or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2012 State of the Union Address
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 State of the Union Address - Page 2

post #51 of 91

 

Well that is odd.

Quote:
Originally Tweeted by Jamie Dupree
 
Almost all those leaving the Obama speech early are liberal Democrats

 

Dupree is a Washington/Capitol news guy.

post #52 of 91

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post

 

Well that is odd.

 

Dupree is a Washington/Capitol news guy.



Maybe because Obama continues to play to the center so much? Despite being labeled a commienazifacistmuslim by some of his critics.

post #53 of 91
Thread Starter 

I'm really worried by the total lack of enthusiasm for Obama's speech. The applause and cheering was tepid at best.

 

post #54 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

The 1:2 ratio is bullshit, Young Republican nonsense math.



Mea culpa.  I did not realize the number included janitors and bus drivers, etc.

post #55 of 91

Andrea Mitchell is right.  Not an "apologizing for America speech". 

 

Much better than I expected it to be despite my obvious problems with things here and there.


To be quite honest, if I didn't disagree so much with his policies, he inspires more in me than any of the four left fighting for the GOP.  Not that I would vote for any of those numbnuts either.

post #56 of 91

Mitch Daniels just told Newt he would never get the nomination.  Nice.

post #57 of 91
Thread Starter 

Listening to the Republican response, and I wonder who the fuck he's talking about. It's like he's literally talking about Jimmy Carter. I also liked his classy intro by saying GO SUPERBOWEL TEEEEM!

post #58 of 91

Yeah, the pandering to the Budweiser vote was kinda ugly.  It does sound like the WH forgot to give them a copy of the speech so they could write their response.  And Mitch Daniels, never seen him before, looks like he is a Republican live boy scandal waiting to happen.

post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post



Mea culpa.  I did not realize the number included janitors and bus drivers, etc.



But the number is not far off in reality. In my high school, there are 1 principal, 4 vice principals, 4 counselors, 4 secretaries, and 1 book keeper, or 14 administrative personnel. We have 47 certified teachers and 3 special education teaching assistants. This number does not include anyone from Central Office. 

post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post



But the number is not far off in reality. In my high school, there are 1 principal, 4 vice principals, 4 counselors, 4 secretaries, and 1 book keeper, or 14 administrative personnel. We have 47 certified teachers and 3 special education teaching assistants. This number does not include anyone from Central Office. 



Anecdotally I could agree with that same assessment for my own sons school.  Some local investigation could probably produce something close but I was truly rattling off a statistic I had heard in passing listening to right wing hate speech radio so I was willing to admit that I was wrong on what I was saying.

post #61 of 91

I liked this speech.  There were a couple of parts I didn't like, but overall I think it was great.  I loved that he hammered home what government actually does for people, loved the Seal Team 6 theme, loved the entire tax system part and the congressional insider trading thing.  And a task force to take on financial fraud is a huge winner.

 

I didn't watch it on tv but heard it on NPR, so I missed what the room looked like.  After the speech, the NPR commentators started analyzing the speech a little bit but then switched to talking about Mitch Daniels long before he actually came on.  The GOP's most recent attacks on NPR have worked like magic.  It's like GOP radio now. 

post #62 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I'm really worried by the total lack of enthusiasm for Obama's speech. The applause and cheering was tepid at best.

The Republican legislators' angry refusal to participate came across to me as just as petty as half the supreme Court refusing to attend.

Y'know what? I'm glad they're angry. I'm angry too. You want to filibuster and fight any kind of stimulus while there's an economic catastrophe going on, you want to ignore the President that exists and spend the entire recession campaigning against a foreign socialist straw man who exists only in your heads, go ahead and feel butthurt when the real deal shows up and dispels your bullshit on prime time television. Either Romney or Gingrich is going to have to debate the real deal sooner than he'd like, too. Ask John McCain how that went.
post #63 of 91

Caught a little bit online. The "enhanced" live stream had charts and graphs supporting Obama's speech. I screen grabbed this little doozy. If anyone doubted that Occupy Wall Street changed the economic narrative in our country, this should clear that up real quick. Obama goes after the Top 1%!

