State of the Union

Jimmy Iovine

Is anyone out there going to watch it?

I've never bothered with it before due to college work and other stuff. Going to sit and stay through as much as I can this year though.

It starts at 2am our time as far as I know and can be watched via various different mediums. There is a list of all the ways here.

For those of you lucky enough to be in college with nothing to do tomorrow and you want to drink away to it then the Huffington Post came up with their own State of the Union drinking game. I don't want to clog up the whole page so I'll post a few of my favourites.

What is the State Of The Union?

Pound a shot

Obama says, "The State of the Union is FUBAR. Google it."

Finish the bottle

Obama says, "The State of the Union is "The Hottest State," a novel by Ethan Hawke that I Kindled after Angelina Jolie turned me on to it.

Reminder of Accomplishments

Take a swig

Obama reminds everyone that the war in Iraq is over, that Osama bin Laden is dead/al Qaeda is on a path to defeat, that American oil production is at an all-time high, and that he worked with Congress to enact historic deficit reduction measures.

Pound a shot

Obama reminds everyone that he quit smoking, hasn't strapped a dog to the top of the presidential motorcade, and that everyone at Goldman Sachs was really, really sad on bonus day.

Goals for the Coming Year

Pound a shot

1. Support a nationwide student loan repayment model for new college graduates, tied to their post-graduation wage level.
2. Increase offshore drilling permits, along with updated safety regulations.
3. Ramp up aggressive stance with China on trade and currency manipulation.

Finish the bottle

1. Challenge the GOP nominee to seven, four-hour long unmoderated Def Comedy Jams.
2. Charge everyone who put Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close on their Oscar ballot with war crimes.
3. Start smoking again.

Historical References

Take a sip

Obama quotes Abraham Lincoln or Harry Truman.

Take a swig

Obama quotes Ronald Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt.

Pound a shot

Obama quotes Dwight D. Eisenhower or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Finish the bottle

Obama quotes Bill Ayers or Herman Cain.

Joe Biden and John Boehner

Pound a shot

Joe Biden rips his shirt off and waves it over his head, whooping. John Boehner is reduced to tears.

Finish the bottle

Joe Biden is replaced on the ticket by Hillary Clinton. John Boehner is replaced as House Speaker by Eric Cantor. (Also: Biden and Boehner start making out.)

Unexpected Musical Interlude

Take a sip

Obama sings a few bars of "Let's Stay Together" by Al Green.

Take a swig

Obama sings a few bars of "Baby, What Do You Want Me To Do" by Etta James.

Pound a shot

Obama sings a few bars of "Thuggin'" by Freddie Gibbs (feat. Madlib).

Finish the bottle

Obama sings a few bars of "Blades of Baal" by Morbid Angel.

As you can guess most of them won't happen so you shouldn't be too drunk come the end of the speech. That "Thuggin'" song is very good btw.

kev9100

I'm in late tomorrow so I'll probably watch it all right. I really hope he goes after the republicans and their utterly insane current policies. Also, it would be great if he mentioned something on gay marraige or repealing DOMA

Amerika

I’ve sat through the others and I’ll sit through this one, only this time I’ve got my truth-o-meter set up. Somehow I think it will be perpetually leaning to the right (about the only thing about him that leans right). Wonder if he’ll talk about how he stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, halting the creation of thousands of American jobs, and how his decision helps his buddy Warren Buffet?



But in all seriousness, if you get a chance to watch, listen to his cleaver wording. Most of what he says, in the way he says it, can mean almost everything from good to bad. There is just no defining what the man actually means from what he says. He might be cleaver in his wording, but makes him appear untrustworthy for those watching without their Obamablinders on.

I really wish he could just come out and say something like... Nothing we have done has helped much, things are still bad, I made some bad decisions and a couple of good ones, and yes many are unpopular with the majority of Americans. But I feel the republican alternatives are far worse, so stick with me.

RichieC

I read he will attack the "do nothing" congress. This is a campaign stop as well as a SotU

jackiebaron

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Is anyone out there going to watch it?

I've never bothered with it before due to college work and other stuff. Going to sit and stay through as much as I can this year though.

It starts at 2am our time as far as I know and can be watched via various different mediums. There is a list of all the ways here.

