Monarchs Glen

From what I saw , it seemed fairly definitive on where support for this or that point of order in PBO's speech lay.
Although (imho) the bipartisan business end, still needs alot of work.

I give em props for his tenacity and hope his conviction of courage is as sincere as he made it out to be.

Link (preferrably BBC News)?

In brief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8484451.stm

Full transcript
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8484451.stm

Though it is disappointing that he cannot walk on water, I think it'd good that he focuses on jobs and looks forward over a longer period of time rather than to the next elections.

Not a bad SOTU, I'd say.

What a shit head.

This breakdown of his speech tickles me...as Correria always does.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/ ... the-union/

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Here we are, in the first three paragraphs and he is already blaming Bush. Gee, that took longer than expected. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted — immediately and aggressively and used the opportunity as an excuse to spend ungodly sums of money on stupid crap. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed. Uh hu… Has it now?

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. And everybody knows that number is much higher. 10% are the ones that are still actively looking and haven’t just given up. Many businesses have shuttered. Especially the small ones, because you bailed out all the big ones so that they could crush the little guys underfoot. Home values have declined. Shout out to my homie, Barney Frank. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. Not that Obama understands rural communities, because he apparently doesn’t understand what pickup trucks are for. And for those who’d already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college. Yeah, and giving half of what I earn to the government sure don’t help, jackass!

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. Yes, I had similar anxiety when Clinton was president. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. Because an Ivy league educated rich kid from Hawaii who has only worked BS jobs and been a political hack KNOWS struggle. These struggles are what I’ve witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. What? Did he drive through there once? I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children because as products of public education they’re damn near illiterate! – asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work or why Timmy has two daddies.

And it goes on...

Quite right, Atla. He's not a Republican, so he should be hanged!

Did you guys see his budget?


Omg is he gonna wave a magic wand and pull all that money out of his ass??

Nagash wrote:Quite right, Atla. He's not a Republican, so he should be hanged!

Seriously?

There are a lot of Republicans I would never vote for.

And that is always your response to anything Anti-Obama. You scream, "Oh he's not a Republican! THATS WHY YOU HATE HIM!".

That's as dumb fuck as people who tell me the reason I didn't vote for him was because he's black.

Nagash, I direct this all to you ...

The problem is that he is spending money we don't have. He is weakening nation defense. He is portraying weakness to terrorism by refusing to call them by their name. He continues to try and spend more money even though a majority of his voters don't think it is a good idea and that we are on the wrong path.

Hope. Change. Unity.

He has personally explained we have to sacrifice to get us out of this while other members of the Democratic Party continue to use taxpayer dollars to fly their children around in military jets. He tells us it is only going to get worse after telling us it was getting better and an end is in sight. Which is it? Hope? None.

He is no more transparent than the his predecessor or any other President before them. In fact, he and his Party (since he considered the head of said entity) is even more clandestine about health care than the GOP was about the Patriot Act. He states what he believes is in the bill when it was never in the bill. Change? Not really, just more of the same, but this time he can just blame it on Bush. Change? I think not.

More so than any past President, he has taken aim at his opposition from the get go. From his own White House staff claiming that FoxNews was the enemy, to the attack on anyone who owns a gun and lives in the South as an "extremist" because they don't agree with our President, or how about how anyone who thinks we shouldn't be taxed as much are not just ignored by his cohorts (and they are) in the media but also lambasted by him directly or his pals. How about a probe into the Climate Gate? How come we should just laugh it off and spend us into oblivion or cripple the American economy and there, vica-vie (sp), the world economy? Unity? I am definite you are jesting.

Naggie, get it through your head man, we dislike the guy because he is a joke, a liar, and we have actual policy disagreements. I don't want his dead or hanged, I just want his joke ass out of office.

I am a Republican, but you give me a fiscally conservative Democrat that can show me how they will make all these programs work within a budget, how I won't have to pay for my neighbor's mortgage because it is the "right thing" to do, or show me real incentives for entrepreneurship besides more taxes and more government intervention, you may get my vote.

