Is this as bad as I think it is?

I have been known on more than one occasion to defend the President even when he didn't necessarily deserve it. I've also kicked him in the ass more than once.

This is an excellent Republican speech. There were a few belly-rubs - new energy policy, and oh we love the children - but he has been kissing GOP ass from beginning to end.

Please tell me I'm just an insane person. Been writing all day, maybe I'm addled.

But Jesus God...what is this crap?

Best Republican speech I've ever heard.

Total poop grenade.

Shit everywhere.

Ugh.

I'm sure many in the DelMarVa region are already writing their resumes as we speak.

Quite a solid republic speech.

writing mine!

His words are now matching his actions more, which is quite frightening.

can know just what it is they support.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I had a dollar for every ass in government who began a speech about factory jobs being gone I'd be sittin' pretty. God Almight they act like its yesterday-Its been 30 years and more!

Earth to politicians---WE KNOW THAT STUPID. We live it. You don't.

:thumbsup:

At work. But I did like your post. 100 percent agree with what you said.

maybe I'm crazy though:crazy:

is an excellent Republican speech or a total poop grenade? One of those reasons might be cause for worry. :tinfoilhat:

After that point, getting a "manufacturing" job around where I grew up was nearly impossible, outside of a couple of places.

I'm not surprised.

but I wouldn't call this "doing great."

I didn't listen. I read the prepared speech. Without the charisma, I only saw GOP talking points. I'm getting more bummed out all the time about the national scene, just working on the local politics, which is horrible enough.

Of course Obama inherited a nightmare. And he's doing things that show a progressive streak, just as the House did with a Democratic majority, no matter how thin or untrustworthy.

But too many stayed away from the polls because of GOP propaganda spreading despair and distrust with blatant lies. I do blame those who didn't vote for weakening Obama further.

They stayed home because the media hasn't allowed one iota of open debate, having kept all policy and social issues trapped between right and ultra right positions. As I've said before, we've lost our voice.

Obama is only working within the narrow confines permitted by the oligarchs, or if one prefers, the MIC, energy, banking and other corporate interests. It was interesting that he dared to commit to reducing the fossil fuel subsidies. If that's no longer dangerous to do, we've really made progess after all.

The thing that hurts the most is the ephemistic language employed and not being specific about how many cuts have already been to the vulnerable. A case in point would be the Arizona Medicaid cuts costing lives, but it was not brought up. Why not?

Does the White House and Congress approve of Arizona balancing its budget that way? How are Americans of little faith in the process of healthcare reform supposed to take that turn of events? How can we defend the process with these things going on?

Are we to assume that the federal government can't control what states are doing with the money from a program that is generally half-funded by D.C., and is supposed to follow federal guidelines? Why is it that D.C. has not addressed what is being done in that part of public policy, as well as other things?

Okay, I'm not digesting this speech very well. I didn't see any high points or anything but what a GOP POTUS would have said, save the fossil fuels remarks. So I'm not happy with it. Guess we'll have to settle for this level of 'civility and compromise' from D.C.

I support Obama because of the way he's conducted himself and the actions taken, for which he gets no credit at all. But I was really hoping for more tonight. Does anyone really think that what he said, which is supposedly a representation of where he's leading us, is going to change anything for the better in our or our children's lifetimes? Is this the 'third way,' form of governing?

I just don't know. Am I missing out on something big here, other than just the 'have faith' thing? Somebody help me with this one.

He doesn't need it or want it from the left.

Cheney endorsed his foreign policies last week.

George Will thinks he's doing great.

He's won over the Republicans and probably hopes to get a good portion of the Conservative vote which will make up for the loss of the liberal vote, which his people anticipate and don't care about. They do not like the 'left'. We were fooled. Well, sort of. I supported him over Hillary but wasn't thrilled with any of them. He scored better than her on a few issues, most of which he's flip-flopped on since then, like Mandated Ins. and Deficit Commissions eg.

So don't worry about him getting credit. And since he's not worried about the 'left' you don't have to worry about them either. In fact, it helps with those he really feels more comfortable with on the right and the DLC when the left slams him. And that's what he wants.

We'll see if his strategy keeps him in the WH. But they did say they would be spending a fortune to replace the voters they lost since the last election. Republican voters, I think he'll get them. They like him and his ideas.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/sunday/main7274480.shtml

snip...

Huckabee; Palin; Romney; Haley Barbour, who's my own favorite - all have their pros and cons, but none stands out as a clearly winning alternative to Barack Obama.