 

SOTU.jpg

post #64 of 91
Thread Starter 

I tried the enhanced version but it kept freezing, so I switched to the Standard version, which ran smoothly. Did see that chart, which tells the tale. But the fact is, most Americans simply do not buy into the language of Class Warfare. Obama is good about talking about creating opportunities and "giving people a fair shake", but whenever he talks about "richest Americans must pay their fair share" I tune out, and I'm a strong supporter of Obama! Independants aren't going to respond to that, and hard core Leftists are simply going to think he's not going far enough. I think that's Obama's true opponent in this election: articulating his message in such a way that he brings his base and independents into line. Ironically the GOP are helping him with their Shitfest of a nomination process.

post #65 of 91

President W screwed the country good when he went diddlin with the tax rates. Suggesting we undo that mistake isn't class warfare, it's common fucking sense. The richest Americans can kiss my poor, pale ass. The very usage of the term 'class warfare' when it comes to dealing with the richest 1% is fucking infuriating. Its not class warfare, its economic policy occasionally mixed with some mean words. oooOOooOh. Throwing rocks at tanks. Assholes.

post #66 of 91

Democrats have always been bad at messaging. It's not just an Obama thing.

post #67 of 91

To be fair, at least Eliot Spitzer was doing his best to learn techniques... oh, nevermind, I thought that said massaging.

post #68 of 91

I think I speak for everyone when I ask:

 

Any shots of cute interns?

post #69 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

President W screwed the country good when he went diddlin with the tax rates. Suggesting we undo that mistake isn't class warfare, it's common fucking sense. The richest Americans can kiss my poor, pale ass. The very usage of the term 'class warfare' when it comes to dealing with the richest 1% is fucking infuriating. Its not class warfare, its economic policy occasionally mixed with some mean words. oooOOooOh. Throwing rocks at tanks. Assholes.


This quote can never be repeated too often:

 

“This quote from Al Franken’s book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is circulating around the web lately: “Any time that a liberal points out that the wealthy are disproportionately benefiting from Bush’s tax policies, Republicans shout, “class warfare!” In her book A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her dead husband and then killed her. That is class warfare. Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.”

 

post #70 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

I think I speak for everyone when I ask:

 

Any shots of cute interns?



 

I wouldn't say she was an intern but somewhere near the end there was a woman in the upper balcony who was standing up with a red suit on.  Blonde I believe.  She was definitely worth the camera lingering for a minute.

post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I tried the enhanced version but it kept freezing, so I switched to the Standard version, which ran smoothly. Did see that chart, which tells the tale. But the fact is, most Americans simply do not buy into the language of Class Warfare. Obama is good about talking about creating opportunities and "giving people a fair shake", but whenever he talks about "richest Americans must pay their fair share" I tune out, and I'm a strong supporter of Obama! Independants aren't going to respond to that, and hard core Leftists are simply going to think he's not going far enough. I think that's Obama's true opponent in this election: articulating his message in such a way that he brings his base and independents into line. Ironically the GOP are helping him with their Shitfest of a nomination process.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post

Democrats have always been bad at messaging. It's not just an Obama thing.


He hits problems when he taps into Republican framing, i.e. "tax relief" instead of "tax responsibility."  I cringe whenever I hear the words "tax relief" -- as if taxes are an STD or something.

 

He also talks about how the wealthy are "doing phenomenally well" instead of stating clearly that lobbyists engineered the tax code to benefit the already rich at the expense of everybody else.  For the first time that I can remember, he did touch briefly on the fact that what the rich manage to avoid in taxes either goes on the deficit or is paid by someone else, but the language is not strong enough.  "Doing phenomenally well" can mean they worked for their money instead of just pushing it around to make dividends and bonuses.

 

But he deserves props for the fact that he's been hammering this point home the entire time he's been president.  The only time Republicans talk about fairness in the tax code is when they're addressing the needs of their beleaguered friends in the top .1%.  And all in all I thought it was a really good speech. 

