You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 09:41:00 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The State of the Union speech  (Read 3383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2010, 12:12:59 AM »
The problem with calling Obama a 'socialist' for those things (or implying it) is that socialism didn't just spring up in a vacuum, and the idea of a government that cares for its people is not a new one. It wasn't invented by Karl Marx, for chrissake.

These are supposed to be national ideals that we were once known for. The Statue of Liberty, gifted to us. The poem carved at her feet. She's named Mother of Exiles, and who hasn't heard her call?

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Not only that, but you have anti-war activists telling our government to look after our own before we look after others. I don't know about you but I've personally asked myself why we're coddling other governments when our own is such a farce. (Then again, taking a look at the Taliban convinces me that we might not have it so bad.) He turns around and tries to take care of our own, and that's not good enough, either.

This isn't addressed to you directly, Zamdrist, but it does make me sit back and wonder, "What on earth do people want from him, if it's not trying to help his own countrymen?"

Online Vekseid

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2010, 01:14:22 AM »
We're paying for single payer in Iraq, too. Go figure.

The source of said polls:

ABOUT DAILY KOS
Founded in May 26, 2002, Daily Kos is the premier online political community with 2.5 million unique visitors per month and 215,000 registered users. It is at once a news organization, community, and activist hub. Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senator Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. Even more exciting than that however, are the hundreds of thousands of regular Americans that have used Daily Kos to shape a political world once the exclusive domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.

http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2#dk

Well that's about all I need to know. <pitch> I just about fell out of my chair when I saw 'Luminary' and Jimmy Carter used in the same sentence.  ???

Saying Carter doesn't inspire others is downright silly. As a former president of the United States, he is always going to be deserving of some measure of respect. The only man who didn't earn the title was Ford before him. He is not in Obama's league or even Reagan's, but that doesn't diminish his office.

Offline Talia

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2010, 05:29:51 AM »
Some ugly numbers guys, but fascinating poll on Republican beliefs just done.  All I can honestly say to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians is that you have to start speaking up on the things you think are foolish within.  There's plenty to debate and will be agreements and disagreements, but some of the following is beyond the pale.

63% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist.                                          This is ignorance.
36% don't think he was born in the U.S. and 22% aren't sure.                    This is crazy.
24% think Obama wants terrorists to win, 33% aren't sure.                       This is appalling.

And the kicker:
23% want their state to secede, 19% not sure. 

There's more, a majority think Palin is more qualified to be President, 33% aren't sure.  Nuggets on racism, ACORN (oh noes), and many issues.

Random sampling by telephone last 4 digits, phone interview with self-identified Republicans, 2003 sample size, margin of error 2%, here are the cross tabs .

I almost spit my coffee out.....funny yet so disturbing at the same time.......

Zamdrist of Zeitgeist
Palin is no more, or less qualified for office than Obama. She at least has some experience in more than one executive position. Obama is an 'organizer', a lawyer and a legislator, furthermore it shows, doesn't it? But frankly, I don't think either of them are qualified for the position.


Really??   I think your are dead wrong on that statement......... Palin does have an excellent postion...I'm sure...I just don't think it's in politics...  I should probably just leave my thoughts there...
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 05:44:21 AM by Laurrel »

Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2010, 06:30:16 AM »
There is no doubt that Palin is qualified.  She meets all the necessary requirements per the Constitution.  Would she be good in office is a different question.  I like her.  I like her ideas and her bluntness but President.  I don't. 

The problem I have with Obama (and many others, Left and Right) is he has no real world experience.  He has never really held a private job and had great success.  In fact, his time in the private sector he called "being behind enemy lines".  I would much rather see a person who has built a very successful company or had a success career in the military than a career politican. 

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2010, 06:41:06 AM »
There is no doubt that Palin is qualified. 

Judging by her performance in interviews, whilst campaigning, and since then, I suspect we have very different opinions on what counts as qualified.

Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2010, 07:30:39 AM »
When I say "Qalified" I am referring to the law.  It is an indisputable fact she is qualified.  If you can show me where she is not, I will gladly look at it.  By all the laws, she is qualified (unless I got her age wrong).

Now, as for qualified outside the law, yes, I don't think she is either.