But wait a minute! Isn't there someone out there who is Obama's equal in oratory, charisma, and ability to draw votes who COULD run as a Republican?

Why, yes there is: Barack Obama, his own self.

YES!

Think about it: Since the election of 2010, he is clearly moving in the direction of the Republican Party. He has completely signed on to the Republican position on tax cuts and kicking the deficit can down the road.

Long since he signed onto the Bush position on the war in Afghanistan, he's now swearing he will do something about government spending, even if it angers his most basic constituency, the government employee unions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4710680&mesg_id=4710767

Including the actual state of this capitalist economy which I'd say is till in

near-depression -- and/or a new stimulus or jobs programs!

And compare it with Socialist response --

http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/sotu2011.html

And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

"Hey al-Queda, we're afraid of you and you have us on the run?" ???????

:wtf:

He can say that to the Afghani, Iraqi and Pakistani people.

You think we should just sit back and allow the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan and let them harbor terrorists as they did in the late '90s and early '00s?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's exactly what we should do. Our borders should be secured. American 'interests' can hire their own security forces if they are pissing off the locals.
Afghan farmers did not fly planes into buildings on 9-11, nor will they.

The Taliban HOUSED, NOURISHED, and PROTECTED al-Queda terrorists within the Afghan borders! We should allow them back into power??? As for securing our borders, yes, I'm all for that but that can only do so much because of the global economy we now have.

You guys call yourselves liberals? Do you want the Afghan people to once again be oppressed by the same people who forced women to cover themselves from head to toe whenever they left their homes (and publicly whipped them if their ankles were so much exposed?), denied women from working or being educated after they reached the age of eight, denied women from receiving medical care by a doctor unless a "male chaperon" was present, forced men to grow and maintain beards which were at least six (6) inches long, banned television, music, and destroyed any piece of architecture that worshipped any religion other than Islam (which included the dynamiting of the 1,500-year-old Bamiyan Buddha sculptured-statues) and administered PUBLIC EXECUTION for anyone who violated the Taliban's insane laws?

NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD WE ALLOW THE TALIBAN TO RETAKE AFGHANISTAN.

no way that the US can keep them from having -- at very least -- a significant role in Afghanistan. In part, it is as simple as recognizing that they are of that land, and Uncle Sam is not. In part, it is because the US is not able to "stop" their beliefs from keeping rooted there. The Obama administration is already engaged in negotiating with them, to try to get those who are deemed "safer" to be involved in the governing of sections of Afghanistan. The longer the US is there, the stronger the more radical elements become.

Yes, the Taliban is "of Afghanistan", but they are a tiny minority of the Afghans who's fundamental interpretation of sharia law should NOT be imposed upon the entire country. I visited Kabul back in 1977, it was a beautiful cosmopolitan city where young women wore miniskirts Obviously, not too many Afgans embraced the Taliban philosophy of life!

The Taliban never could have regrouped as quickly as they did except for the fact that Bush took our focus off of Afghanistan in late 2002 and turned it towards Iraq. Everything I predicted that would happen has happened: Iraq was a disaster and turned out to be a useless war which did nothing but deplete our resources and has shattered America's resolve to fight the battle that SHOULD have been fought, which was focusing on Afghanistan which is the birthplace of al-Queda.

:eyes:

my error

"The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandaharmade their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996."

Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html#ixzz1CAig1aqO


BLOW BACK.

Yes, I remember when liberals were scoffed at back in the 1980's were warning that the rebels fighting against the USSR could very well turn that country into another Iran. However, you have to remember that the rebels who fought against the Soviets included many more groups than just the Taliban: the Northern Alliance, for example. America's focus in the '80s was simply stopping the Soviets without thought to anything else--very irresponsible, IMO. After the Soviets left Afghanistan in the late '80s, these rebel factions began fighting with each other (as different Muslim groups often do), until 1996 when the Taliban gained control of 90% of the country.

whatever it is that you are smoking. The Taliban control most of Afghanistan. All our money and weapons and we barely control the capitol. Afghanistan is a losing proposition.

Many Afghanis don't even know they live in a nation called Afghanistan. There are many other nations that are equally repressive and cruel. We can't police the world. Our priorities must begin at home.

There is also strong justification for invading Mexico since it is right on our border and also represents a threat. Are we going to invade Mexico? How about Venezuela? Columbia? The list could go on forever.

Get out of Afghanistan. NOW!

You know, this war wasn't started to defend anyone's right to shave.

