State Of The Union Speech by Jongsstraw

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I think the key is to KEEP that feeling, and to pass it along to your representatives and senators, and let them know that you share Obama's hope and want them to work together in a constructive way.

It would be nice if we could find something to unite us rather than divide us, but if we can't get together on a fix for the SCOTUS ruling or doing something about the banking mess, I don't know that we could ever as a people work together towards anything.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:44 AM

JONGSSTRAW

As optimistic and proud of our President as I feel today, I fear that his magnificent performance last night will soon fade into a memory in a few days after pundits and pollsters get done with him. It's just how it is now. The political bashing machines on both sides have no "off switch". It's big business and great sport for them. But I'm giving Obama time to lead, time to use his charismatic persuasiveness to get some things done. I hope Republicans can give an inch or two. If not, there will be no defense of their actions come November.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I sincerely hope there will be no defense of their actions in November, but I doubt it. I have no question whatsoever that they will continue on their chosen path, and I think in the short term it will prove good electoral strategy, sadly, and horrible for the country. Fear was used to such effect before; anger and frustration are almost equally effective. When people are scared, frustrated at the jobs situation, etc., the anger turns somewhere, and Dumbya having gotten us here is forgotten...in most cases, it's human nature to lash out at the easiest target. Republicans are using that natural frustration and anger to their advantage, and will continue to do so. I don't see how their recalcitrance will be efffective in pointing the finger at them.

I don't listen to State of the Union speeches. It usually IS high-flying rhetoric; some are better at it, some worse, but it essentially means nothing to me. I pay attention to actions, little else.

It shows that you (only?) watch right-wing pundits, given the impression you had. While somewhat critical and hesitant to believe he'll make good on everything, other pooundits said a lot of what you said and most gave him pretty high marks.

I DID run out of other TV to watch and hoped they were finished with it so turned back to the political channels just in time, unfortunately, to catch the Republican reply. A lot of snorting could be heard in the room.

You just pointed out part of why we're in the pickle we are:

Quote:
The pundits were pathetic. They don't cut the man an inch of slack. Man it was brutal, and I don't get it or like it.

People listen to the pundits; most believe them hook, line and sinker, especially those on the right--sorry, but that's what I believe.

So they'll get a negative picture that dismisses everything he said. I find it interesting that the "reviews" were as you described on one side; on the other, healthy skepticism was exhibited, individual issues were discussed, and his eloquence and what he stated he wants to do were applauded where appropriate. It matched my own feelings about the issues; as I said, I didn't listen to the speech itself. Generally I find that speeches are picked apart sufficiently after the fact for me, I see highlights, and my interest is in what's DONE, not what's said.

There's an argument to anyone who says the left is exctly as partisan and blind as the right and "fawns" over Obama, unable to see anything he does wrong. Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:31 AM

JONGSSTRAW

For a major speech like this I like to watch everything I can afterwards just to get a gut check to see if I'm nuts.

CNN :
Before the speech - big round-table group of liberals , moderates, and right-wingers. Not much pre-speech spinning.
After the speech - Begalia, Carville, and few others basically said great speech. Maitlin, and other Cons said terrible and horrible
Gergen said good, but he's not sure Obama can deliver
Overall grade from them: B

MSNBC :
Before and after generally positive reaction, harshest criticism to Repubs.
Overall grade from them: B+

FOX :
Right before speech, piped in Palin from Alaska. She sounded unusually intelligent, but cut Obama no slack, didn't seem prepared to even listen to the man....just posture, posture, posture. Rest of them were relatively fair and ok.
After the speech : Resounding rejection of almost everything Obama said. Some exceptions of praise from Juan Williams & A.B. Stoddard, but Hannity and others gave no ground.
Overall grade from them: C

