Obama's State of the Union address

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     


    Are you the one that removes posts to suit the Globes socialist agenda ?

     

     




     

    Isn't it time we stopped with the "Socialist" canard? The right has an unhealthy fixation with the dreaded threat of socialism every time their philosophy is challenged. Use a pacifier if you must, but please stop with this infantile reference.

     



    I agree it's an infatile reference. Just as infantile as referring to conservatives as bigots/racists.

     

     



    The "socialist" accusation is pretty much empty rhetoric: just about any government program impacting society can be described as "socialist". Actual social control of the means of production?  Not so much... 

     

    On the other hand, although often overused, the "bigot/racist" accusation has more substance to it when applied to the right. The "traditional values" of certain conservatives can include homophobia, sexism and racism.  

     




    I got YOUR message Rubie.

     

    Lets ban "socialist" from the vocab when used toward the leftist pinko commies in power.

    WHILE promoting "bigot/racist" against the conservatives.

    You're a real peach !

     



    You are pretty much proving my point.  Empty rhetoric from an empty head.  

     

     

     



    That's it Rubie... protect yourself and your union "brothers" financial existence.

     

    You are living proof.

    Have a wonderful state controlled day Comrade Rubie.

     

     



    Empty head: empty rhetoric.  But you cannot make the connection.  The empty head gets in the way...  

     

     



    Simply Comrade Rubie... is someone does not agree with your Democratic socialist vision.. then they have a problem.. not you.

     

    A definite pattern here.



    You don't even know what socialism means.  It is just empty right wing talking points with you.  There are smart conservatives out there.  You are not there, not at all.  Your pattern is quite obvious: regurgitated right wing rants.  Boring stuff.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from whattheheck16. Show whattheheck16's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to whattheheck16's comment:

     

    Yea, um you basically just laid out the Democrats policies with that definition. Thank you!

     

     


    No, he didn't.

    You're welcome.

     



    Ah, Matty. you poor sheep. I didn't say we were there yet but we are certainly in the transition phase mentioned in that definition. Government spending is at the highest levels ever in the history of this country, with the exception fo WWII. The higher that % of GDP goes the closer to socailism we get. And from what I can see, the only talk from Oblunder and Democrats has that spending going up and up.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nathen23. Show nathen23's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    Empty suit gives empty speech while making life harder for people, demanding things he can't deliver, enriching people he pretends to not be in bed with, while covering up deaths, destruction, and the highest poverty rate anyone alive can remember. Thanks Mr. Obama.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to whattheheck16's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to whattheheck16's comment:

     

    Yea, um you basically just laid out the Democrats policies with that definition. Thank you!

     

     


    No, he didn't.

    You're welcome.

     

     



    Ah, Matty. you poor sheep. I didn't say we were there yet but we are certainly in the transition phase mentioned in that definition. Government spending is at the highest levels ever in the history of this country, with the exception fo WWII. The higher that % of GDP goes the closer to socailism we get. And from what I can see, the only talk from Oblunder and Democrats has that spending going up and up.

     



    You think government spending - even the levels we're at - really equates to socialism?  Really?!

    Spending is high as a % of GDP in part because the private sector is NOT spending, NOT hiring enough or creating enough demand to make up for the jobs lost during the crash.

    Only half of that percentage is federal spending; the rest is state and local.

    "from what you can see" doesn't appear to be much at all.

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    The commander in chief waxed about children being important for our future and how we should be a country where "if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead." Which we are for the most part, anyway. Also, isn't there a rule about how many times you can use the same line in a speech? Doesn't basic etiquette and decency prevent us from ever hearing this again: "A tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries." Yes, we know: Warren Buffett is your friend and his secretary pays a higher tax rate that he does. Is this really the only way to demonstrate the tax code needs to be reformed?