Nice talking point though. Go back and get a better one.

think we can police the world? What American corporatists want is access to oil and the famous natural gas pipeline that goes right through that country. They don't care a fig about the women in Afghanistan, more's the pity.

Check out TAPI (this is from Wikipedia and I am not sure how much I have erred in posting, and everybody knows I am technologically challenged. So, let me know if I should amend this post.

TAPI is

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank.<1><2><3> The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. The abbreviation comes from the first letters of those countries. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.
Contents


* 1 History
* 2 Route
* 3 Technical features
* 4 See also
* 5 References

History

The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by U.S. oil company Unocal, was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.<4> In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. ‘Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power,’ reported Forbes in 2005, "the project has been revived and drawn strong US support" as it would allow the Central Asian republics to export energy to Western markets "without relying on Russian routes". Then-US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Ann Jacobsen noted that: "We are seriously looking at the project, and it is quite possible that American companies will join it."<5> Due to increasing instability, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.<5>

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.<6> The intergovernmental agreement on the pipeline was signed on 11 December 2010 in Ashgabat.<6>
Route

The 1,680 kilometres (1,040 mi) pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India.<7>
Technical features

The pipeline will be 1,420 millimetres (56 in) in diameter with a working pressure of 100 standard atmospheres (10,000 kPa).<7> The initial capacity will be 27 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas per year of which 2 bcm will be provided to Afghanistan and 12.5 bcm to each Pakistan and India. Later the capacity will increase to 33 bcm.<8> Six compressor stations would be constructed along the pipeline.<7> The pipeline was expected to be operational by 2014.<9>

The cost of the pipeline is estimated cost at US$7.6 billion.<6> The project is to be financed by the Asian Development Bank.<10>

I'm sure if we kill enough innocent people, along with the bad ones, and destroy enough of their homes, leave enough toxic weaponary buried to contaminate water, soil and air for hundreds of years, chase all the Al-Queda into their neighboring countries and bomb them so there are no safe places to run to, I'm sure if we do all that we will be successful heroes in the Afghan's eyes, and besides that we're the invader in power. It's the United States duty to rid Afghanistan of all our sworn enemies no matter how long it takes or how much it costs. In fact, let's spend all American revenue on war@!

what Afghanis do to one another? You want to improve their morals? Become a missionary.

of our PTB making big $$$$ off the opium trade? Isn't that why we're there? To make $$$ for the Rich? Isn't that what all wars are about....keeping the Defense Industry going? And now OPIUM.

options other than these two.

Murder for profit. FUCK IT ALL! :banghead:

These are wars for resources.

"give me two hours of stuff that polls over 50%, consistency optional"

That bad, eh?
Sadly, I can't bear to watch or listen to him any more.

he spent a good thirty of them sounding like he just came from a Sarah Palin book signing.

:rofl:

Thanks! Caught a marathon last month. Loved it!

Traitors!

I guarantee they don't like what he's saying.

Maybe Obama should have had backup dancers and strobe lights to make it more "exciting."

They didn't like the Republican healthcare plan he supported, either.

Why would they support him?

Funny story:

When I signed up here waaaay back in '01, I didn't have a screen name elsewhere that I particularly liked. I was lurking on another board when some asshat referred to Clinton as a LibDem. I thought, "if Clinton's liberal, then what the hell does that make me?"


plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

they are a right-wing corporofascisnazithingamajig.

:rofl:

:eyes:
Hey, I can do smilies, too!

There's virtually zero daylight between Obama's positions and that of his center-right DLC predecessors, including the Clintons. He's what was formerly referred to as a DLC Dem.

If you think he's a liberal, I'd LOVE to hear your idea of a centrist... please???

think he's doing a good job aren't "really" liberals.

works on Fox, but nowhere in the real world.

Last poll breakdown I saw had him at about 80% among all Dems. :shrug:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Just scroll down a little bit and you'll see it.

Gotta say I'm stumped. Obvious snarky response is "because they're fucking idiots?"
Otherwise, I honestly can't say, other than he also enjoys 85% among Moderate Dems and 69% with Blue Dogs (pretty close to Clinton's at a similar point in his presidency). Maybe it's a partisan thing or, as I've read ad nauseum, "the alternative is Palin."