My grade for him was A. Not that I really wanted to hear any more Bush blaming, but dammit Jim, Obama did come in only a year ago to a real economic mess, and I thought Obama did an excellent job of defining the mess and what he's done in these un-chartered waters of fiscal meltdown threat in a way that made me understand it better than I ever had before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I don't listen to Obama's speeches any more. I have hope - always have hope - but I want to see it. I did pop in long enough to get a memorable image of that beady-eyed roll-on-tan Boner and his little clubhouse gang of dullards sitting on their hands while everyone else applauded. What a d*ck.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:52 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I have always said the man can talk, I said that long before he received the nomination... and that was the reason I knew he would beat Hillary Clinton out

But it is time to start seeing some results, and the deck is stacked against him in that way. He will have the Republicans pick and bash anything and everything he attempts to accomplish without sense or reason. He will also have elements within his own party trying to slow / channel / steer him off to their own agendas.

So far he has shown himself to be a nice guy who works through the mainstream part of the system, and while that sounds nice it has made him a tool of the special interest groups and power wielding advisors that have had too much control for too long now.

I think he need to believe some of his previous rhetoric, be the man of change. Take some of those " old power " people out of the picture, exert some force to get his party into line... even to the point of making them look bad or unsupported by him to both the party and the voters... then push

GITMO should have been closed by now, and if the effort by all partys had of been there it would have been.

Healthcare... controversy aside, the bill the was voted on did not resemble the bill that he envisioned, that really needs to go back to step one, started over, and the initial bill made so simple in language that everyone can see the intent and not twist it.

Economy... Afghanistan... Foreign Policy...

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The Supremes are supposed to sit on their hands as I just learned. As supposedly impartial judges, they are not supposed to be cheering-on either side. However Alito did NOT follow protocol.

Glenn Greenwald

"As I wrote at the time, I thought the condemnations of Rep. Joe Wilson's heckling of Barack Obama during his September health care speech were histrionic and excessive. Wilson and Obama are both political actors, it occurred in the middle of a political speech about a highly political dispute, and while the outburst was indecorous and impolite, Obama is not entitled to be treated as royalty. That was all much ado about nothing. By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function.

There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:19 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Hussein Obama was afraid of LOST, so SOTU was rescheduled.

Wasn't SOTU the same day that jew crook Bernanke got confirmed by the Senate, after stealing $25-trillion?

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Hackers broke into the Web site of U.S. Rep. Phil Roe and several other members of Congress after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Wednesday night and replaced their home page with obscenity-laced anti-Obama messages.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/congress_website_defacement/

What's Frem's alibi?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 7:09 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Comedian Hussein Obama gave Congress a good laugh when he talked about climate change at SOTU address.

Pelosi and Biden laff out loud as Congress boos...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 7:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Posting to restore title, which was altered by PN.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 8:29 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not to start a fight or make comparisons...

But a great speaker does not a leader make.

You know who else was a great oratorical superstar?

Kennedy.

Lincoln.

Hitler.

I find it strange that we, in this republic, look to our Presidents as these great and shining heroes. They are just men.

Its US who make the changes and the differences.

Please don't look to them as being the ones to save you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not to start a fight or make comparisons...

But a great speaker does not a leader make.

You know who else was a great oratorical superstar?

Kennedy.

Lincoln.

Hitler.

I find it strange that we, in this republic, look to our Presidents as these great and shining heroes. They are just men.

Its US who make the changes and the differences.

Please don't look to them as being the ones to save you.

Wait a minute - the guy who constantly posts clips of dogshit Hollywood History wants us to remember that our presidents are just men? Really?

The Founding Fathers were "just men". And they were really JUST men. Just white men, to be exact. Patton was "just a man". So was Hitler, since you seem obsessed with him (not to make comparisons, though!

)

The generals on both sides of the Civil War? Just men. Not heroes, not great and shining beacons. There are no such beings in the history of Earth. The monsters manning the gas chambers of the concentration camps? Just men. The 9/11 terrorists? Just men.

You were saying?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 8:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Just saying.

Not trying to start a fight here Kwick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Just saying.

Not trying to start a fight here Kwick.

Oh, I get that. I'm just pointing out that all there have ever been throughout history are "just men", or "just women". None of them were great, but some of them did great things in spite of their ordinariness.

