My Concise Take on the State of the Union Speech

[Midnight Marauder]

So Bush did NOTHING to try to get it implimented!!

It's not the President's job, stupid.

It's what we call the Legislative Branch.

POTUS can ask....

None of this addresses the fact: The folks who COULD have done it are the same ones bitching because they let it lapse, and never did anything in three years to address it, besides a toothless House rule which they promptly discarded.

YOU should be asking, why didn't Obama campaign on this? Why did he wait until it was politically expedient, to bring it back up?

But, you're dishonest, so you will never ask that.

 

[uscitizen]

There hasn't been a good presidential speech since Reagan.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Because when people need to wade through two pages taken up by a personal back and forth it's a fucking waste of time. You try this trick on me all the time, and I've come to ignore you (usually) because you can be such a persistent, nasty, bastard. Bye bye.

You always have the ignore feature, no?

It's not my fault you are also willingly ignorant and stupid, and a crybaby to boot.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

What about when Bush had CPMPLETE control? Why didn't BUSH, a "conservative", impliment paygo?

The President cannot implement rules for the Congress, dumbass. He's not a King or a dictator.

Get back to why didn't the House do so, when they gained full control back in 2007, after three years of bitching.

And really, yelling BOOOOOOSH all the time was so yesterday.

So Bush did NOTHING to try to get it implimented!! He may not be a KING but he SHOULD be able to convince he OWN party to act like, ohhhh wait for it , CONSERVATIVE. But Bush was too busy clearing BRUSH to get ANYTHING done when he had ALL THE POWER he needed. So WHY didn't he do ANYTHING that a half way decent Republican (not even conservative) would try to get done? HE had ALL that power and he PISSED IT AWAY and THAT'S why you NEVER want to talk about Bush.

WOW!!! MM neg repped me for THIS post? Kind of hit too close to the mark for ya huh MM? That's your ONLY way to debate my PERFECTLY good question? Just too weak minded or DISHONEST to answer the question so you resort to the WEAKEST answer which is to NEG REP people who DISAGREE with you. You really HAVE become pathetic.

 

[beowolfe]

Yea it was kinda of strange for him to admit conservative ideas worked.

Like when he was talking about tax cuts that allow people to keep more of their own money which in turn help the economy:

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

I thought I'd get some applause on that one.

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Hmmm, isn't that the philosophy that liberals have been bashing for the last century? Your Messiah is admiting that those policies work.

Let's see......the first major tax cut in my lifetime was done by JFK. So, in my mind, tax cutting is not a conservative philosophy or even a liberal philosophy. It's a tool. And like any good user of tools knows, the job is done easier and better if you have more than a single tool in your tool box.

 

[MaggieMae]

The President cannot implement rules for the Congress, dumbass. He's not a King or a dictator.

Get back to why didn't the House do so, when they gained full control back in 2007, after three years of bitching.

And really, yelling BOOOOOOSH all the time was so yesterday.

So Bush did NOTHING to try to get it implimented!! He may not be a KING but he SHOULD be able to convince he OWN party to act like, ohhhh wait for it , CONSERVATIVE. But Bush was too busy clearing BRUSH to get ANYTHING done when he had ALL THE POWER he needed. So WHY didn't he do ANYTHING that a half way decent Republican (not even conservative) would try to get done? HE had ALL that power and he PISSED IT AWAY and THAT'S why you NEVER want to talk about Bush.

WOW!!! MM neg repped me for THIS post? Kind of hit too close to the mark for ya huh MM? That's your ONLY way to debate my PERFECTLY good question? Just too weak minded or DISHONEST to answer the question so you resort to the WEAKEST answer which is to NEG REP people who DISAGREE with you. You really HAVE become pathetic.

He's a pathetic loser. Neg rep'd me too ("boo fucking hoo"). Just give one back.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How can a freeze take place NOW when the FY 2010 budget is already in place?

It can't. All a "freeze" really does is keep Congress from cutting anything.

Obama also said he wants PAYGO reinstituted, which will also affect the FY 2011 budget (one can assume).

Ahh yes, the old standby. After years of wailing that "Booooosh killed paygo" they have now had three years with super-majority power, and haven't re-instituted it.

The House has a version with no teeth, and they've moved on to other items.

