PDA

View Full Version : 2010 State of the Union Address



Ajamil
28th January 10, 02:28 PM
Wow, I thought this would've been up by now. If you missed it, here's the first of the YT vids, the links are bit hard to follow in the More Vids frame, but they're all there. Watching it now.

Jp26YZvK1f0

I'd like to see some fact checking on it. Most of the money from bank bailouts we've made back? No new taxes? The jobs saved/create?

Also, I think he said he wanted to take $30B from big banks and just give it to small banks? This seems like a idiot nod towards "small business" screamers.

I wonder if I should email my resume to Obama. He likes to get those highlights where his admin. helps out a single struggling American. I want to sign up and do my part to build high speed railroads. Where's my govt. contract?

Ajamil
28th January 10, 02:30 PM
Edit: First post goes on the front page. This is better left off of it.


So far this is all that's stuck in my mind. Sad, no?
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7256/obamajokestrip1.jpg

Ajamil
28th January 10, 02:37 PM
"No-one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

What if they make no effort to repay their loans? I don't see why after a 20 yr limit, any remaining debt should just be stricken from the record. I understand making student loans easier to pay off, or having less interest on them, but to just drop them entirely seems like foolishness.

HappyOldGuy
28th January 10, 02:49 PM
I thought it was a very well delivered speech that hit almost all the right notes.

Talk is cheap tho. I'll believe he will veto a democratic bill when I see him do it.

He has a great opportunity coming up soon on the spending cap he talked about in the speech.

Kein Haar
28th January 10, 02:58 PM
Oh look...HOG sucking all the usual cocks again.


Talk is cheap tho.

This proves you're healthily skeptical.

Ajamil
28th January 10, 03:05 PM
The man can talk, that's definitely true. "We will remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August."

Really? How many times does he want to eat his words? I'll call now he'll make some distinction between "combat" and "trainer" troops or "security" or somesuch word.

HappyOldGuy
28th January 10, 03:06 PM
Oh look...HOG sucking all the usual cocks again.


That's how you know the sun will rise in the morning.

Ajamil
28th January 10, 03:10 PM
Hey look! The tangent looped back to the main thread!

cgUainqH8hE

He loves using specific people examples. I guess it puts that "I get it. I know where you are. I see you." in there. Do you think he remembers them from letters pointed out to him by aides, or do you think he just has the aides copy and paste examples into his speech?

Feryk
28th January 10, 03:27 PM
Probably both. He has someone scan the mail and find letters that support his talking points. I imagine he gets a few hundred a day.

KO'd N DOA
28th January 10, 03:40 PM
A protectionistic shudder went up my Canadian back during the speach last night. But it sounded like he was gunning for China, which is not good. He should have just said the generic 'asia' including China Japan and Korea, all have been places for American invented multi-nationals to jump to.

Wouldn't it just be better to invaid Iran from Iraq, instead of bringing everyone home, just to deploy again.

High point was public roasting of the Surpreme Court Justices, one who openly was shaking his head in objection- of course he was over ruled and didn't have a mike.

Odacon
28th January 10, 04:54 PM
http://i.imgur.com/UVIaY.gif

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 07:58 PM
in a nutshell...he spent 70 minutes bitching about everybody who opposed his agenda.

i've never heard a President harangue the SCOTUS and he did it with EVERY MEMBER in attendnace... and then the Democrat Senators stood up all around them and cheered! it's the rudest damned thing a President has ever done.

i got a kick out of him admitting that small businesses were key to new jobs... but why hire in this economy? for a 2k tax cut conditional on this hire and how long he/she lasts? that will get paid what, 25k/yr plus benefits?

nigga please.

and education sounded like NCLB to me--except what they won't address is the beuracracy in ALL school systems, NOT dealing with the small group of REAL troublemakers, NOT there to learn and little/no hope of getting them on board - remove the cancer, have admin work WITH the teachers not tie a hand behind their backs and make the students have all the power

healthcare II still no plans to include tort reform, when they (or insurance) handles it (just like student loans he talked about, too) the prices keep going up up up.

in fact he picked healthcare and education as the things that are going up much more than wages, etc... well GEE!

could've had a v-8, if only it were that simple.

Phrost
28th January 10, 08:28 PM
In the same speech he blamed Bush for everything bad and then turned around and said we shouldn't point fingers.

Haha; balls.

Robot Jesus
28th January 10, 09:19 PM
well I wasn't alive but at what point in his administration did Reagan stop blameing carter?

Wounded Ronin
28th January 10, 10:28 PM
You guys don't think there is an element of truth to the statement that the Republicans have been pretty much blocking health reform while not offering up serious counter proposals of their own, probably to some extent because they think they'll get more political power if he fails?

danno
28th January 10, 11:19 PM
"No-one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

What if they make no effort to repay their loans? I don't see why after a 20 yr limit, any remaining debt should just be stricken from the record. I understand making student loans easier to pay off, or having less interest on them, but to just drop them entirely seems like foolishness.

any other aussies correct me if i'm wrong, but it kinda works that way over here.

we get a loan via the government and if we don't earn over a certain threshold of money after leaving, we don't have to pay it back.

Fearless Ukemi
28th January 10, 11:36 PM
You guys don't think there is an element of truth to the statement that the Republicans have been pretty much blocking health reform while not offering up serious counter proposals of their own, probably to some extent because they think they'll get more political power if he fails?

Non-issue. The Democrats didn't deliver, and they knew they wouldn't. That had nothing to do with Republicans.

elipson
28th January 10, 11:53 PM
Ya you can't be blaming the republicans when the dems control both the Congress and the Senate.

Wounded Ronin
29th January 10, 12:15 AM
Non-issue. The Democrats didn't deliver, and they knew they wouldn't. That had nothing to do with Republicans.

So you're saying the whole last year was just an elaborate legislative charade, rather than an attempt to pass anything of substance?

HappyOldGuy
29th January 10, 12:31 AM
Non-issue. The Democrats didn't deliver, and they knew they wouldn't. That had nothing to do with Republicans.
That's 100% bullshit. They didn't deliver because of their own inept leadership (including the prez) and because of the republicans. Remember, they could have passed a simple majority vote on any bill they wanted at any time. The only reason they had to come up with 60 was because of the fillibuster rules in the senate, and because 100% of the republican caucus would participate in the fillibuster, including the ones who actually supported the healthcare proposals.

When the dems were in the minority and threatened a fillibuster on one issue, the republicans threatened to get rid of the fillibuster rules in the senate (the so called nuclear option). The dems haven't gone there (yet) because of principle.

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 12:40 AM
factchecked (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/) from factcheck.org

Summary

President Obama peppered his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation with facts, which were mostly right but sometimes cherry-picked, strained or otherwise misleading.

