BS: Why no State of Union address thread?

Subject: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:22 AM

I think it was because we were all a bit stunned to find ourselves listening to Bill Clinton. Except for a small segment near the end when Barak spoke personally in an entrancing manner, it was good ol Bill again pandering to the right.

And we all remember how the Republicans rewarded him for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:37 AM

Yeah...I like the part how he is going to help the environment by building more nuclear power and coal plants...and permit more offshore drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:53 AM

ssshhh



or is he playing rope a dope??? float like a jelly fish, sting like a flea. or is it float like a butteryfly sting like a ladybug?. Maybe he thinks its too soon for America to see a black man tear a new one for a bunch of old bigoted white Republican guys.


If anyone was expecting the power of a plain spoken FDR calling it for what it is,    they got Don Knots instead.
You need to hear a FDR speech from 1936 that Olberman rebroadcast tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:06 AM

"I AM GOING AFTER THOSE ARROGANT BONUS HAPPY BANKERS... i will impose a fee on them"

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:31 AM

"I like the part how he is going to help the environment by building more nuclear power and coal plants...and permit more offshore drilling."

... I almost fell off the chair when I heard that one. It was a line right out of Bush's last State of the Union address.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:42 AM

Kat loved what he said. I expect Amos will love it too. It shows once again how perception of reality is a very subjective business...people very often see exactly what they have already decided they will see (and want to see).

I think Mr Obama is probably doing what every president in our lifetimes (with the possible exception of John Kennedy) has done. He's dutifully serving the Great Invisible Oligarchy that controls both the Democratic and Republican parties (who are really in effect nothing more than a huge one-party system divided into two outwardly competing wings) and uses them like a couple of football teams to entertain, divide, and rule the American public as it chooses...and the great Oligarchian agenda moves on. What's it about? Money, superpower domination of the world, hegemony, control, and endless war. Very Orwellian. But far more clever and subtle than the brutally obvious dictatorship of Orwell's novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:05 AM

First of all, I have put up my anual State of the U speech...

Secondly, LH... Don't be that way... You need one day a year where you don't play that record... Yer brain needs it... Yer inner kharma needs it... Sure, it's true but, gosh....

Thirdly, given the mess that Obama inherited, he's prolly doin' about as much as he can... I liked the parts where he ad-libed.... That part about the "budget" was really purdy funny for those of us who knew what he was talkin' about... Of course, it went over alot of folks heads, including the Repubs who were too busy being rude...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:19 AM

Well, I think you have to live outside the USA to see it the way I do, Bobert. It becomes so glaringly obvious when you do.

Jesse Ventura lives in Mexico now, and that's exactly what he said. He says if every American got a chance to just live in some other country for a year and to view the USA from an outside perspective and hear what people in some other country think about it...and then they all moved back...THEN things would really change in the USA! I agree with him on that. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not quite sure "how much" Obama can do in the present situation. I'd have to be in his shoes myself to know that. I do wish, though, that he had not decided to enlarge the war in Afghanistan, because I think it's a huge, giant mistake to do that. There is no good reason at all for the USA to be in Afghanistan...or Iraq...or Yemen...or anywhere else around there. I, like Michael Moore, am horrified by Obama's Afghan policy, and by the bank bailouts done under Bush and Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM

Well, LH... Ya' kinda have to live in the US to see it the way I sees it... I ain't sayin' yer wrong... I'm just sayin' that you need a vacation...

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:47 AM

"I... Obama is probably doing what every president in our lifetimes (with the possible exception of John Kennedy) has done. ...serving the Great Invisible Oligarchy that controls both the Democratic and Republican parties..."

                I would say the one who didn't was Jimmy Carter, and he's still paying for not doing it.

                I agree that more people should listen to Jesse Ventura.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM

The kind of jaded and paranoid cynicism which serves LH as an excuse for not engaging has nothing to do with the SOU address, which was excellent.