For those of you lucky enough to be in college with nothing to do tomorrow and you want to drink away to it then the Huffington Post came up with their own State of the Union drinking game. I don't want to clog up the whole page so I'll post a few of my favourites.



As you can guess most of them won't happen so you shouldn't be too drunk come the end of the speech. That "Thuggin'" song is very good btw.

Who gives a fück about america.....Awwwwm, we are free, Awmmmmm, we will protect you, Awmmmmmm, if it wasn't ....Awwmmmmm for us , Awwwmmmm, you'd be speaking ....Awwwwwwmmmm, , Uh, German... Awwwmmmm.....and the only Awwwmmmmmm, reason, Aaaawmmmmm, that you're not Awwwwmmmmmm, speaking Vietnamese....is because Awwwwwwmmmmm.....they don't have Awwwhmmmmmm, hotdogs....Awwwmmmmmm!

Soldie

jackiebaron wrote: »

Who gives a fück about america.....Awwwwm, we are free, Awmmmmm, we will protect you, Awmmmmmm, if it wasn't ....Awwmmmmm for us , Awwwmmmm, you'd be speaking ....Awwwwwwmmmm, , Uh, German... Awwwmmmm.....and the only Awwwmmmmmm, reason, Aaaawmmmmm, that you're not Awwwwmmmmmm, speaking Vietnamese....is because Awwwwwwmmmmm.....they don't have Awwwhmmmmmm, hotdogs....Awwwmmmmmm!

Hmm. You do, it seems.

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

I read he will attack the "do nothing" congress. This is a campaign stop as well as a SotU

From what i can see he would be right on that!

Thanks for the many links to ways to watch online Jimmy Iovine.

the burning questions for me fact or fiction:
Does one member of Congress get the short straw and remain in the White House in case something terrible happens and they are all wiped out.?
biggest threat there would be Ron Paul gassing them all in his quest for smaller Government.;)

Will President Obama forego the traditional handshakes as he heads towards the podium and instead hand out food stamps?;)
Mitt Romney wont be needing them after paying an effective rate of 14% tax on $22 million in income as well as a hastily closed Swiss bank account and some other erm creative accounting.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghgNp1h__aRQCVH4j1W2RIrqzGSA?docId=43c44d8df2f041238e8dbe78c3ec0f67


Who would have thought that Amerika besides being an unshakable Republican is really Jon Stewart?:)

Seriously this is an American tradition that i find very appealing as a spectacle.
It is done with great style whoever is behind the podium,and the lack of applause can be as telling as when there are standing ovations.

Be like Nutella

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJAcIBYEYk&feature=relmfu

live stream

Jimmy Iovine

Boehner looks very pissed that he has to keep clapping so long ha.

Overheal

Oh hell I'll watch it when I can. Tue-Thur is not the best time for me to dabble in interweb distractions this semester

amacachi

I love American Politics sometimes.

jank

He is really going after congress here. I think it will resonate well with the public. Congress approval ratings are in the tank.

briany

The aged members of congress look a bit browned off having to stand up every two minutes.

Obama's charismatic but this whole speech just sounds like more of what he espoused nearly four years ago.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Wonder if he’ll talk about how he stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, halting the creation of thousands of American jobs, and how his decision helps his buddy Warren Buffet?

It hasn't really been stopped, more delayed than anything.
The claims of creating thousands of jobs have really been something of debate.

The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.

Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.

Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.

The Cornell researchers concluded:

The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates....

The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the U.S.
By Alain Shereter

And then one has to evaluate the environmental impact of producing this oil, something that will always be lost on the right.

FatherTed

The opposition usually doesn't clap that much but these Republicans must love Obama.

Be like Nutella

Obama killed it with the speech. I was only watchin for foreign policy hints of which there weren't many..which is good in a way.

RichieC

I really thought Obama nailed his delivery, was a decent positive message. though I'm sure Amerika will be along with his "truth o meter"(tm) soon enough to point out all the lies.. :rolleyes:

Overheal

Don't need a truth-o-meter, when you have Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/24/fact-checking-state-union-address/

Amerika

Other than his perpetual mantra of calling for more taxes and more spending, at times I thought I was listening to a republican speaking. But then reality hit… It’s definitely election time! But all in all, it was a pretty good pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes election kickoff speech.