He said “there are about 2 million Americans working right now” because of last year’s stimulus bill. But his own economic advisers say the total could be as little as 1.5 million, and independent estimates range down to as low as 800,000.
He quoted the Congressional Budget Office as saying health care legislation could “bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion” over the next 20 years. But CBO has made clear that’s a soft and uncertain estimate.
He said that when he took office, the deficit already was projected to total $8 trillion over the next 10 years. But the estimate is from his own Office of Management and Budget; the CBO put the figure at trillions less.
He said he believes a Supreme Court decision will allow foreign corporations to spend in U.S. elections. Perhaps so, but it actually did not address a law still on the books forbidding any foreign-based corporation from spending on electioneering here.We also scoured the Republican response delivered by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. He doctored a Thomas Jefferson quote — omitting Jefferson’s endorsement of government action to protect people from injury. McDonnell also overstated the speed with which the national debt is growing.

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 01:34 AM
The thing that really bothers me about political discussion is the same thing that bothers me about policians with only the caveat of unashamed blatant lying.

sweeping generalizations, repeating exaggerated claims that you thought were true but never checked up on, and tunnel vision.


The economy:

The truth of the matter is the president is engaging in keynesian economics right now; the bailouts are directly in line with that ideology. Reagan/Bush Sr & Jr/Clinton all relied on Keynesian principles to achieve their economic goals. The only time things went wrong is when they clearly deviated from the economic philosophy to reap immediate both material and political gains (which accounts for most of it).


Social Services:

We're in a crisis. There are budget cuts being made left and right. States are laying off workers, teachers, firemen, and police everywhere. Social services are getting the axe, but thanks to all the unemployed people, they will be paying out much more in benefits. So spending there is going to go up. I haven't seen a single new significant social service expenditure that's actually made it onto the books.

The Military:

What has he done here that was so wrong? Didn't pull out of Iraq yet? Let me tell you something: we're NOT leaving Iraq for 20 more years so get comfortable. Why? Hegemony. That's what the war was for. WMD's, War on Terror, Free the Iraqies, etc is all bullshit. Tell me I'm wrong here? If you do, you're probably Lily.

We went there to show the nations of the middle east that if they mess with us, we'll invade their country too and drop their banana republic leaders like a sack of camel shit. Now that we are there, we're going to stay there because we can't afford to lose our strategic footing: namely staging areas to fuck up any one else in the neighborhood who wants to make threats AND valuable intelligence resources.

"combat troops" might leave... but "security forces" are a different thing entirely.

We're never leaving. just like we never left Korea. Get used to it. It's one thing for a senator or politician to say it, but it's another thing entirely for a president to do it. The pentagon and CIA would go completely helter skelter because it's just a bad idea to leave.


Just what fucking exactly were you people thinking Obama was capable of doing in a single fucking year.

You know what he HAS done, at least in my opinion: NOT FUCKING EMBARRASSED THE SHIT OUT OF US AND VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION!

To be honest, I'd be happy right now if we'd elected the fucking McDonalds fry guys to get rid of the crazy shit from the republican party of those 8 years.

Buyer's remorse? NOT ME.

The Republican senate/congress/admin was fucking us so hard most of think we're still getting fucked in the same way because the American People's collective ass is still bleeding and it hurts to shit now.

Before you say, "Oh here we go again, just because he's not bush doesn't mean he's a good president", I'm also saying he's better than Reagan, Bush Sr and Nixon too.

Wanna fucking try me on those? I don't have buyers remorse, because the republican party no longer in any way shape or form represents American ideals I can identify.

You know what I did when I voted for Obama? I picked the best man for the job, out of the two credible choices, based on his command of the english language, his clear ability to use communication to achieve his goals and the track record the Democratic party has of NOT being the republican party.

I don't like the libertarian party because I think it's economic principles are too theoretical and impossible to implement as stated. <===== OK, this is worthy of debate, but I still agree with it. Not that it matters, because the libertarians (as they are now, unless the republican party just changes it's name to "Libertarians") are never gonna sit in the oval office in my life time.

The only thing any of us can really hope for is to pick the lesser of two evils for the rest of our lives; unless you happen to get elected president.

danno
29th January 10, 01:52 AM
You know what he HAS done, at least in my opinion: NOT FUCKING EMBARRASSED THE SHIT OUT OF US AND VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION!

it seems like most yanks don't have any idea how much respect obama has reclaimed for america in the eyes of the world. even the fact that you guys elected a black man impressed the shit out of everyone.

of course, he needs to do more than that, just saying.

fes_fsa
29th January 10, 03:11 AM
The Military:

What has he done here that was so wrong? Didn't pull out of Iraq yet? Let me tell you something: we're NOT leaving Iraq for 20 more years so get comfortable. Why? Hegemony. That's what the war was for. WMD's, War on Terror, Free the Iraqies, etc is all bullshit. Tell me I'm wrong here? If you do, you're probably Lily.

We went there to show the nations of the middle east that if they mess with us, we'll invade their country too and drop their banana republic leaders like a sack of camel shit. Now that we are there, we're going to stay there because we can't afford to lose our strategic footing: namely staging areas to fuck up any one else in the neighborhood who wants to make threats AND valuable intelligence resources.

"combat troops" might leave... but "security forces" are a different thing entirely.

We're never leaving. just like we never left Korea. Get used to it. It's one thing for a senator or politician to say it, but it's another thing entirely for a president to do it. The pentagon and CIA would go completely helter skelter because it's just a bad idea to leave.

Iraq is a VERY SMART choice strategically. if Iran ever becomes a threat, it's surrounded by our fortified bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey. if a war was ever waged on our base there, we could attack from any angle, because Iraq is a high ground. on top of that, we'll control our enemies' water supply (Tigris and Euphrates run through Iraq first before hitting Iran and Syria)... so any future conflict in the Middle East will simply be a matter of dehydrating them out.

yeah... you're right about the hegemony. we're bad motherfuckers.

also... there's that whole unemployment thing. we've got ALOT of Reservists in the Middle East right now. if you're in the Reserves and you're deployed, somebody takes your job here... but you're GUARANTEED your job back when you return. so if Obama were to just call all of the troops back right now, he'd be adding to unemployment at an alarming rate.

Phrost
29th January 10, 09:07 AM
Haha, "not violated the constitution" (in all caps, no less).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

How do you manage to type and stroke Obama's manhood at the same time?

Fearless Ukemi
29th January 10, 09:31 AM
So you're saying the whole last year was just an elaborate legislative charade, rather than an attempt to pass anything of substance?

Not until they realized they bit off more than they could chew. They had a shit bill and knew they couldn't pass it without fucking their party.

Fearless Ukemi
29th January 10, 09:35 AM
That's 100% bullshit. They didn't deliver because of their own inept leadership (including the prez) and because of the republicans. Remember, they could have passed a simple majority vote on any bill they wanted at any time. The only reason they had to come up with 60 was because of the fillibuster rules in the senate, and because 100% of the republican caucus would participate in the fillibuster, including the ones who actually supported the healthcare proposals.