But you so easily dismiss any sort of disagreement with him based solely on the source of the discussion and posit no valid argument in defense. That is lame and you know it.

Honestly, what difference does his party make anyways? I see no difference between a republican or a democrat. Both parties lie, try to shove some agenda or moral code down the throats of the public because it's THEIR opinion and not actually what's best for our country. I'll worry about my ever lasting soul, you guys worry about the budget, homeless, tax laws, immigration and military. Thanks.

With Obama all I see is a mindset of if we throw money at it, it'll get better. There is no creative thinking or solutions to remedy the problems. Just throwing away money that the government and the american public do not have.

Gem wrote:Did you guys see his budget?


Omg is he gonna wave a magic wand and pull all that money out of his ass??

(Nods) Yeah $3.8 Trillion over 4 year's or some such...owch




(Imho) (Correct my layman economics strat if I'm wrong here.)

1) No stimulus cash is to be used for or as a bonuses by any sized company or financial institution.(This should of been done from the get go.) Those that have received said bonuses should be held accountable and be made to pay back the bonus.

2) Allow the small-medium sized business's more access to stimulus funding, as those companies make up a larger portion of job creation/opportunities in the work force/market then High end companies or single short term projects.

3) Get 90% of the troops in Iraq state side, do not just transfer theaters.

4) US to Investment in China's & India's emerging markets.

5) Alternating spending cuts: Across the board (No exceptions!)
Example:
-Say for instance NASA requests a budget of US $8b this year, but their operating cost is only US$ 4b, the extra $4b is for R&D projects.
You take their operating cost for the year only, they then receive a budget of US $4b for that year. The following year they receive US $6b (the extra $2b is for R&D projects), the next year US$ 5b.

Taking that remaining US$ 4b from the first year and invest it in domestic & foreign stocks/bonds/markets to regain a capital safety net, due the same with the extra $2b the following year as with the $3b the following year.

In 3 year's you'll have saved/invested US $11b and it's now making money for you on it's own with just 1 government funded company.
Due this across the board, that 1 company & $11b suddenly becomes 10 companies & $150b+ earning power which can be applied to bring down your deficit.

Hey, listen ... I understand the difference between the core parties. What gets elected 9/10 is a politician that finds himself/herself in a position that they must increase the size and expense of government to try and help out a cause. The mindset in much of the civilized world is that if there is a problem, usually a social order problem, government must solve it.

Civil Rights. Great example of where it went wrong. Yes, wrong. Government got involved and after 40 years, they finally got it right. Would the states have done any better? Who knows?

Large social programs help no one. The smaller the government, the more close to its constituents it is, the better. I am all for micro-government, like townships, but the federal government is ill equipped to stop anything besides out country being invaded.

Reylan Talonspyre wrote:Nagash, I direct this all to you ...

The problem is that he is spending money we don't have. He is weakening nation defense. He is portraying weakness to terrorism by refusing to call them by their name. He continues to try and spend more money even though a majority of his voters don't think it is a good idea and that we are on the wrong path.

Hope. Change. Unity.

He has personally explained we have to sacrifice to get us out of this while other members of the Democratic Party continue to use taxpayer dollars to fly their children around in military jets. He tells us it is only going to get worse after telling us it was getting better and an end is in sight. Which is it? Hope? None.

He is no more transparent than the his predecessor or any other President before them. In fact, he and his Party (since he considered the head of said entity) is even more clandestine about health care than the GOP was about the Patriot Act. He states what he believes is in the bill when it was never in the bill. Change? Not really, just more of the same, but this time he can just blame it on Bush. Change? I think not.

More so than any past President, he has taken aim at his opposition from the get go. From his own White House staff claiming that FoxNews was the enemy, to the attack on anyone who owns a gun and lives in the South as an "extremist" because they don't agree with our President, or how about how anyone who thinks we shouldn't be taxed as much are not just ignored by his cohorts (and they are) in the media but also lambasted by him directly or his pals. How about a probe into the Climate Gate? How come we should just laugh it off and spend us into oblivion or cripple the American economy and there, vica-vie (sp), the world economy? Unity? I am definite you are jesting.