The Truth O Meter went haywire when he said this:

This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

So tell me... what does that mean? Sure seems like two differing statements rolled into one.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

It hasn't really been stopped, more delayed than anything.

After watching this President’s modus operandi for the last 3 years, I’d be willing to bet he plans on killing it completely in his second term. This year is an election year, so he needs to tred lightly.

The claims of creating thousands of jobs have really been something of debate.

Yeah it’s been debated. But even if he number is half or a third the estimate of 20,000, and leads for less energy dependence on countries hostile to the US, I’d say it’s a good thing. How about we get-er-done and see.

And then one has to evaluate the environmental impact of producing this oil, something that will always be lost on the right.

Endless years of studies until we finally one that says it's a bad thing, eh?

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

Other than his perpetual mantra of calling for more taxes and more spending,

you must have been listening to a different speech.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah it’s been debated. But even if he number is half or a third the estimate of 20,000, and leads for less energy dependence on countries hostile to the US, I’d say it’s a good thing. How about we get-er-done and see.


Endless years of studies until we finally one that says it's a bad thing, eh?

Firstly there is strong debate about whether the pipeline will actually reduce US dependence on foreign oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/keystone_pipeline/index.htm?iid=Lead

Supporters, including the oil industry, some unions and many in the Republican party, say it's a vital job creator that will lessen the country's dependence on oil imported from volatile regions.

Opponents fear the pipeline may leak, and that it will lock the United States into a particularly dirty form of crude that might ultimately end up being exported anyway.

Also it's not just environmentalists that are against it:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-pipeline-blown-way-out-of-proportion/?iref=allsearch

In November 2011, coming into the final phases of the Presidential Permit process and ostensibly on the cusp of making a decision, the Obama administration extended its timeline for considering the permit application until 2013, when questions arose about the environmental integrity of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive region of the Nebraska Sand Hills, causing the Nebraska state legislature and governor to insist on an alternative pipeline route.

I thought republicans believed in State's rights? But maybe the big Obama government should simply bully the Nebraska legislature into biting the bullet without a proper and thorough environmental review in order to answer what would seem like FRESH and recently raised questions by Nebraska's governing authorities.

You said in a previous thread that Obama is pandering to the extremists in his base when it looks like he's actually willing to stand up the unions (among others).

I'm wondering if you could point out who you think these extremists are and what exactly is extreme about their position?

The second article I linked makes a very interesting and I feel reasonably balanced argument. The actual issue about the pipeline itself isn't that important and it's being blown out of proportion due to politics. But there is no one with oil free hands in this. The republicans and unions are just as much to blame as the environmentalists, and Obama too shares some of the culpability. But it's not nearly as black or white as you're trying to paint it.

Edit: P.S. A little more reading on the 'jobs,' issue:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm?iid=EL

The U.S. State Department, which must green light the project, forecasts just 5,000 direct U.S. jobs over a two year construction period.

Even according to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.
"Those are the real numbers," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Republicans have been acting as if this is a national jobs package, and it's not."
Meanwhile, one study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reason is that the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, the study said, and that would slow consumer spending and cost jobs.

The study also said jobs could also be lost due to crop failures or other events associated with higher pollution levels the oil sands would bring. And it said more oil would mean a decline in green jobs.

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

you must have been listening to a different speech.

I recall... Tax businesses, tax the wealthy. Spend more on education, research, health care, alternate energy (even though some will fail. LOL - his way of handling the Solyndra scandal for the upcoming election. Thank god money grows on trees, eh).

Amerika

We both can point to numerous articles to make our points. How anybody can argue this pipeline would do little to help the job market, the economy and help with our energy needs is beyond me.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-detroit/five-facts-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline

Most here are for the pipeline, except for the environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. And an agreement was made to find another route in order to appease Nebraska before Obama’s decision was made.

What about the will of the people?

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

We both can point to numerous articles to make our points. How anybody can argue this pipeline would do little to help the job market, the economy and help with our energy needs is beyond me.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-detroit/five-facts-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline

Most here are for the pipeline, except for the environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. And an agreement was made to find another route in order to appease Nebraska before Obama’s decision was made.