What about when Bush had CPMPLETE control? Why didn't BUSH, a "conservative", impliment paygo? Why didn't Bush implememnt ALL SORTS of GOOD conservative policies? I think you knoe why because he was too busy paying off the players that got him elected in the FIRST place. He spent the first four years engaged in Prid pro quo to the MILLIONAIRES and the HUGE industry (oil) that got him the highest seat in our gov't. So what are we going to do about this practice that happens on BOTH sides of the ailse?

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM WITH REAL TEETH! I hate more money going out but I think that, AT LEAST, Senate and Presidential elections by publically funded with ZERO legal loopholes to put more money into campaign commercials. Say $10 millino for Senate and 50 million for Pres. Any funds held back can be donated to whatever non-profit the candidate wishes which may cause the candidate to be more frugal with the campaign funds.


OR we could let campaign finance go hog wild but DIVIDE the number of votes by the number of $s spent. So you spend $100 million and get 10 million votes. Cost per vote $10. The other candidate spends $90 and gets 10 million for a cost per vote of $9. The candidate with the lower cost per vote wins.


No matter WHAT we do we need to quit BUYING and SELLING our REPRESENTITIVE GOVERNMENT!

When did Bush Have Complete control? And by that I mean a philibuster proof super majority in the senate and a vast majority in the house like we(obama) had in 2009?

Now thats what i'm talking about

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What about when Bush had CPMPLETE control? Why didn't BUSH, a "conservative", impliment paygo?

The President cannot implement rules for the Congress, dumbass. He's not a King or a dictator.

Get back to why didn't the House do so, when they gained full control back in 2007, after three years of bitching.

And really, yelling BOOOOOOSH all the time was so yesterday.

So Bush did NOTHING to try to get it implimented!! He may not be a KING but he SHOULD be able to convince he OWN party to act like, ohhhh wait for it , CONSERVATIVE. But Bush was too busy clearing BRUSH to get ANYTHING done when he had ALL THE POWER he needed. So WHY didn't he do ANYTHING that a half way decent Republican (not even conservative) would try to get done? HE had ALL that power and he PISSED IT AWAY and THAT'S why you NEVER want to talk about Bush.

Bush Governed as a Progressive President. Just like the majority of snakes we have elected to the office over the decades.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There hasn't been a good presidential speech since Reagan.

That one Bush did a few days after 9/11 was pretty good....but yeah you are right.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yea it was kinda of strange for him to admit conservative ideas worked.

Like when he was talking about tax cuts that allow people to keep more of their own money which in turn help the economy:

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

I thought I'd get some applause on that one.

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Hmmm, isn't that the philosophy that liberals have been bashing for the last century? Your Messiah is admiting that those policies work.

Let's see......the first major tax cut in my lifetime was done by JFK. So, in my mind, tax cutting is not a conservative philosophy or even a liberal philosophy. It's a tool. And like any good user of tools knows, the job is done easier and better if you have more than a single tool in your tool box.

But JFK was a democrat not a Liberal .

 

[Annie]

Sigh...kudos to Pilgrim for at least giving some rational thought to the address. The rest of the offerings by the rabid righties was completely expected. Obama could have promised to eliminate all taxes and all spending, and you'd still find fault.

Nope, just wouldn't have believed him.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Sigh...kudos to Pilgrim for at least giving some rational thought to the address. The rest of the offerings by the rabid righties was completely expected. Obama could have promised to eliminate all taxes and all spending, and you'd still find fault.

Nope, just wouldn't have believed him.

I'm trying to believe him in what he is saying and am hoping he comes through.

I dont hate Obama like many appear to, I actually think he is an ok guy. He is a very smart man, was a great professor from what I read about him, he wrote 2 interesting books that I read....its just he is making a really bad president so far in my opinion.

I'm a smart guy but I'm a horrible artist....it doesn't make me a bad or dumb person . Obama is a smart guy but so far is a horrible president...it doesn't make him a bad or dumb person either.

I really hope he finally does get congress to be transparent and if they dont I hope he calls them out on it this time. I also would be very happy if he got us building new nuke plants so we can stop giving our wealth to foreign nations rich with oil. I hope he does follow some of the ideas on taxes he mentioned that you usually only hear from the republican side.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

WOW!!! MM neg repped me

He's a pathetic loser. Neg rep'd me too ("boo fucking hoo"). Just give one back.

 

[Darkwind]

My take is that the teleprompter spent 75 minutes lying to us all.

Oh, and the head puppet, Mr. Obama proved he is a sniveling fucking coward.

