State of The Union 2011

[waterboy]

You've always been an donkey, you continue to prove you're still an donkey with each post. How you remain on here is astounding.

[we vs us]

Breadburner's not so much into that unity thing. More into the whole douchebag thing.

[waterboy]

Says something about this forum when we filter out a word describing the north end of a south bound donkey and is also used frequently in the Bible, but allow a degrading photoshopped pic of our president urinating in public. I don't expect much from a guy who I'm pretty sure is an area baker (do his customers know what a creep he is?) But I do expect more from our censors.

You know, I'll go even farther. During the Nixon administration I knew guys who were arrested and charged with desecration after doing nothing more than wearing a flag stitched into their leather jackets or on the seat of their pants. Perhaps its time to call Homeland Security and note his anti-patriot, maybe even terrorist leanings.

[Conan71]

Conan,

That is something we can disagree on.  I view the SOTU address as the prime opportunity for a president to address the largest national audience.  This is the very best forum to review and qualify past efforts, propose new directions, and outline goals.

From the time I was in 4th grade, I have never missed a SOTU.  As I was taught in school, it's the president's most important speech. It's purpose has always been clear, the address serves to report on the condition of the United States and give the president a platform to outline his legislative agenda, national priorities, and anything that requires the cooperation of the congress.  

As spelled out in the constitution: He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

With changes in technology, The requirement has grown from a simple report to congress, into a national address important to every American Citizen. It's carried on every network, and it's audience extends around the world.

It is a very important part of our culture as a nation.  I strongly disagree that it should be in any way discounted as a ceremonial fluff.  I think that is a big part of the political problems we have today, too many people are without the attention span to process this type of information and deem it important.

It is the most access to the public that a president has during his term. The very best opportunity to establish a clear path.  It's not a pep-rally.

You said it yourself: "With changes in technology..."

We are surrounded 24/7 by an overwhelming amount of information coming out of Washington.  Much of what trickles into the ears and eyes of citizens has had a heavy filter applied to it and there is much data which is spun to the benefit of one candidate, office holder, or party.  Throwing out more numbers in the SOTU really accomplishes little other than giving fodder for the skeptical and a nod of the head from those who agree with anything you say.  You don't have to have the SOTU to convey specific stats and the message in the speech will most generally reflect the general mood of the country.  I've never viewed it as the same sort of speech a CEO gives to the shareholders at the annual meeting where we look at income and expense, sales goals for the next year and the like.  The idea is bringing the entire country together for one night and briefing them on where we are, where we are going, and to dispense some insightful or hopeful philosophy.

For what it's worth, President Obama has done a good job in recent weeks disseminating information on how he intends to streamline government and to try and make it easier for companies to do business and hire and cutting down on a redundant and expensive government.  Those points have been made and well-publicized.  Whether or not those initiatives will become reality remain to be seen.  I give him an "A" for these ideas and an "incomplete" on the execution of them.

(FWIW, I did note he addressed the blue ribbon panel on deficit reduction's recommendations in general).

He could have said we will cut spending to 1995 levels, 2000 levels, or 2005 levels and it still would be a divisive number.  He could have said we will cut u/e to under 7% by the end of the year.  It would have fallen on deaf ears or treated with disbelief from those who simply won't agree or find the probability of it happening between slim and nil.  

His speech was a smartly strategic move right now.  What's been the biggest political and social story in the media the last two weeks?  Tucson.  Was the shooting addressed in depth? Of course not.  The message which has come from that incident, especially with incorrect political overtones is that of a very deep divide in this country.  

Something which is tucked in to the psyche of many Americans right now is how have we become so viciously divided, and can we ever be united, or will the vitriol keep growing?

You and I will have to disagree because, IMO, the underlying premise of the speech was a very timely and very topical message of a united republic.  It highlights the fact that no matter what numbers he could have thrown out last night, none of it is relevant if all of us are not willing to compromise and work together.  Republicans simply cannot demand every solution will come from the right during this Congress or it will shift back left in the next election and so it will go with more time wasted trying to undo the effects of legislation from the previous Congress that the new Congress doesn't like.

He took a cue from one of the greatest uniters this country will ever see: President Reagan.  Calling it Reaganesque is a bit over the top, but it was most certainly styled in the spirit of trying to become a unifier.

That all being said, I assure you this was a carefully calculated speech to make him come off as moderate as possible while still pleasing the broad interests of his own party like speaking on alternative energy as one method to bolster the economy and jobs.  I did not care for the way he characterized "gifts" (or however he worded it) the oil companies have been getting and I really don't see how taxing one industry to pay for the development of another is rational or fair but it was one way his writers see as a logical way to get people to believe jobs can be created (ergo, the u/e issue).  Anyone else note how the shout-out on DADT was not appreciated nor applauded by the two high-ranking military officials (Joint COS?).

He said it best (paraphrasing of course): we will be arguing about how to move forward on the work which needs to be done but that we can all seek to find common ground and work together.  I honestly cannot see how that missed the mark of the overall condition of the country right now because without some sort of unity, all of these problems will still be problems in two, four, or ten years.

Don't worry, I'm not anywhere close to becoming an Obama shrimper but I approve of the way he's altered the message recently, whether it's the "real" Obama or better handlers, I can't say.  I simply think he took a slightly different track with the speech that some were not expecting.  His recent editorial in WSJ and letter in USA Today have been novel approaches of getting the message out in advance of the SOTU.  Regardless of the message he put out last night, the GOP leadership would have been talking about "unrealistic numbers" "he spent us into this mess" and all the obstacles to creating jobs if he'd dwelled on data all night.  Instead he focused on something we haven't heard much about lately.