What about the will of the people?

Because things are not straightforward. Because it is not clear just how many JOBS this pipeline will create. The numbers are heavily disputed.

Environmental cost is something that is real and has a long term impact on the economy also. Perhaps you need to take this into account?

What is the REAL ACTUAL benefit to the economy. What is the REAL enviornmental cost and how do these two balance out? Any decision made has to take this into account.

Of course it's very convenient if you consider the environmental argument to be a non-issue from the get go. That's the kind of short-term profit, driven thinking that lead to the great depression in the 30s and the current recession.

Romney's great work at Bain Capital made him very rich. But how good was it for the jobs in the companies he took over and the economies in the communities where people lost their jobs?

I'm happy for Obama to take his time on this decision if it means getting the right decision in the end.

But this idea that the republicans are backing this because they think it's great for the economy and not because they are in the pockets of big oil is laughable to me.

The fact that we can point to numerous articles (though I sadly end up relying on the evil and corrupt MSM while you only bring up the heroic truth getters) suggests that the issues are far from clear cut.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

I recall... Tax businesses, tax the wealthy. Spend more on education, research, health care, alternate energy (even though some will fail. LOL - his way of handling the Solyndra scandal for the upcoming election. Thank god money grows on trees, eh).

Acknowledging the reality of business- a no no... I take it.

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

Acknowledging the reality of business- a no no... I take it.

With over a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money pissed away by this administration on this one business alone, perhaps more care should have been taken... agree?

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Because things are not straightforward. Because it is not clear just how many JOBS this pipeline will create. The numbers are heavily disputed.

So do nothing? Buth then again, I wish this president would have done nothing over his 3 years... our country would have been much better off.

Environmental cost is something that is real and has a long term impact on the economy also. Perhaps you need to take this into account?

So you think no environmental costs were analyzed through this process by all sides? I think they were analyzed to death... the results just didn't fit into this president's plans.

What is the REAL ACTUAL benefit to the economy. What is the REAL enviornmental cost and how do these two balance out? Any decision made has to take this into account.

So now we need "absolutes" before making any decisions? Or just the ones you don't like?

Of course it's very convenient if you consider the environmental argument to be a non-issue from the get go. That's the kind of short-term profit, driven thinking that lead to the great depression in the 30s and the current recession.

Environmental arguments caused the great depression and the current recession?

Romney's great work at Bain Capital made him very rich. But how good was it for the jobs in the companies he took over and the economies in the communities where people lost their jobs?

Lets look at Obama for a minute. How many people lost their jobs at GM & Chrysler? How about the companies supplying them? How about all the dealership closings and the loss of jobs? Sometimes hard decisions have to be made. But is it only bad when Romney does it... I fathom. And didn't Obama just put another Bain Capital exec in charge of the OMB?

I'm happy for Obama to take his time on this decision if it means getting the right decision in the end.

Or maybe taking his time is the wrong decision if Canada decides to move the oil to China or Russia.

But this idea that the republicans are backing this because they think it's great for the economy and not because they are in the pockets of big oil is laughable to me.

What "big oil" are you talking about?

The fact that we can point to numerous articles (though I sadly end up relying on the evil and corrupt MSM while you only bring up the heroic truth getters) suggests that the issues are far from clear cut.

Geee, I found several articles from the evil and corrupt MSN that support the Keystone XL pipeline.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

Other than his perpetual mantra of calling for more taxes and more spending, at times I thought I was listening to a republican speaking. But then reality hit… It’s definitely election time! But all in all, it was a pretty good pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes election kickoff speech.

Is that begrudging respect I detect :P

Suryavarman

timesnap wrote: »

the burning questions for me fact or fiction:
Does one member of Congress get the short straw and remain in the White House in case something terrible happens and they are all wiped out.?
biggest threat there would be Ron Paul gassing them all in his quest for smaller Government.;)

It's a member of the cabinet that becomes president in the case of a disaster. This year it was Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Recently there have also been a few members of Congress that stay somewhere other than the chamber in order to form a rump Congress in the event of a disaster.