Although we may be "just folk", we still need leadership now and again, and I'd rather have a leader with great vision and a great ability to convey that vision, than one who stumbles over the simplest of words.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Supremes are supposed to sit on their hands as I just learned. As supposedly impartial judges, they are not supposed to be cheering-on either side. However Alito did NOT follow protocol.

There is no protocol. The Supreme Court is not required to attend, they do it as a sign of respect for the other two branches.

Again, no protocol. The Supreme Court has NEVER been directly challenged in a State of the Union speech. It was in bad taste to single the Court out like that and then it was made worse by the applause he got for doing it.

No protocol? The President was also dead wrong on the law. The decision at issue did nothing to overturn the "hundred year" precedent that foriegn nationals cannot contribute to campaigns, it likewise expressly did not apply to the foriegn corporations, meaning that while the domestic provisions of McCain-Feingold were struck down, the foriegn ones remain in effect. The President or his advisors simply failed to read the decision.

All in all the speech was good in parts and bad in parts. Were it was good it was Obama at his best, were it was bad it was him at his worst. In that sense the speech was a horrible failure.

Specifically:
1. Failed to mention the trial of 9/11 suspects in New York or the debacle in Detroit with the Underwear bomber.
2. Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq, something that he would have done regardless of outcome provided the troops were coming home. He failed to give the troops credit for winning the war in Iraq allowing him to end the war in victory rather then the defeat he would have been just as satisfied with.
3. You don't insult the Supreme Court.
4. Seems to think 39 Senate votes were all that kept us from having all his policies not only pass...but work.
5. Offered little. No specifics, for example, when attacking the Supreme Court he belittled their decision and then encouraged the Congress 'do something'. Good policy there.
6. Not much interest in foriegn policy or the war on terror.
7. No economic or jobs plan.
8. Stimulas did not work, so he wants to do it again.
9. Still wants Health Care.
10. He wont "quit". I found this very disappointing.

The Republican response was interesting just because of the unique setting. I like the energy having a crowd brought, I liked the delivery from a State House...made the speech look much more powerful then the usual 'guy talking to a camera'. It added stature. I didn't like that it was obviously prepared and he failed to directly respond to the President's speech as given. In that sense it was just a Republican speech...not really a rebuttal. And did anybody find it ironic that the first black President's first State of the Union speech got its rebuttal from the Confederate Capital? I liked the idea, but it would have been better coming from another state like any other solid Republican state like maybe Texas or Kansas or New Jersey, Mass., Delaware, Illinois, California, Hawaii, Alaska, etc (because this year I think we're going to see that everybody is red deep down).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:12 AM

Quote:

3. You don't insult the Supreme Court.

Even when you're Reagan, insulting the Roe v. Wade ruling? Or either of the Bushes, attacking the Court for the same thing?

Or do you mean you don't insult the Supreme Court if you're black, or a Democrat?

Where are all the conservative cries about "judicial activism" on this ruling?

Oh, and be sure to repeat Giuliani's lie about Obama not mentioning the war in his speech. That one never gets old. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:24 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The Republican response was interesting just because of the unique setting. I like the energy having a crowd brought, I liked the delivery from a State House...made the speech look much more powerful then the usual 'guy talking to a camera'. It added stature.

I'd have to say it was a bit more than interesting. I'd have to call it mondo cane bizarre. Some unknown guy (took office 11 days prior) standing behind a podium in a room with some unknown people...like anyone other than news-saavy Republicans are going to have a clue what they're seeing on tv? He only mentioned one Republican during the entire speech...Scott Brown, who's not even sworn in as Senator yet. THAT'S the Republican response, a couple of rookie pretty-boys who don't know shit from shinola?? It had as much credibilty as me giving batting lessons to Derek Jeter. When it began, I first thought they had switched satellites and we were instead seeing a Sunday morning tv minister's show. Another humiliating & absurd Republican disaster in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:34 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Btw...

Just as a question.

How many here think that the Tea Party crowd, the "Dont Tread on Me" crowd, the Constitutional crowd, and the Bill of Rights crowd,

is really Republican?