Naggie, get it through your head man, we dislike the guy because he is a joke, a liar, and we have actual policy disagreements. I don't want his dead or hanged, I just want his joke ass out of office.

I am a Republican, but you give me a fiscally conservative Democrat that can show me how they will make all these programs work within a budget, how I won't have to pay for my neighbor's mortgage because it is the "right thing" to do, or show me real incentives for entrepreneurship besides more taxes and more government intervention, you may get my vote.

But you so easily dismiss any sort of disagreement with him based solely on the source of the discussion and posit no valid argument in defense. That is lame and you know it.

Not at all, Rey. I just easily dismiss the comments on the level which FOX News shows so often. Like the complete crap which Atla posted. That is not worth arguing about in depth, because all one will get in return is a comment which might as well have come from a failed stand up comedian. I do not easily dismiss any sort of disagreement with Obama (in fact, I far from support many of his policies), but I do dismiss those which are not supported by logic and reason. Such comments, such “news” is a joke, and I can very well see why the White House has proclaimed FOX the enemy. They are popular, work against the current president and inspire nihilism and an unthinking majority.

You, however, do make your points and arguments clear. That’s something one can respond to.

You are quite right that Obama wants to spend WAY too much. For all theories by Keynes and his, the problem to a lack of money, jobs, and economic stability can never be found in creating more debt for oneself.

Why does Obama disappoint so many people? Because of his “Hope. Change. Unity. YES WE CAN” speeches and the way they were picked up. He sounded exactly like what you needed and if he were true to his words, he would be little short of a messiah. Of course, he isn’t. He can’t miraculously solve all the problems which have grown over the decades. He can’t do everything right. But he did, sort of, suggest that he would.

However, many things really need to change in America, he had that right. That is why I am ready to defend his healthcare plans. It’s far from perfect, but it’s a good start and has the right intentions: to ensure that everyone is insured and no one will face bankruptcy because of medical bills anymore. Give it a few more presidents and I am sure your system will be tweaked into something to at least approach the rather splendid (because tested by time and experience) European systems. But let’s not open that discussion again.

The way I see his spending plans, I think he is only exacerbating the problems at hand and effectively digging his own grave. He will – on paper – see improvements: the economy will grow and there will be more jobs. Unfortunately there will also be a lot more debt and interest pressing on the USA’s shoulders. The country would be better off on the long term by letting the crisis be a crisis for now. Let the banks topple, start cutting costs and paying off the debts. Create a clean slate over a term of some 50 years. Historically, wars broke out when nations were facing big debts. So if by “change and unity” Obama meant that the time of peace was over and the USA would unite against the ones they are going to wage war against, then I do understand him. Debt does not bring hope. Nor unity, but it does bring change of sorts, even if it’s not for the better.

So what to do with America eh? From the get go, I was convinced that Obama would prove to be more of a talker than one who goes on and solve the problems. I did want to give the guy a chance though (still do, let him have his four years). Let him make it happen. I am afraid though that in the mediacracy which the USA has become, you will be stuck with this kind of presidents for a long time. Reagan is a good example. Complete git, but good talker/actor. If Obama does not keep his promises, as it looks that he will, the rest of the world will see him as “Reagan II”. I never understood why you guys are/were so fond of that one. The ‘winner takes all’ district system and the malevolent role of the media is proving to be quite damning. In my opinion there are three things which can make it happen.

1. A Margaret Thatcher kind of president. Someone powerful who isn’t afraid to change things for the better, even if it are not ‘popular’ changes and measures.

2. A rewritten constitution and electoral system. Something which will actually allow more parties, more flavours, and preferably coalition forming. Make them cooperate for a change, rather than having two parties taking turns at the government.

3. A change in the media. The media needs to be more responsible, less partisan and focusing on facts rather than favouritism and hypes.