When the dems were in the minority and threatened a fillibuster on one issue, the republicans threatened to get rid of the fillibuster rules in the senate (the so called nuclear option). The dems haven't gone there (yet) because of principle.

1st bold: but they didn't.

2nd bold: You really believe that?

HappyOldGuy
29th January 10, 12:28 PM
1st bold: but they didn't.

2nd bold: You really believe that?

1st bold: no they couldn't. Because they had to overcome the fillibuster. I don't think you understand the issue.

2nd bold: I didn't say it was a selfless principle. It's the principle that they aren't deluded like the bush era pubs into thinking that they aren't ever going to be in the minority again.

fes_fsa
29th January 10, 12:49 PM
Haha, "not violated the constitution" (in all caps, no less).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

How do you manage to type and stroke Obama's manhood at the same time?

LOL

oh... my... god...

WHY isn't this a thread of its own?

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 01:00 PM
I don't have buyers remorse, because the republican party no longer in any way shape or form represents American ideals I can identify.

QFT- that's why the GOP is trying to co-opt the teabaggers.

My main issue with Obama is that he hasn't beaten his own party into shape. It should have been painfully obvious to him that the GOP were just going to fuck him at every turn and there was no point in bipartisanship, but to let Lieberman whip his dick out and piss all over the health care bill and not so much even threaten his chairmanship, that's just bullshit. Even the people who elected Lieberman hate his guts now.

He has done wonders for our international reputation, but then again that's not tough after Bush. And I am reminded that Clinton was in a similar position at this point in his presidency. Despite having getting ballistic missiles out of the bulk of the Eastern Bloc, he failed to get healthcare reform and was widely seen as a failure in the media. He then went on to serve two terms and be one of the most popular Democratic presidents to date.

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 01:02 PM
Haha, "not violated the constitution" (in all caps, no less).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

How do you manage to type and stroke Obama's manhood at the same time?

Yeah, that was epic shittiness on his part.

Feryk
29th January 10, 01:10 PM
I'm glad Obama's halo is starting to dim a bit. He's the President, that means doing shit he doesn't want to do, having to change his position, and compromise. Just like every other President.

SW seems to be a huge fanboy, but I think Obama would be the first to tell you that he should be held accountable for his failures and reversals.

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 01:16 PM
Anyone else notice how gray he has gotten in just his first year?

Feryk
29th January 10, 01:21 PM
He'll be a withered old corpse if he lasts 8 years.

Fearless Ukemi
29th January 10, 01:29 PM
1st bold: no they couldn't. Because they had to overcome the fillibuster. I don't think you understand the issue.


I personally believe that if they could have brought something of substance to the table then there would not have been a fillibuster. I also believe that task was impossible to accomplish the way they approached it. I can elaborate on that last sentence more, but I think you understand what I mean whether or not you agree.

Our whole system is not designed for fast, radical change and they (both dems and repubs) know it.

Feryk
29th January 10, 01:33 PM
Granted I don't live in the US, but I get the impression that the Republicans have been less than willing to compromise or even discuss compromise on a number of key issues.

As 'opposition' they seem to view their role as holding up as much legislation as possible, and using their subcommittee positions to delay, deform, and destroy White House objectives.

Am I wrong?

Ajamil
29th January 10, 01:34 PM
Anyone else notice how gray he has gotten in just his first year?

Hee! Saw that too. He promised "change," after all.

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 01:47 PM
Granted I don't live in the US, but I get the impression that the Republicans have been less than willing to compromise or even discuss compromise on a number of key issues.

As 'opposition' they seem to view their role as holding up as much legislation as possible, and using their subcommittee positions to delay, deform, and destroy White House objectives.

Am I wrong?

No, you're absolutely right. Bush did so much damage to the GOP that if Obama has a successful presidency they won't be in power for a very long time. They must block any sort of progress no matter what the cost to the country.

HappyOldGuy
29th January 10, 01:49 PM
I personally believe that if they could have brought something of substance to the table then there would not have been a fillibuster. I also believe that task was impossible to accomplish the way they approached it. I can elaborate on that last sentence more, but I think you understand what I mean whether or not you agree.

Our whole system is not designed for fast, radical change and they (both dems and repubs) know it.

Honestly, you are either saying something that is completely flying over my head, or you were paying absolutely no attention to the process. It didn't matter the tiniest iota what the content of the bill was. The republicans were going to fillibuster it. This was clear from the beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/us/politics/25budget.html

That is from april of last year. And as I said, the content didn't matter. There were several liberal repubicans (most notable Snowe) who have in the past championed reform packages almost identical to the senate bill, but when push came to shove, they all fell in party line. In snowes case, even reversing an earlier vote.

Phrost
29th January 10, 01:50 PM
Bull-Moose party tiem!

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 01:52 PM
Hee! Saw that too. He promised "change," after all.

I guess black do crack after all:

66PJ41MjhXA

Phrost
29th January 10, 01:56 PM
Obviously it's the effect of faster than light travel to the galactic conferences at Alpha Reticuli.

Pshaw.

Commodore Pipes
29th January 10, 04:03 PM
Bull-Moose party tiem!

QFT. We don't need need a three-party system - we need like a five-party system. Give me, a voter, some real options, and we'll see some real compromise, I think.

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 04:07 PM
That's why everyone in congress vehemently opposes viable third parties.

Commodore Pipes
29th January 10, 04:15 PM
How many times can I quote for truth? Is there a rule?

Kein Haar
29th January 10, 04:26 PM
That's why everyone in congress vehemently opposes viable third parties.

It's not really a choice, per se. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 05:30 PM
Haha, "not violated the constitution" (in all caps, no less).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

How do you manage to type and stroke Obama's manhood at the same time?

Did you read that article? This is a matter dating back to 2005 for warrantless wiretaps that happened during a different administration.

This is yet another example of Obama catching flak for dealing with mistakes made during the Bush administration.

IF Obama had allowed this to move forward and that document to be disclosed to public criminal court decisions, it jeopardizes intelligence assets. (that wouldn't be in danger if Bush hadn't done so in the first place.)

So you are saying you'd like to see Obama engage in what would undoubtedly be a political shit storm that spends political capital and generally wastes far more resources than it provides?

No surprise. Yet this, coming from the guy who said that hegemony was one of the most important elements of national government.

Also, you're gonna quote that asshat Rupert Murdoch's rag that fucking Rush Limbaugh writes articles for as a genuine news source? Good one. Whose dick are you stroking?

Phrost
29th January 10, 05:35 PM
I suppose you believe Media Matters and the Huffington Post are valid sources then.

See why this false dichotomy is stupid? Why do you insist on perpetuating it by dutifully lining up on a particular side?

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 05:37 PM
For those NOT in the know: Rupert Murdoch also owns FOX News.