Suryavarman

Finally finished watching the speech and some of the replies to it. Needless to say I thought very little of it. Numerous times throughout the speech he betrayed his ignorance of basic economic principles and continued to engage in class warfare. Some of the standout moments for me were:

1) Talking about how his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line helped turn out the best products on Earth. I must have been asleep when it was decided that bombers were a good thing.

2) When discussing how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary(even though he doesn't) his solution to that problem was to raise Buffet's taxes but not to cut his secretaries taxes.

3) Similarly with corporations he talked about how companies that are outsourcing pay lower taxes than companies that aren't outsourcing. He didn't take the time to acknowledge that the US has one of the highest corporation taxes in the world and recommend that it be lowered but instead suggested that it should be raised.

Suryavarman

Here is the full speech:

Here are some of the replies:

Greg Mankiw's reply and Ron Paul's reply

The GOP response delivered by Mitch Daniels:

The Tea Party response by Herman Cain:

Rand Paul's reply:

Cato Institute reply:

RichieC

Suryavarman wrote: »

Finally finished watching the speech and some of the replies to it. Needless to say I thought very little of it. Numerous times throughout the speech he betrayed his ignorance of basic economic principles and continued to engage in class warfare. Some of the standout moments for me were:.

in other word "disagreed with my dogma so is therefore automatically wrong..."

give it a rest, most of the planet think you are wrong. all of the time.

1) Talking about how his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line helped turn out the best products on Earth. I must have been asleep when it was decided that bombers were a good thing. They were a good thing, during the war.

2) When discussing how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary(even though he doesn't) his solution to that problem was to raise Buffet's taxes but not to cut his secretaries taxes. Recession... they need money to fund government, I know you and your malcontent ilk do not like the idea of government, but there is pretty much a consensus on its need

3) Similarly with corporations he talked about how companies that are outsourcing pay lower taxes than companies that aren't outsourcing. He didn't take the time to acknowledge that the US has one of the highest corporation taxes in the world and recommend that it be lowered but instead suggested that it should be raised. This is about as close to agreement as we'll get.

timesnap

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a member of the cabinet that becomes president in the case of a disaster. This year it was Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Recently there have also been a few members of Congress that stay somewhere other than the chamber in order to form a rump Congress in the event of a disaster.

Thank You suryavaman, i actually first saw that on my battered box set of the west wing and wondered was it true.

I think Obama pushed an awful lot of the right buttons if i was standing in an Americans shoes,but as has been pointed out it was also his firing shot in his re-election campaign.

for most of the speech i could find no fault in his aspirations and he certainly must have members of congress.

what fault can be found in taxing multinationals to subsidise start up companies in the US?

what fault can be found in beefing up an agency to prevent China or other Countries cloning US produced products.?
in China it will just be laughed at.

What fault can be found in keeping people in school until they are eighteen?
or rewarding teachers who get results .

what fault can be found in QE to stimulate an economy in meltdown,something the ECB has refused to do even when the IMF asked it to .

We are throwing away our values and accepting a new world order that we will live to regret imo.

Richie C you have once again used the :rolleyes: against Amerika

Amerika makes the forum fun and educational and really does not deserve that.

It would be nice if other Republican supporters would make their views known.
Amerika has the courage of his convictions and does not hide it

people do not have to agree with him,but he deserves respect imo.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

After watching this President’s modus operandi for the last 3 years, I’d be willing to bet he plans on killing it completely in his second term. This year is an election year, so he needs to tred lightly.

What can one say to this.... how about a good old :rolleyes:

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah it’s been debated. But even if he number is half or a third the estimate of 20,000, and leads for less energy dependence on countries hostile to the US, I’d say it’s a good thing. How about we get-er-done and see.


Endless years of studies until we finally one that says it's a bad thing, eh?

From all that I have read, it is clear it won't create as many jobs, the figure will be one of debate but it could be a fraction.
Yea, get-er-done and see, that attitude has clearly worked, certain oil spillages must be distant memories to some people, sure as long as we feed the beast, who cares.
It will also only support a very very small percentage of the US daily oil needs.

It is clearly a bad thing, anyone with half a brain cell would recognize this but it may be a necessary thing. We should be trying to move away from oil not trying to refine tar sand oil.

