Sotu - 2010

[KarthVader]

Remember, this website is for and by ladies and gentlemen. Keep the discussion civil or I fear that the mods shall layeth down their hammers. Be nice and courteous

After saying that....

State of the Union - 2010

As much as I love the U.S. and all it stands for, I feel like Congress continuously shoots itself in the foot and then impedes progress for the rest of the country.

I'm very moderate, but an "I win, you lose" mentality has to be thrown out. Congressmen/women can disagree with each other all they want, but then they have to sit down and ask what is best for my fellow Americans?

President Obama is not without fault, but I feel that some of what he is criticized for has roots in Congress roadblocking or delaying what he is trying to accomplish. Moreover, Congress is impeding itself in a very corrosive way.

What say ye?

 

[dpm802]

As with all of his speeches, the eloquent Mr. Obama spoke for over an hour and had less than a minute of real content to deliver.

He spent the majority of his time re-stating the problems, while offering little in the way of concrete solutions or plans of action.

His plan to re-build the economy by creating jobs to fix the infrastructure sounds really good on the surface ... until you realize that an Engineer who lost a $100K job will be put to work repairing potholes, at a mere fraction of his former income. But as far as the government looks at it, it will be one job lost, one job gained, so everything balances out, and the economy is back to normal.

I do like his idea about repaying student loans ... that payments should be capped at 10% of one's income, and that a person choosing a career in Public Service would have the debt forgiven in 10 years. Big Thumbs Up on that one.

When he announced that he wants Congress to repeal the ban of gays in the military, I thought it was hilariously funny that the rest of the audience stood up and cheered, but the cameras zoomed in on the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were sitting there stone-faced and passive. I can't wait to hear how that idea plays out at work tomorrow. (I have a Civilian job on an Army base.)

But for the most part, his speech was a lot of hot air, cliches and feel-good fuzzy talk. He is a master of the art of being vague and ambiguous, and tonight's speech was business as usual for Mr. O.

 

[jlanger]

As with all of his speeches, the eloquent Mr. Obama spoke for over an hour and had less than a minute of real content to deliver.

He spent the majority of his time re-stating the problems, while offering little in the way of concrete solutions or plans of action.

His plan to re-build the economy by creating jobs to fix the infrastructure sounds really good on the surface ... until you realize that an Engineer who lost a $100K job will be put to work repairing potholes, at a mere fraction of his former income. But as far as the government looks at it, it will be one job lost, one job gained, so everything balances out, and the economy is back to normal.

I do like his idea about repaying student loans ... that payments should be capped at 10% of one's income, and that a person choosing a career in Public Service would have the debt forgiven in 10 years. Big Thumbs Up on that one.

When he announced that he wants Congress to repeal the ban of gays in the military, I thought it was hilariously funny that the rest of the audience stood up and cheered, but the cameras zoomed in on the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were sitting there stone-faced and passive. I can't wait to hear how that idea plays out at work tomorrow. (I have a Civilian job on an Army base.)

But for the most part, his speech was a lot of hot air, cliches and feel-good fuzzy talk. He is a master of the art of being vague and ambiguous, and tonight's speech was business as usual for Mr. O.

I thought he did have a few good points, his rhetoric about bipartisanship was somewhat welcome, especially as he seemed to be talking to both the Dems and Reps.

I saw the JCOS do that too! I think that don't ask don't tell should be abolished anyway, whomever wants to serve, if they qualify, let them serve.

I did think he made a lot of suggestions for programs and bills, I'll just not hold my breath while they all appear magically!

 

[airplanedoc]

As with all of his speeches, the eloquent Mr. Obama spoke for over an hour and had less than a minute of real content to deliver.

yep, all potatoes no meat. Same as every other politicians speech.

 

[knlgskr]

How many of you would buy a used car from anyone in the three branches of the Fed? If you would, name him/her.

 

[dpmtherrien]

Everything mentioned here comes right back to only one thing. We the people keep sending these Bozo's back to Washington.

Isn't it time we woke up and did something about this?

 

[dpm802]

The full text of the SotU speech can be found HERE.

 

[kwk285]

To keep the discussion on last night's speeh I am not going to say who said this but...

Many years ago a spin doctor for one of our past president's was asked why many of the promises that the president made not only weren't done but there had been no effort in accomplishing the tasks. The spin doctor said saying that something should be done is the same as it being done.


I haven't watched a state of the union speech since the early eighties. I have no trust in our politicians and their promises. I only look at what they have or haven't done. That tells me all that I need to know. Promises and talk are cheap.

 

[dpm802]

I saw the JCOS do that too! I think that don't ask don't tell should be abolished anyway, whomever wants to serve, if they qualify, let them serve.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a good one, and should be kept in place, but to make it truly effective, they should tack on a third directive, which is "DON'T CARE."

 

[knlgskr]

Everything mentioned here comes right back to only one thing. We the people keep sending these Bozo's back to Washington.

Isn't it time we woke up and did something about this?

We can keep trying/voting; term limits anyone?

To keep the discussion on last night's speeh I am not going to say who said this but...

Many years ago a spin doctor for one of our past president's was asked why many of the promises that the president made not only weren't done but there had been no effort in accomplishing the tasks. The spin doctor said saying that something should be done is the same as it being done.


I haven't watched a state of the union speech since the early eighties. I have no trust in our politicians and their promises. I only look at what they have or haven't done. That tells me all that I need to know. Promises and talk are cheap.

+1, air free, talk cheap.

An individual's sexual orientation/preference is none of my/our business until it is mandatory that I/we become likewise.

 

[auk1124]

I think the gays in the military and the healthcare issues are so much smoke and mirrors to help distract us all from realizing that our economy is completely shattered, and that no one, from Washington to Wall Street, has the first clue about how to fix it.

