Obama's state of the Union Address

[Bugs]

The bottom line for me is that Obama has decided to stay the course. All of that nonsense about switching to a govern-from-the-middle strategy which helped Clinton to two terms will not be deployed. This is good because it means voter disenchantment and anger will simmer nicely through the midterms and give Obama the shellacking his arrogance deserves.

More good news, I think he finally gets it that it's the economy, stupid. It obviously wasn't last year since his non-stimulus bill only spent 11% of the total amount then. A much higher percentage could have staved off what the US is going to go through this year, but at least he's showing signs of learning on the job. Finally.

I think you're exactly right, Pelosi is now calling for the passage of the health care bill by any means possible. Lieberman ought to think about wearing Kevlar. And then ... Cap and Trade ...

But is it a good thing? Go to the 1:30 point, and pick up the quesstion to Noriel Roubini, and his answer. I think he's right.

So, the Congress becomes gridlocked after November, and for at least two years shortfalls in revenue will likely be responded to by the Fed and the Treasury printing more paper money. A broken system gets more broken.

The political atmosphere becomes poisoned with acrimony, and politicians who see defeat as nearly inevitable begin to loot what they can. On Main Street, prices begin to rise and jobs disappearing, as the start of a double-digit inflation sets in.

You say this is good news. I know what you mean -- it's mismanagement on a giant scale. But it isn't really good news. For one thing, in the USA, the stage becomes set for all the redemptive acts the economy requires -- severe monetary reforms, a steep economic depression, and a decade where political extremism of all sorts is likely to flower.

it will hit Canada. A third of our jobs are dependent on the US market. I don't know how it will hit, but it will. We could have a couple of million jobs at risk. We have dibs on what was the richest market in the world ... and they won't have that much to spend anymore.

That's how I see it.

[bjre]

At least he said education is important even when they teach kids more reading and maths in the states than in Canada.

[eyeball]

For one thing, in the USA, the stage becomes set for all the redemptive acts the economy requires -- severe monetary reforms, a steep economic depression, and a decade where political extremism of all sorts is likely to flower.

That's how I see it.

I think more than a few people could see this before Obama even won. I know I've long believed Obama will only be a one term leader who will be followed by a resurgent Republican party that is so far to the righteous right that even PNAC would blush.

it will hit Canada.

I think its fair to say the entire planet will take a hit.

[BubberMiley]

You lost this case councillor. Better luck next time.

Are you trying to save face by pretending to not understand, or do you just not understand?

[Shady]

And the other Obama lie was his claim that a century's worth of law had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The court struck down a McCain-Fiengold provision, which is hardly a century old, unless he coinsiders a 2002 law 100 years old.

Lie away Mr. President.

[wyly]

I think more than a few people could see this before Obama even won. I know I've long believed Obama will only be a one term leader who will be followed by a resurgent Republican party that is so far to the righteous right that even PNAC would blush.

I think its fair to say the entire planet will take a hit.

that's not necessarily the case, if the republicans throw up roadblocks and create a massive gridlock it could very well damage them as Obama could blame all lack of progress on them...and he'd be right...

[BubberMiley]

Lie away Mr. President.

I love how shamelessly you call people liars to hide your own lies. Keep up the good work.

And BTW, I'll give you a hint.

McCain-Feingold was not the first law that limited corporate activity in elections.

You're not learning at all.

Edited January 28, 2010 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

I think more than a few people could see this before Obama even won. I know I've long believed Obama will only be a one term leader who will be followed by a resurgent Republican party that is so far to the righteous right that even PNAC would blush.

America is a conservative nation...a "natural ruling party" just isn't advertised as such.

I think its fair to say the entire planet will take a hit.

Very appropriate.....since the entire planet created America.

[Shady]

McCain-Feingold was not the first law that limited corporate activity in elections.

Yes, thanks, but I already know that. But the Supreme Court decision that the President denounced was based on the McCain-Feingold legislation. So to describe it as a reversal of a 100 year law is a lie. I'm sorry you're only finding out now that Dear Leader's a liar.

You're not learning at all.

[BubberMiley]

But the Supreme Court decision that the President denounced was based on the McCain-Feingold legislation. So to describe it as a reversal of a 100 year law is a lie.

You're getting desperate. He said it reversed a century of law--i.e., the legal tradition we agree was established over 100 years ago. You really shouldn't throw the liar tag so often. When your pants are pulled down, as they invariably are, you wind up looking rather pathetic.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're getting desperate. He said it reversed a century of law--i.e., the legal tradition we agree was established over 100 years ago. You really shouldn't throw the liar tag so often. When your pants are pulled down, as they invariably are, you wind up looking rather pathetic.

Then he lied....

The court's decision broke a century-old trend of tougher limits on corporate political activity. Specifically, the court said corporations and unions could spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

Obama was not quite accurate in saying the ruling "reversed a century of law" because the 1907 law in question was left intact

.

Nor is it established, as Obama suggested it was, that corporations and foreigners can now have the run of the body politic, given other prohibitions still in place.

[BubberMiley]

I'm guessing you chose not to provide a source to your quote (Forbes.com) because you didn't want anyone to know that the next line said: "Still, those firewalls could tumble over time as a consequence of the court's broadly-drawn ruling."

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm guessing you chose not to provide a source to your quote (Forbes.com) because you didn't want anyone to know that the next line said: "Still, those firewalls could tumble over time as a consequence of the court's broadly-drawn ruling."

No, the source was NYT - AP. The law was not overturned in legal parlance, and courts do not technically change laws. That is left to the legislative process.

Thank you for finally admitting that Obama "lied".

Edited January 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

No, the source was NYT

Exactly. This is what I found from the NYT, hardly a bastion of conservatism.