I *do* know that he seems to stay on the CPC's shit list, as well as those of many / most commonly recognized liberal groups, pundits and voters for reasons like these:


Tax cut deal
Gitmo
"Obamacare" - individual mandate with no public option, etc.
State Secrets shield
Targeted killings
Indefinite detention
Going after Assange
Military tribunals
Staff picks
Wall St non-reform
His piss-poor "negotiating" style
Backing Blue Dogs and others over progressive/lib challengers (Lincoln, Lieberman, etc.)
Afghanistan - escalation
Iraq - basically co-opting Hillary's plan
Handling of BP
Warrantless wiretaps
Extraordinary rendition
Foot dragging on LGBTQ issues
Telecom immunity
Open carry in Nat'l parks


I could probably go on and have definitely missed some biggies but I have a lousy memory and a full load of vicodin - bottom line is, this guy is NOT a liberal. He served in the Senate as a centrist, ran in '08 as a centrist and governs as a centrist. Quack quack.

characterized him as "the most liberal member of the Senate." Subterfuge.

And yeah, that's what the poll says.

liberals: i'm for nice things for everybody until somebody says the poor, working and middle class can't have them, then i roll over and "support the president".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Personally, I'd like to be able to hold my President to a higher standard than that, wouldn't you?

:evilgrin:

Oh, sorry.

You're serious.

That's why the OVERWHELMING majority of liberals in this country support Obama.

the Republican alternative?

I mean, really.

I'd answer "yes" to that and I pretty much think that so far he's been a failure as President.

As a Democrat, anyway, and certainly as a liberal.

Supporting someone isn't a relative issue. You support them or you don't. You think they're generally doing a good job or you don't.

The fact is that 88% of liberal Democrats think Obama is doing a good job. That's fine if you're in the other 12%, but yes there are many progressives and liberals who like the job he is doing and certainly do not think "he's been a failure as President."

especially in politics.

As voters we are constantly forced to make choices between alternatives, many of them bad or worse. You can't speak for the people that took this poll or their reasons for "supporting" the President.

It's not relative.

Look, the fact is the huge majorities of liberals in this country think he's doing a good job. You may not but that doesn't mean that everyone shares that view.

next time I'm polled I'll be sure to register my disapproval of Obama's job performance.

:banghead:

There are polls about specific issues. "Approval rating" is about whether one generally approves or generally disapproves of the person in question. "Do you generally approve or disapprove of President Obama's job performance?" not "Is President Obama doing a better or worse job than Person X?" or "Do you like President Obama more or less than Person X"

Gee, that sort of absolutism sounds awfully familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

When one is asked whether they approve or disapprove of Obama's job performance, the answer is not relative to what one thinks of anyone else.

Just because you create a false dichotomy doesn't mean that others are forced to play along. :hi:

who think President Obama is doing a good job. Oh well. :hi:

I'm sure it will convince someone to ignore the negative and focus solely upon the positive. The rest of us will keep our eyes open.

If nothing else, you can hope that this approach goes better than your attempt to redefine "support" above. :thumbsup:

Some here seem to only see negative. With anything.

Why not throw in a "love it or leave it" for the trifecta?

to a lesser extent, John F. Kennedy was a liberal democrat.

When you are able to find similarities between them and Obama, let me know.

It's full of republic talking points:

Smaller government
Less spending
Rewriting the tax code
Tort reform
Big business pandering
etc.

sigh.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Horrible. I'm very, very sad.

i wonder if chuck percy can still understand what`s going on in the world because obama is walking in chuck`s shoes.

i know that paul simon would be wondering what happened to his pupil

no will you ain`t addled.

I'm sure they'd be ostracized from today's Republican Party, though.

I think he is doing well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Of course I have had 4 shots of Canadian Mist. So it's back to FarmVille and DU for me. :shrug:

And so here I sit at DU.... urp!

Yeah Republican. YAWN

Took up 20% of the speech.

The rest?

...

Pissy looks and his usual lectures.

Yep! This was a great GOP speech!

Bush did it in every SOTU he gave as well. Go ahead, read them, it's all there in his as well.

aside from the despicable privatization to for profit charter schools.

Obama has been doing much of what Carter would have done in his second term if he'd not been October Surprised out of office. Just one example that is symbolic of a different direction, was the re-installation of solar panels at the White House, which Carter did. The first thing that Reagan did was to take them down.

Another thing was that Michelle Obama started an organic garden on the White House lawn, for which she was slammed by the chemical industry immediately. Her healthy food initiative went through which helps millions of children.

All of these things that Barack and Michelle have done got little media attention, but plenty on the blogosphere and they put up with the most insane attacks for them.

