Bush actually scored higher in same poll at same point during his time in office at 85% and we all know how that ended.

[d-ray657]

Yes he got good numbers but GW Bush actually scored higher in same poll at same point during his time in office at 85% and we all know how that ended.

But Bush's numbers were sky-high at that time because of the photo ops that 9-11 gave him.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Writewing]

"YOU LIE!"----Was that disrespectful?

And about the issue you you seem to claim only a "Lefty" would be against; Do YOU think it's right that even foreign corporations can now legally pour money into our election campaigns?
At that rate, I'm sure the day will come when we'll have a State of the Union adress wherein the opening call will be, "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, brought to you by Airbus!"

I tend to think this decision, made by conservative judges-five to four, pretty much along party lines, shows where your stinking parties allegences truly lie. And I, for one think he was right for calling them out on it. It's about time someone did. Bastards.

I truly hope you have to hear Democratic Party calling for healthcare reform all of the way into your grave, and beyond. Until they succeed, that is.

Dave

Yes it did show where the majority rule's allegance was....WITH FREE SPEECH.

[Writewing]

But Bush's numbers were sky-high at that time because of the photo ops that 9-11 gave him.

Regards,

D-Ray

True........time will tell what happens but me thinks Obama is on his way to one term town.

[BlueStreak]

Yes it did show where the majority rule's allegance was....WITH FREE SPEECH.

Wrong. The right couldn't give a steaming shit about "free speech", except when it benefits them of course. It lies with the monied interests.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Wrong. The right couldn't give a steaming shit about "free speech", except when it benefits them of course. It lies with the monied interests.

Dave

This court most certainly believes in the Golden Rule.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Writewing]

Wrong. The right couldn't give a steaming shit about "free speech", except when it benefits them of course. It lies with the monied interests.

Dave

And the Left loves, loves, LOOOOVES free speech till it may work against them.

[BlueStreak]

True, there's plenty to go around.

Just don't start thinking your side is immune to being full of it. 'Cuz it's not. It was a horrible decision they made. Not just bad, HORRIBLE.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

This court most certainly believes in the Golden Rule.

Regards,

D-Ray

"He who makes the rules, gets all the Gold."?

Dave

[d-ray657]

"He who makes the rules, gets all the Gold."?

Dave

That's the one. EDIT: Almost, it's "He who has the Gold makes the rules." Looking forward to someday visiting the Capitol One White House.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

I think Obama showed that smug arrogance he is so famous for when he went low road and singled out the Supreme Court for its recent (and correct) ruling that he as a far Lefty doesnt agree with. You just dont do that and its obvious Obama doesnt understand basic respect which is why I dont worry about showing him any respect.

Yes, I agree. How dare he question the Supreme Court's ruling on an important Constitutional question! That right is reserved for Conservatives and on issues like Roe v. Wade.

And you wouldn't know a "far Lefty" if one bit you in the ass. A left wing president would, for instance, have gone for single payer and nationalized the banks and the auto industry. Obama is depressingly centrist but if it gives you something else to hate him for, by all means, call him a "Lefty".

One needs to be respectful to be treated with respect.

Whatever happened to "The Golden Rule"? Liberals not covered under that one? Of course, he was completely calm, reasonable and respectful throughout the entire speech, while the Republicans were busy tweeting again.

He seems hell bent on bad policy still clinging to Health Care reform and Cap and Trade so looks like he has not learned his lesson

I don't think he mentioned Cap and Trade. He did mention nukes, "clean coal" and offshore drilling. I'd have thought you'd be thrilled.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Writewing:
I think Obama showed that smug arrogance he is so famous for .

I have never seen this. Not sure how famous he can be for it. :confused:

I think he meant Obama was being uppity.

John

[finnbow]

In support of WW's argument, here's an interesting excerpt from a George Will op/ed piece (I know, I know, George Will is a dick, etc. (I mostly agree). However, I would bet there's truth to GW's assertion). In its regulations addressing campaign finance restrictions, "The Federal Election Commission identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages."

With this convoluted ( and existing) mess, don't you think that corporations (and unions, special interest groups, etc.) haven't figured out how to put as much money as they want into campaigns anyway? I think doing it all above board (with appropriate disclosure) may be a good thing. If you don't like what a corporation is doing, vote with your pocketbook. They'll get the message.

[Boreas]

Yes he got good numbers but GW Bush actually scored higher in same poll at same point during his time in office at 85% and we all know how that ended.

And, of course, the fact that 9/11 had occurred 4 months earlier had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

John

[BlueStreak]

In support of WW's argument, here's an interesting excerpt from a George Will op/ed piece (I know, I know, George Will is a dick, etc. (I mostly agree). However, I would bet there's truth to GW's assertion). In its regulations addressing campaign finance restrictions, "The Federal Election Commission identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages."