HappyOldGuy
29th January 10, 05:44 PM
SW, c'mon. The journal is not FOX news.

Of course the opinion page of any source is not news of any kind.

danno
29th January 10, 05:50 PM
i'm ashamed that rupert is australian.


Anyone else notice how gray he has gotten in just his first year?

i heard that prime ministers and presidents and so on often age about 4 times faster than most people while in office.

EvilSteve
29th January 10, 06:09 PM
i heard that prime ministers and presidents and so on often age about 4 times faster than most people while in office.

Yeah, that's the joke in the vid I posted before. The images are rather striking.

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 06:32 PM
I suppose you believe Media Matters and the Huffington Post are valid sources then.

See why this false dichotomy is stupid? Why do you insist on perpetuating it by dutifully lining up on a particular side?

I've never even heard of Media Matters and I don't read the Huffington post because most of their major contributors are not journalists. They publish articles written by movie stars regularly.

That's what happens when people fill in the gaps of what they know with what they assume. I just think the two other choices with the most representation here are diseased (GOP) and handicapped (libertarians). That means that the democratic party lines up more with my interests than they do against it.

There are no other good alternatives for me. The Libertarian party is being infiltrated en masse right now by Sarah Palin and the Fundie bunch through the Tea Party.

I'm surprised you haven't said something already. The Tea Party is suffering a palace coup and appears to have been taken over as just another wing of the Republican party with identical rhetoric.

You take the Fundies out of the GOP and get rid of all that supply side economic bullshit (replaced with sound economic policy) and I might just start considering the republican party. You know what's crazy? I would have liked Nixon retrospectively if not for Watergate (which by the way is totally unforgivable). he had Kissenger and actually took the time to engage in diplomacy. He nuetralized the Red chinese menace by opening a dialogue and ended Vietnam because he realized the war was a non-starter with no benefits to be had.

The Green party is a joke, not even worth discussing.

Am I a fan of Obama? Yes. Do I think he can accomplish everything he set out to do and promised he would do? No.

Primarily, and this is something that people have a hard time understanding, during a campaign nobody wants to hear someone say "I'll try." They want definite concrete pledges of action and success. They don't say, if I can. if I don't get filibustered. If something more important doesn't happen. People want it all.

They're never going to get it all unless they only promised to do one single thing that everybody cares about more than anything else that only has a few possible outcomes.

What that article misses and was designd not to address: It doesn't make Obama a hypocrite for criticizing Bush and then failing to undo what Bush did. In some cases, it really is like spilled milk; you can clean it up but you can't undo it or go back to how it was before the problem existed. Since when is fixing a problem easier than causing one?

Phrost
29th January 10, 06:37 PM
You know, to be honest, I just read your post and assumed I was replying to HoG.

Sorry.

Sun Wukong
29th January 10, 06:39 PM
BTW, my favorite news source is NPR.

Phrost
29th January 10, 06:45 PM
Slants left a tad too.

BBC News America seems to be the best from what I can tell, if not Google News, as it's non-human generated. Which, for the time being won't be a problem.

When the Robot Lobby is founded, however...

fes_fsa
29th January 10, 11:33 PM
1st bold: no they couldn't. Because they had to overcome the fillibuster. I don't think you understand the issue.

2nd bold: I didn't say it was a selfless principle. It's the principle that they aren't deluded like the bush era pubs into thinking that they aren't ever going to be in the minority again.

LOLOLOL you and SW, are FULL of horseshit. OBAMA has a MAJORITY in the Senate. he has a MAJORITY in Congress. up until a week ago, they had a FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY. he is AUTHORIZED to sign bills from Congress when they come to his desk. with a majority in BOTH Houses, he can pass whateverthefuck bill he WANTS.

why the fuck are you guys blaming ANYBODY AT ALL?

the problem is Obama's leadership within hiw OWN Party.

yeah. those stubborn old Republicans are keeping you guys from getting shit done. LOL

BTW, i typed that last line and this one with one hand... so that i could make a face and jerk the invisible air-dick while posting.

fes_fsa
29th January 10, 11:37 PM
Granted I don't live in the US, but I get the impression that the Republicans have been less than willing to compromise or even discuss compromise on a number of key issues.

As 'opposition' they seem to view their role as holding up as much legislation as possible, and using their subcommittee positions to delay, deform, and destroy White House objectives.

Am I wrong?

don't buy into what HOG is saying.

Obama has the MAJORITY in BOTH Houses.

can you read this SW, or HOG? put your money where your mouth is and tell me HOW the Republicans can block ANYTHING. you guys are making FOOLS out of yourself by WORSHIPPING this clown.

fes_fsa
29th January 10, 11:39 PM
and LOL at the whole "Democrats have principles" rhetoric.

our President criticized a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL Branch of The US Government. ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. for the WHOLE WORLD to see.

Ajamil
30th January 10, 12:46 AM
Obama could've rammed this through (assuming the Congressional Dems would play nice with each other for long enough), but it would've hurt his media image because he would have to ignore the right-wing shouts and protests and just do it. He wanted to be savior to all, he kept trying to compromise and convince and persuade and a basically powerless political party held up everything by going "No no wait! Wait, no! No! No, wait! Wait!!"

The Obama admin. responded to every jibe, every crank concern as if it were serious. Death panels? Really? There were people in congress who seriously thought death panels would be set up?

Every time he reacted, the spectrum and the momentum shifted, and it stalled things until it became too late and they lost their filibuster-buster.

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 01:28 AM
oh... fuck that shit.

the Republicans are gutless pieces of shit. they haven't been able to stop Democrats for DECADES.

you want examples?

people complain about the crime rate whenever a Republican is in Office. why is there so much crime? because of the policies of Liberal Mayors in EVERY MAJOR metropolitan city (where crime is highest). Democrat crap policies did this--no Republican EVER mentions this.

the Democrats were originally FOR the war in Iraq (remember the protesters with the stupid "Lost Children of Iraq" signs?)... UNTIL Bush executed it. but fuck it--let the Republicans take the flack for it. because that's the kind of pussies Republicans are.

EVERYBODY blames Bush and the GOP for NCLB.... when it was Sen. TED KENNEDY'S BRAINCHILD. even Bill Clinton (a man i admire) bashed it WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE.

back when i WAS a Republican, i used to spread the word about Democrats being the TRUE racists. then a bunch of Republicans come out and apologize for being racists. WTF???

the Republicans DON'T HELP THEMSELVES. period.

when the Republicans had TOTAL CONTROL of the government, they could've rescinded EVERY Democrat shit policy... and made this country a Utopia for the conservatives who've respected them for as long as they could vote. they didn't. instead, they coddled illegals, gave Wall Street handouts, gave us TSA, gave us some REALLY Liberal social programs, gave us mismanaged wars (because it DOES NOT take years to take down a bunch of camel farmers with homemade weapons and establish your own sock puppet offices), AND gave momentum to the Democrats to do whatever the hell they want.

and you tell me that they've got the power to stall ANYTHING.