Obama has repeatedly helped alternative energy in every way he could despite the obstacles involved. He's not the pocket of big oil and also called for this change of energy policy in order to get us out of debt and out of the war games. People just seem to think that his being put in office was going to make all these deadly and entrenched enemies to what liberals want disappear.

It's not that easy. He's a liberal who is treading very softly. The oligarchs aren't kidding. I'd hate to be him, it's a thankless job.

The despicable privatization of services and charter schools are local battles that have to fought out on the district level. And you're right, it's despicable and worse than that, deadly.


:dem:

But then so am I.

Goes to show you how far Right we've moved.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Howard Dean said it was going to be a good speech. I'm gonna have to remove that little liar as my avatar.

HUGE!

Stumbled across a few seconds of audio feed by mistake...heard something about how we can't keep throwing money at education or some such swill...tuned out immediately.

Thanks for watching, Will, so the rest of us don't have to. :puke:

this is a bit surreal.

...from the fact that the Republic, while not flourishing as it might, is on an even enough keel that going through the motions is once again the appropriate rhetorical stance.

Save the great speeches for when the asteroid is incoming...

Much much more pleasant and I am less drunk than I would be if I was listening to Obama.

It is not like he has shown himself interested in liberal ideas.

I lost interest in anything he has to say. Left or right you can be certain it is not what he will do. It could end up much worse.

Entitlements were left on the table, the door for a more regressive tax structure is open (that's the bad) but maybe my expectations were so low I was just pleasantly surprised with the milquetoast boilerpolate.

:shrug:

you must be watching a different speech than the one I'm watching.


=

"Derp" is no longer tolerated. :rofl:

Derp derp derp derp derp derp!!!!

Dammit.

:)

Then why didn't they like it?! :rofl:

Sure see a lot of criticism here but no suggestions. If any of you think you can do better - run for his office.

Dawn Johnsen for A.G. Les aristos a la lanterne. Expropriate the expropriators.

Stuff like that.

Of course that's because he was warned he'd be crucified if he did.

He's no liberal. I don't think he has any ideology. He's a political chameleon, like Clinton.

I'm not sure what Obama's roots are, or if he even has any

didn't say a damn thing

so he has yet to disappoint with his 80's republicanism

sounded like he was almost pleading at times.

Quelle surpris.

because he's moved to the hard right and no longer represents anything that the Democratic party traditionally stands for.

And those on the far Left haven't liked a Democrat in decades, so...nothing new there.

Kept as a museum piece.

We have a winner!!

:fistbump:

Ever since the Dems got that big tent, all those conservatives looking for a new brand think they own the place now.

But I'm a bit more realistic about the limits of our political system than some. No president will ever be as left/liberal as I am, because we're just not that sort of country.

my sentiments exactly..finally some common sense!

to see that he would be our nominee.

Your comments express a very, no extremely--narrow view of how government participation actually works. This isn't the high school prom. My nominee is not living up to his potential. I did a lot to get him hired, i expect him to deliver at least halfway to his potential.

I'm furious with your divisive nonsense.

There are others in this thread, and on this site, that never supported Democrats, let alone this president.

They didn't listen to the candidate when he told them where he stood on policy.

I guess you didn't, either.



Too many people thought they were voting for a fiery revolutionary, projecting their desires onto the candidate, and when he actually turned out to be the person he said he was, they only ended up fooling themselves.

Do you think that I have been paying no ATTENTION what so fucking ever? Do you think no one else is?

Jesus, Just on the healthcare reform bill alone. For you , it appears to be about "like" or "not like" just like high school.



But I have already engaged with you more than you deserve.

Emotion based response, also noted.

If that's all you have, then...

Have a nice evening.

with donations and my vote. I didn't know he was a Republican. I am very disappointed in him.

Voila.

I was excited about his election and all the things he said he stood for. I have been disappointed. I'm not sure i'd say i like him anymore... i certainly don't trust him now.

:shrug:

You've always been a soldier in the trenches for the party, so if even you feel this way, it is indeed worrisome.

Let's look on the other side: he's sticking to a liberal agenda on a few issues such as drilling, gays in the military, high speed rail, etc.

I'd call him a solid liberal Republican of the McKinley-Wilson or Nixon era (yeah, Wilson was a Democrat but he adopted the then-Republican platform of business progressivism).

Flipped back to the SOTU every ~10 minutes just in case. Nope, back to Hoarders. It was that bad.

Yep. :hi:

2 years ago, if you'd told me I'd be having this reaction, I would have called you a liar.