With this convoluted ( and existing) mess, don't you think that corporations (and unions, special interest groups, etc.) haven't figured out how to put as much money as they want into campaigns anyway? I think doing it all above board (with appropriate disclosure) may be a good thing. If you don't like what a corporation is doing, vote with your pocketbook. They'll get the message.


I just think it makes it easier and more acceptable, and to me that is unacceptable. What really fries my testicles is the "foreign corporations" aspect. Maybe this already takes place as well. But as stated above, seeing it legitimized is just infuriating. The Supremes might have just as well stepped in front of the cameras and wiped their asses with the Constitution at that point. IMO.

Conservatives fear "out of control government", and I fear "out of control corporatocracy".
At the very least, I can vote for the politician of my choice. It aint much, but it's something.
Corporate Oligarchs are appointed by their peers and supported by sycophants and flunkies.

Now, we will have corporate oligarchs who aren't even our corporate oligarchs choosing our leaders for us. Nice, veeerrry nice!:mad:

Dave

[djv8ga]

Now, we will have corporate oligarchs who aren't even our corporate oligarchs choosing our leaders for us. Nice, veeerrry nice!:mad:

Dave
So what's wrong with a little competition for the unions? :p

[d-ray657]

Conservatives fear "out of control government", and I fear "out of control corporatocracy".
Now, we will have corporate oligarchs who aren't even our corporate oligarchs choosing our leaders for us. Nice, veeerrry nice!:mad:

Dave

So many large "US" corporations are really multinationals. They have no geographic or political boundaries or loyalties, save for the almighty profit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Conservatives fear "out of control government", and I fear "out of control corporatocracy".
At the very least, I can vote for the politician of my choice. It aint much, but it's something.
Corporate Oligarchs are appointed by their peers and supported by sycophants and flunkies.

Now, we will have corporate oligarchs who aren't even our corporate oligarchs choosing our leaders for us. Nice, veeerrry nice!:mad:

Dave

While I share your concerns to a degree, corporations were ruled to the have the same rights as persons way back in 1886. With regard to "foreign" corporations, I'm not completely sure where one draws the line as to what represents a foreign corporation in our era of multinationals.

Maybe we should just pass a law requiring each lawmaker to wear patches on his jacket showing his corporate sponsorship like a NASCAR driver.:D

[d-ray657]

While I share your concerns to a degree, corporations were ruled to the have the same rights as persons way back in 1886. With regard to "foreign" corporations, I'm not completely sure where one draws the line as to what represents a foreign corporation in our era of multinationals.

The meaning of a corporate person in 1886 meant something much different than it does now. This is particularly true since no administration has seemed to care about antitrust enforcement for decades. With corporations now able to have much more influence on elections, I can't imagine that it will be any easier to retract corporate power.

Obviously if advertising were not effective, advertisers would not spend such astonishing amounts for it. They create artificial need for a product and roll the cost of advertising into the now desirable trinket. How many "Sport utility vehicles" have ever seen anything other than pavement? And how many sexy women have you ever seen wrestle and rip each others clothes off in an argument over the taste of beer?

Maybe we should just pass a law requiring each lawmaker to wear patches on his jacket showing his corporate sponsorship like a NASCAR driver.:D

Just when I thought I was starting to be cynical, someone outdoes me.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

While I share your concerns to a degree, corporations were ruled to the have the same rights as persons way back in 1886. With regard to "foreign" corporations, I'm not completely sure where one draws the line as to what represents a foreign corporation in our era of multinationals.

Maybe we should just pass a law requiring each lawmaker to wear patches on his jacket showing his corporate sponsorship like a NASCAR driver.:D

Or to have something like this read aloud after he/she speaks publicly;
"This speech by Senator _______, brought to you by; The Heritage Foundation, G.E., The Klu Klux Klan, Phizer, The National Right to Work Foundation, Burger King and The Peoples Republic of China."

Dave

[finnbow]

I guess part of the reason that I don't get too upset about Supreme Court rulings is that I feel that the judiciary may be the only branch of government that functions, more or less, as intended. By and large, when I read (or read about) their opinions, at least the supporting legal rational is provided and I sense a fairly high level of intellect behind them (whether I agree or not). Unfortunately, I just don't see this whatsoever in the Legislative Branch and all too seldom in the Executive Branch. All too often, the Supreme Court seems like the only voice of reason within the entire government.

Flame suit donned.:)

[finnbow]

Or to have something like this read aloud after he/she speaks publicly;
"This speech by Senator _______, brought to you by; The Heritage Foundation, G.E., The Klu Klux Klan, Phizer, The National Right to Work Foundation, Burger King and The Peoples Republic of China."