I'd be more worried about those things if I didn't have to worry about making the house payment and getting enough gas in the car to get to work.

 

[ouch]

I thought this thread was about the shave of the union.

 

[knlgskr]

I thought this thread was about the shave of the union.

That's the best analogy yet. Ouch, u r a great American; as long as we can maintain a sense of humor there is hope. Shaved? Can anyone say skinned?

 

[Leche]

His thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court and his statement of going around the legislature is quite scary. Checks and balances anyone? Constitution?

 

[Stubblefield]

How many of you would buy a used car from anyone in the three branches of the Fed? If you would, name him/her.

Well, since we bailed out Detroit that is not as difficult as it may seem.

His thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court and his statement of going around the legislature is quite scary. Checks and balances anyone? Constitution?

I missed that part of the speech. However, I am of the opinion that the court needs to be reigned in a bit, as some of their rulings go far beyond the mere interpretation of the law. We do not need any more judicial activism; it is killing the country. (that may be a bit over the top; sorry)

 

[Obsessed]

Well, since we bailed out Detroit that is not as difficult as it may seem.

This guy's on fire tonight!

 

[KarthVader]

Well, since we bailed out Detroit that is not as difficult as it may seem.

I resent that statement (I'm from the Detroit Metro area.)..... JK y'all!

I just have to say, sometimes I do feel like the government is just one of those things that changes very, very, very slowly.

My barber told me something that I had forgotten: "Kiddo, take everything anyone says or does with a grain of salt."

 

[knlgskr]

Well, since we bailed out Detroit that is not as difficult as it may seem. +1 but who could you trust enough to sell you a used car?

I missed that part of the speech. However, I am of the opinion that the court needs to be reigned in a bit, as some of their rulings go far beyond the mere interpretation of the law. We do not need any more judicial activism; it is killing the country. (that may be a bit over the top; sorry)

+1 Why does the legislative branch allow ursupation of their authority by the judiciary i.e. "Legislating from the Bench", citing international law in his/her decision even if contrary to the Constitution, perhaps even ignoring the Constitution itself? In the past the Supreme Court has had insanity (Randolph), Klansman (Black) who frequently wrote an opinion contrary to his vote, retired and tried to participate (Black & Douglas); just following tradition?

 

[mr_economy]

His thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court and his statement of going around the legislature is quite scary. Checks and balances anyone? Constitution?

I think he could have stated it better, but the SCOTUS criticism was well-deserved. The idea of corporate personhood is a farce. Corporations should not be persons for the purposes of the Constitution, and the Court's willingness to define them as such raises silly-but-serious issues. Namely, if a company created and incorporated in the U.S. is legally a person, the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are Citizens of the United States...," then would this person-citizen corporation enjoy other Constitutional protections like the right to vote or the right to bear arms?

Furthermore, he was right about the Court's decision opening the doors for foreign companies to influence U.S. elections. Conservatives responded that a separate statute bans foreign corporations from direct advocacy advertising, but it has so many loopholes as to be worthless.

Urging Congress to find ways to work around a Supreme Court decision to achieve an objective is nothing new, nor is it dangerous. Because the Court laid down a constitutional precedent, any action the Congress of the President takes must fall within that decision. For example, the Court upheld the ability of Congress to mandate that corporations disclose their identities when they fund advertisements. Congress could then potentially mandate a substantial disclaimer at the end of all corporate political advertisements. I'm guessing the Court would give Congress a fair amount of deference for just about anything short of a total ban.

 

[knlgskr]

I think he could have stated it better, but the SCOTUS criticism was well-deserved. The idea of corporate personhood is a farce. Corporations should not be persons for the purposes of the Constitution, and the Court's willingness to define them as such raises silly-but-serious issues. Namely, if a company created and incorporated in the U.S. is legally a person, the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are Citizens of the United States...," then would this person-citizen corporation enjoy other Constitutional protections like the right to vote or the right to bear arms?

The 14th Amendment was written with the intent to give slaves and their descendants citizenship but should have so stated that it did not apply to those who gave birth while in this country temporarily and/or also was applicable to countries with whom we have/had treaties of reciprocity or reciprocal agreements. Arthur Wellesley (originally Wesley) Duke of Wellington said being born in Ireland no more more made him Irish than being born in a stable would have made him a horse.

Furthermore, he was right about the Court's decision opening the doors for foreign companies to influence U.S. elections. Conservatives responded that a separate statute bans foreign corporations from direct advocacy advertising, but it has so many loopholes as to be worthless.

Limit contributions to citizens only? Can't vote for, can't contibute?



Urging Congress to find ways to work around a Supreme Court decision to achieve an objective is nothing new, nor is it dangerous. Because the Court laid down a constitutional precedent, any action the Congress of the President takes must fall within that decision. For example, the Court upheld the ability of Congress to mandate that corporations disclose their identities when they fund advertisements. Congress could then potentially mandate a substantial disclaimer at the end of all corporate political advertisements. I'm guessing the Court would give Congress a fair amount of deference for just about anything short of a total ban.

It seems that almost Supreme Court decisions nowadays are 5-4; why? Have its members become that polarized or even political? Why have no Asians served or even been nominated? Jewish seat, Person of Color seat, Hispanic, Gender, ect.; thought Justice was blind but in reality doubt it or perhaps it is peeking through/over/beneath the blindfold. Would I buy a used car from any of the Justices? Probably not, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Fortas come most readily to mind as having profited from their positions and it would not be surprising to me at least; if there are/have been/will others.

Public financing of political campaigns via deduction of $1 per registered voter if able to vote for that candidate? Allow individual to designate candidate?