There are so many more projects that people should be concentrating on, rebuilding Americas infrastructure will create many more jobs.

timesnap

Carcharodon wrote: »

What can one say to this.... how about a good old :rolleyes:

How about just making your point without :rolleyes:

unless of course you want it to become a one party stateforum?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

But in all seriousness, if you get a chance to watch, listen to his cleaver wording. Most of what he says, in the way he says it, can mean almost everything from good to bad. There is just no defining what the man actually means from what he says. He might be cleaver in his wording, but makes him appear untrustworthy for those watching without their Obamablinders on.

I really wish he could just come out and say something like... Nothing we have done has helped much, things are still bad, I made some bad decisions and a couple of good ones, and yes many are unpopular with the majority of Americans. But I feel the republican alternatives are far worse, so stick with me.

How does this make Obama different from any other politician on earth?

Amerika wrote: »

I recall... Tax businesses, tax the wealthy. Spend more on education, research, health care, alternate energy (even though some will fail. LOL - his way of handling the Solyndra scandal for the upcoming election. Thank god money grows on trees, eh).

Haha, I thought the EXACT same thing re: Solyndra when he mentioned businesses failing!

I think that there needs to be major, major tax reforms in the US (after the elections I guess, although it would be nice to have a proposal to vote on) but there was a bit too much government-this, my administration-that in his speech for my liking. Instead of the government 'picking winners' I would like to see more funding for primary research, especially through universities, that could then be spun out and commercialized later. That is where innovation and jobs come from.

It would also be nice to have more policy stability around energy so businesses (and research clusters) could plan accordingly. Part of the reason why Brazil has been able to become energy independent is because they had a 20-year plan and stuck to it. And now at the back end of that, they are global leaders in deepwater drilling and flex fuel technology. The problem is, in the US, none of our political leaders think beyond the next election cycle.

Carcharodon

timesnap wrote: »

How about just making your point without :rolleyes:

unless of course you want it to become a one party stateforum?

Its all that can be done sometimes, it can be quite difficult to penetrate the bubble that some people live in.

Amerika

Thanks timesnap, but I doubt RichieC and Carcharodon will change they ways (talk about living in a bubble ), and their musings at times do provide me with some comic relief.

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

in other word "disagreed with my dogma so is therefore automatically wrong..."

give it a rest, most of the planet think you are wrong. all of the time.

Sorry to disappoint you but belief in the concept of comparative advantage or believing that labour saving technologies are good for the economy are not exclusive to the Austrian School and you would be hard pushed to find an economist of any school that thought those were bad things.

1) Talking about how his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line helped turn out the best products on Earth. I must have been asleep when it was decided that bombers were a good thing. They were a good thing, during the war.

Obama obviously thinks they are a good thing all the time or he wouldn't have brought them up. There was a whole host of products that America were the best at producing in the post war period and he chose to highlight bombers.

2) When discussing how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary(even though he doesn't) his solution to that problem was to raise Buffet's taxes but not to cut his secretaries taxes. Recession... they need money to fund government, I know you and your malcontent ilk do not like the idea of government, but there is pretty much a consensus on its need

The recession is all the more reason to cut taxes and to encourage growth then. Considering Obama is such a champion of the middle class one would think he'd only be too delighted to give the middle class a tax cut.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

How does this make Obama different from any other politician on earth?

Reality... Candidates make campaign promises all the time which they fail to keep after getting elected. But the main difference here is Barack Obama guaranteed us he was different! He often referred to the broken promises of other politicians, saying "Too many times after an election is over and the confetti's swept away, all those promises fade from memory." He said that wasn't going to happen to him if we put him into the White House. He was the candidate of hope and change (you remember all that hopey - changey stuff don’t you ). He promised us his administration was going to be unique, was going to be transparent, and that there was going to be no more hyper-partisanship! No more politics as usual! No more broken promises!

Bullocks!

That’s why he’s different than other politicians IMO.

FatherTed

But they ALL say that.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

Reality... Candidates make campaign promises all the time which they fail to keep after getting elected. But the main difference here is Barack Obama guaranteed us he was different! He often referred to the broken promises of other politicians, saying "Too many times after an election is over and the confetti's swept away, all those promises fade from memory." He said that wasn't going to happen to him if we put him into the White House. He was the candidate of hope and change (you remember all that hopey - changey stuff don’t you ). He promised us his administration was going to be unique, was going to be transparent, and that there was going to be no more hyper-partisanship! No more politics as usual! No more broken promises!
Bullocks!
That’s why he’s different than other politicians IMO.