In regards to her interviews, what is really amusing with that is that there many, many, many interviews where Democrats did a bad a job as her.  There are many quotes that Democrats have made that are as stupid as things she said however, you don't really hear about those as much as you do her.  The Media did a horrible job covering the candidates.  Heck, you knew more about her daughter than you did about Obama.

The sad thing is that when the media fails to do their job, the public loses out.  I remember a video from 2008 taken at the polls where people were given these stupid quotes and asked who said them.  They all said Palin but they were all wrong.  They were from Biden or Obama.  Or they were asked who runs Congress and they all said the GOP.

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2010, 07:41:58 AM »
When I say "Qalified" I am referring to the law.  It is an indisputable fact she is qualified.  If you can show me where she is not, I will gladly look at it.  By all the laws, she is qualified (unless I got her age wrong).

Now, as for qualified outside the law, yes, I don't think she is either.

Refering to the law I would probably have said legal or eligible to run. Qualified, as you say outside the law, is a very different matter, and that was what I was refering to.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2010, 07:48:41 AM »
Judging by her performance in interviews, whilst campaigning, and since then, I suspect we have very different opinions on what counts as qualified.

If you had some snarky, perky reporter (Curic) asking you questions like "So, what do you read?", as if you don't read or what in the world do you read? Or Charlie Gibson looking over his glasses, down his nose at you like some kind of teacher, asking you to define the 'Bush Doctrine', you too would likely be flummoxed.

No, she wasn't all prepared to handle the media, and she still isn't, but she's gaining experience. She's a good populist but not prepared by any means to be president. Just look at the difficulties Obama has had. No, both of them are, or would be in over their heads. Though some of our best presidents have been governors.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2010, 07:50:04 AM »
Wandering off topic, here. Feel free to discuss Palin in another thread - I think there's already one made, actually.

Offline Albedo

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2010, 04:52:04 PM »
I was really happy with Obama's address last week. I'm getting fed up with congress and I can see he is as well. His chat with the republicans was also really good.  Things need to get accomplished in this country and both sides need to realize they can't get 100 percent of what they want. They have to reach a compromise and combine ideas instead of pointing fingers, playing politics, appealing to their base and worrying about thier next election. If this is what they're going to keep doing nothing is going to get accomplished and I can see Obama's frustration with that.

Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2010, 05:33:50 PM »
I was really happy with Obama's address last week. I'm getting fed up with congress and I can see he is as well. His chat with the republicans was also really good.  Things need to get accomplished in this country and both sides need to realize they can't get 100 percent of what they want. They have to reach a compromise and combine ideas instead of pointing fingers, playing politics, appealing to their base and worrying about thier next election. If this is what they're going to keep doing nothing is going to get accomplished and I can see Obama's frustration with that.

The only issue with that whole "compromise" thing is that, for Democrats, compromise means doing what they say and leaving all your ideas behind.  "Reaching across the aisle" always means coming to their side, not the middle.     If he really meant all that, why did he and the Democrats have all those closed door meetings without the GOP?  I know what you mean but for me, I would much rather have less get done in D.C.

Offline Jude

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2010, 11:16:02 PM »
The only issue with that whole "compromise" thing is that, for Democrats, compromise means doing what they say and leaving all your ideas behind.  "Reaching across the aisle" always means coming to their side, not the middle.     If he really meant all that, why did he and the Democrats have all those closed door meetings without the GOP?  I know what you mean but for me, I would much rather have less get done in D.C.
They didn't start the whole process by discussing behind closed doors, you make it sound like they were never interested in negotiating with the GOP at all and they just went right into talking only to the Democrats about the issue.

The most liberal position possible is single-payer.  When Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont) introduced it to Congress, Republicans demanded that the entire bill be read on the floor of the senate, so it didn't even get to go up for discussion or congressional budget office scoring.  Whether or not you agree with the idea, certainly you can agree that in fairness all ideas should be debated and considered, yet the Republicans did not even allow for that.

Then there was the public option, the next best position that the Democrats wanted and their base felt really passionate about.  By the time the Senate was done, that was gone too.  So to say the Democrats demanded 100% of everything they wanted is entirely incorrect, the majority of Democrats in the Senate liked the idea of the Public Option and the conservative Dems in their own party blocked that.  They couldn't even have the medicare buy in, which was really just expanding an existing program from 65-55 because of Lieberman and again a Republican promise to support a filibuster.