:hi:

me too.

....you are correct, Sir....the best pro-business pep-rally speech I've heard in a long time....he seemed to ignore or apologized for anything Democratic....

....great countries do great things....we used to do great things like build Panama Canals, build Hoover Dams or fly Saturn rockets to the moon....what have we done lately? What are we capable of doing? Not much, do to thirty years of Republican fiscal policy and corruption....

....nothing in his speech about that....

certainly not Democratic one. x(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your style to a T.

Cheers.

I'm getting goosepimples!

As long as Wall Street and the banksters are doing good, that's all that really matters.

It would be nice if he said he planned on getting the banks to get their shit together on the "making home affordable" program.

putting families - men, women and children - on the street. Homeless people, poor people, unemployed people who have no voice - no mention of them...just the need to reduce or end corporate tax. Did he forget how few currently pay any taxes?

they will still bitch and whine and call him a socialist and a communist and a liberal.


Nothing he says can please them, he should know that if he just studied Clinton's 2 terms and his years of centrist ass kissing.


Either lead or get the fuck out of the way, don't lay in the middle and think you are doing anyone any good.


Got news for you Mr. President, the voting majority is not republican or conservative - they are just the loudest and own the most bull horns and microphones.

Great points, merh.

but I think you're full of shit tonight. I do love you and am willing to be wrong.

It was fucking depressing. It felt like a dirge.

There was absolutely nothing in that speech to signal any serious action on, or even recognition of, what is happening to our country and to our middle class. We have been transformed from respected citizens into work horses and cash machines for corporate and governmental thieves. We are being systematically bled dry and stripped of our economic protections, and nobody in power with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders seems to be noticing or taking it seriously. Our President either does not get it, or he does not give a damn.

It was fucking surreal. It was a wholesale denial of reality. It was another steaming plateful of the very same shit that is killing us.

I have a friend out of work, there was absolutely nothing in that speech that was of any comfort to him. :argh:

They don't even "get" that they aren't "getting it", so there is no talking to them or explaining it to them.

It is like trying to describe water to fish.

what it's like on dry ground.

:(

I'm finally figuring out that the frame of reference a lot of people "on our side" have in understanding politics in this country is determined by the people "not on our side."

They see the issues within the boundaries of a center-right vs. far right worldview promoted through mainstream television. Have no clue there's a viable alternative from the center-left because it's either been demonized or completely ignored by the "debate" on TV.

So when Obama gets up and mouths a bunch of center-right platitudes, he seems to be the alternative to the far right that we're looking for. He's still reinforcing the agenda of the wealthy, corporate, and even rightwing power structure in this country, however.

Frames of reference have slipped so far to the right that the picture ain't even hanging on the wall no more.

:thumbsup:

To say it was depressing is putting it lightly.

How can his administration HELP, if they
don't acknowledge the breadth of the problem?

I didn't watch it live, and just got finished watching it on my TIVO. I had to fight the urge to fast forward about a hundred times.

I think we're in big trouble.

Who else thinks Bush 43 could have delivered this same speech, except for a couple of flubs and stutters?

It was like a free EST seminar.

and the raised retirement age. lol

Take it away and think of all the money we'd save in a year!

Enough to run the Senate barber shop!

:spray: You owe me a monitor.

No, but seriously, if Obama had kept just TWO of the promises he made, I might not be facing personal disaster.

now Social Security under the axe. Of course, no health care isn't helping and no jobs program, ditto.

I feel picked on, myself. :hug:

So it's good that the price of food and gas are dropping ever-so precipitously! :crazy:

:hug: But hey, now i can join the army and make-out with a private at the PX, right?

:loveya: I too am horribly disappointed in this whole thing. I'm so sorry that you're going through such a difficult time. I'm always here for you sweet cheeks.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

In court you can say: "Your honor, our President told us we should look ahead, not behind when it comes to crime. So let us do our patriotic duty and get me the fuck out of here."

:)

2011 isn't 1981. Pretty much all invention for anything worthwhile or technologically advanced is done in corporate-funded labs nowadays.

As in, if you imagine it, it will appear. Maybe the president expects us to all become magicians. :)

Good salary.. free health care... free haircuts... free limo service.. free gym and health club for members of CONgress... fully vested retirement for life after serving only one term.

As far as Washinton knows.. there is no recession... life is good for them.

Mr. Obama makes 'real good speeches'. Whatever you want to hear.. he will tell you.