Obama's Speech - comments

[SFC Ollie]

He is sort of amusing.

More like sickening if you ask me.

 

[saveliberty]

Which one came from Fox News and where do you think the other is from?

"paint-by-poll-numbers" speech that "had the feel of being focus-grouped within an inch of its life"

"an incoherent, disorganized, and most regrettably defiant, mess of a speech"

Obama's State of the Union: How did he do? - Yahoo! News

 

[Meister]

On one hand barry is saying that he wants ideas on how to progress with healthcare.
On the other hand, Pelosi says she is willing to get it passed with the senate version and then make changes and go with the nuclear option. Now there is an idea.

Reporting from Washington - Laying out a possible path to approving healthcare legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Wednesday that the House should pass the Senate's version and then use a process known as "budget reconciliation" to make the changes some lawmakers are demanding.

The politically fraught strategy might allow Democrats to salvage a version of the overhaul that senior lawmakers pushed through the House and Senate late last year. Because budget reconciliation requires only a simple majority in the Senate, it could enable Democrats to circumvent a threatened GOP filibuster.

"Majority rule, we call it," Pelosi told a group of columnists Wednesday.
Pelosi suggests maneuver to pass healthcare overhaul - latimes.com

Doesn't this sound like what's been going on all year long? So much for bipartisanship, business as usual on Capital Hill

 

[L.K.Eder]

Limbaugh is providing stellar analysis, as usual. I loved the analogy comparing our dear, esteemed POTUS to a child king jumping up and down because things are not going his way. There can be no doubt that he does not give a romeo alpha who he has to destroy along his way to his goals. He dreams of becoming our very own despot. Srsly.

Follow your messiah the Rushie. I will follow the Constitution.

Which country's constitution? Not americas.

americas are two continents, maybe one. depending on the definition, but never a country. this useful factoid, hehe, brought to you by me.

 

[jillian]

Hmmm...........I think any educated American who saw that little snipet said to themselves, "w0w..........this president has some balls...........with the Supreme Court Justices sitting 20 feet in front of him, he's saying 'Fcukk the First Ammendment'!!!"

Radical progressives like Obama dont belive in the First Ammendment anyway..............havent since the beginning of the movement in the 1880's.

 

[skookerasbil]

So how many jobs has the $850B "Stimulus" saved or created?

10.............739..............112...........2 million...................?????

Nobody knows..........its a hail mary pass guess at best. Of course, the president was sure to throw out the highest # last night!! Gee...........what a shocker!!!

 

[EriktheRed]

But to be serious, others on here aren't pissed that he showed some nads...all I heard was a bunch of the same. And some whining about why not much has changed for the good since he took office. Yeah yeah, we know, Bush left him a horrible pile of shit to work with...he knew that going in....it's never the dems fault. With a majority congress, he was still unable to get anything done. Well, they DID pass that comprehensive energy and climate bill...(surely that will help our situation).

When you say he showed some nads, are you referring to his jeers and finger pointing at the republicans? Or are you talking about his about face on the military and the supreme court? He was incredibly brave to do that...dumb...but brave.

Well, let's take a look at what he said:

Before the main part in question he said, regarding healthcare...

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

So right there he's acknowledging the problems getting the HC bill passed are not just the fault of the opposition.

A little later, he said....

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.

Seems to me the message to both parties in Congress is to not let the results of recent elections suddenly get everyone fast forwarding to an election that is still over 9 months away.

In particular, to the Dems, it was, "I'm not gonna back down despite whats just happened recently and neither should you, so buck up, because failing to do anything isn't gonna help anyway."

And to the Repubs it was, "I'm not backing down despite your guys winning some electoral victories lately, so if you really think public opinon is on your side in this, you're gonna get a chance to prove it. Go ahead and fillibuster or use some of the other delaying tactics at your disposal and we'll see how things shake out. IOW, I'm not gonna be your bitch."

He didn't mention how there some in his own party have been flies in the ointment, too, but hey, that's politics.


Personally, I wouldn't have minded if he also mentioned how one particular GOP Senator seems to enjoy constantly blocking his appointments, even to the point of potentially damaging international relations.

 

[Annie]

It was interesting watch the military men sit stone faced when barry announced openly gay people will now be allowed in the military.

That he annouced in a SOTU was a little unusual.

The USSC looked REALLY angry that Barry attacked their decision, even the dissenting judges were stone faced at the POTUS's incredible over reach there.

i didn't notice anything when he announced that. but might have missed it.

the only one who looked annoyed was alito... they're the one's who overreached... didn't see anything wrong with it.

Hmmm...........I think any educated American who saw that little snipet said to themselves, "w0w..........this president has some balls...........with the Supreme Court Justices sitting 20 feet in front of him, he's saying 'Fcukk the First Ammendment'!!!"

Radical progressives like Obama dont belive in the First Ammendment anyway..............havent since the beginning of the movement in the 1880's.

Indeed. The WH this morning said basically that there's part of what the SCOTUS struck down that was 'wrong, and they are working on that.'