    The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the nation, and he blew this one. It was so hackish, so devoid of any theme or purpose, that it makes one wonder whether part of Obama just wants to see how bad he can be before his cultists in the news media can see it. Every speech is exactly what they wish it to be, regardless of reality. His mainstream inaugural speech was treated as a liberal call to arms when it was no such thing. Of course, conservatives thought that. If Obama had announced he just joined the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh would have seen it as proof that he was a socialist. But why liberals would confuse a boilerplate middle-of-the-road inaugural speech with Das Kapital will be forever befuddling.

    Contrary to the claims of both sides, Obama is not a liberal visionary with deep desires to institute a progressive agenda. If he is, he's a miserable failure. You need look no further than his own record (starting with foreign policy) and then Tuesday night's speech for evidence. Banalities and tropes are not a governing philosophy or a plan. The immigration piece was good, but hardly a profile in courage. After all, even the GOP wants immigration reform now. There is also the small fact that Obama promised to deal with immigration in his first term.

    The edict on climate change was despotic, not liberal. I believe climate change is a problem and humans contribute to it. However, 'either do what I say or I will just start issuing executive orders' that make green energy companies rich is not the kind of governing we should be lauding, regardless of party or ideological bent.

    His plea on gun control was manipulative and empty. It worked thematically, but failed on substance. The only point was to make Republicans look bad, while simultaneously lecturing about compromise and the importance of working together.

    Finally, he said the word "deficit," but don't hold your breath for anything there. He spoke of it as if it had just magically appeared yesterday when, in fact, he has been ignoring it for four years while running it up. In that way, he's just like George W. Bush and the GOP-run Congress of yore.

    That this underwhelming State of the Union – substantively and stylistically – will be treated as a serious effort reveals the bad shape our country is really in.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/13/kirsten-powers-state-of-the-union/1914215/

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fukowi. Show Fukowi's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The commander in chief waxed about children being important for our future and how we should be a country where "if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead." Which we are for the most part, anyway. Also, isn't there a rule about how many times you can use the same line in a speech? Doesn't basic etiquette and decency prevent us from ever hearing this again: "A tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries." Yes, we know: Warren Buffett is your friend and his secretary pays a higher tax rate that he does. Is this really the only way to demonstrate the tax code needs to be reformed?

    The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the nation, and he blew this one. It was so hackish, so devoid of any theme or purpose, that it makes one wonder whether part of Obama just wants to see how bad he can be before his cultists in the news media can see it. Every speech is exactly what they wish it to be, regardless of reality. His mainstream inaugural speech was treated as a liberal call to arms when it was no such thing. Of course, conservatives thought that. If Obama had announced he just joined the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh would have seen it as proof that he was a socialist. But why liberals would confuse a boilerplate middle-of-the-road inaugural speech with Das Kapital will be forever befuddling.

    Contrary to the claims of both sides, Obama is not a liberal visionary with deep desires to institute a progressive agenda. If he is, he's a miserable failure. You need look no further than his own record (starting with foreign policy) and then Tuesday night's speech for evidence. Banalities and tropes are not a governing philosophy or a plan. The immigration piece was good, but hardly a profile in courage. After all, even the GOP wants immigration reform now. There is also the small fact that Obama promised to deal with immigration in his first term.

    The edict on climate change was despotic, not liberal. I believe climate change is a problem and humans contribute to it. However, 'either do what I say or I will just start issuing executive orders' that make green energy companies rich is not the kind of governing we should be lauding, regardless of party or ideological bent.

    His plea on gun control was manipulative and empty. It worked thematically, but failed on substance. The only point was to make Republicans look bad, while simultaneously lecturing about compromise and the importance of working together.

    Finally, he said the word "deficit," but don't hold your breath for anything there. He spoke of it as if it had just magically appeared yesterday when, in fact, he has been ignoring it for four years while running it up. In that way, he's just like George W. Bush and the GOP-run Congress of yore.