Obama could do whatever they want, but there's no LEADERSHIP within the Democrat Party. they've been screaming about socialized medicine for YEARS... but just a week or so ago, Pelosi admits to the press that she didn't get enough Senate votes for the Bill to get passed. OH DARN.

no wonder Hillary didn't attend the SOTU. she couldn't stomach seeing how much her own Party has dissintigrated.

Wounded Ronin
30th January 10, 02:17 AM
Hmm. I wonder if all the bailout outrage is actually a failure of public education attributable to people not knowing Keynes.

On a seperate note, I like earmarks, as long as they either 1.) benefit me, or 2.) support a museum that would otherwise be too unpopular to stay open, such as the postal museum in Washington DC.

I still can't understand how people bought into the "death panel" rhetoric but didn't understand that insurance companies already do that to people. I guess most people haven't had to deal with a very sick relative and medical bills?

Sun Wukong
30th January 10, 04:08 AM
Hey Fes,

Let's follow this to where it goes. You're pissed off at the Dems AND you're pissed off at the GOP.

Now, how are you going to vote next election?

Ya see, you're not alone. The deciding factor in every political race are the independent voters. You don't seem happy with centrist, "let's not rattle the reactionary independent voters too much Obama" and the Republican's are "spineless"... where does that leave you?

You gonna vote for a 3rd party?

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 04:45 AM
i HATE Liberals and as a gay rights activist, i CAN'T STAND GOP--they definitely do not have the Goldwater conservative principles that i grew up with. when did everyone get all Big Government????

i'll have to vote third party until either the Democrats get less pinko and put Hillary in charge... or the GOP realizes that the government should keep out of EVERYONE'S business--not just their constituents in big business or the bible belt.

Sun Wukong
30th January 10, 04:53 AM
i'll have to vote third party until either the Democrats get less pinko and put Hillary in charge...


So... you want the Democrats to put Hillary in the Oval office? and you want them to move more to the center?

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 05:02 AM
definitely more to the right from where they are now.

Sun Wukong
30th January 10, 05:13 AM
Can you be more specific? can you give me two examples of something you would like to see done?

Edit: So you're libertarian leaning?

taijiamn
30th January 10, 09:48 AM
EVERYBODY blames Bush and the GOP for NCLB.... when it was Sen. TED KENNEDY'S BRAINCHILD. even Bill Clinton (a man i admire) bashed it WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE.
.

To be fair, I blame Bush for NCLB because he enacted it in TX while Gov. there before he got elected Pres. State assessment tests every year, yay!

WarPhalange
30th January 10, 12:28 PM
I still can't understand how people bought into the "death panel" rhetoric but didn't understand that insurance companies already do that to people. I guess most people haven't had to deal with a very sick relative and medical bills?

People are idiots, that's how. This is no different than teenagers thinking adults are full of shit all the time (whereas they are only full of shit most of the time) and people who believe in psychics and junk. When one of them gets to "communicate with ghosts" and realizes that the psychic is full of shit, the others won't believe him.

Cullion
30th January 10, 12:44 PM
Hmm. I wonder if all the bailout outrage is actually a failure of public education attributable to people not knowing Keynes.

lol. It took a special kind of idiocy to say that.

Wounded Ronin
30th January 10, 02:06 PM
lol. It took a special kind of idiocy to say that.

Yes, Cullion, we all know you're infinitely superior, and you only post because you want to help us in our benighted state.

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 02:34 PM
Can you be more specific? can you give me two examples of something you would like to see done?

Edit: So you're libertarian leaning?

are you trying to recruit me?

i would say that i'm PROBABLY a libertarian. but so many of the policies they want put into motion are so impractical that i just don't see the average joe agreeing with them. they're just pipe dreams.

Cullion
30th January 10, 02:38 PM
Yes, Cullion, we all know you're infinitely superior, and you only post because you want to help us in our benighted state.

Pretty much.

Spade: The Real Snake
30th January 10, 03:20 PM
1st bold: no they couldn't. Because they had to overcome the fillibuster. I don't think you understand the issue.

2nd bold: I didn't say it was a selfless principle. It's the principle that they aren't deluded like the bush era pubs into thinking that they aren't ever going to be in the minority again.

Both bolds:

they didn't want to carry the load, part and parcel.

fes_fsa
30th January 10, 04:07 PM
To be fair, I blame Bush for NCLB because he enacted it in TX while Gov. there before he got elected Pres. State assessment tests every year, yay!

actually, it's been around since the 60's--Kennedy proposed it and Johnson passed it as ESEA (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), as a part of the War on Poverty. Title I of the Act serves students from K-12, even now.

the biggest criticism was that there wasn't any accountability mandated for academic results. so Clinton and Kennedy revised it in the mid 90's... but it couldn't get passed, because, back when there WERE conservatives on Capitol Hill, the people who voted against it felt that education is the responsibility of State and Local governments--it shouldn't be in the hands of the Federal Government.

then Bush presented NCLB, which was pretty much just a rewrite of Clinton's relaunch of ESEA, and his bootlicks passed it.

HappyOldGuy
30th January 10, 06:22 PM
Both bolds:

they didn't want to carry the load, part and parcel.

Which they are you talking about?

The Obama admin didn't shoulder the burden in the way that they should have. I've been saying since the beginning that they weren't taking enough of a leadership role and putting a concrete plan on the table. Instead they let the congress shred the proposal in the blender and pour out a soup of competing plans, which guaranteed that no one could ever get passed.

But the folks who think they did that on purpose are insane. The only way that makes sense is if you think that Obama went into this whole thing wanting to be a one term president.

danno
30th January 10, 07:09 PM
are you trying to recruit me?

i would say that i'm PROBABLY a libertarian. but so many of the policies they want put into motion are so impractical that i just don't see the average joe agreeing with them. they're just pipe dreams.

have you had a look at how similar policies have worked in other countries?

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 12:32 AM
yes. i have. Singapore's medical savings accounts have proven to be VERY successful. in fact, Whole Foods has adopted that policy and have shown that costs haven't gone up and their employees are happier with their coverage than they would be on a regular insurance plan.

i've also read all about the libertarian laws in Switzerland, the personal property laws in Poland, how the Japanese and other countries in Asia are looking to adopt some libertarian policies because of how Zen it is.

it's very fascinating and although there are a few exceptions, it jives well with my belief system.

however, i don't see any of it happening in the US. libertarianism neglects poor people. and that's what we base most of our policies on--giving somebody who needs help the opportunity for advancement and the ability to better oneself (unless you're rich--nobody's ALLOWED to get richer).

