Let's not blame Bush or Obama for this catasrophic economical decline. Right or left wing the people have very little to say, while the government rolls on. Lets use this as an example, yourself and your better half have a dispute, do you keep on bickering with each other or do you compromise on a decision that works for both? I do not promote the right or left but I do represent working together as one, IMO it is the only way. And yes I do believe the people need to take their country back, it's been gone for years.

ccrunner609 wrote: I think it works well. The leftist media just blasted this guy within 10 seconds so he must of nailed it.

I didn't like it, it looked like a mini State of the Union. The substance was actually alright (not the portion on national security). But, it looked too fake for me.

ccrunner609 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: I think it works well. The leftist media just blasted this guy within 10 seconds so he must of nailed it.

I didn't like it, it looked like a mini State of the Union. The substance was actually alright (not the portion on national security). But, it looked too fake for me.

A little less fake then Nancy and Joe doing the catholic mass behind Obama.

Iunno, the people behind McDonnell looked pretty fake lol.

Tinkertrain wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:

Tinkertrain wrote: I wasnt wild about Obama's speech but I'm REALLY not wild about this guy from virginia wasting tax payer dollar's to give a party line response.

Isnt that what you usually get?? bTW he is a govenor so if you dont live in VA he sint waisting your dime.

Very few of the responses i've ever seen have been in a state house wasting tax payer money. It doesnt matter if it's my tax money or some guy in virginia's it's still wasting tax payer money.

It being held in the Virginia state house is a a subtle hint of the sovereignty of the states. Notice Gov. Mcdonnell's points about the federal government taking on too much. Also that good governence is that closest to the people.

ccrunner609 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: I think it works well. The leftist media just blasted this guy within 10 seconds so he must of nailed it.

I didn't like it, it looked like a mini State of the Union. The substance was actually alright (not the portion on national security). But, it looked too fake for me.

A little less fake then Nancy and Joe doing the catholic mass behind Obama.

Iunno, the people behind McDonnell looked pretty fake lol.

So we can agree that most of this shit is fake.

Completely agree. The stagecraft, applauding, and cheesy smiles are BS.

who???

ccrunner609 wrote: So lets look:Spending freeze?

But he understands that the government cannot continue the growth on helping people, that's why it won't be put into place until next year.

::: laughter/heckling :::

"That's how budgeting works!"

:s

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: I think it works well. The leftist media just blasted this guy within 10 seconds so he must of nailed it.

I didn't like it, it looked like a mini State of the Union. The substance was actually alright (not the portion on national security). But, it looked too fake for me.

Making it appear to be a mini State of the Union was no accident. This was done on purpose to appeal to those that think the federal government is reaching to far. It was to point out the the states have power as well and a reminder that they are sovereign within the union. As for fake. I agree both have become publicity stunts. I always tell my wife when she gets into these reality shows. "Its not reality honey, they are just acting. No one can be real when they know the cameras are rolling. If you want to see true reality they need to hide the cameras."

ccrunner609 wrote: 2011 freeze government spending...........................didnt get any applause. Enforce by veto............he better not break that promise but I bet he jsut lied bigtime.

A "freeze" is really political posturing....No great accomplishment when you've increased the budgets over 20% the last few years. A lot of that "stimulus" money has basically been made permanent. Talks of a "freeze" are sickening, we need CUTS.

I thought it was a good speech, I didn't watch it but I read it here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_documents&docid=f:hd001.111

I guess Alito was pissed when the President commented on how the Supreme Court recently channeled their inner judicial activist and overturned 100 years of court precedent to allow special interests and foreign multi national (Jefferson would roll over is rolling over in his grave somewhere right now) companies to begin buying elections for their chosen candidates.

He was caught on camera mouthing "not true" supposedly, and he was clearly uncomfortable when the whole building (Democrats and Republicans) rose to their feet cheering after the President's comments.

Some conservatives are outraged that the Conservative block of the Supreme Court would swing the barn door open for foreign interests to start throwing money at our election and political process when our revolution was fought largely to get away from British control and meddling of the colonies.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Wait, back up a minute!

Did I understand him correctly when he portrayed himself to now be interested in off-shore drilling??

Ya, he just gave some billions of US taxpayer dollars for offshore oil drilling for Brazil, to sell to China, what a pal.

IggyPride00 wrote: I guess Alito was pissed when the President commented on how the Supreme Court recently channeled their inner judicial activist and overturned 100 years of court precedent to allow special interests and foreign multi national (Jefferson would roll over is rolling over in his grave somewhere right now) companies to begin buying elections for their chosen candidates.