Amerika you know Congress has not allowed him to be different.

many force's have worked against even the most sensible of idea's just to destroy first and foremost the man, then the policies.

it seems to me that destroying him and his policies were more important than what was best for America since day one by Congress.

i wonder sometimes did Congress accept the results of the 08 election?

every spanner has been thrown in the works of even the most reasonable bill his administration wished for by Republicans and some Democrats.

what will it take to make R's and D's work together?
the US will self destruct if it only see's things in party colours.
in fact the inability to realise and respect the fact that Obama actually won the last election by Republicans may turn out to be another nail in the coffin of the fast approaching trains that are hell bent on becoming the new Global superpower.

most of all a Patriot should at least know their enemies and swallow bitter pills to keep their Nation strong.

Amerika

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect. But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term. The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress, a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats, but just narrowly. So one year of one-third of the Executive/Legislative branches is to blame for Obama's failings? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect.

I consider that high praise coming from you

But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term.

Some were Democrats in name only to be fair, after Dubya Americans would have voted in anybody that was not a GOP'r
the fact that it voted in the first non pure white skinned president in its history was a justification at last of all the BS it speaks about equality for all

The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress,

They like its direction or lack of even less now.
it must be the most ineffective congress ever,well i hope there were none that were more ineffective.
it took eight years of Bush who flushed the US down the toilet to make it happen........... "Free at last,Free at last,thank god almighty" it seemed,but even many Democrats kept the shackles on the prez.

a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats,

Since Obama won it has been a tweedle dee and tweedle dumb congress,no matter the party,most people know deep down the reason Obama has been opposed, ffs he would find it hard to get a happy Christmas to all bill passed..

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Do you mean when you go shopping you do not buy American made goods but cheaper ones made abroad?:p

RichieC

A good illstrative example of republicans being slittery: compare their talk on immigration in the SC debate to that the florida one.

Snakes.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect. But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term. The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress, a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats, but just narrowly. So one year of one-third of the Executive/Legislative branches is to blame for Obama's failings? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I think Obama should have pushed harder with the Congress from 2008-2010, but the reality of the situation was that he did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that is where serious obstructionism takes place.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think Obama should have pushed harder with the Congress from 2008-2010, but the reality of the situation was that he did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that is where serious obstructionism takes place.

Oh come on! He got ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed. If he was able to get that horrible bit of legislation passed, he could have gotten just about anything passed.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Oh come on! He got ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed. If he was able to get that horrible bit of legislation passed, he could have gotten just about anything passed.

It's precisely because that was so horrible and took so much arm twisting that he hasn't been able to get anything else done - he essentially, to use a rather crude term, 'blew his wad' on health care as his BIG issue; subsequently we aren't going to see anything like immigration reform, social security reform, etc until after the Presidential elections.

That said, I think he should have called the GOP's bluff around unemployment insurance when trying to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Amerika

Yup, he spent his capital, momentum and good graces on health care reform, ignoring the far more pressing and challenging matters facing the country. Now I figure he will try and push through a plethora of equally horrendous ideas knowing full well Congress (both the Senate and House) won’t sign on to more bad ideas. That way he can blame Congress for the country’s failings, and beg the electorate for another four years. And sadly, people will fall for it... but hopefully not to many.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Yup, he spent his capital, momentum and good graces on health care reform, ignoring the far more pressing and challenging matters facing the country. Now I figure he will try and push through a plethora of equally horrendous ideas knowing full well Congress (both the Senate and House) won’t sign on to more bad ideas. That way he can blame Congress for the country’s failings, and beg the electorate for another four years. And sadly, people will fall for it... but hopefully not to many.

Such as? Health care is a HUGE issue for the country - it is a major cost for employers, a huge burden on public finances, and affects the lives and productivity of millions of people. If not health care, what major legislation should Obama have spent his political capital on?

And let me be clear: I am not saying that Obama did health care reform RIGHT, what I am saying is that this was the major issue that he chose to use any arm-twisting leverage he had in order to pass.