[OFFICIAL] State of the Union Address Thread

[longknife]

Why is it this is the only President that can't work with Congress? Every other President who had a split congress got things done. Of course they didn't have Harry Reid stopping things from getting on the Senate floor for debate and the previous presidents all had some degree of leadership.

He can't "work with Congress" because he WON'T!

Every time he's had the leaders of Congress at the White House, all he does it tell them what he wants and leaves no room for discussion or opposition.

 

[longknife]

He's no better than any run-of-the-mill 3rd world dictator. Focusing on imaginary accomplishments, lying about the standing of the U.S. in the economy world, acting like he's finally going to start work on stuff he should have tackled 5 years ago, ignoring the IRS scandals, the NSA, barely mentioning Obamacare.

I wish when Obama comes up with these whoppers there is an immediate response like there is in English Parliament. These lies need to be exposed immediately, not in some rebuttal or in the news over the following weeks. I don't think this president can stand up to direct criticism.

David Cameron vs Gordon Brown - very entertaining!! - YouTube

I think Obama is to face Bill O'Reilly one-on-one again this Sunday...should be interesting.

Bill O'Reilly previews his Obama Super Bowl interview | The Daily Caller

O'Reilly is going to kiss his ass. We'll have to listen to Obama pontificate with long winded responses to simple questions. O'Reilly will let him get away with lying and not hammer him on the details.

The only way to deal with a serial liar like Obama is to laugh in his face when he says something ridiculous.

At the end of the exchange we'll discover we had just wasted 20 minutes of Super Bowl buildup and Obama will have stuck his nose into yet another sporting event and ruined it's mojo.

Just like Jake Tapper of CNN did!!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

I read with interest georgephillip, your suggested continuation, and all I found was a bunch of hypothetical statements, totally unproven, like this one: "#23 It is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent under Obamacare." Just because something is written down, doesn't make it correct. And please note that some of the information listed was true, but not explained that Mr. Bush (actually both of them) had an awful lot to do with it.

Still blaming Bush?

 

[Redfish]

He's no better than any run-of-the-mill 3rd world dictator. Focusing on imaginary accomplishments, lying about the standing of the U.S. in the economy world, acting like he's finally going to start work on stuff he should have tackled 5 years ago, ignoring the IRS scandals, the NSA, barely mentioning Obamacare.

I wish when Obama comes up with these whoppers there is an immediate response like there is in English Parliament. These lies need to be exposed immediately, not in some rebuttal or in the news over the following weeks. I don't think this president can stand up to direct criticism.

David Cameron vs Gordon Brown - very entertaining!! - YouTube

I think Obama is to face Bill O'Reilly one-on-one again this Sunday...should be interesting.

Bill O'Reilly previews his Obama Super Bowl interview | The Daily Caller

O'Reilly is going to kiss his ass. We'll have to listen to Obama pontificate with long winded responses to simple questions. O'Reilly will let him get away with lying and not hammer him on the details.

The only way to deal with a serial liar like Obama is to laugh in his face when he says something ridiculous.

At the end of the exchange we'll discover we had just wasted 20 minutes of Super Bowl buildup and Obama will have stuck his nose into yet another sporting event and ruined it's mojo.

I suspect that you are right, O'Reilly will lose a lot of credibility if he does another softball interview.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is it this is the only President that can't work with Congress? Every other President who had a split congress got things done. Of course they didn't have Harry Reid stopping things from getting on the Senate floor for debate and the previous presidents all had some degree of leadership.

He can't "work with Congress" because he WON'T!

Every time he's had the leaders of Congress at the White House, all he does it tell them what he wants and leaves no room for discussion or opposition.

It's the same with his press-conferences. He says whatever he wants to say then walks out without even a wave. No questions.

 

[Redfish]

Why is it this is the only President that can't work with Congress? Every other President who had a split congress got things done. Of course they didn't have Harry Reid stopping things from getting on the Senate floor for debate and the previous presidents all had some degree of leadership.

He can't "work with Congress" because he WON'T!

Every time he's had the leaders of Congress at the White House, all he does it tell them what he wants and leaves no room for discussion or opposition.

It's the same with his press-conferences. He says whatever he wants to say then walks out without even a wave. No questions.