[Conan71]

Says something about this forum when we filter out a word describing the north end of a south bound donkey and is also used frequently in the Bible, but allow a degrading photoshopped pic of our president urinating in public. I don't expect much from a guy who I'm pretty sure is an area baker (do his customers know what a creep he is?) But I do expect more from our censors.

You know, I'll go even farther. During the Nixon administration I knew guys who were arrested and charged with desecration after doing nothing more than wearing a flag stitched into their leather jackets or on the seat of their pants. Perhaps its time to call Homeland Security and note his anti-patriot, maybe even terrorist leanings.

Easy.  I thought the president was simply playing with his putter.

[Gaspar]

He said it best (paraphrasing of course): we will be arguing about how to move forward on the work which needs to be done but that we can all seek to find common ground and work together.  I honestly cannot see how that missed the mark of the overall condition of the country right now because without some sort of unity, all of these problems will still be problems in two, four, or ten years.

Perhaps I've become too narrow in my expectations.  I guess I was only considering the obvious issues as speech fodder. 

I never considered the massive divide between political ideologies created over the past few years as the most important issue.  I view it more as a symptom of disease.  During times of prosperity people from differing parties and philosophies tend to work well together and even grow through disagreement.  During hard times our philosophical (political) differences divide us even more.  I think that's natural.  Is it healthy?  Probably not.

Over the last few years we have had two parties so at odds that they use legislation as a weapon against each other, passing bills for the sake of angering their opponents without regard for the content of the bills or how it affects the people.  Not even taking the time to read legislation and stuffing so much unrelated material into bills that they are impossible to understand or score financially. 

Perhaps now that President Obama has shed the most divisive congress in history he really will turn his efforts to building bridges, and repairing the social damage that has taken place.  I'm all for this, but is it treating the symptom or the disease?

The pendulum always swings towards the middle after the apex.  His speech did capture that, as have his actions over the last few weeks.  But that's a no-brainer only direction he has left to go is towards unity.  His speech was masterfully crafted to capture this, however I do not admire medicine that treats the symptoms without also treating the disease. 

So now I suppose we wait and see, does he keep issuing pain killers or address the problems.

Will he work to fix healthcare, and abolish the flaws in the legislation?
Will he eliminate the obstacles to business growth that have slowed recovery?
Will he cut spending or push for more?
Will he reach out to the Conservatives and "sold-out" Liberals?
Will he embrace free enterprise or push for more government control?

Will his focus be on the symptoms, or the disease?

I am not so easily romanced.

[guido911]

You've always been an donkey, you continue to prove you're still an donkey with each post. How you remain on here is astounding.

For crying out loud get over it. You, too, wevsus. It's just a damned photo-shopped pic. And one more thing, I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.

[Townsend]

I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.

Or he'll eat his can o'spinach and bang - zoom...

[waterboy]

For crying out loud get over it. You, too, wevsus. It's just a damned photo-shopped pic. And one more thing, I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.

Why? You gonna track me down and whip my donkey?

Perhaps you would have responded differently if the pic was of Palin and her husband doing the same thing. Nah, not you. Your always so fair and balanced.

[Conan71]

Gaspar, good way to look at it. Though, we could debate endlessly as to whether shrill partisanship is the disease or the symptom. Now you got my brain working again. Good time for some CuCuy. After I get off the bike trainer, of course. (and no that's not a euphemism for FMC)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Up from $200 billion??  Wow, it is just amazing where Gas gets his numbers.  Bush's LAST deficit was actually about $1.5 trillion, while Obama's first was about $1.4 and this one is $1.3.  See the trend??  It is Down.  Not up as every year of Bush.

Still way too high.  But then if we hadn't wasted a trillion on an unjustified war.  And another 1.2 trillion on bailing out banks.  And so on and so on...  I guess normal people should feel guilty that they got under half of the $700 billion stimulus - how dare they take money from the government when we are in such bad shape? - but hey, that COULD have gone to big banks and insurance companies again!!  Ain't it a shame Bush wasn't elected again?

[guido911]

Why? You gonna track me down and whip my donkey?

Perhaps you would have responded differently if the pic was of Palin and her husband doing the same thing. Nah, not you. Your always so fair and balanced.

I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).



Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate.

And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.

[Hoss]

I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).



Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate.

And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.

[waterboy]

I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).



Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate.

And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.

That's weak counselor. You think I'm sissified? You think that was a tantrum? You think Obama's patriotism is a problem? You think Palin doesn't have patriotism issues? You think you know what I feel deep down?

You're thinking is suspect. There is no way that pic is acceptable to a real patriot who is so proud of his service to country. You should be just as offended as I am that only two of us found it out of bounds. The pic you posted is obviously just before or after his salute and you join a long train of people who use it to further a lie.

You and Bread should like, hook up or something.

[Hoss]

That's weak counselor. You think I'm sissified? You think that was a tantrum? You think Obama's patriotism is a problem? You think Palin doesn't have patriotism issues? You think you know what I feel deep down?

You're thinking is suspect. There is no way that pic is acceptable to a real patriot who is so proud of his service to country. You should be just as offended as I am that only two of us found it out of bounds. The pic you posted is obviously just before or after his salute and you join a long train of people who use it to further a lie.

You and Bread should like, hook up or something.

They're Frat Boys, water...remember?