theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 28, 2010 0:23:25 GMT -5
The "Freeze" is a fraud like its proponent. Each and every program he wants to freeze was jacked up in spending already as part of his "stimulus" crap. Did we really just commit $75B to pay for extending unemployment benefits after the Great O's Stimulus package failed? The only thing he has stimulated is unemployment claims. If this weren't so tragic it would be high comedy. You can't write better comedy than Barry O and the Beltway Buffoons give you each and every day. Exactly how did the stimulus fail? Many people complained that the stimulus money wasn't spent well (CNN had something today on those signs that advertise stimulus money. Few if any members of the House or Senate will mention it in their ads. Oh, and you know what really grinds my gears? The renovation of the Smithsonian Castle - which was closed LAST YEAR for renovations - is being advertised as being done with TIGER money. What a load of it.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 1:07:16 GMT -5
Exactly how did the stimulus fail? Many people complained that the stimulus money wasn't spent well (CNN had something today on those signs that advertise stimulus money. Few if any members of the House or Senate will mention it in their ads. Oh, and you know what really grinds my gears? The renovation of the Smithsonian Castle - which was closed LAST YEAR for renovations - is being advertised as being done with TIGER money. What a load of it. Most of the money spent was that paid to banks and to state governments to help cover their budget shortcomings. The fraction actually spent on road works or renovations like you describe has been a minuscule percentage.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2010 7:16:22 GMT -5
In President Bush's first SOTU, he used "I" 46 times, 4 times of a contraction with "I", 10 of me, 14 of my for a total of 74 out of 4371 words - or 1.7%. Obama has 126 uses tonight out of 7134 words, for a rate of 1.8%. I think he'll extend his apologies for the extra .1% of uppitiness. Statistics don't lie but statisticians do. Using your number, Obama used the word I 126 times in one speech. That's a lot. On a higher note, when will you (and Obama) stop running against Bush? I thought he left office a year ago. What he did or said is immaterial relative to this speech. Or do you reflectively feel you must respond to every post I make, always in a ......ly way?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 8:35:52 GMT -5
Statistics don't lie but statisticians do. Using your number, Obama used the word I 126 times in one speech. That's a lot. Yes, these newfangled "percentages" must be the work of a baby-hating left-wing conspiracy trying to form a one-world government. We love us some good old-fashioned counting numbers with absolutely no context!
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 9:05:51 GMT -5
Favorite moments - smacking the Supremes to their faces and Alito's Doug Williams-being-shredded-by-Jamie Foxx face, and all of the hating on Senate. Best line - the pivot from the stimulus was the right thing to do and he'd do the same thing today to the American people are tightening their belts to the Federal government should do it too (I really think that came off pretty well and the pundits making fun of the discretionary spending freeze are missing that yes, it's a psychological thing, but it's one it seems like people want to see for that very reason). The speech was wonderful. He displayed a lot of class and dignity in calling out the Supreme Court. Now, of course, he's back to the actual work of doing something positive which has thus far eluded him. It's not a "deficit of trust" Mr. President, it's a "deficit of delivery". You promise much and deliver nothing.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 28, 2010 9:14:06 GMT -5
Favorite moments - smacking the Supremes to their faces and Alito's Doug Williams-being-shredded-by-Jamie Foxx face, and all of the hating on Senate. Best line - the pivot from the stimulus was the right thing to do and he'd do the same thing today to the American people are tightening their belts to the Federal government should do it too (I really think that came off pretty well and the pundits making fun of the discretionary spending freeze are missing that yes, it's a psychological thing, but it's one it seems like people want to see for that very reason). I agree with you there, but when he starts following through on the things he was elected for I don't imagine you're going to be very happy. The speech was wonderful. He displayed a lot of class and dignity in calling out the Supreme Court. Now, of course, he's back to the actual work of doing something positive which has thus far eluded him. It's not a "deficit of trust" Mr. President, it's a "deficit of delivery". You promise much and deliver nothing.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 9:20:56 GMT -5
One other thing. Was I having a Harry "ringside" Reid nap or did Mr. Obama completely fail to mention his pleadge to close the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay and the horrific failure of intelligence that allowed the Christmas Bomber on to the plane?
Last I checked, national security still kind iof matters.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Jan 28, 2010 9:50:43 GMT -5
Calling out the Supreme Court exhibited zero class on the part of the President. I also enjoyed how he claimed to not want to play the blame game on national security after having skewered Bush43 for a sustained period of time immediately prior to that.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 28, 2010 9:55:00 GMT -5
Things Elvado and Ed hate:
Percentages Numbers, generally Context History Bashing the Supreme Court (except when the "liberal" block wins. Then it's fair game.)