The Dems bargained away a lot of the positions that they wanted, the bill became increasingly centrist, and Republican opposition didn't soften at all.  Even with the Public Option gone, their rhetoric didn't change.  If they continued to say the same thing completely without regard for reality, it should be fairly obvious they weren't interested in negotiating.  And they never proposed an alternative bill or agreed to accept certain provisions in exchange for Democratic admissions.  If you don't believe that negotiations weren't attempted, such as Dems trying to woo Olympia Snow, you weren't watching the process.  It's Republicans who refused to budge an inch, even when Dems said they could do Tort Reform, the Republicans didn't offer up anything in the process.

What you said simply isn't true.

Show me one example of a Republican concession if I'm wrong.

Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2010, 09:42:56 AM »
Well, the fact that Obama had the Democrats up the White House the week before Christmas to hammer out health care and didn't invite a single republican is a big example.  That's what I am referring to.  Obama calling for the parties to come together but when has HE listened to the GOP?  I noticed he went to their retreat and pretty much lied thru his teeth (nothing against him on this though..they ALL lie) and then TOLD them what to do.  When it was brought up that he said, nine times, during the campaign that the process would be open and on C-Span and it wasn't he balked at that and said no, many parts were open.  During the campaign he said ALL would be open.

Anyway, both sides do it, it's just that the Dems are in power and doing it now.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2010, 09:53:06 AM »
"All the parts of our legislative process will be on C-span!"

"That Obama is too optimistic; you can't put all of the parts of the legislative process on C-span."

"Oh, shit, you can't put all of the parts of the legislative process on C-span. Well, I'll put as many as I can on there."

"ZOMG LIAR!!!!"

*headscratch*

Offline ArhysTopic starter

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2010, 09:59:42 AM »
I challenge anyone to provide a link to an even reasonably detailed Republican health care proposal that passes as serious debate.  Honestly.

Not one amendment was offered in seriousness.  The bills were held up in committee by Republicans for months--who never even made a suggestion on the language.  Olympia Snowe had meetings for months, got everything she wanted, then backed out saying she felt rushed.  Not a single Republican came forward and said if you address this or that concern, Iíll cross the aisle to permit more American families to gain access to hospitals and doctors and the rest. 

Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2010, 10:01:55 AM »
My point though is that Democrats do exactly the same thing when they are out of power.  For Obama to stand up there and critize the GOP for holding to 60 votes is just funny.

I love gridlock and hope it goes on and on and on. Regardless who is in the Whitehouse.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2010, 11:02:16 AM »
Quote from: glimmertwin
My point though is that Democrats do exactly the same thing when they are out of power.  For Obama to stand up there and critize the GOP for holding to 60 votes is just funny.
          Statistically, the Republicans have actually used the filibuster many more times than the Democrats.   Whether the Democrats might later block the works a similar number of times for some hypothetical future Republican administration, is a speculative matter.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2010, 12:16:14 PM »
I'm a Libertarian Party member but I was seriously considering voting for McCain until he chose Palin. I did not want the Democrats to have control of Congress and the Presidency because I wisely found to be true they were going to spend this nation into debts that even Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined never could do in 24 years.

But Palin with one heart beat from the leadership of the nation scared the crap out of me to vote along with my party on principle.

And I tend to agree with some its time to test the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the filibuster in the Federal Courts to see if it can be stopped in the Senate and force them to get work done.


Offline glimmertwin

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2010, 12:20:49 PM »
I'm a Libertarian Party member but I was seriously considering voting for McCain until he chose Palin. I did not want the Democrats to have control of Congress and the Presidency because I wisely found to be true they were going to spend this nation into debts that even Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined never could do in 24 years.

But Palin with one heart beat from the leadership of the nation scared the crap out of me to vote along with my party on principle.

And I tend to agree with some its time to test the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the filibuster in the Federal Courts to see if it can be stopped in the Senate and force them to get work done.

Well, too late for that.  Obama already outspent every President and drawfed 8 years of Bush in a single year.  Not that Bush didn't outspend every President as well.