Dave

Or have the corporations sponsor hearings kind of like the college football bowl games (e.g., the Chick-Fil-A Senate Commerce Committee)

[d-ray657]

While I share your concerns to a degree, corporations were ruled to the have the same rights as persons way back in 1886. With regard to "foreign" corporations, I'm not completely sure where one draws the line as to what represents a foreign corporation in our era of multinationals.

Maybe we should just pass a law requiring each lawmaker to wear patches on his jacket showing his corporate sponsorship like a NASCAR driver.:D

I guess part of the reason that I don't get too upset about Supreme Court rulings is that I feel that the judiciary may be the only branch of government that functions, more or less, as intended. By and large, when I read (or read about) their opinions, at least the supporting legal rational is provided and I sense a fairly high level of intellect behind them (whether I agree or not). Unfortunately, I just don't see this whatsoever in the Legislative Branch and all too seldom in the Executive Branch. All too often, the Supreme Court seems like the only voice of reason within the entire government.

Flame suit donned.:)

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court is filled with great intellect. Their research staff is composed of the best and the brightest from the top law schools.

Unfortunately, with so many legal principles running around, judicial decision-making can be extremely result oriented. Pick an answer, and go find legal principles and authorities to support it. In a recent opinion from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court concluded that major league ball players were not allowed to enforce the property right in their names because they made enough money anyway. Now had they been wealthy industrialists rather than wealthy union members, the result might have been different.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

The foreign corporations already spend large amounts on politics, e.g., AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Bayer, Siemens AG, and the spending really hit the roof last year.

[noonereal]

The Supreme Court is as political as congress.

Our forefathers I believe would start another revolution.

[merrylander]

One of the reasons Obama opposed Alito's confirmation was that his track record showed that in any confrontation between the powerful and the powerless he always came down on the side of the powerful, guess he has not changed.

[noonereal]

One of the reasons Obama opposed Alito's confirmation was that his track record showe that in any confrontation between the powerful and the powerless he always came down on the side of the powerful, guess he has not changed.

he knows who butters his bread

[finnbow]

In a recent opinion from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court concluded that major league ball players were not allowed to enforce the property right in their names because they made enough money anyway. Now had they been wealthy industrialists rather than wealthy union members, the result might have been different.

Regards,

D-Ray

Not exactly. The issue was whether the players name and statistics were protected by copyright. The court's decision ruled that statistics are part of the public domain and can be used at no cost by fantasy companies. "The names and playing records of major-league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable."

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in October 2007. "It would be a strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone," a three-judge panel said in its ruling. On June 2, 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied MLB's petition for a writ of certiorari.

This decision sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Had the ruling gone the other way, it would have seemed unreasonable IMHO.

[Grumpy]

What strikes ( pun intended ) me as odd is why the hell they even had to waste the courts time with that crap...

[finnbow]

What strikes ( pun intended ) me as odd is why the hell they even had to waste the courts time with that crap...

Because MLB and the players' union was demanding money from Fantasy Baseball operators for the use of players' names and statistics.

[Grumpy]

Guess someone living in a fantasy world got a wake up call.

Every now and again the courts do the right thing.

[JJIII]

The Supreme Court is as political as congress.

Our forefathers I believe would start another revolution.

I believe you're right about both of those statements.

[Twodogs]

I'll stand by my statement about his speech writers burying him. Didn't they know that every line of that speech was going to be fact checked? Even ABC had a big list of "untruths" up the next morning, as well as the AP. If Obama and the Dems in congress are going to use numbers (like 2 million jobs saved), they need to get together and settle on what numbers they will use. I didn't see anything in that speech except business as usual (screw what the American people want). I thought the question answer session with Obama and the Republican congress was much better. That seemed like Obama was doing his own talking instead of just reading a prompter. I've changed my mind about that, and now think he is better off speaking his own mind. I was able to feel part of his frustration when he spoke to the GOP guys. I'm also starting to think that the real trouble with Obama is other Democrats in positions of power (like Pelosi and Reid). Either way, I think he's probably going to end up a single term guy, and without much power after the 2010 elections. It seems like a shame to me that many of his "good" ideas will be lost due to the nutjobs on the left.:(

[Grumpy]

I feel and think much the way you do jay.

[noonereal]

I'll stand by my statement about his speech writers burying him. Didn't they know that every line of that speech was going to be fact checked? Even ABC had a big list of "untruths" up the next morning, as well as the AP.(

That's what he gets for hiring republican speech writers. :p

[Boreas]

That's what he gets for hiring republican speech writers. :p

Word. ;)

John