It was not excellent because it addressed every wee upset or disagreement any individual who wants to carp and bitch has with the present administration. Nor because it addressed in detail the diatribes of those who want to blame Obama for Bush's deficits, fueled by Bush's wars.   It was excellent because, as a national annual address from the President should do it provided a point of view from which the tasks and condition of the Union can be understood and a path toward the future made visible. It was excellent because for once, an important leader has identified the ridiculous folloes of hard-core partisanship and called them out. It was excellenet because it slapped the wrist of a partisan Supreme Court, whose sacred-cow status has shielded it from such reprimands in the past. It was excellent because it was insightful, responsible, articulate, balanced and compassionate. It showed a decent man shouldering extremely tricky and heavy burdens and intending to make good from them, whose essential qualities of care and humanity should make his jaded and yammering detractors crawl into the night in shame for their own shortsightedness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM

You're right, Bobert, I do need a vacation. I should go down to SoCal and visit Amos for a month or two, eat up all his food, and pester the living daylights out of him. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:09 AM

Well said, Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:16 AM

You are always welcome, Little Hawk, but for the sake of our mutual mindfulness, I would have to impose a limit of some kind. A month would be excessive, but might be managed if you agreed to do other things elsewhere for, say, 23.5 hours each day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:22 AM

The living abroad concept is excellent and well founded, but going to Canada ain't gonna cut it. You'd just be sitting inside watching, listening to, and reading American media and commercials all day long, getting the same bombardment Americans endure, while they, by contrat, have the living experience to know the value of that "information stream" and to assess its distortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:23 AM

LOL! Yeah, yeah...really, man, you have no idea. I'm a fascinating conversationalist. I could keep you entertained for days...well...hours....or...would you believe 10 or 15 minutes?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:23 AM

Well, LH... Waht's holdin' ya' up??? Hey, when you get down there go to one of the corner cannibus stores and get you a bigass bag of gonja and you an ' Amos go out into Amos rock garden and get you a tummy full of that good stuff an' groove on all Amos's cool rocks... I mean, I seen piccures and ya'll gonna have a good time...

Then when you come home yer head will be all Amo-dized and ya'll won't be bickerin' at each other for a few weeks and Mudville will enjoy its own little vacation, too...

BTW, what Amos said...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:35 AM

Why the hell would I spend good money on a bunch of stinky old weed, Bobert? I don't get what you see in that stuff, I really don't. It just smells terrible when it's burning. On the very rare occasions when I tried it, it didn't do much except complicate my mind in a way that I did not find particularly beneficial. I've had better times peeling carrots, frankly. ;-) Carrots have a nice smell when they're peeled, and you can eat them too! Try it.

What I think Amos should do is get a divorce and marry Kat. Then they could move to Washington, talk the Obamas into adopting them, and live in the White House as one big happy family.

I also like Obama's erudite manner, his fine reasoning ability, his all-around decent and likeable way of presenting himself, his dignity and grace, his lovely family....yup, he's a pretty cool guy. Way better than most of the competition. That doesn't mean I have to be impressed by his every policy move, specially when he enlarges a war that was an idiotic idea in the first place. I'd like to know what he's smoking! (to use an expression)

The sad thing is, the one candidate I had true faith in in 2008 was Kucinich...but someone like Kucinich couldn't possibly get elected president in the USA, and I knew that right from the start. I could only hope he could shine a little light on the corrupt game that is being played, and that it might help a little.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:58 AM

What I think Amos should do is get a divorce and marry Kat.

Your delusory abyss is showing again, Leedle Hack.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 12:04 PM

No kidding! Ya notice he didn't recommend a divorce for me before marrying me off! Politics may make strange bedfellahs, but let's not get hasty, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM

It was a good speech.

That is exactly the guy I campaigned for.

Please note that when he says "Nuclear" he is talking about power plants, not bombs. When he says clean coal he means with sequestered carbon. When talks about offshore drilling, he means with proper regulation and oversight. As a Newfoundlander I know that drilling can be done cleanly and safely. It just means less profit for the exploration companies.

The United States has to be governed from the middle. It is the economic engine of the planet. Excessive socialism here would be a disaster.

Clinton, economically, was among the best Presidents ever. Its a good thing to be like Clinton on Economic issues.