I do agree that he should have discussed national security more. That was noticeably lacking for quite a while, and what he did say wasn't terribly satisfying.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 10:11:45 GMT -5
Things Elvado and Ed hate: Percentages Numbers, generally Context History Bashing the Supreme Court (except when the "liberal" block wins. Then it's fair game.) I do agree that he should have discussed national security more. That was noticeably lacking for quite a while, and what he did say wasn't terribly satisfying. By more I guess you mean at all? Th unmitigated arrogance of this empty suit is amazing. He understands the deficit of trust? Please. He undestands that people don't believe that government in Washington works? The answer of course--more government.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 10:22:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but how exactly was it classless to mention the Citizens United decision? I realize this is a talking point that's attempting political judo in deflecting Alito's embarrassing reaction by trying to paint Obama as the classless one, but it makes no sense. He didn't make fun of Alito's wife like Jay Leno would, he attacked the implications of the decision.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 10:41:41 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but how exactly was it classless to mention the Citizens United decision? I realize this is a talking point that's attempting political judo in deflecting Alito's embarrassing reaction by trying to paint Obama as the classless one, but it makes no sense. He didn't make fun of Alito's wife like Jay Leno would, he attacked the implications of the decision. There is a long history of president's using the bully pulpit against the Court. In fact, public shame it is pretty much the only "check" on the life-tenured Court. I'd say that was democracy at work. Whether or not I agree with the Court's ruling in Citizens United (I do), I still think it illustrated just how removed the Court is from the political/cultural realities of today. I mean they release one of the more pro-corporate decisions in recent memory in a political climate stoked on both sides of the aisle by populist outrage. Did they think they wouldn't draw fire? As for the speech, I'm certain there is nothing he could have done or said to appease Elvado or Ed. They are the cynics and nihilists I believe our president referred to. How do you not applaud tax cuts, fellas? Spending freezes? Am I the only one who thinks its looney tunes that Obama sounded more like a Reagan-era Republican gubernatorial candidate than a Democrat and yet, he is treated like Chavez or Castro by the right? I mean, the more I listen to Obama the more I'm struck by the fact that he is a compassionate conservative.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 10:46:16 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but how exactly was it classless to mention the Citizens United decision? I realize this is a talking point that's attempting political judo in deflecting Alito's embarrassing reaction by trying to paint Obama as the classless one, but it makes no sense. He didn't make fun of Alito's wife like Jay Leno would, he attacked the implications of the decision. There is a long history of president's using the bully pulpit against the Court. In fact, public shame it is pretty much the only "check" on the life-tenured Court. I'd say that was democracy at work. Whether or not I agree with the Court's ruling in Citizens United (I do), I still think it illustrated just how removed the Court is from the political/cultural realities of today. I mean they release one of the more pro-corporate decisions in recent memory in a political climate stoked on both sides of the aisle by populist outrage. Did they think they wouldn't draw fire? As for the speech, I'm certain there is nothing he could have done or said to appease Elvado or Ed. They are the cynics and nihilists I believe our president referred to. How do you not applaud tax cuts, fellas? Spending freezes? Am I the only one who thinks its looney tunes that Obama sounded more like a Reagan-era Republican gubernatorial candidate than a Democrat and yet, he is treated like Chavez or Castro by the right? I mean, the more I listen to Obama the more I'm struck by the fact that he is a compassionate conservative. I will cop to being a cynic. Nihilist, no way. Let me ask you. Do you believe he believes what he was saying? Or, was he saying what he thinks people want to hear? His every answer seems to be a promise rooted in more government involvement. My gut tells me people want less. As for the spending "freeze". That ploy is as transparent as the Health Care negotiations aren't. Earmarks? He had a chance for a year to attackearmarks and didn't. Now that he's in political trouble, out comes the magic veto pen. If it weren't tragic, it would be hilarious. By the way, I would be looking very hard at State right now if Mr. Obama wants to see his real problem. She will run in 2012 and serve as the new Kennedy to this sorry Carter retread.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 10:50:33 GMT -5
I could only stand to watch the speech in pieces, but this struck me right away as terribly poor taste. Everyone knows that the Court is divided down ideological lines for CERTAIN issues. But the Court still embodies the spirit of impartiality among the three branches of government...to publicly chastise the Court for a decision that is rooted in constitutional interpretation (an opinion that 99% of America could not identify) is just classless. No, it isn't. You might not agree with him, but it's not classless given that it's in the context of calling for new election funding laws. When you shake your head and mouth no to the President, no, the Court really doesn't seem impartial. Justice Roberts didn't mouth no. Scalia and Thomas probably did - but they were at home in front of their TV's, and who cares what they say in the privacy of their own homes.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 10:57:03 GMT -5
There is a long history of president's using the bully pulpit against the Court. In fact, public shame it is pretty much the only "check" on the life-tenured Court. I'd say that was democracy at work. Whether or not I agree with the Court's ruling in Citizens United (I do), I still think it illustrated just how removed the Court is from the political/cultural realities of today. I mean they release one of the more pro-corporate decisions in recent memory in a political climate stoked on both sides of the aisle by populist outrage. Did they think they wouldn't draw fire? As for the speech, I'm certain there is nothing he could have done or said to appease Elvado or Ed. They are the cynics and nihilists I believe our president referred to. How do you not applaud tax cuts, fellas? Spending freezes? Am I the only one who thinks its looney tunes that Obama sounded more like a Reagan-era Republican gubernatorial candidate than a Democrat and yet, he is treated like Chavez or Castro by the right? I mean, the more I listen to Obama the more I'm struck by the fact that he is a compassionate conservative. I will cop to being a cynic. Nihilist, no way. Let me ask you. Do you believe he believes what he was saying? Or, was he saying what he thinks people want to hear? His every answer seems to be a promise rooted in more government involvement. My gut tells me people want less. As for the spending "freeze". That ploy is as transparent as the Health Care negotiations aren't. Earmarks? He had a chance for a year to attackearmarks and didn't. Now that he's in political trouble, out comes the magic veto pen. If it weren't tragic, it would be hilarious. By the way, I would be looking very hard at State right now if Mr. Obama wants to see his real problem. She will run in 2012 and serve as the new Kennedy to this sorry Carter retread. I disagree with your assertion that every solution he suggests is rooted in government involvement. I think you are projecting that. I heard clearly that private industry was going to be the driving force of economic recovery. We'll also have to disagree with your assessment of Obama only saying what people want to hear. I think there are many valid criticisms of Obama to be made, but I don't believe insincerity is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 28, 2010 11:00:39 GMT -5
This was a speech almost totally directed at his base. Which I guess is fine if he wanted to rile the troops up. But his problems seem to be in the independent voters who are deserting him and I don't think they found much there to get excited about. The spending freeze is pretty transparant and the rest of the jobs stuff was pretty weak. The supreme court thing plays really well to the base but the middle takes a dim view of an aggressive call outs like that.