 

post #72 of 91
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

 


He hits problems when he taps into Republican framing, i.e. "tax relief" instead of "tax responsibility."  I cringe whenever I hear the words "tax relief" -- as if taxes are an STD or something.

 

He also talks about how the wealthy are "doing phenomenally well" instead of stating clearly that lobbyists engineered the tax code to benefit the already rich at the expense of everybody else.  For the first time that I can remember, he did touch briefly on the fact that what the rich manage to avoid in taxes either goes on the deficit or is paid by someone else, but the language is not strong enough.  "Doing phenomenally well" can mean they worked for their money instead of just pushing it around to make dividends and bonuses.

 

But he deserves props for the fact that he's been hammering this point home the entire time he's been president.  The only time Republicans talk about fairness in the tax code is when they're addressing the needs of their beleaguered friends in the top .1%.  And all in all I thought it was a really good speech. 

 

 

Oh I think overall it was a really good State of the Union speech, aside from that (rather large) nitpick. I kind of wish Obama would just explicitly come out and say "you know what, there are acceptable ways to make money and there are unacceptable ways to make money; let's encourage the former and crack down on the latter". He approaches that statement, but it's always in a defensive "hey we don't hate people for making money" tone.
 

 

post #73 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

Oh I think overall it was a really good State of the Union speech, aside from that (rather large) nitpick. I kind of wish Obama would just explicitly come out and say "you know what, there are acceptable ways to make money and there are unacceptable ways to make money; let's encourage the former and crack down on the latter". He approaches that statement, but it's always in a defensive "hey we don't hate people for making money" tone.
 

 

 

Agree, although he's become much more assertive since his earlier days in office.  What is amazing about all politicians and every member of the media is that there's stuff that's just blatantly obvious to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together, such as it's unethical for congressional staffers to engage in insider trading, and it should clearly be illegal, but no one will come out and say it flatly.  Obama came closest of anybody last night.  The other elephant in the room is that people get into power to change laws in ways that will enrich them.  That's no different and no worse than kings and queens sending out tax collectors to extort the peasants.  It's as old as the hills.  Even Obama wouldn't put it in those terms, but that's the reality.  I did like the way he talked about outsourcing but no one will talk about tariffs -- obvious, historical, relevant ways to protect domestic manufacturing. 
 

 

post #74 of 91

Anyone watch the republican rebuttal?  I didn't but I'm already seeing 'Draft Mitch Daniels' stuff popping up.

post #75 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Anyone watch the republican rebuttal?  I didn't but I'm already seeing 'Draft Mitch Daniels' stuff popping up.



Anyone trying to suggest that didn't watch the rebuttal either.

post #76 of 91

Wait, draft him to run for president, or draft him to the actual military?

post #77 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Anyone watch the republican rebuttal?  I didn't but I'm already seeing 'Draft Mitch Daniels' stuff popping up.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

Wait, draft him to run for president, or draft him to the actual military?



Most likely to run for President since the current cast of the Republican nominees is a joke.

post #78 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post

Anyone trying to suggest that didn't watch the rebuttal either.


The National Review called it "The best State of the Union rebuttal ever". God knows they're never wrong.

 

post #79 of 91

See?  This is the reason Civics classes are so important.   I doubt many people wanting to draft Mitch Daniels understands that even if he dominates  the rest of the primary season, he still won't win due to missing so many state ballot deadlines.   Hell, some candidates running right now have missed some deadlines.

 

Also, what are the odds we will have an open convention similar to '76?   Do you think at this point, that's actually preferable to voters than the normal way?   And, in theory, could a person who never went through the primary process (say Christie or Palin for example) get the nomination if the delegates could choose who they want?

post #80 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

See?  This is the reason Civics classes are so important.   I doubt many people wanting to draft Mitch Daniels understands that even if he dominates  the rest of the primary season, he still won't win due to missing so many state ballot deadlines.   Hell, some candidates running right now have missed some deadlines.