Mr. Obamas description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had reversed a century of law.

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries as opposed to their political action committees

NYT

Give it up Bubber. You're as wrong as Obama is on this particular case. But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your postings! You never have before.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Shady

[BubberMiley]

No, the source was NYT - AP.

Thank you for admitting that a century of law is now ready to come tumbling down, as well as for the tacit admission that you were deliberately taking the quote out of context to hide this fact. Maybe I should repeat it for you: "Still, those firewalls could tumble over time as a consequence of the court's broadly-drawn ruling."

It's true that the supreme court ruling still has to shake out through the courts. It's also true, as your source states, that this ruling opens the doors for a century of law to "tumble." Even though the ruling was directly referring to McCain-Feingold, its implications (once again, as your source states) are far more broad.

You guys can grasp at straws trying to make the liar tag stick, but you're just looking more and more sad.

Keep it up.

Edited January 29, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Moonlight Graham]

Despite a few lies and spins, i thought it was a damn fine speech. One of his better ones.

With the economy, i think he tried to fix the macro problems last year, and effectively prevented a likely disaster. He could have done better with more of the stimulus kicking in in 2009. But he finally seems to be getting on the ball with domestic economic issues.

What i liked about speech:

- surprised to see all the policy announcements. Was kind of refreshing to hear so much actual substance in a State of the Union address, rather than mostly trying to sell a message or going on about values and hear-warming stories blah blah that he and most politicians go on about (though he of course did have his share of that in this speech too)

- His end was so strong. For about 2 minutes, i think he was actually being heartfelt and honest when he was talking about politicians doing what is best for the people and not just to get re-elected or get TV time or make decisions just for spite and partisanship. I have rarely heard such an honest message from a President, and you could hear a pin-drop when he was saying it.

- watching the Joint Chiefs sit stone-walled when Obama announced the gays in the military thing was hilarious. No matter your stance on the issue, it was funny.

Dislikes:

- Obama goes on about 8 years of crappy policies that led to the current mess he's in. "Just stating the facts!", then minutes later is calling Congress to stop harping on the past and to be non-partisan. That got a chuckle from the GOP's too. WTF hypocrit.

- Nothing about Gitmo. Ya guess u dont wanna touch that one numbnuts. OOPS!

- Says about healthcare to GOP's "look at our proposal again! It's good!" (paraphrase), then a minute later is taking about working out a bipartisan plan. wtf

- Spending freeze? Keynesian economics 101 says spend in a recession, pay back debt in the good times. Dunno, maybe he thinks the stimulus is enough spending

[bush_cheney2004]

I like how you still try to avoid the line you deliberately left out. Maybe I should repeat it for you: "Still, those firewalls could tumble over time as a consequence of the court's broadly-drawn ruling."

Coulda...woulda...shoulda...maybe...might...but it didn't overturn the law as of today. Keep squirming...you can't escape this web.

It's true that the supreme court ruling still has to shake out through the courts. It's also true, as your source states, that this ruling opens the doors for a century of law to "tumble." Even though the ruling was directly referring to McCain-Feingold, its implications (once again, as your source states) could be far more broad.

And I COULD win the lottery...LOL!

You guys can grasp at straws trying to make the liar tag stick, but you're just looking more and more sad.

Keep it up.

If Bush has uttered these words, the "liar" label would be fully engaged. Some speech writer got lazy and Obama didn't have time to fix this mistake after the Scott Brown win changed his SOTU speech. Hell, Obama is a constitutional scholar and knows better. He just dicked up.

PS: Can you please tell me which horses will win the Pick 6 at Santa Anita tomorrow? Thanks!

Edited January 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

You don't think the Supreme Court ruling about corporations making political contributions will have an effect on laws about corporations making political contributions?

[punked]

Ohhhh noooooeeesssss Shady look you are already proven wrong. Saudi Arabia is about to poor money into the next US election.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/foreign-lobbying-elections/

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't think the Supreme Court ruling about corporations making political contributions will have an effect on laws about corporations making political contributions?

Quite to the contrary, I hope they do make such contributions and are able to influence laws. That's how our system works. This ain't Canada with gag rules and speech limits out the wazzoooooooooo!

[BubberMiley]

Quite to the contrary, I hope they do make such contributions and are able to influence laws. That's how our system works. This ain't Canada with gag rules and speech limits out the wazzoooooooooo!

You didn't answer the question. But I was waiting for the deflection to Canada.

Edited January 29, 2010 by BubberMiley

[August1991]

Obama's speech? I listened to about half of it. Booorrriinng. Same old stuff: "We must house our hungry and feed our homeless... "

But is it a good thing? Go to the 1:30 point, and pick up the quesstion to Noriel Roubini, and his answer. I think he's right.

So, the Congress becomes gridlocked after November, and for at least two years shortfalls in revenue will likely be responded to by the Fed and the Treasury printing more paper money. A broken system gets more broken.

On the contrary, the last time the US got control of its federal budget was when it had a Democrat in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress.

As for the economy, Bernanke/Geithner/Paulson/Bush Jnr/Obama dodged a bullet about a year ago. As a result, a future administration is going to have to dodge a cruise missile.

[bush_cheney2004]

You didn't answer the question. But I was waiting for the deflection to Canada.

What was your question? Why does it matter if only to volley across the net?

As for Canada, I always try to return the favor!

[Sir Bandelot]

I saw him giving his speech on TV. The sounds was off, but I could see his face. His lips were moving... I didn't turn the sound on, just changed the channel.

[Moonlight Graham]

Quite to the contrary, I hope they do make such contributions and are able to influence laws. That's how our system works.

You're right. But its f'ed. Free speech > democracy? 1 person 1 vote my arse. Enjoy the plutocracy.

p.s. Canada.