HappyOldGuy
31st January 10, 12:47 AM
yes. i have. Singapore's medical savings accounts have proven to be VERY successful. in fact, Whole Foods has adopted that policy and have shown that costs haven't gone up and their employees are happier with their coverage than they would be on a regular insurance plan.

i've also read all about the libertarian laws in Switzerland, the personal property laws in Poland, how the Japanese and other countries in Asia are looking to adopt some libertarian policies because of how Zen it is.

it's very fascinating and although there are a few exceptions, it jives well with my belief system.

however, i don't see any of it happening in the US. libertarianism neglects poor people. and that's what we base most of our policies on--giving somebody who needs help the opportunity for advancement and the ability to better oneself (unless you're rich--nobody's ALLOWED to get richer).

Err, singapores medical system isn't even vaguely libertarian. Medical services are provided (mostly) by private companies and about 2/3 of the money comes from private payments, but the prices and terms are rigidly controlled by the government.

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 01:05 AM
ummmm... no. they DO have universal healthcare, but their system runs almost ENTIRELY on the MSA model. 64% of medical spending in Singapore comes from individuals own pockets at the doctor's office, compared to something like 10% in the US, and France where it's something like 5%.

if i can find the article i read on it, i'll link it. it's a fascinating read.

and btw - the MSA is a libertarian concept.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 01:19 AM
and you tell me that they've got the power to stall ANYTHING.

Obama could do whatever they want, but there's no LEADERSHIP within the Democrat Party. they've been screaming about socialized medicine for YEARS... but just a week or so ago, Pelosi admits to the press that she didn't get enough Senate votes for the Bill to get passed. OH DARN.

no wonder Hillary didn't attend the SOTU. she couldn't stomach seeing how much her own Party has dissintigrated.That's exactly what i meant. They were scared and tried to bargain with a paper tiger.

You gonna vote for a 3rd party?Yes! Granted as soon as there is one I agree with to a large degree, but that exactly what I would do. I would see my vote as a warning to the other two parties saying unless you actually want a third player on the field, figure out what buys my vote.

...Obama went into this whole thing wanting to be a one term president. Heh, I heard a snippet of Obama talking to a basketball player (edit: on NPR). He was joking about trying to be a basketball player and for the actual player to watch out for his job. He specifically said, "you've got about three years, then watch out."

Someone's gettin pessimistic.

WarPhalange
31st January 10, 01:29 AM
How is that pessimistic? Basketball players earn way more than the President. And are much less likely to get shot.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:12 AM
Hmm. I wonder if all the bailout outrage is actually a failure of public education attributable to people not knowing Keynes.Please provide some details for this argument. I don't think "people" are necessarily the ones failing to understand Keynes here.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:25 AM
Err, singapores medical system isn't even vaguely libertarian..http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare


1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts. Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 11:25 AM
Which they are you talking about?

The Obama admin didn't shoulder the burden in the way that they should have. I've been saying since the beginning that they weren't taking enough of a leadership role and putting a concrete plan on the table. Instead they let the congress shred the proposal in the blender and pour out a soup of competing plans, which guaranteed that no one could ever get passed.

But the folks who think they did that on purpose are insane. The only way that makes sense is if you think that Obama went into this whole thing wanting to be a one term president.

The pioneer discovers all the gold but takes all the arrows.

If the Obama administration had pushed through what they wanted, using their Congressional majority using, what you termed the nuclear option, they would have the ability to lay claim to the entire success of their plan, had the truly believed it would be a success.

Fact is, they don't truly have the courage of their convictions, aren't convinced it will actually transfer theory into application, and the Congressmen weren't willing to stake their re-election bids upon it.

While I don't think Obama went into this WANTING to be a one term president, depsite his own comment, I think he went into this believing his press clippings, much like his Administration cabinet.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 11:30 AM
are you trying to recruit me?

i would say that i'm PROBABLY a libertarian. but so many of the policies they want put into motion are so impractical that i just don't see the average joe agreeing with them. they're just pipe dreams.

See the position you are now in: throw your vote away on a 3rd party or put your vote into two political parties you don't like.

That's why I vote democrat. I don't agree with everything on the lefty agenda or think that a lot of democrat legislation is important or necessary.

I vote with the party that most agree's with my own philosophy by order of importance. Of course, the order of things changes as different emergencies arrive.

I'm only stating this, because I'm kinda sick of being accused of being the voting equivalent of a bears fan.

Cullion
31st January 10, 11:48 AM
How would voting for a third party you agree with more 'throwing your vote away'.

Voting for a party you don't agree with as much doesn't make your vote any more significant, it just means you get to feel like you were on the 'winning team'. It's meaningless.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 11:53 AM
Its not meaningless. Its how Bush got elected twice. Your vote should go toward effecting a direction. Putting it out as a protest only weakens the similar party. 20% of the vote in those elections went to third party candidates. Of which, a good number of them would not have voted for Bush.

If those votes weren't thrown away history may have been quite different.

Cullion
31st January 10, 11:58 AM
Bush came to office via electoral fraud. It's hardly the fault of a few hippies.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 12:02 PM
Bush came to office via electoral fraud. It's hardly the fault of a few hippies.

I thought it was because the Flordia Geriatrics, thinking they voted for Al Gore, accidentally voted for Pat Buchannon and were left to weep softly on the hoods of their Oldsmobuicks.

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 12:27 PM
Don't change the subject. Math eludes you. If even a small portion of those votes were siphoned off, it very likely they'd vote Dem. and Gore would have won despite the Florida conspiracy.

Cullion
31st January 10, 12:42 PM
How many potential republican voters were voting for 3rd parties, like the Libertarians ?

'Vote for something you don't believe in so that somebody with almost identical policies but a slightly less redneck presentational style can win' is hardly a rallying cry.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 12:48 PM
Don't change the subject. Math eludes you. If even a small portion of those votes were siphoned off, it very likely they'd vote Dem. and Gore would have won despite the Florida conspiracy.

Idiocy =/= Conspiracy.

If you cannot understand how to vote, you likely shouldn't be voting in the first place.

HappyOldGuy
31st January 10, 12:59 PM
The pioneer discovers all the gold but takes all the arrows.

If the Obama administration had pushed through what they wanted, using their Congressional majority using, what you termed the nuclear option, they would have the ability to lay claim to the entire success of their plan, had the truly believed it would be a success.

Fact is, they don't truly have the courage of their convictions, aren't convinced it will actually transfer theory into application, and the Congressmen weren't willing to stake their re-election bids upon it.

While I don't think Obama went into this WANTING to be a one term president, depsite his own comment, I think he went into this believing his press clippings, much like his Administration cabinet.
I don't think you understand the nuclear option. It's a one time, one way change to the rules of the senate. Using it will forever make the senate a 50%+1 chamber. That's why the republicans backed down and it's why the dems won't even go there. Because they mostly all agree that no one piece of legislation is more important than preserving the ability of the minority party to influence legislation.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 01:08 PM
I don't think you understand the nuclear option. It's a one way change to the rules of the senate. Using it will forever make the senate a 50%+1 chamber. That's why the republicans backed down and it's why the dems won't even go there. Because they mostly all agree that no one piece of legislation is more important than preserving the ability of the minority party to influence legislation.