Kings and dictators have no obligation to answer questions from the serfs.

 

[georgephillip]

I read with interest georgephillip, your suggested continuation, and all I found was a bunch of hypothetical statements, totally unproven, like this one: "#23 It is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent under Obamacare." Just because something is written down, doesn't make it correct. And please note that some of the information listed was true, but not explained that Mr. Bush (actually both of them) had an awful lot to do with it.

#23 comes from a conservative source dated last November"

"The president promised Americans would save an average of $2,500 a year in health-care premiums under Obamacare.

"On the contrary, Forbes discovered, 'Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges.'

"The magazine predicts Obamacare will increase the average premiums in the individual insurance market (insurance not provided by employers) by 99 percent for men and by 62 percent for women.

"It gets worse.

"Forbes cited a study by the American Action Forum that found premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will increase by an average of 260 percent."

Why Obamacare horror is just beginning

It's always good policy to be suspicious of what you read on the internet, and Obama is just another corporate tool in the mold of both Bushes and Clintons, IMHO.

Liars on the Left and Liars on the Right?

 

[georgephillip]

I read with interest georgephillip, your suggested continuation, and all I found was a bunch of hypothetical statements, totally unproven, like this one: "#23 It is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent under Obamacare." Just because something is written down, doesn't make it correct. And please note that some of the information listed was true, but not explained that Mr. Bush (actually both of them) had an awful lot to do with it.

Still blaming Bush?

Are you still flapping the flag for "shock and awe?"

"...Estimates range up to $3 trillion or more for the United States for the most recent war (Iraq) alone. More important are the human costs, for the frontier is often a place of violence.

"In Iraq over these two decades, the tolls are sobering: between 300,000 and 500,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the sanctions imposed from 1990 to 2003, and as many or more dead in the last seven years.

"Five million Iraqis were displaced.

"Living conditions are deplorable."

The Twenty Years War - The Boston Globe

Clinton OR Bush in 2016?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I read with interest georgephillip, your suggested continuation, and all I found was a bunch of hypothetical statements, totally unproven, like this one: "#23 It is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent under Obamacare." Just because something is written down, doesn't make it correct. And please note that some of the information listed was true, but not explained that Mr. Bush (actually both of them) had an awful lot to do with it.

Still blaming Bush?

Are you still flapping the flag for "shock and awe?"

"...Estimates range up to $3 trillion or more for the United States for the most recent war (Iraq) alone. More important are the human costs, for the frontier is often a place of violence.

"In Iraq over these two decades, the tolls are sobering: between 300,000 and 500,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the sanctions imposed from 1990 to 2003, and as many or more dead in the last seven years.

"Five million Iraqis were displaced.

"Living conditions are deplorable."

The Twenty Years War - The Boston Globe

Clinton OR Bush in 2016?

What has this to do with the OP? If you want to argue about Iraq, start a thread, You'll find that many were against the occupation. But more so they were against Kerry...

 

[michael39301]

Definitely blaming BOTH of those losers.

 

[Redfish]

I read with interest georgephillip, your suggested continuation, and all I found was a bunch of hypothetical statements, totally unproven, like this one: "#23 It is being projected that health insurance premiums for healthy 30-year-old men will rise by an average of 260 percent under Obamacare." Just because something is written down, doesn't make it correct. And please note that some of the information listed was true, but not explained that Mr. Bush (actually both of them) had an awful lot to do with it.

Still blaming Bush?

Are you still flapping the flag for "shock and awe?"

"...Estimates range up to $3 trillion or more for the United States for the most recent war (Iraq) alone. More important are the human costs, for the frontier is often a place of violence.

"In Iraq over these two decades, the tolls are sobering: between 300,000 and 500,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the sanctions imposed from 1990 to 2003, and as many or more dead in the last seven years.

"Five million Iraqis were displaced.

"Living conditions are deplorable."

The Twenty Years War - The Boston Globe

Clinton OR Bush in 2016?

Both parties authorized and funded the massive waste known as the Iraq war. Bush did not do it alone, they are ALL responsible.

 

[michael39301]

How true you write. Everyone has a share in the responsibility, BUT as the leader Bush has the biggest share. Just like Republicans are trying to shove all the blame for todays joblessness onto Obama's shoulders, they refuse to accept whatever portion of that blame belongs to them. As I said, well-written.