We cannot afford second place to China or anyone else in the new energy economy.

We have to at least make one serious, resourced, effort to fix Afghanistan before we leave.

We have to cut government waste. Stimulus should be temporary.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 12:37 PM

I also thought it a good speech. It was primarily optimistic and challenged leaders to work together in solving the massive problems facing the country and the world. It was certainly in some respects an attempt to bring legislators together. Obama is not a dictator or king with absolute power. To successfully address the nation's problems he has to work with Congress. What I saw and heard was a sincere attempt to encourage the populace to believe their government would address troubling issues and an overture to legislators to put aside partisanship and join together in finding solutions. I was left with the impression that there is presently someone in the White House who is concerned about the quality of life of common citizens.

I did particularly enjoy such moments as Obama's confrontation of the robed creatures perched like vultures near the podium. I will be glad when the military is removed from Afghanistan but the USA has some responsibility to the people of that country to not leave conditions worse than we found them. As for fossil fuels a diminishing dependence is essential but we are several generations from reaching that goal. Responsible extraction and use is essential now.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 12:47 PM

Yeah but there is no such thing as "clean coal". It is a myth. Also, with nuclear power, where the hell does all the waste go? It isn't exactly good for the environment. For the offshore drilling well, that is yet another pandering plea to the oil companies by yet another corporate shill who promises change, but the only thing that changes is his face.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:02 PM

ABC News:

Just days after President Barack Obama endorsed a partial freeze on domestic spending, his Democratic allies in the Senate have rejected a plan attempting to do pretty much the same thing.

Old-school Democrats were the driving force in killing the bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions and Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill. Their plan was slightly modified version of Obama's that would have permitted domestic agencies an increase of just about 1 percent, with slightly higher boosts for the Pentagon.

A 56-strong majority of senators supported the plan but it failed because 60 votes were required. The vote came the morning after Obama threatened to veto spending bills that would exceed a domestic spending freeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:03 PM

here's an exerpt from George Bush's last SOU concerning energy ...

" Together, we should take the next steps. Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.

Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions- free nuclear power."

Now here's Obama's statemnt from last night ...

"And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.


interesting

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:13 PM

I'm not saying this is one of them but, bill, there are some truths and goals that supercede partisanship.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:52 PM

I didn't know you were married, Kat. I didn't know you weren't either...couldn't remember which it was...anyway, in the absence of certainty on the matter I did not recommend a divorce in your case, as I did not know if one would be necessary. ;-)

Ebbie - ALL truths and legitimate goals should supercede partisanship! And they would too...if people would wake up and abolish these accursed institutions called political parties. They have perverted and ruined the democratic process for their own gain. One does not need political parties to hold free elections, form an effective national assembly or govern a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 01:54 PM

"Yeah but there is no such thing as "clean coal". It is a myth."

For the sake of argument, as a purely hypothetical thought experiment, would you please consider the possibility that there might be "cleaner coal", that some uses of coal might be better than others? The proposed carbon tax (carbon trading) is intended to move power generation to the "cleaner" alternatives.

Also

Nuclear waste is a problem of storing hundreds of tons of waste while fossil fuel burning pumps billions of tons into the air.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM

Excessive socialism here would be a disaster.

Excessive anything is always liable to be disastrous. So is not enough. Enough is what you want. And it clearly isn't what you've got.

I'm sure there are plenty of clean uses for coal. But these do not include burning it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM

Not to divert the discussion, but nuclear power does not have to be driven by uranium 235. Nuclear plants using thorium would be much cleaner and safer.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM

Amos, how do you feel about more nuclear energy. Do you think that's the way to go?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 02:56 PM

I watched Jesse Ventura on his new show last night. I learned something new. Something amazing. A fascist national neighborhood informant society.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM

Amos .... how would you feel if the waste from a nuclear power plant fueled by thorium was disposed of in your immediate community?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:41 PM

What's it called, Donuel? Neighborhood Snoop?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:23 PM

My preference is that we use renewable energy and get real smart about using the worlds hugest ever pump -- the Moon -- to produce it. The damn thing moves several billion gallons of mass a good distance every day, and twice on some days.