Or is it something different.

Something better?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Gosh, I HOPE they see themselves as something fundamentally (pun intended) different from republicans. Oh, and you forgot the birthers.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:40 AM

Well, the rebuttal was still a step up from Bobby "Fisher-Price My First Rebuttal" Jindal's attempt last year.

And the Republicans seriously hamstrung their efforts to court the tea-baggers when they were seen clearly sitting on their hands when Obama said he wanted to go after the big banks to get our money back, and got a standing ovation from more than half of the room. It seemed a "populist" thing to do, and the Republicans were clearly seen NOT wanting any part of the popular opinion on that one.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Its a hope.. but sometimes thats all you need.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Btw...

Just as a question.

How many here think that the Tea Party crowd, the "Dont Tread on Me" crowd, the Constitutional crowd, and the Bill of Rights crowd,

is really Republican?

Or is it something different.

Something better?

(A) It's just Republicanism under a slightly different banner.

(B) It's already eating itself from the head down.

Today's "independent" is yesterday's neo-con, it would seem. The guys who just can't stand Obama and insist that he's going to trample on their sacred Constitution are the same guys who guarded Bush's bathroom door while he wiped his ass with that same sacred document. They have zero interest in the Constitution; they use it like they use the flag, purely as a garment to wrap themselves in in a desperate effort to appear "patriotic". Scratch an "independent" and you'll find the "W" sticker underneath, where they tried to cover it up with that Gadsden Flag sticker.

For evidence of (B), see the infighting surrounding the Tea Party Express's Nashville Gala ($549 a plate, and another $349 to hear Miz Palin speak, IF she shows up! No refunds!), the controversy around TeaParty.org's founder and his rather dubious use and MIS-use of the word "Niggar" [sic], and more. Put it this way: When whacky right-wing dipshit Michelle Bachman is running away from your cause as fast as her tiny little legs can carry her, you have problems.

Edited to add: Oh, and now Palin's on the outs with several of these groups, too. Seems she, the Tea-Bagger Poster Girl, had the temerity to endorse John McCain for U.S. Senate, rather than bestow her blessings on his Tea-Bagging opponent.

That's why I referred to them as the beast eating itself starting with the head.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 10:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In answer... something that certain people have tried to hide:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 10:12 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not to sound too PN about this stuff....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 10:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Even when you're Reagan, insulting the Roe v. Wade ruling? Or either of the Bushes, attacking the Court for the same thing?

No President has ever directly attacked the court to its face in this sort of setting. Not on abortion with Reagan or Bush, not on the New Deal with Roosevelt (who tried to pack the court...but never disrespected the court in public).

This was not black or white, nor was it Republican or Democrat...in many ways it was typical of the Obama speech and the Obama Presidency. If someone challenges them or if they fail in some way...they attack the Court, Bush, Republican minority, Ms. Coates, anyone can be attacked to divert blame from the President or his failed policies or, in this case, an incorrect legal opinion.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 10:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"No President has ever directly attacked the court to its face in this sort of setting."

And, once again 'Hero, you are wrong. It must never get old for you.

Right-wing media are attacking President Obama for his criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC during the State of the Union, calling it "unprecedented" and accusing the president of "intimidation." In fact, Obama's comments were not "unprecedented"; Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have previously used the State of the Union to criticize judicial actions, including those of the Supreme Court.

In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court.

Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."

Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer: "And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment."

Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion: "And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land? [...]

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion."

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order": "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."

Care to retract your post ? Just a simple acknowledgement that you were wrong will do.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Even when you're Reagan, insulting the Roe v. Wade ruling? Or either of the Bushes, attacking the Court for the same thing?

No President has ever directly attacked the court to its face in this sort of setting. Not on abortion with Reagan or Bush, not on the New Deal with Roosevelt (who tried to pack the court...but never disrespected the court in public).