This would be the least of Jeffersons worrys. He would be rolling a lot harder over the power the federal government has usurped from the states and the people.

IggyPride00 wrote: He was caught on camera mouthing "not true" supposedly, and he was clearly uncomfortable when the whole building (Democrats and Republicans) rose to their feet cheering after the President's comments.

If Alito said this he would be correct. It was the correct decision upholding the first amendment.

IggyPride00 wrote: Some conservatives are outraged that the Conservative block of the Supreme Court would swing the barn door open for foreign interests to start throwing money at our election and political process when our revolution was fought largely to get away from British control and meddling of the colonies.

By upholding the first amendemnt? As you have noted on another thread there are things the legislature may be able to do within the confines of the constitution.

What do you think foreign ambassadors are? They are foreign lobbyists argueing their own nation's interest to our government. They are all over Washington. This changes little. If true principled patriotic Americans are elected to lead our government you should have no fear. That is the key.

Sounds like I didn't miss much. I am happy to announce however, that I'm now caught up on the American Idol auditions. I heart DVR.

Who are the real patriots
Who are the real traitors
Who will stand up
Who will be the new leaders
If you love this country, take it back, from those who will destroy it
Protest is patriotism
Protest is patriotism

This is the intro for a song by one of my favorite bands but I think it rings true, especially right now. This government, regardless of who is in charge is a shame. Things are never going to change because everyone is too concerned about being right as opposed to doing right. One thing I did like about the speech was when Obama said that everyone is constantly on the campaign trail and afraid to make decisions. The American People need to step up and let the government know that games are over and to finally get some things done.

Just for the record, I consider myself a conservative. I lean towards the right, however I am willing to listen to ideas from anyone. Neither party has it 100% right, if they would actually do their jobs and work together, they could really accomplish some great things because another thing Obama said last night that I agree 100% with is that the people of this country will not give up and we are the best country in the world. We just need to step up and hold our elected officials accountable for their job.

Well...the speech wasn't amazing, but it was pretty good. All the applause lines and formalities irritate the shit out of me, but I guess you'll have that.

A couple things...when he was "blaming Bush" (or stating the facts as he referred to it), what part of that do Republicans disagree with? I mean, he wasn't lying. If he actually tightens the belt from here to the next election I think he'll actually have done a pretty good job, all things being equal, and he'll get my vote and more than likely win easily. That said, if he continues to spend money like it's 1999, well he's gonna have a lot of free time on his hands. Also, why didn't Republicans applaud when he mentioned the tax cuts he has passed? I know he got them to laugh at it, but is it because they went to the wrong people, or left some people out? I feel like he mentioned a lot of ideas that conservatives could get behind (eliminating capital gains tax on small businesses, use of bailout funds to help small businesses, pay-go...), but the Right on here or in Washington won't actually admit that...or am I missing the boat?

derek bomar wrote: Well...the speech wasn't amazing, but it was pretty good. All the applause lines and formalities irritate the shit out of me, but I guess you'll have that.

A couple things...when he was "blaming Bush" (or stating the facts as he referred to it), what part of that do Republicans disagree with?

1. I hate the 15 minute handshaking/hugging session prior to the actual speech and the constant stand up and applause also. Just let the man (whichever President, it doesn't matter) talk and get his points across.

2. I can't speak for any republicans, but I for one and sick of the constant blame Bush game. It's so old and redundant now that it has become schtick. And when a President incessantly pulls schtick, it's frustrating, dull, and asinine. Not to mention OLD news.
We've heard it almost every day for a year now. Move on to a new punch line, please!

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Well...the speech wasn't amazing, but it was pretty good. All the applause lines and formalities irritate the shit out of me, but I guess you'll have that.

A couple things...when he was "blaming Bush" (or stating the facts as he referred to it), what part of that do Republicans disagree with?

1. I hate the 15 minute handshaking/hugging session prior to the actual speech and the constant stand up and applause also. Just let the man (whichever President, it doesn't matter) talk and get his points across.

2. I can't speak for any republicans, but I for one and sick of the constant blame Bush game. It's so old and redundant now that it has become schtick. And when a President incessantly pulls schtick, it's frustrating, dull, and asinine. Not to mention OLD news.
We've heard it almost every day for a year now. Move on to a new punch line, please!

So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

derek bomar wrote: So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

Not quite.