    That this underwhelming State of the Union – substantively and stylistically – will be treated as a serious effort reveals the bad shape our country is really in.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/13/kirsten-powers-state-of-the-union/1914215/




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from QuantoidBoy. Show QuantoidBoy's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    How do you not clap when the President says "we wanna pay women equally for equal work"? I just don't get that. I understand that the dems added groups to the specific bill that repubs like to hate on, but even if you don't like the bill, how do you roll your eyes and not clap for that statement?!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fukowi. Show Fukowi's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    Good post tvoter!!  While I do not agree with everything you said - you wrote a very thoughtful piece.  I just tune out the President these days as I am conviced he has no idea what he is talking about.  All he wants to do is tax and spend.  Somehow he thinks that will promote wealth and growth.  You would hope his Treasury Secretary would bail him out and tell him what to do - but the guy he nominated is a dangerous opportunist without an ounce of depth.  If Obama had control of Congress - we would have a revolution on our hands.  The country is not merely divided politically - its divided culturally and socially.  If people think a civil war or seccession is impossible - they are mistaken.  We are heading in that direction.  The two sides despise each other.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    Wow! A lot of new trolls on this thread. No Mo is pulling out the big guns today.



    This coming from BDC`s biggest troll!  LOL!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from QuantoidBoy. Show QuantoidBoy's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to Fukowi's comment:

    In the early '60s, it took the National Gaurd to let black kids into public schools in Alabama. If we didn't brawl then, we won't brawl over taxes. You're probably all excited to face a tank with your AR15, but its just not the reality, Holmes. You won't get to. Like MLK said, the arc of human history is long, but it bends toward justice. That's what Obama was all about last night. Equality, justice, and a fair shot for everyone. All the Repoobs care about is hanging on to their money. That's why they didn't even clap for equal pay.

    Case Study: In the '70 when we passed the Clean Air Act, GM, Ford and the US companies hired lawyers to figure out how to dance around the rules. Meanwhile, the Japanese comanies bit the bullet and invested in engineers and technologies to figure out how to make cleaner cars. Then the Japanese smoked us for a good 15 years. In this analogy, GM = repoobs. Toyota = dems. Repoobs are clinging to by-gone standards of living and social codes, such as the dominance of the white man, while Dems are trying to bring you the future.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to whattheheck16's comment:

     

    Yea, um you basically just laid out the Democrats policies with that definition. Thank you!

     

     


    No, he didn't.

    You're welcome.

     

     



    Democrats are the party of no:

     

    No 16 oz. drinks.

    No transfats.

    No driving with 1/2 inch of snow.

    No protecting yourself.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    THANK GOD for The Big Bang Theory re-runs!!

    At least that's comedy that is advertised as such. AND it's funnier than Big Ears, aka The Amateur In Chief, yammering his gums about shovel ready jobs (REALLY They do exist this time! Honest to God!!!)  They ought to change his entrance theme from "Hail To The Chief" to something more appropriate, like the theme from the Three Stooges.

    I can see 2016 from here!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to QuantoidBoy's comment:

    In response to Fukowi's comment:

    In the early '60s, it took the National Gaurd to let black kids into public schools in Alabama. If we didn't brawl then, we won't brawl over taxes. You're probably all excited to face a tank with your AR15, but its just not the reality, Holmes. You won't get to. Like MLK said, the arc of human history is long, but it bends toward justice. That's what Obama was all about last night. Equality, justice, and a fair shot for everyone. All the Repoobs care about is hanging on to their money. That's why they didn't even clap for equal pay.

    Case Study: In the '70 when we passed the Clean Air Act, GM, Ford and the US companies hired lawyers to figure out how to dance around the rules. Meanwhile, the Japanese comanies bit the bullet and invested in engineers and technologies to figure out how to make cleaner cars. Then the Japanese smoked us for a good 15 years. In this analogy, GM = repoobs. Toyota = dems. Repoobs are clinging to by-gone standards of living and social codes, such as the dominance of the white man, while Dems are trying to bring you the future.



    HILARIOUS!!! Nice take on it's all about Black problems that need to be resolved.