This was not black or white, nor was it Republican or Democrat...in many ways it was typical of the Obama speech and the Obama Presidency. If someone challenges them or if they fail in some way...they attack the Court, Bush, Republican minority, Ms. Coates, anyone can be attacked to divert blame from the President or his failed policies or, in this case, an incorrect legal opinion.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

YOU LIE! :)

(How's that for a shout-back?)

As Rue has so eloquently pointed out, you're full of crap, again.

But thanks for agreeing with me that the Supreme Court DID render an incorrect legal opinion. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Errr: Has anyone actually read what the Supreme Court ruled?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Errr: Has anyone actually read what the Supreme Court ruled?

Here ya go:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Enjoy!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So let me understand this:

N.O.W. and the N.R.A. can argue for and against their picks for candidates right up to the elections... without having to hide behind the "Paid for by friends of XYZ.."

Ok.

Explain to me how that is a bad thing.

The court ruled that people can make their own decisions without being swayed by the bullshit pushed by any camp. I.E. the People are mature enough to make their own decisions.

HOWEVER, where does it say that foreign corps can push their agenda on the election?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:52 AM

Well, in saying that corporations have the same rights as individuals, it DOES in effect say that Citgo has more freedom of speech than you do, so long as it's willing to pay to put its stuff out there.

Where does it PRECLUDE foreign corporations from doing so?

By the way, did you read all 2000-plus pages of the healthcare reform bill before being against it and calling for violent revolution? ;)

And trust me - "Hero" hasn't read the whole opinion, either. His lips would get too tired if he tried!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:52 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Today's "independent" is yesterday's neo-con, it would seem. The guys who just can't stand Obama and insist that he's going to trample on thier sacred Constitution...."

Um, yeah. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ARE sacred. Its the first time in history that the rights of humans have been outlined AND guaranteed.

Its not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant these rights... they are ACKNOWLEDGED as basic inalienable rights granted to all people.

Whatever the courts, President, ect do to try and limit them, these truth are UNQUESTIONABLE.

They are given to every person born.

We just happen to be the country that recognized them first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 11:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"By the way, did you read all 2000-plus pages of the healthcare reform bill before being against it and calling for violent revolution? ;)"

No, I didn't. Not afraid to admit that either.

You know why?

Because the government has NO PLACE in MY healthcare.

Period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Today's "independent" is yesterday's neo-con, it would seem. The guys who just can't stand Obama and insist that he's going to trample on thier sacred Constitution...."

Um, yeah. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ARE sacred. Its the first time in history that the rights of humans have been outlined AND guaranteed.

Its not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant these rights... they are ACKNOWLEDGED as basic inalienable rights granted to all people.

Whatever the courts, President, ect do to try and limit them, these truth are UNQUESTIONABLE.

They are given to every person born.

We just happen to be the country that recognized them first.

According to the Bush Administration, boy do you have THAT dead wrong. They aren't unquestionable, they aren't inalienable, they aren't given to every person born - they're for AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY! At least, according to the conservatives out there.

As such, they've just blown huge holes in the Constitution, since clearly they DON'T believe that there are basic human rights that all people are born with, but only AMERICAN rights, that only AMERICANS have.

And, of course, you completely glossed over the fact that Bush and his crew totally shit on that document for eight long years, while you cared not one bit about it then, by your own admission.

Also, it should be duly noted, that even you have argued here that those rights are only for people who are BORN. In other words, an unborn fetus has no reasonable expectation of any "inalienable human rights", because such a fetus is not a human, and is not born, and is definitely not an American citizen born with those rights.

Cute trick I just pulled on ya there, huh?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"By the way, did you read all 2000-plus pages of the healthcare reform bill before being against it and calling for violent revolution? ;)"

No, I didn't. Not afraid to admit that either.

You know why?

Because the government has NO PLACE in MY healthcare.

Period.

So you didn't even need to read it to see if the government was putting itself in your healthcare? You just took some pundit's word for it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:11 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Why do you CONSTANTLY bring up Bush as if that is supposed to offend me? Bush DID trample on the Constitution... especially with the "Patriot Act".

I have no love for the Bush admin.