If think if Obama really wanted to provide context in describing why he did what he did, then he would go back further than 8 years. As in almost 100 years of history.
But, that's not, IMO, what he's driving at and so it turns into a "beating a dead horse" issue. And, I'm sick to death of it. He volunteered for the job - he needs to stop bitching about it now. It's been a year! Let it go.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

Not quite.

If think if Obama really wanted to provide context in describing why he did what he did, then he would go back further than 8 years. As in almost 100 years of history.
But, that's not, IMO, what he's driving at and so it turns into a "beating a dead horse" issue. And, I'm sick to death of it. He volunteered for the job - he needs to stop bitching about it now. It's been a year! Let it go.

He could, but that would take longer than 2 hours. However, he can briefly summarize the state of affairs on day one of his job, which he did. I think it's relevant.

Activists/demonstrators demand solutions.

Real leaders achieve solutions.

Thus it is easy to see why the Acorn activist cannot get anything right, and resorts to blame.

It is sad we have to travel down this path before regaining our senses, but let it serve as wake up call relative to who can get elected when we, the people, become apathetic.

Novembers 2010 and 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

derek bomar wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Well...the speech wasn't amazing, but it was pretty good. All the applause lines and formalities irritate the shit out of me, but I guess you'll have that.

A couple things...when he was "blaming Bush" (or stating the facts as he referred to it), what part of that do Republicans disagree with?

1. I hate the 15 minute handshaking/hugging session prior to the actual speech and the constant stand up and applause also. Just let the man (whichever President, it doesn't matter) talk and get his points across.

2. I can't speak for any republicans, but I for one and sick of the constant blame Bush game. It's so old and redundant now that it has become schtick. And when a President incessantly pulls schtick, it's frustrating, dull, and asinine. Not to mention OLD news.
We've heard it almost every day for a year now. Move on to a new punch line, please!

So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

I am a Democrat, but I also get tired of all these excuses blaming Bush. I agree Obama took over a tough situation, but at some point, he needs to take responsibility for what he has or hasn't done.

Al Bundy wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Well...the speech wasn't amazing, but it was pretty good. All the applause lines and formalities irritate the shit out of me, but I guess you'll have that.

A couple things...when he was "blaming Bush" (or stating the facts as he referred to it), what part of that do Republicans disagree with?

1. I hate the 15 minute handshaking/hugging session prior to the actual speech and the constant stand up and applause also. Just let the man (whichever President, it doesn't matter) talk and get his points across.

2. I can't speak for any republicans, but I for one and sick of the constant blame Bush game. It's so old and redundant now that it has become schtick. And when a President incessantly pulls schtick, it's frustrating, dull, and asinine. Not to mention OLD news.
We've heard it almost every day for a year now. Move on to a new punch line, please!

So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

I am a Democrat, but I also get tired of all these excuses blaming Bush. I agree Obama took over a tough situation, but at some point, he needs to take responsibility for what he has or hasn't done.

I think he took direct responsibility in the speech when he noted how much he was responsbile for adding to the deficit last year...right?

derek bomar wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

Not quite.

If think if Obama really wanted to provide context in describing why he did what he did, then he would go back further than 8 years. As in almost 100 years of history.
But, that's not, IMO, what he's driving at and so it turns into a "beating a dead horse" issue. And, I'm sick to death of it. He volunteered for the job - he needs to stop bitching about it now. It's been a year! Let it go.

He could, but that would take longer than 2 hours. However, he can briefly summarize the state of affairs on day one of his job, which he did. I think it's relevant.

He's done that every freaking day for a year. We get it. Less whining, more leading please.

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote: So it's not so much that it isn't true, it's that you don't wanna hear it? I feel like Obama takes a lot of the heat for the mess we're currently in, and I think it's fair game to explain what happened before he took office to provide some context in describing why he did what he did...but that's just me.

Not quite.

If think if Obama really wanted to provide context in describing why he did what he did, then he would go back further than 8 years. As in almost 100 years of history.
But, that's not, IMO, what he's driving at and so it turns into a "beating a dead horse" issue. And, I'm sick to death of it. He volunteered for the job - he needs to stop bitching about it now. It's been a year! Let it go.

He could, but that would take longer than 2 hours. However, he can briefly summarize the state of affairs on day one of his job, which he did. I think it's relevant.

He's done that every freaking day for a year. We get it. Less whining, more leading please.

It's definitely political to keep re-hashing it, but there aren't any inaccuracies with what he's saying in regards to the economy on day 1. I think you'll start to see him faze out the predecessor talk as he gets further into his own term. I'm fine with him bringing it up for a year, given the circumstances this past year.