I understand that it was alluded to/threatened (based on your individual interpretation of the events) as a viable option to encourage/force (based on your individual interpretation of the events) the minority party into a dialog/servitude (based on your individual interpretation of the events) of the reform bill.

Giving the impression of "bipartisan support" was necessary for the Obama administration despite having the ability to force the bill. It had nothing to do with influencing legislation but everything to do with the soundbite and talking head game that comes after. The rhetoric of cross-party support and the transparency game was so central to his campaign platform, that to go the nuclear option this early in his term would have been one of those defining moments.

Really, neither party wanted another "I voted for this before I voted against it" moment. In this era of instantaneous feedback, nothing is allowed to work before deemed a failure.....or a success for that matter.

And disagree with the highlighted. This piece of legislation has been frames as the most important piece of legislation, by both parties, in like...forever and a day. It's just the party in power didn't want to be left soley holding the freight, again...thinking of their own impending campaigns to return

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 01:44 PM
See the position you are now in: throw your vote away on a 3rd party or put your vote into two political parties you don't like.

That's why I vote democrat. I don't agree with everything on the lefty agenda or think that a lot of democrat legislation is important or necessary.

I vote with the party that most agree's with my own philosophy by order of importance. Of course, the order of things changes as different emergencies arrive.

I'm only stating this, because I'm kinda sick of being accused of being the voting equivalent of a bears fan.

i completely understand where you're coming from.

it's nice that YOU can still find your beliefs within your party, but i don't. the two main parties don't even represent my beliefs anymore.

i didn't vote the last election. right when i moved, Ron Paul dropped out. then all of a sudden, i wasn't in any hurry to reregister.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 03:42 PM
Elections are not horse races. You get nothing for picking the winner.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 03:43 PM
How would voting for a third party you agree with more 'throwing your vote away'.

Voting for a party you don't agree with as much doesn't make your vote any more significant, it just means you get to feel like you were on the 'winning team'. It's meaningless.

This is a logical fallacy and is what causes votes to be split.

That only makes sense if both other parties have nothing to offer you, are both tied in what they do offer or if both are equally dangerous to the nation in your own opinion.

What am I saying? By all means, I urge libertarians to vote libertarian in 2012.

P.S. Don't forget the upcoming senate races!

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 03:50 PM
If Democrats campaign manager's were smart, they'd start trying to sign up as many libertarians as possible in Republican districts to vote in 2012.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 03:56 PM
Elections are not horse races. You get nothing for picking the winner.

If elections were horse races, Bob Dole would have been "put down" for being gimp and Clinton would have been sent out to stud.

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 04:18 PM
are there enough cigars and blue dresses in the world? RAWR!

SifuAbel
31st January 10, 05:31 PM
i didn't vote the last election. right when i moved, Ron Paul dropped out. then all of a sudden, i wasn't in any hurry to reregister.Meh, so you sat on it instead. Just another throw away.

fes_fsa
31st January 10, 05:57 PM
it would've been a throw away even if i HAD voted Libertarian.

so there you go.

Wounded Ronin
31st January 10, 06:07 PM
Please provide some details for this argument. I don't think "people" are necessarily the ones failing to understand Keynes here.

Just that I'll bet most of the people upset about stimulus, government spending, porculous, whatever you want to call of it, probably hadn't heard of Keynes. I get the impression lots of people don't think government spending can accomplish anything.

EDIT: I still like pork. Mmmmm.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 06:23 PM
"you've got about three years, then watch out."


How is that pessimistic? Basketball players earn way more than the President. And are much less likely to get shot.
If he was still optimistic about his presidency, he would say "seven years." He doesn't think he'll get a second term anymore.

HappyOldGuy
31st January 10, 11:04 PM
I understand that it was alluded to/threatened (based on your individual interpretation of the events) as a viable option to encourage/force (based on your individual interpretation of the events) the minority party into a dialog/servitude (based on your individual interpretation of the events) of the reform bill.

Giving the impression of "bipartisan support" was necessary for the Obama administration despite having the ability to force the bill. It had nothing to do with influencing legislation but everything to do with the soundbite and talking head game that comes after. The rhetoric of cross-party support and the transparency game was so central to his campaign platform, that to go the nuclear option this early in his term would have been one of those defining moments.

Really, neither party wanted another "I voted for this before I voted against it" moment. In this era of instantaneous feedback, nothing is allowed to work before deemed a failure.....or a success for that matter.

And disagree with the highlighted. This piece of legislation has been frames as the most important piece of legislation, by both parties, in like...forever and a day. It's just the party in power didn't want to be left soley holding the freight, again...thinking of their own impending campaigns to return

It was never threatened. Other than that I'm relly not understanding what you are trying to say here. Of course Obama wanted a bipartisan bill. But he didn't stop when that didn't happen. They were proceeding full speed ahead until the massachusets election made it impossible to succeed.

WarPhalange
31st January 10, 11:12 PM
If he was still optimistic about his presidency, he would say "seven years." He doesn't think he'll get a second term anymore.

No, he's saying he's already committed to being Prez. After three years, though, he can start signing NBA contracts.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 11:15 PM
They were proceeding full speed ahead until the massachusets election made it impossible to succeed.And why do you think that election went as it did?

Hint: It wasn't because they were happy with "full speed ahead".

WarPhalange
31st January 10, 11:19 PM
Especially since Mass. is usually a blue state, right?

Spade: The Real Snake
31st January 10, 11:43 PM
It was never threatened. You and I may have differing opinions, however this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/20/MNOD19BJGC.DTL&tsp=1)strikes me as a threat.


Pelosi insisted the legislation will go forward, with or without Republican support.
"The president has said that he wants to have a bipartisan bill," she said. "But we will have a bill."





Other than that I'm relly not understanding what you are trying to say here. Of course Obama wanted a bipartisan bill. But he didn't stop when that didn't happen. Obama wants the appearance of a bi-partisan bill, so in the event theory doesn't translate into practice, it won't solely be on him.


They were proceeding full speed ahead until the massachusets election made it impossible to succeed. I really couldn't top what Cy just said......


Especially since Mass. is usually a blue state, right?
The Liberal Lion's very own Senate Seat.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 01:09 AM
Here's what i think a lot of people don't seem to understand: it is a logical fallacy to assume because one group is unpopular, their opposition must be.

Obama's most recent approval rating at the Gallup poll:
48% Disapproval 46%

Democrats most recent approval rating at pollingreport.com
40% Disapproval 59%

Republican's most recent approval rating at pollingreport.com
32% Disapproval 65%


There seems to be this undercurrent of false assumptions going through the air here. Obama is probably the most popular politician in the god damn country right now. Did it ever occur to you people that the reason Coakley lost to Brown is Coakley and not the Democrats or Obama?

