I thought most of the speech was about leading? Now, that leading is tough because of the gridlock in Congress. But, I thought he spoke of accepting more R ideas (que Pelosi looking rather unhappy) and has shifted from his campaign platform (Something all Presidents do btw).

I feel bad for a lot of your wives, as they obviously didn't get any last night, considering you guys got off about 10 times watching his speech, judging by this thread.

The last person in the world who should be giving a commentary of the speech on the Huddle is CCrunner.

I knew instantly when he started posting about the "military guys looking pissed." They never, ever take a side on these issues, any issues, really. I don't know if it is required of them, but they never show emotion during ANY State of the Union.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I thought most of the speech was about leading? Now, that leading is tough because of the gridlock in Congress. But, I thought he spoke of accepting more R ideas (que Pelosi looking rather unhappy) and has shifted from his campaign platform (Something all Presidents do btw).

I never thought I'd hear the biggest congressional majority in a generation referred to as "gridlock." :rolleyes:

fish82 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I thought most of the speech was about leading? Now, that leading is tough because of the gridlock in Congress. But, I thought he spoke of accepting more R ideas (que Pelosi looking rather unhappy) and has shifted from his campaign platform (Something all Presidents do btw).

I never thought I'd hear the biggest congressional majority in a generation referred to as "gridlock." :rolleyes:

I know. That is the result of the insane political culture form both parties in the city. D's are crazy, R's are nuts and the middle is left in the dark.

derek bomar wrote:

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?

He did to a degree. When he mentioned some of the job growth due to the stimulus bill, he only told part of the facts. He failed to mention how in many cases, the $30,000 jobs that were created cost several hundred thousand (or more) to create.

Al Bundy wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

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?

He did to a degree. When he mentioned some of the job growth due to the stimulus bill, he only told part of the facts. He failed to mention how in many cases, the $30,000 jobs that were created cost several hundred thousand (or more) to create.

He also stated why he felt he needed to act (the doom and gloom off a cliff scenario)...now we may or may not believe that would have happened had it not been for the stimulus and bailouts, but I think he gave a clear answer as to why he did what he did and he specifically mentioned the $ amount it added to the deficit. I don't know how much more responsibility he can take for it than that.

DB,

I think when he stops bringing up Bush in every single friggen speech, it will be taking the responsibility that is expected. Everybody, including Presidents, needs to move on at some point. We'll see if he continues to do this, now that it's been a year full of it.

I didn't think I could think any lower of Obama but after last night and the way he basically calls out the Supreme Court with the justices sitting there and not being able to respond makes Obama the biggest punk I have ever seen. Well Obama, I hope you didn't plan on the Supreme Court ever siding with you.

I don't know if I would ever call President Obama a punk...

Disallisioned and disappointed, yes.

Quote from Obama State of the Union Address; "The confirmation of well-qualified public servants"

Obama is admitting that he and those that serve at that level of government are “Public Servants"?

Public Servant first and Title of Position held second?

So I'm right? Public Servant Obama is the correct terminology?

However is that only correct if the “Public Servant is well-qualified……. Does that mean proof of birth?

Belly35 wrote: Quote from Obama State of the Union Address; "The confirmation of well-qualified public servants"

Obama is admitting that he and those that serve at that level of government are “Public Servants"?

Public Servant first and Title of Position held second?

So I'm right? Public Servant Obama is the correct terminology?

However is that only correct if the “Public Servant is well-qualified……. Does that mean proof of birth?

Really? Proof of birth? GTFO

Just for clarification: Whoever said they were sick of the 15 minute entrance process, you are mistaken. I actually timed it from the time he's announced to the speaker, until he gets to the podium and begins the speech: five minutes give or take a FEW seconds. I timed it because my roommate and I took bets on how long the process was...I said four minutes, he said six.

Just sayin.

No mention of Obama saying "the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming"? That one line discredited his whole speech. Can't wait til he is gone in 2012. The best things he could do right now is open up offshore drilling, create nuclear power plants, and legalize drugs. All 3 of these would add so much to our economy and pull us out of the recession.

bigmanbt wrote: No mention of Obama saying "the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming"? That one line discredited his whole speech. Can't wait til he is gone in 2012. The best things he could do right now is open up offshore drilling, create nuclear power plants, and legalize drugs. All 3 of these would add so much to our economy and pull us out of the recession.

I ignored that sentence, but really think the focus should be on the following sentences, where he stated that clean, high tech and new types of jobs will drive the global economy and that the U.S. should invest in them to further lead the global economy. That to me is more important reason for changing from fossil fuels to a more "green" economy than the science.

Also, the new plants would not go online for at least 15-20 years. So, there would be no immediate economic gain, in fact there would be a significant loss as the cost of building a plant is high and does not pay off for 20 years.
Even then there is an interesting debate going on in some circles that perhaps the world supply of uranium is going to dry up and will not meet global demand. The result would be high, high uranium costs for countries. Michael Dittmar wrote a piece on the subject. Technical, but interesting. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5744?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theoildrum+(The+Oil+Drum)

Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

chs71 wrote: Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

freedom of speech? please elaborate...

derek bomar wrote:

chs71 wrote: Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

freedom of speech? please elaborate...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The court upheld that congress can make no law restricting corporate/group entities ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievences by striking down congressial laws restricting them from funding ads which redress their grievences.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

chs71 wrote: Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

freedom of speech? please elaborate...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The court upheld that congress can make no law restricting corporate/group entities ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievences by striking down congressial laws restricting them from funding ads which redress their grievences.

couldn't they could do this before...they just had to form a PAC correct?