Sooo, since part was wrong, but mostly it curtailed the First Amendment, the Court should have just ignored the constraints? Nope, Obama appears to be as bad a Constitutional Law Professor as he is a president:

White House to Alito: Is too - POLITICO.com Print View

White House to Alito: Is too
By: Mike Allen and Andy Barr
January 28, 2010 08:59 AM EST

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Samuel Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."...

Re: Obama and Citizens United - Shannen Coffin - The Corner on National Review Online

From a plain reading of the statute that remains in place, though, this is little more than a tempest in a teapot. 2 U.S.C. section 441e prohibits foreign principals, including corporations organized under foreign law, from either “directly” or “indirectly” involving themselves in the U.S. electoral process, either through direct contributions to candidates or “independent expenditures” in support of candidates. While the Citizens United ruling said that the ban on corporate independent expenditures was a violation of the First Amendment, it did nothing to touch this prohibition on foreign participation. If a foreign corporation sought to circumvent the direct ban by indirectly, through the use of a U.S. subsidiary, doing what the statute prohibited directly, the statute would consider that an illegal act.

As Brad Smith points out, the FEC regulations expressly prohibit such acts, stipulating that a

foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.​

In other words, there is no loophole in play — FEC regulations already contemplate the problem and deal with it. It is only where a U.S. subsidiary makes a decision without any input whatsoever from its foreign parent that such an act might be protected.

...

 

[Rinata]

The "we want him to fail" Republicans?

The "This will be his Waterloo" Republicans?

The "We are only pretending to go along so we can sink the bill" Republicans?

The "He's not a citizen" Republicans?

The "He's a Nazi/Socialist/Marxist" Republicans?

The "Let's start a bipartisan commission and then vote against our own commission" Republicans?

OK,

There have been at least three threads on this very site talking about the seven Republicans who sponsored a bipartisan commission and then voted against their own commission when it came up for vote, John McCain was one of them.

He's not a citizen - Michelle Bachman

Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) assessment that health care reform could be Obama's Waterloo -- a chance for the Republican Party to break the president politically.
Steele Calls Obama Health Care Socialism, Agrees This His Waterloo

Ok, that's three. You go look for the others. All of it is stuff that had been repeated over and over again. How can you not know that? You been living under a rock?

Hey, where did Rabbi go? He said put up ONE example and I put up THREE. I wanted to gloat.

What kind of sound does a "gloat" make?

Zero times zero is zero, deeny-weeny. I asked for where Obama put his hand out to make a bipartisan effort. You haven't come up with a single thing. Individual comments don't count.
And Olympia Snowe specifically said that the bipartisan effort on HCR in the Senate fell apart because of pressure from the White House.
So your gloating is premature. Actually sticking your head in the toilet would be more appropriate.
Who volunteers to flush?

Obama ventured to Capitol Hill on Tuesday and met separately with House and Senate Republicans in hopes of garnering their support. He invited roughly a dozen GOP moderates to the White House Tuesday evening for an extended discussion -- and cookies and soda -- with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. And before Wednesday's vote, six House Republicans, five Senate Republicans and an equal number of Democrats gathered for a White House meeting.

Obama also persuaded House Democrats to remove provisions related to family-planning from the stimulus and -- over the objections of many Democrats -- inserted large tax cuts for businesses that Republicans wanted.

None of it was enough.

Stimulus Package Passes With Zero Republican Support

Now, Barack Obama ran on bipartisanship, for better or for worse, so he had to at least talk the talk. He decided to walk the walk, and it cost him, both on the economic recovery package ($300 billion in tax cuts offered before negotiations even started, and Republicans voted against it anyway) and with the appointment and then withdrawal of Gregg.

I think the public has seen these maneuverings to some extent, and so Obama is in the position to redefine bipartisanship. He can say, accurately, that he’s tried reaching out to Republicans in good faith and he’s been smacked down. Going forward, the message should be that he’ll work with Republicans when, in the President’s words, they unclench their fists and extend their hands.

A Note on Gregg and Bipartisanship - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics

Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

Republicans have said their goal is to block the bill and force Senate Democrats to go home and face their constituents, hoping for some supporters of the measure to return after New Year's too fearful to back the legislation.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, so the plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the thousands of earmarks in the bill in explaining his opposition, and others cited factors not related to health care.

The depth of the hypocrisy involved is stunning. Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats' commitment to our troops. Here are just a few of the things they said:

"Playing politics with the critical funding that our troops need now is political theater of the worst kind." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Press Release, 4/26/07]

"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates... but it’s just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Transcript, Senate Republican News Briefing, 4/10/07]

"Every day we don’t fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]

"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with [Senators’] expressions of support for the troops." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]

"I don't understand this attitude of, ‘We can play with; we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]

"Our obligation to those troops must transcend politics." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [Press Release, 11/8/07]

Now though, as we debate not foreign policy but health care, the Department of Defense funding can wait? Incredible.

Yep. The 'Party of No' Blocks War Funding To Delay Health-Care Bill. | Crooks and Liars

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, where did Rabbi go? He said put up ONE example and I put up THREE. I wanted to gloat.

What kind of sound does a "gloat" make?