Last, but not least, a large government is not necessarily bad. In bad times, a bigger government is required. But I think the goal of the government should be to make itself unnecessary. So when things are working properly, it should downsize and become more monitorial of nature. For that to be possible, a change in the mind of the people will need to happen though. Most people will cheat the government or his neighbor whenever it benefits him (and given the chance obviously). Without morals and ethics guiding everyone's actions, the government will not be able to downsize and because they too lack the morals and ethics, the administrators will increase the size of the government because it benefits them. Like so many things in politics (e.g. the curreny American political system), it is a downward spiral.

Our constitution is not easily changed, Nagash. Obama doesn't have any way, shape, or ability to change the constitution. Thank goodness.

One thing I can agree with you, though, is a more responsible media. One thing you don't mention is the bias nature of the other networks, though. You hate fox, from what I can tell, but trust me, they aren't the only network with a pony in the race. Now, people like Beck, Hannity, Cooper, and such are opinion people. That is perfectly legit, and reasonable because they don't claim anything else. It is actual broadcasts that claim just news and is baised that I have a problem with.

((Edited because I hit the button to soon))

Most people who bag on Fox news have rarely watched it, if at all. They tend to watch Chris Mathews, Bill Maher, and Joy Behar, Rosie O'Donnel and the like. They surround themselves with folks who only agree with them and have some twisted need to bring up Sarah Palin as an answer to EVERYTHING wrong in the USA. They rarely have an opposing view, yet scream about how biased Fox is. On the other hand, Fox rarely is without a representative of the other side. Especially O'Riely, and he is the one they complain about the most. Watch Rachel Maddow sometime if you want to see biased. Behar's show is fairly new, and she often has guests I want to see. On a lot of issues, she is actually fairly conservative, especially on matters regarding crime and punishment. Until she starts ranting on Bush or Palin, she is likely the least biased of the left leaning.

The thing is, as Thomas said, most of the shows the left are railing against are opinion/commentary shows, and make no claim otherwise. The actual Fox news shows are fairly down the middle and tend to report and not make commentary, as well as make a concerted effort to report the news for what it is. They do their best to present as much of the issues as possible from all perspectives. The other networks are decidedly left in their presentation, often derogatory of what little of the conservative point of view they do present. If folks would truly watch all of them, or even most of them with an regularity, as I do, it would be more than obvious that what I'm saying is true.. Well, actually, most folks do. And that is why Fox continuously kicks ass in the ratings.

i don't have a opinion i just want to say i have enjoyed reading this thread

The reason I singled out Fox is because they are the worst of all. CNN is better, though not by much. The problem with the opinion shows is that many people can't separate the opinion part from the news part anymore, which is caused by the way it all is framed. O'Donnell and O'Reilly are the worst two in my opinion. The show is not about the news, not about truth or discussion, but about them. Worst thing is that people believe them and have no proper source of objective, non-biased, non-partisan news (other than BBC World, but I doubt many Americans will watch British news). That leads to buggered up decisions and opinions nation wide.

As for the constitution, I am well aware that the constitution is self-empowering. Constitutions are always difficult to change, as they are made by those in power and and usually made to keep those people in power. By changing it, the Democrats and the GOP would dig their own political graves. So they'll leave it there, just as it is, content with their taking turns on the White House. You'll need something of the scale of a national bankruptcy or a (world) war to create the window of opportunity for real change. Even if he'd want to cahnge it, which I don't think he does, Obama would not be able to sweet talk his way through the process.

Sturm wrote:

From what I saw , it seemed fairly definitive on where support for this or that point of order in PBO's speech lay.
Although (imho) the bipartisan business end, still needs alot of work.

I give em props for his tenacity and hope his conviction of courage is as sincere as he made it out to be.

You've got to be fuckin' kidding me, Sturm. We have a president who is still running for office and giving speeches not of leadership but of qualification and shitheads of the world fall for this crap. Idiots rule.

I have to disagree there. There is more to leadership than just "making things right". Leadership is also to create enthousiasm for what you do, to motivate people and make them feel confident. That he is still applying his campaignesque style is a trait of that aspect of leadership.