Overall it sure wasn't Clinton's pivot to the middle and IMHO I don't think he helped himself a whole lot.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 11:04:03 GMT -5
I will cop to being a cynic. Nihilist, no way. Let me ask you. Do you believe he believes what he was saying? Or, was he saying what he thinks people want to hear? His every answer seems to be a promise rooted in more government involvement. My gut tells me people want less. As for the spending "freeze". That ploy is as transparent as the Health Care negotiations aren't. Earmarks? He had a chance for a year to attackearmarks and didn't. Now that he's in political trouble, out comes the magic veto pen. If it weren't tragic, it would be hilarious. By the way, I would be looking very hard at State right now if Mr. Obama wants to see his real problem. She will run in 2012 and serve as the new Kennedy to this sorry Carter retread. I disagree with your assertion that every solution he suggests is rooted in government involvement. I think you are projecting that. I heard clearly that private industry was going to be the driving force of economic recovery. We'll also have to disagree with your assessment of Obama only saying what people want to hear. I think there are many valid criticisms of Obama to be made, but I don't believe insincerity is one of them. I'll agree that I may hear him through a prism of distrust. However, everywhere you turn, he proposes a mechanism (government driven) to spur private industry. How about get the hell out of the way, don't mandate how I spend on or insure my employees and let me work? Finally, about what exactly is he sincere? Where have actions matched words? Is Gitmo closed? No. Were the health care negotiations transparent? No. He claims to have eliminated lobbyists, but brokered a deal with big labor on the health care deal. You know damn well he signed off on the Landrieu and Nelson bribes while telling us special interests have to be reined in. News Flash: To someone sitting in Pennsylvania or any other state, Nebraska and Louisiana are special interests. I just don't see actions and words coalescing with this guy.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 11:21:26 GMT -5
This was a speech almost totally directed at his base. Which I guess is fine if he wanted to rile the troops up. But his problems seem to be in the independent voters who are deserting him and I don't think they found much there to get excited about. The spending freeze is pretty transparant and the rest of the jobs stuff was pretty weak. The supreme court thing plays really well to the base but the middle takes a dim view of an aggressive call outs like that. Let me get this straight - a speech that calls for more nuclear power, tax cuts all over the place, spending freeze, bipartisan budget commission to slash spending, and securing loose nukes is a base speech? Exactly who do you think is his base? This speech was aimed at independents.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 11:25:03 GMT -5
This was a speech almost totally directed at his base. Which I guess is fine if he wanted to rile the troops up. But his problems seem to be in the independent voters who are deserting him and I don't think they found much there to get excited about. The spending freeze is pretty transparant and the rest of the jobs stuff was pretty weak. The supreme court thing plays really well to the base but the middle takes a dim view of an aggressive call outs like that. Let me get this straight - a speech that calls for more nuclear power, tax cuts all over the place, spending freeze, bipartisan budget commission to slash spending, and securing loose nukes, is a base speech? Exactly who do you think is his base? This speech was aimed at independents. Exactly. Aimed at once again duping the bunch that put him into office in the first place. Spends a year in office going left, left and left some more, then realizes he's in political trouble and puts on the moderate mask. By the way, the freeze is a complete joke and his "commission" was DOA and he knew it. Fraud of the highest (or is it lowest) order.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,751
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2010 11:30:58 GMT -5
Fair enough. He has just proven to be biggest bill and the emptiest suit. My, my, how quickly you forget Mr. Clinton. You don't need to go that far back -- have we forgotten the "compassionate conservatism" and fiscal responsibility of the last regime? I'm pretty sure we could run through 99% of politicians here.
|
|