However... did your boy Obama dismiss the Patriot Act?

No.

"Also, it should be duly noted, that even you have argued here that those rights are only for people who are BORN. In other words, an unborn fetus has no reasonable expectation of any "inalienable human rights", because such a fetus is not a human, and is not born, and is definitely not an American citizen born with those rights."

Um, I've never been with the "right-to-lifers"... The CHOICE of a woman to abort is HER choice, hopefully discussed with her doctor.

Am I against using abortion as a form of birth control? Hell yeah. Do I think a 16 year old with 3 abortions to her name should keep having them? No. I find it disgusting and immoral.

But would I take that right from her? Hell no.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:24 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not to start a fight or make comparisons...

But a great speaker does not a leader make.

You know who else was a great oratorical superstar?

Kennedy.

Lincoln.

Hitler.

I find it strange that we, in this republic, look to our Presidents as these great and shining heroes. They are just men.

Its US who make the changes and the differences.

Please don't look to them as being the ones to save you.

Let's just call Godwins law and leave Wulfie out of the conversation from here on out?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:25 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Today's "independent" is yesterday's neo-con, it would seem. The guys who just can't stand Obama and insist that he's going to trample on thier sacred Constitution...."

Um, yeah. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ARE sacred. Its the first time in history that the rights of humans have been outlined AND guaranteed.

Its not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant these rights... they are ACKNOWLEDGED as basic inalienable rights granted to all people.

Whatever the courts, President, ect do to try and limit them, these truth are UNQUESTIONABLE.

They are given to every person born.

We just happen to be the country that recognized them first.

unless you were native, black, a woman, a homosexual, Muslim, Japanese, any foreigner etc, etc, etc

Britain abolished slavery long before the US

Propaganda points aside, your bill of rights has evolved and de-evolved over time...

and it is the courts that control that evolution

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:26 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

No President has ever directly attacked the court to its face in this sort of setting.

Golly gee, the lawyer is lying. Shocker!!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:44 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Let's just call Godwins law and leave Wulfie out of the conversation from here on out?"

How very Democratic of you, Story.

Really.

You prove my points more eloquently than even I can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:18 PM

By the way, Wulfie, do you find it annoying when people just lump you into a big group category? If so, maybe you should stop doing it to others! "Hippies", "Libs", etc.

Otherwise, you might find people who will just lump you in with the rest of the right-wingers you hang out with. :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Let's just call Godwins law and leave Wulfie out of the conversation from here on out?"

How very Democratic of you, Story.

Really.

You prove my points more eloquently than even I can.

See? There ya go, blaming everything on the Democrats. You DO realize that there's a difference between "big-D Democrat" and "small-d democrat", right?

Or should I just say "How very Republican of you, Wulfie"?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:26 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

I came into (and left) the speech thinking "I'll believe it when I see it".

As far as speeches go, it was pretty uplifting.

Obama ripping the Supreme Court a new one was pure gold.

And the stupid Repub's response (let me count the ways) was the most obvious form of puppet theater I've ever seen that didn't include actual puppets.... or did it?
(I apologize to the Fabricated American community.)

The Opposing Response isn't just supposed to solidify the base, it's also to try and convince the other team. No attempt, as far as I could tell.

Senator(Governor?) Hurmafluf (what's his name again?) totally dilluded his own message by using a crowd, which made the response too impersonal. Don't know why they switched from the quiet deserted room speaking straight to the camara. (If it ain't broke?) The crowd distracted with the applause breaks ("I forget, what was he talkin' about again?"), plus the applause just made it drag on forever (bored now... ok, I was bored before, but now I'm falling asleep), and they looked and acted like a bunch of robots.

I don't think the Dems are going to have much to worry about come November, if the Repubs keep shooting themselves in the ass like this.

Fine with me.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ohhh WuLfie ...... yooo hoooo ...

Just wanted to know you are wrong, yet again. Just like your 'Hero'.

"The Constitution (is) the first time in history that the rights of humans have been outlined AND guaranteed."

Do the words 'Magna Carta' ring a bell ?

"Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment."

Now, I know this isn't the first time I've had to remind you about that little document. But I trust it will be the last.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ohhh WuLfie ...... yooo hoooo ...

Just wanted to know you are wrong, yet again. Just like your 'Hero'.

"The Constitution (is) the first time in history that the rights of humans have been outlined AND guaranteed."

Do the words 'Magna Carta' ring a bell ?

"Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment."

Now, I know this isn't the first time I've had to remind you about that little document. But I trust it will be the last.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue, didn't you know? For Wulfie, human history begins and ends with the Declaration of Independence. Or the Constitution. Whichever. They're the same, anyway, and if you're in a pinch, they can be used interchangeably when you need to quote one or the other. (Just ask John Boehner, the Congressman from Loompaland!) ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Been sick a couple of days, just catching up. Interesting discussion...man, you guys move fast!

I’m like you JS, I like to see how they tear it apart, almost more than the speech itself, since they usually use clips (so I can judge for myself, not take what they say verbatim). I did find a difference in MSNBC’s review than you did; I heard a lot more negative for Obama than you appear to have. Quite a bit about “show us the money” I need to sit down and watch the speech (and the other one since then) to get the whole thing, but I hate watching Presidential speeches, and I’m sick at present, so that’ll have to wait. I didn’t catch the “grades” they gave him, only what I heard…and none of it beforehand, so I’ll take your word for that.

In general, I give him an “A” any time he speaks…whatever may be true of his actions, leadership, etc., the man can talk. I know Edwards ended up being a flop (a HUGE one!), but I voted for him in the primary largely because when he spoke, he talked straight—and did so on almost all of the issues that everyone ELSE is talking about now, and with mostly the same conclusions as Obama has come to. What Obama says, however, has shown itself to be little connected to what he DOES or how he leads, so I’m still waiting. I DO thoroughly enjoy his saying it like it is so often, tho’, that’s refreshing.

Bingo Gino:

Quote:
So far he has shown himself to be a nice guy who works through the mainstream part of the system, and while that sounds nice it has made him a tool of the special interest groups and power wielding advisors that have had too much control for too long now.

That was my fear of him from the very start, that he’s not strong enough to handle Washington and, despite having good ideas and I believe being an honest man who really wants to accomplish things, isn’t a strong enough leader or savvy enough to accomplish them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rue, yes, I learned the same thing you did; that the Supremes are there only to sit and listen—in fact I heard sometimes they didn’t even GO, partly for that reason. At first I thought the cameras were looking too hard for another Joe Wilson moment and wasn’t surprised by Alioto, but after the pundits pulled it apart and educated me on history and protocol, I joined those being disgusted. The lack of respect for this President, especially following eight years of sucking on Dumbya’s toes despite his despicable actions and inept Administration, is shameful.

And thank you ENORMOUSLY for citing the times Presidents have gone after the Courts. The right wingers should read up on such things before spouting their lies. Of course, there are many things they should read up on before spouting, but that goes without saying!

I agree with Wulf: “But a great speaker does not a leader make.” You forgot Clinton; whatever else we may think of him, the man could talk an audience into a swoon! On the other hand, Mike, yes, it’s a GREAT pleasure to hear someone up there who’s capable of putting four words together in a sentence—a veritable balm to the soul, I agree!

Hero: We ended Iraq in victory? Really? Wow, I missed that—I thought it was still in process, and from what I hear, still having bombings, government unstable, etc., etc. I’m sure glad to hear it’s a “victory”! As to “39 Senate Votes”, I believe it was 40? You must have missed recent discussions; if 40 Senators inform the rest of a “procedural filibuster”, then NOTHING can be done without a 60-vote majority. Admittedly the Republicans would probably follow like sheeples and vote in a block, but Democrats tend to think more for themselves; the Democrat’s “big tent” let in some who really should be Republicans, and some politicians are disgusting, blackmailing their party for their vote. Lack of passage has nothing to do with lack of a policy “working”. It as to be put in practice first, before it can fail, you know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:01 AM