Offline ArhysTopic starter

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2010, 12:27:15 PM »
Well, too late for that.  Obama already outspent every President and drawfed 8 years of Bush in a single year.  Not that Bush didn't outspend every President as well.

That's because Obama's budget included the costs of the '91 tax cuts, the follow-up round, both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--something Bush never even put on the balance sheet.  Obama's gotten half of TARP back as well.  The deficit we have now is what was predicted in '04, except the stimulus after the crisis that came to a  head on Bush's watch.

As for deficits, I think I'll start a new thread on that in the next day or so.

Offline Jude

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2010, 06:47:59 PM »
Glimmer, you're naming something that happened around Christmas as proof that the Democrats were not and are not willing to compromise or be fair; you forget that the Republicans spent about six months before then giving them every reason to close them out of the debate because they were simply stalling, offering no concrete admissions, or participating in fair debate.  I gave you concrete examples of the Republicans' disingeniousness and you basically ignored everything I said in favor of keeping your preconceived notion based on one fact which can easily be accounted for.

As was said earlier, this year the Republicans have used the filibuster a record number of times, but it doesn't stop there.  Lets not forget the Michigan situation where they drew out the election for many, many months to prevent a Democratic supermajority.  The funniest part is, they've proven how hypocritical they are as of late.  When the Democrats are in power they decried the use of the filibuster, threatened and used reconciliation, and even threatened the use of the so called "Nuclear Option" (and they've been speaking out against a lot of that lately).  Don't forget the way they made it sound like Democrats were considering stalling putting Scott Brown in the Congress and Brown even demanded to be seated this week instead of next at the last second, when they kept Al Franken out of the Senate for months (which at first was justified, then things became fairly clear after the first month or so).

Republicans have put down the stimulus package while taken part in ribbon cutting ceremonies in their home town when they funds were dispersed.  Some of them have made up outright lies about death panel BS.  Don't forget the "You lie" outburst, in which very few of them were willing to denounce Wilson's disrespectful action, followed by them asking for Congressman Alan Greyson to be publicly reprimanded for his mocking of the Republic Position on healthcare (which I agree was in bad taste, but how can you be OK with disrespecting the president in the middle of an official speech, and against a Congressman saying something stupid in a proper way).  Lets not forget the memo that Republicans sent internally about breaking Obama on Healthcare and making it his Waterloo.

You'd have to be stupid, really uninformed, or downright delusional to think Republicans have actually been interested in contributing meaningfully to the Healthcare Reform Discussion.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 06:49:56 PM by Jude »

Offline Serephino

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2010, 08:32:34 PM »
Oh yes...  Republicans have been total jackasses this past year.  Bush made the party look bad, and I guess they're trying to do damage control.  They're making themselves look worse in the process though.  It seems like they want him to fail so they can go see.... you Democrats screwed up too!  And the number of extremists have grown. 

What President Bush wanted he got, maybe some compromise was involved, but he usually got it.  President Obama has to fight with Congress for months on end.  People criticize him for not getting much done, but Congress has to write and approve the legislation before he can do anything.  He can suggest ideas, but he can't make them do shit, and Republicans are flat out refusing to cooperate. 

Offline Albedo

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2010, 09:41:47 PM »
I never see republicans trying to get anything done. Democrats propose ideas for healthcare, and republicans demonize it and pick apart and make up things about it, while all along not proposing ideas of their own. This, from what I see, is how it's been going all year, and I'm glad Obama's been calling it out and trying to catch it early. But I'm not sure how well it's going to work on the stubborn republicans.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2010, 10:26:13 PM »
It didn't help though the health reform bills were over 2000 pages each that is more than twice the number of pages of most Bibles for reference, that even scared me. I don't get it maybe but they had to cover the poor earning say 150% the Federal poverty line and do some other basic reforms then find a way to pay for it. They needed 2500+ pages for that?

Face it if its not simple, understandable and clear then why did they expect it to pass?

Offline Albedo

Re: The State of the Union speech
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2010, 11:00:38 PM »
Well it's health care reform it shouldn't be simple.
If Republicans want something simple, then they should try and work out something simple and run it by the president. But as of now they haven't offered anything.