    So, you are saying that the War On Poverty either never happened, was a bad idea, ot the players on BOTH sides didn't want it to work? Amazing how "Education is the answer!" has been bantied about like "Want fries with that?" for low these decades (5, to be precise), and we (Yes, We, as in AMERICA) have this huge problem with high minority drop out, black crime on blacks, high minority unemployment, etc, despite trillions being dumped on the problem! Yet, here we are, 50+ years later, with the same problems. There's not much to show for it. What's up with that? Either no one wants to "learn" to improve their station in life, or the expectation is it'll be given to them (can you say: entitlement?). Which is it? I'd like to believe that anyone totally disatisfied with their life and wants it to change will work hard to do so. Look no further than Katrina, where up to 6 generations of minorities have been on the dole. (Many households with 3 genrations, the oldest being 35!) They admit that they can't get off the dole, as they whine thay they can't afford to go to work; they'd lose ground financially. Anyone see a problem with that? Seems to me that IF these folks had educated themselves starting in the 60's, this would be pretty much erradicated by now.

    To get somewhere, you want to be somewhere, and you must want to work hard to get there. But, you keep on blaming whites. I have no problems with offering a hand up. It's the hand outs that get me concerned. And there are more demands for it.  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's State of the Union address

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to QuantoidBoy's comment:

     

    In response to Fukowi's comment:

    In the early '60s, it took the National Gaurd to let black kids into public schools in Alabama. If we didn't brawl then, we won't brawl over taxes. You're probably all excited to face a tank with your AR15, but its just not the reality, Holmes. You won't get to. Like MLK said, the arc of human history is long, but it bends toward justice. That's what Obama was all about last night. Equality, justice, and a fair shot for everyone. All the Repoobs care about is hanging on to their money. That's why they didn't even clap for equal pay.

    Case Study: In the '70 when we passed the Clean Air Act, GM, Ford and the US companies hired lawyers to figure out how to dance around the rules. Meanwhile, the Japanese comanies bit the bullet and invested in engineers and technologies to figure out how to make cleaner cars. Then the Japanese smoked us for a good 15 years. In this analogy, GM = repoobs. Toyota = dems. Repoobs are clinging to by-gone standards of living and social codes, such as the dominance of the white man, while Dems are trying to bring you the future.

     



    HILARIOUS!!! Nice take on it's all about Black problems that need to be resolved.

     

    So, you are saying that the War On Poverty either never happened, was a bad idea, ot the players on BOTH sides didn't want it to work? Amazing how "Education is the answer!" has been bantied about like "Want fries with that?" for low these decades (5, to be precise), and we (Yes, We, as in AMERICA) have this huge problem with high minority drop out, black crime on blacks, high minority unemployment, etc, despite trillions being dumped on the problem! Yet, here we are, 50+ years later, with the same problems. There's not much to show for it. What's up with that? Either no one wants to "learn" to improve their station in life, or the expectation is it'll be given to them (can you say: entitlement?). Which is it? I'd like to believe that anyone totally disatisfied with their life and wants it to change will work hard to do so. Look no further than Katrina, where up to 6 generations of minorities have been on the dole. (Many households with 3 genrations, the oldest being 35!) They admit that they can't get off the dole, as they whine thay they can't afford to go to work; they'd lose ground financially. Anyone see a problem with that? Seems to me that IF these folks had educated themselves starting in the 60's, this would be pretty much erradicated by now.

    To get somewhere, you want to be somewhere, and you must want to work hard to get there. But, you keep on blaming whites. I have no problems with offering a hand up. It's the hand outs that get me concerned. And there are more demands for it.  



    Seems to a large extent that you are blaming Blacks.  Six generations of Blacks on the dole?  That's just nonsense.  That would take someone deep into the Jim Crow era: hint in the days of segregation welfare benefits (if they even existed) were pretty hard to come by for a Black person.  And what kind of education opportunities were there in the 1960s for minorities? Pretty limited.  Exaggeration does not help your argument.

    Racism put these folks in the lower rungs of our society and although it is a less prevalent force now, bad economics and lack of education opportunities keep them there.  I agree hand outs are not a real fix for the problem: good jobs and quality education are the answer. And they don't just happen on their own.

     

Share