 

Also, what are the odds we will have an open convention similar to '76?   Do you think at this point, that's actually preferable to voters than the normal way?   And, in theory, could a person who never went through the primary process (say Christie or Palin for example) get the nomination if the delegates could choose who they want?


I bet that there are some people higher up in the RNC that would love to have an open convention...this could be a chance to bring in a candidate that hasn't been scarred by the media scrutiny during the primary process.

On one hand, if a candidate was brought in at this late a date (Aug. 27, 2012), it would be a struggle to get GOP voters behind whatever candidate is chosen but there would also be less time for any dirt that might exist in their past to be brought to the surface....this could be to the GOP's advantage....??

 

post #81 of 91
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Anyone watch the republican rebuttal?  I didn't but I'm already seeing 'Draft Mitch Daniels' stuff popping up.



It was embarrassingly bad. The one line I liked was when Daniels talked about the idea and role of the Loyal Opposition. Literally everything else was crap, much of it hysterical.

post #82 of 91

I wanted to punch him in the cock when he said we're a nation of "haves, and soon-to-haves".  Give me a break.

post #83 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


On one hand, if a candidate was brought in at this late a date (Aug. 27, 2012), it would be a struggle to get GOP voters behind whatever candidate is chosen but there would also be less time for any dirt that might exist in their past to be brought to the surface....this could be to the GOP's advantage....??

A surprise candidate would have to redefine "new to politics" in order to get past the radar with whatever horrors made him/her look like a winner in the eyes of the GOP's kingmakers. We're living an age of instant opposition research and 24 hour news. The attempt to turn Sarah Palin into the Pia Zadora of Vice Presidential candidates in 2008 is a case in point.
post #84 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


A surprise candidate would have to redefine "new to politics" in order to get past the radar with whatever horrors made him/her look like a winner in the eyes of the GOP's kingmakers. We're living an age of instant opposition research and 24 hour news. The attempt to turn Sarah Palin into the Pia Zadora of Vice Presidential candidates in 2008 is a case in point.

 

a long shot for sure...but I after year + of having to deal with a bunch of republican candidates that no one really likes, I could see the GOP electorate getting apoplectic if someone like Christie, Rubio or even Jeb Bush jumped in at the last minute to "save the GOP" from those other RNC losers. 

 

??

 

post #85 of 91

The only thing I saw from Daniels rebuttal was his claim that Steve Jobs created more jobs than Obama. That may be true, but those jobs where in China! Why does Daniels support job creation in China? Could he be the Manichean Senator?

post #86 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

The only thing I saw from Daniels rebuttal was his claim that Steve Jobs created more jobs than Obama. That may be true, but those jobs where in China! Why does Daniels support job creation in China? Could he be the Manichean Senator?


I think you mean 'Manchurian', Chaz. 'Manichean' means a black and white view on an subject with no scope for the potential complexities of an issue ... oh wait that would also usually work with Republicans too.

 

 

post #87 of 91

Why yes, that comment was meant to work on two different levels. I'm just that fucking clever. So clever that I clearly can't be a bad speller.

post #88 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

Why yes, that comment was meant to work on two different levels. I'm just that fucking clever. So clever that I clearly can't be a bad speller.


I never doubted your brilliance for a second Chaz. That was some fine work you did there.

post #89 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

The only thing I saw from Daniels rebuttal was his claim that Steve Jobs created more jobs than Obama. That may be true, but those jobs where in China! Why does Daniels support job creation in China? Could he be the Manichean Senator?

 

I bet in his mind there are a bunch of cartoon factories strewn about the country pumping out iphones and ipads on conveyor belts.

 

Question of the day: What is a Foxconn, Mr. Daniels?

post #90 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

 

Question of the day: What is a Foxconn, Mr. Daniels?


00026086.jpg

 

post #91 of 91

I know Daniels is a governor. I don't know why I wrote senator.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2012 State of the Union Address