 

[Annie]

Sigh...kudos to Pilgrim for at least giving some rational thought to the address. The rest of the offerings by the rabid righties was completely expected. Obama could have promised to eliminate all taxes and all spending, and you'd still find fault.

Nope, just wouldn't have believed him.

I'm trying to believe him in what he is saying and am hoping he comes through.

I dont hate Obama like many appear to, I actually think he is an ok guy. He is a very smart man, was a great professor from what I read about him, he wrote 2 interesting books that I read....its just he is making a really bad president so far in my opinion.

I'm a smart guy but I'm a horrible artist....it doesn't make me a bad or dumb person . Obama is a smart guy but so far is a horrible president...it doesn't make him a bad or dumb person either.

I really hope he finally does get congress to be transparent and if they dont I hope he calls them out on it this time. I also would be very happy if he got us building new nuke plants so we can stop giving our wealth to foreign nations rich with oil. I hope he does follow some of the ideas on taxes he mentioned that you usually only hear from the republican side.

If he does any of those things, rather leads the Democrats to doing any of those things, I'll know I was wrong to follow my mom's ditty:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Nope, just wouldn't have believed him.

I'm trying to believe him in what he is saying and am hoping he comes through.

I dont hate Obama like many appear to, I actually think he is an ok guy. He is a very smart man, was a great professor from what I read about him, he wrote 2 interesting books that I read....its just he is making a really bad president so far in my opinion.

I'm a smart guy but I'm a horrible artist....it doesn't make me a bad or dumb person . Obama is a smart guy but so far is a horrible president...it doesn't make him a bad or dumb person either.

I really hope he finally does get congress to be transparent and if they dont I hope he calls them out on it this time. I also would be very happy if he got us building new nuke plants so we can stop giving our wealth to foreign nations rich with oil. I hope he does follow some of the ideas on taxes he mentioned that you usually only hear from the republican side.

If he does any of those things, rather leads the Democrats to doing any of those things, I'll know I was wrong to follow my mom's ditty:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

At least he wasn't condecending at any point and then laughed about it after

 

[Annie]

I'm trying to believe him in what he is saying and am hoping he comes through.

I dont hate Obama like many appear to, I actually think he is an ok guy. He is a very smart man, was a great professor from what I read about him, he wrote 2 interesting books that I read....its just he is making a really bad president so far in my opinion.

I'm a smart guy but I'm a horrible artist....it doesn't make me a bad or dumb person . Obama is a smart guy but so far is a horrible president...it doesn't make him a bad or dumb person either.

I really hope he finally does get congress to be transparent and if they dont I hope he calls them out on it this time. I also would be very happy if he got us building new nuke plants so we can stop giving our wealth to foreign nations rich with oil. I hope he does follow some of the ideas on taxes he mentioned that you usually only hear from the republican side.

If he does any of those things, rather leads the Democrats to doing any of those things, I'll know I was wrong to follow my mom's ditty:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

At least he wasn't condecending at any point and then laughed about it after

Did you see his face when the Republicans laughed at his line, "The budget cuts will begin 2011." LOL! Yes, the best idea is probably to laugh at him!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And I quote:

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

This includes any subsidiary of a foreign company or individual, and/or any domestic company that gets acquired by any foreign company or individual.

2 U.S.C. 441e was NOT touched by this ruling and is STILL the law of the land.

This is a RED HERRING and the President was either misinformed or was just plain lying. He's a constitutional scholar, so we almost have to assume the latter.

 

[MaggieMae]

If he does any of those things, rather leads the Democrats to doing any of those things, I'll know I was wrong to follow my mom's ditty:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

At least he wasn't condecending at any point and then laughed about it after

Did you see his face when the Republicans laughed at his line, "The budget cuts will begin 2011." LOL! Yes, the best idea is probably to laugh at him!

They all had a hard copy of the speech and tweeted each other that it was TIME!! EVERYBODY LAUGH AFTER THIS NEXT STATEMENT!!

 

[MaggieMae]

And I quote:

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

This includes any subsidiary of a foreign company or individual, and/or any domestic company that gets acquired by any foreign company or individual.

2 U.S.C. 441e was NOT touched by this ruling and is STILL the law of the land.

This is a RED HERRING and the President was either misinformed or was just plain lying. He's a constitutional scholar, so we almost have to assume the latter.

Yes, the restrictions remain in place, so why was it necessary to tinker with it by opening THIS can of worms? In my opinion, their decision creates many opportunities to do end-arounds the existing law.