Zero times zero is zero, deeny-weeny. I asked for where Obama put his hand out to make a bipartisan effort. You haven't come up with a single thing. Individual comments don't count.
And Olympia Snowe specifically said that the bipartisan effort on HCR in the Senate fell apart because of pressure from the White House.
So your gloating is premature. Actually sticking your head in the toilet would be more appropriate.
Who volunteers to flush?

Obama ventured to Capitol Hill on Tuesday and met separately with House and Senate Republicans in hopes of garnering their support. He invited roughly a dozen GOP moderates to the White House Tuesday evening for an extended discussion -- and cookies and soda -- with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. And before Wednesday's vote, six House Republicans, five Senate Republicans and an equal number of Democrats gathered for a White House meeting.

Obama also persuaded House Democrats to remove provisions related to family-planning from the stimulus and -- over the objections of many Democrats -- inserted large tax cuts for businesses that Republicans wanted.

None of it was enough.

Stimulus Package Passes With Zero Republican Support

Now, Barack Obama ran on bipartisanship, for better or for worse, so he had to at least talk the talk. He decided to walk the walk, and it cost him, both on the economic recovery package ($300 billion in tax cuts offered before negotiations even started, and Republicans voted against it anyway) and with the appointment and then withdrawal of Gregg.

I think the public has seen these maneuverings to some extent, and so Obama is in the position to redefine bipartisanship. He can say, accurately, that he’s tried reaching out to Republicans in good faith and he’s been smacked down. Going forward, the message should be that he’ll work with Republicans when, in the President’s words, they unclench their fists and extend their hands.

A Note on Gregg and Bipartisanship - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics

Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

Republicans have said their goal is to block the bill and force Senate Democrats to go home and face their constituents, hoping for some supporters of the measure to return after New Year's too fearful to back the legislation.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, so the plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the thousands of earmarks in the bill in explaining his opposition, and others cited factors not related to health care.

The depth of the hypocrisy involved is stunning. Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats' commitment to our troops. Here are just a few of the things they said:

"Playing politics with the critical funding that our troops need now is political theater of the worst kind." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Press Release, 4/26/07]

"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates... but it’s just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Transcript, Senate Republican News Briefing, 4/10/07]

"Every day we don’t fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]

"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with [Senators’] expressions of support for the troops." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]

"I don't understand this attitude of, ‘We can play with; we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]

"Our obligation to those troops must transcend politics." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [Press Release, 11/8/07]

Now though, as we debate not foreign policy but health care, the Department of Defense funding can wait? Incredible.

Yep. The 'Party of No' Blocks War Funding To Delay Health-Care Bill. | Crooks and Liars

Fuck the fucking Democrats who stuff the Defense Bill with their stupid fucking earmarks.

 

[pete]

In case it was missed in the past 28.5 pages ...

LIAR!!!!!!!!!

 

[EriktheRed]

Fuck the fucking Democrats who stuff the Defense Bill with their stupid fucking earmarks.

Why do you hate the troops?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fuck the fucking Democrats who stuff the Defense Bill with their stupid fucking earmarks.

Why do you hate the troops?

Why do you hide your flaccid earmarks behind the blood, sweat and efforts of our military?

 

[The Rabbi]

Huffington Post? Seriously??

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi? Seriously?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You mean when talked about not raising taxes and talked up small businesses?


What is "far left", anyway?

Rdean,Zona,Chris and their crew chief Midcant....and their leader Pelosi....is an example....and we can include their confused supporter.....Jake.....

If they're far left, how would you characterize PETA or the Socialist Worker's Party? Harry, admit you don't know anything and simply parrot the words of Limbaugh and other purveyors of far right propaganda. Your post are all opinion, which would be okay, if your opinions were really your own or thoughtful and once in a while (once would be good) supported with evidence and not hysterical hyperbole.

yea right Wry...you dont recognize what they are because you are one yourself...Christ sakes you live in Pelosi's kingdom...and yea my posts are not my own.......i mimic Rush....i think Wry that the great majority of posters here will agree that those i mentioned and YOU are FAR leftists....you want me to start a poll?....see how it goes?...just say the word my far left brother and its done....

 

[Rinata]

I see that some of you have accepted the truth with your usual responses.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Your posts aren't opinions?
Your so in the tank with the FAR left opinions wry, that you can't see through the lies of this administration.

yea you noticed that too.....Wry has links with his Olberman opinions....i wish the bonehead would start giving us HIS opinion NOT the far left talkers.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Acually, the fact that he's showed some 'nads is why he and others on here are so pissed.

what nads did he show?....for this tv special he did....lets see him start doing,at least some,of all these things he promised in his campaign.....lets see him stand up to all these special interests groups.....lets see him tell Pelosi TO SHUT THE FUCK UP.....you can only blame the previous administration so long....now its his ballgame....lets see what this dude is made of....next year at this time will see what kind of "NADS" he has.....a REAL LEADER will lead,and he will lead the great majority of the population,not just those that agree with him.....and there is a lot of Dems who are not on board with this guy......so year 2 starts....now we will see what this guy is all about,now he is totally in the center seat.....no more fucking excuses or finger pointing....its his boat now....either lead or get the hell out of the way.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Rabbi? Seriously?

A Republican? Seriously?