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

chs71 wrote: Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

freedom of speech? please elaborate...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The court upheld that congress can make no law restricting corporate/group entities ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievences by striking down congressial laws restricting them from funding ads which redress their grievences.

couldn't they could do this before...they just had to form a PAC correct?

Yes. But congress passing a law forcing them to use a PAC to do it, so limited their rights to redress the government for their grievences against it. Basically the PAC process is so restrictive and laborious it indirectly takes the right away.

To think that congress could pass a law, that orders groups like the Sierra Club/NRA from running ads 60 days prior to an election (the critcal stage). Can be interpretted no other way than political censorship by congress.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

chs71 wrote: Our fearless leader attacked the Supreme Court and it's protection of Freedom of Speech.

Of course he would.

freedom of speech? please elaborate...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The court upheld that congress can make no law restricting corporate/group entities ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievences by striking down congressial laws restricting them from funding ads which redress their grievences.

couldn't they could do this before...they just had to form a PAC correct?

Yes. But congress passing a law forcing them to use a PAC to do it, so limited their rights to redress the government for their grievences against it. Basically the PAC process is so restrictive and laborious it indirectly takes the right away.

To think that congress could pass a law, that orders groups like the Sierra Club/NRA from running ads 60 days prior to an election (the critcal stage). Can be interpretted no other way than political censorship by congress.

I don't really agree - what you have in bold is "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"...I still say they could have done this prior to the SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution how those grievances should be heard, just that Congress can't pass laws restricting someones ability to present them. They could still present them (albeit you have to jump through the extra hoop of a PAC) prior to the ruling. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we need to provide the "easiest way for corporations or individuals to have their grievances heard"...only that laws can't be passed restricting ones ability to do so...it's up to interpretation as to whether the PAC process actually restricted anyone from lobbying their case...which seems to be fairly obvious it hasn't, seeing as how lobbyists spending has been through the roof this past year. Now I don't know a ton about PAC's, but were corporations limited to how much they could contribute to them, or when they could contribute to them, prior to this ruling?

I loved two parts...

The "overwhelming evidence of GW" and when he attacked the Supreme Court for protecting the 1st Amendment.

Its amazing how close that resembles the 1st stages of a LOT of old communist regimes...take away free speech.

jmog wrote: I loved two parts...

The "overwhelming evidence of GW" and when he attacked the Supreme Court for protecting the 1st Amendment.

Its amazing how close that resembles the 1st stages of a LOT of old communist regimes...take away free speech.

lol...so ever President prior to Obama was a commie for supporting the laws that were on the books?

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote: I loved two parts...

The "overwhelming evidence of GW" and when he attacked the Supreme Court for protecting the 1st Amendment.

Its amazing how close that resembles the 1st stages of a LOT of old communist regimes...take away free speech.

lol...so ever President prior to Obama was a commie for supporting the laws that were on the books?

Who said everyone of them supported them? Maybe they just let them go with "bigger" things on their mind. Plus, the role of the President, as spelled out by the Constitution, has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the law or making the laws, he is to execute the laws that are made. So, it is NONE of the President's business what the SC just ruled on. His only "check" on the SC is he can nominate a judge if one retires, thats it. He has zero right to call out the SC on a decision.

Just like the SC can ONLY rule if the President does something unconstitutional, they can not call him on ANYTHING he does that has no bearing on the Constitution.

Obama made it a point to call out the Supreme Court on reversing an old law that should have never existed.

I think it is funny, the left AND the right said Joe Wilson was wrong for shouting out to the President "you lie" in a speech and calling the President out as it was not appropriate.

This is just as bad or worse, you don't "call out" the SC in the State of the Union, that's VERY bad form.

Not to mention calling them out for protecting the 1st Amendment.

I'm sorry, but if you don't see what was wrong with him doing this, then you should go back and read the Constitution and see what powers the Executive Branch has and doesn't have.

Basically to sum up this thread

1. Bush was terrible(Which I agree)
2. Obama is terrible(which I agree)

Can we please have a real leader step up?
Can we please have politicians who truly have the peoples best interest at heart?

I swear a D or R could come up with a bill that says "Breathing oxygen is good for you and it is vital to drink water" and the other party would say "HELL NO" just to disagree with them.

jmog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote: I loved two parts...

The "overwhelming evidence of GW" and when he attacked the Supreme Court for protecting the 1st Amendment.

Its amazing how close that resembles the 1st stages of a LOT of old communist regimes...take away free speech.

lol...so ever President prior to Obama was a commie for supporting the laws that were on the books?

He has zero right to call out the SC on a decision.

Umm...anyone else find it funny you're arguing to limit the rights of the President to voice his grievances when the ruling of the SCOTUS was to protect said right...