Brown struck a better figure so he got elected. you can say he's a republican that got elected to a democratic seat... but he's also a republican that supports abortions rights apparently and would oppose a ban on gay marriage. Yeah, that would make him almost 100% unelectable in every red state south of the mason-dixon (which is most of them).

This isn't a case of the Left being too far left, but the Right being forced to move to the left in order to pick up seats in congress.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 01:25 AM
it's nice that YOU can still find your beliefs within your party, but i don't. the two main parties don't even represent my beliefs anymore.


Then you and other voters in that situation are forced with having to determine which represents the least and worst threats to the well being of the country.

In an election involving an economic crisis? Voting republican is kinda nuts given their track record of the last 30 years.

HappyOldGuy
1st February 10, 01:48 AM
You and I may have differing opinions, however this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/20/MNOD19BJGC.DTL&tsp=1)strikes me as a threat.


Err, she was threatening to go for a 60-40 vote, not to use the nuclear option. That was never on the table. When she said that, she had 60 votes. I repeat for the umpteenth time. Without 60 votes, the dems can't pass health care without completely destroying the role of the minority in the senate. Which is a step they aren't willing to take because they know that they will be in the minority again some day.

I'm not defending how the administration has handled any of this, but some of you are wearing some very silly foil hats.

Syntactical Disruptorize
1st February 10, 05:29 AM
Here's what i think a lot of people don't seem to understand: it is a logical fallacy to assume because one group is unpopular, their opposition must be.
And here's another fallacy: Because a party is unpopular, the other party's policies must be popular.


Did it ever occur to you people that the reason Coakley lost to Brown is Coakley and not the Democrats or Obama?
Did it ever occur to you that the policy decisions of the Democrats and Obama might also be the reason?

EvilSteve
1st February 10, 10:01 AM
I think what has made the health care bill so wildly unpopular is the mandate section of it. If you can't afford health care now, then being forced by law to buy it from the same source that you couldn't afford before can't possibly seem like a good thing. Furthermore, they didn't put any price controls on health insurance, but did require that providers not be able to drop people who get sick or bar people with preexisting conditions. That sounds great until you realize that providers will pass that cost on to consumers, who are now FORCED to purchase healthcare.

Yes, the dems did fail miserably in allowing their opponents to frame the debate, but it also seems like they needed to get something passed or suffer a political black eye, and they compromised at every turn to do so until what they had wasn't worth passing.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 10:59 AM
And here's another fallacy: Because a party is unpopular, the other party's policies must be popular.

So who the fuck said that?



Did it ever occur to you that the policy decisions of the Democrats and Obama might also be the reason?

Only 1 of many of factors. Ultimately, the only persons responsible for winning or losing are the individual candidates in an election.

If you think that Massachusetts just suddenly decided to drop kennedy's legacy because they are pissed off at policy decisions now (that are much more moderate than Kennedy's) then I don't think you're that familiar with Kennedy's body of work and you would have to assume that none of the voters were either.

Feryk
1st February 10, 03:24 PM
I think what has made the health care bill so wildly unpopular is the mandate section of it. If you can't afford health care now, then being forced by law to buy it from the same source that you couldn't afford before can't possibly seem like a good thing. Furthermore, they didn't put any price controls on health insurance, but did require that providers not be able to drop people who get sick or bar people with preexisting conditions. That sounds great until you realize that providers will pass that cost on to consumers, who are now FORCED to purchase healthcare.

You ARE kidding, right? Shit, that makes the universal health care we have seem like heaven by comparison.

How can anyone think that insurance companies will behave responsibly in that kind of environment?

EvilSteve
1st February 10, 03:39 PM
You ARE kidding, right? Shit, that makes the universal health care we have seem like heaven by comparison.

How can anyone think that insurance companies will behave responsibly in that kind of environment?

They don't. That's why insurance co stocks went up when the plan was revealed. It's also why a lot of liberals, Howard Dean included at one point, have been shouting "kill the bill."

Bipartisanship is dead. No one wants it, and shit like this is the reason why. The dems wanted to do something good, the GOP wanted to do nothing at all, and so they compromised by doing something shitty.

Commodore Pipes
1st February 10, 03:49 PM
If it doesn't work, it is because we are afflicted with two parties with arbitrary, internally-inconsistent parties clinging to the asshole of democracy like red and blue dingleberries.

EvilSteve
1st February 10, 04:04 PM
If it doesn't work, it is because we are afflicted with two parties with arbitrary, internally-inconsistent parties clinging to the asshole of democracy like red and blue dingleberries.

Agreed. I frankly feel that multi-party systems probably make more sense than the sock puppet on the left hand vs the sock puppet on the right hand we have now.

Commodore Pipes
1st February 10, 05:23 PM
I didn't mean to repeat the word 'parties.' The second 'parties' should be 'platforms.' I feel like such a fool.










Such a fool.

Ajamil
2nd February 10, 03:33 AM
You can edit your posts, you know.

Commodore Pipes
2nd February 10, 11:00 AM
I know. I'm such a fool.









Such a fool.

Feryk
2nd February 10, 12:54 PM
^ is foolish. And repeats himself.

resolve
3rd February 10, 05:44 AM
"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." - Proverbs 26:11

Ajamil
3rd February 10, 04:19 PM
Watched a panda do that for about an hour at the Washington Zoo. Captivity must've broke him.

socratic
4th February 10, 04:18 AM
Watched a panda do that for about an hour at the Washington Zoo. Captivity must've broke him.
No, pandas are just fucking stupid. I've seen pandas in the Beijing zoo that needed encouraging to eat.

Has there ever been a State of the Union Address that didn't start with "The State of our Union is strong."?

Ajamil
4th February 10, 05:28 AM
Sometimes they put it in the middle, or as a rejoiner after saying how the state of the union was doing badly. The latter is usually the first State of the Union given by a pres of the opposite party than the previous.

socratic
4th February 10, 06:10 AM
Sometimes they put it in the middle, or as a rejoiner after saying how the state of the union was doing badly. The latter is usually the first State of the Union given by a pres of the opposite party than the previous.
Has anyone ever admitted things are a bit shitty?

Ajamil
4th February 10, 10:21 AM
Found one! (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100124/NEWS07/1240370/Famous-lines-from-past-State-of-the-Union-addresses)

Gerald Ford in 1975, six months after succeeding Richard Nixon: "I must say to you that the state of the union is not good. Millions of Americans are out of work. Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions more ... This year's federal deficit will be about $30 billion, next year's probably $45 billion. The national debt will rise to over $500 billion." Half a trillion debt! Oh noes!!

Nifty, they're all online now. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php)

Robot Jesus
5th February 10, 01:14 PM
it was a simpler president... time I mean time.