 

[Redfish]

How true you write. Everyone has a share in the responsibility, BUT as the leader Bush has the biggest share. Just like Republicans are trying to shove all the blame for todays joblessness onto Obama's shoulders, they refuse to accept whatever portion of that blame belongs to them. As I said, well-written.

I never said that Bush was not responsible. But you on the left are continually trying to absolve obama from responsibility for what has happened over the last 5 years.

 

[georgephillip]

How true you write. Everyone has a share in the responsibility, BUT as the leader Bush has the biggest share. Just like Republicans are trying to shove all the blame for todays joblessness onto Obama's shoulders, they refuse to accept whatever portion of that blame belongs to them. As I said, well-written.

I never said that Bush was not responsible. But you on the left are continually trying to absolve obama from responsibility for what has happened over the last 5 years.

If our "choice" in 2016 is between Bush III or Clinton II, is there a lesser evil?

 

[Redfish]

How true you write. Everyone has a share in the responsibility, BUT as the leader Bush has the biggest share. Just like Republicans are trying to shove all the blame for todays joblessness onto Obama's shoulders, they refuse to accept whatever portion of that blame belongs to them. As I said, well-written.

I never said that Bush was not responsible. But you on the left are continually trying to absolve obama from responsibility for what has happened over the last 5 years.

If our "choice" in 2016 is between Bush III or Clinton II, is there a lesser evil?

Clearly Bush III would be preferable over Hillary. What we really need is a lever for "none of the above".

 

[michael39301]

I have never said Obama shoulders zero of the responsibility for the last 5 years. Instead, I have only suggested that George left him with the biggest mess in history, and that the vast majority, if not all of his first term was spent trying to right the ship. And he sure did an unbelievably good job.

Bush III is a laughing stock. He failed miserably in Florida and I'd sure bet anything that the country realizes that, and there is NO WAY he could even get close to Hillary. Maybe he could get in the low 40% range, but not much better.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have never said Obama shoulders zero of the responsibility for the last 5 years. Instead, I have only suggested that George left him with the biggest mess in history, and that the vast majority, if not all of his first term was spent trying to right the ship. And he sure did an unbelievably good job.

Bush III is a laughing stock. He failed miserably in Florida and I'd sure bet anything that the country realizes that, and there is NO WAY he could even get close to Hillary. Maybe he could get in the low 40% range, but not much better.

That is rather WRONG. He spent the first 2 years doing nothing but Obamacare instead of creating Jobs....Nearly a trillion Dollars on shovel ready jobs that never were....

Just say No to Bush or Clinton, we've had more than enough........

 

[Redfish]

I have never said Obama shoulders zero of the responsibility for the last 5 years. Instead, I have only suggested that George left him with the biggest mess in history, and that the vast majority, if not all of his first term was spent trying to right the ship. And he sure did an unbelievably good job.

Bush III is a laughing stock. He failed miserably in Florida and I'd sure bet anything that the country realizes that, and there is NO WAY he could even get close to Hillary. Maybe he could get in the low 40% range, but not much better.

That is rather WRONG. He spent the first 2 years doing nothing but Obamacare instead of creating Jobs....Nearly a trillion Dollars on shovel ready jobs that never were....

Just say No to Bush or Clinton, we've had more than enough........

OK, I agree, but the question was which is the lesser of two evils. I said Bush III over HRC I.

 

[michael39301]

Jeb couldn't even handle the state of Florida. Hillary had the white Hose experience when Bill was President, so she has a far greater background, including a Senate position and an State Department position. Jeb has NEVER had a Federal or national position, so he is severely lacking in the expertise needed with other world leaders. Hillary does and she would annihilate Bush, and there surely isn't any Republican who could offer a comparable level of experience.

 

[georgephillip]

I never said that Bush was not responsible. But you on the left are continually trying to absolve obama from responsibility for what has happened over the last 5 years.

If our "choice" in 2016 is between Bush III or Clinton II, is there a lesser evil?

Clearly Bush III would be preferable over Hillary. What we really need is a lever for "none of the above".

It would be hard to believe after 24 years we could find ourselves back to a Clinton or Bush future; one percent of us probably won't even notice the difference.