Thorium fission, as I understand it, does not produce the problematic radioactive waste products that uranium fission does.

Lacking the full-bore technology for putting the whole country on an adequate flow of green energy (solar, tide, geothermal, and wind), I would be willing to support nuclear generation if I was satisfied the safety and waste issues had been completely satisfied. I am not sure that is the case yet. But thorium is far better a candidate on both counts than uranium.

WIRED mag has an article (12-2009) which describes the reserarch of Kirk Sorenson into the alternative.

"At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker's build and a marine's crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry's most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it's so plentiful in nature, it's virtually inexhaustible. It's also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the '50s through the early '70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the '60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.

Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he's not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master's in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site's forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:46 PM

It all makes sense to me, but I wonder about turning America's energy future over to a devout Mormon.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:02 PM

"He's dutifully serving the Great Invisible Oligarchy"

What makes you think Kennedy wasn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:16 PM

He was. It was Carter who wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:29 PM

Obama, though he may not be very aware of it, completely embarrassed himself, by disregarding facts!...you know those little things that just get in the way....

I could not believe it!..How he could stand there and just bullshit the nation! This was his opportunity to be constructive, or at least level with the people..but No-o-o-o--o, he just sounded like spouting more campaign lies. Hey Barry-Boy!!.. You've already been elected...now lead!
As I listened to the speech, my mouth just dropped open, time after time, thinking, 'Is he THAT far out of touch, that he thinks the public is stupid???'

Oh well, back to Sanity...where it's safe.....Ohh taxi...taxi!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:35 PM

Well, the governemnt can do but only so much... And now the Repubs have fairly well demonized the "stimulis" bill that Obama got thru with complete disregard that most economists were sayin' at the time that it was too small... And it apparently was too small...

Jobs don't grow on trees and if the public isn't spending then the only way to get jobs is for the goevernemnt to do it... Ain't new stuff here...

But the Repubs are motre concerned about getting back in power so they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery which means that the Dems are gonna have to do exactly what Bush did in the early 2000's and that is use budget reconciliation over and over to get things de-monkey-wrenched...

So it comes down to either fight ot quit for the Dems.... If they quit, they ceratinly will be big losers in November... If they fight, who knows???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:40 PM

Ebbie: "I'm not saying this is one of them but, bill, there are some truths and goals that supercede partisanship."

SOME?????????

The problem with the political parties, and those who believe them, are, who are they to pick out the 'Some'??.....and idiots ignore the 'other some'!!!!

Okay, you can take your seat, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM

Hey .... hold that taxi!


I'm going in the same direction as you are sanity.

biLL    :)

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:54 PM

"Please note that when he says "Nuclear" he is talking about power plants, not bombs."

THIS president can pronounce nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,999-
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 05:56 PM

"Please note that when he says "Nuclear" he is talking about power plants, not bombs."

THIS president can pronounce nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 06:08 PM

Hold on, driver...there's someone else running after the cab who needs a ride!...forget that he's running with his pants over his head...he just NEEDS a ride!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:22 PM

Oh, and by the way, the reason there is, 'Why no State of Union address thread?'   is because it was so full of shit, that I don't think many of the self described 'liberals' in here want anyone to remember it, by calling attention that there even was a state of the union speech this year!!!!....or that they would agree, to such obvious fraud!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:34 PM

I thought it was a good speech... I liked the idea that Obama, unlike the snickerin' Repubs, showed grace and class... I liked the idea that rather than get bogged down in wonk he told the Dems to get off their asses and pass health care refore... I liked a lot of what he had to say in terms of domestic issues and I liked the way he framed the partisanship that has Washington so messed up...

Hey, I don't agree with Obama's war in Afganistan but, hey, it was a good re-set, re-start or re-whatever...

Bobert (self described progressive, former Green Party worker, former 60's radical...)

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:36 PM

Bobert: "
Bobert (self described progressive, former Green Party worker, former 60's radical...) "

We all grow up, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM

Not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM

If by "grow up" you mean --as you clearly do-- "become willing to lay down and spread 'em for megabusiness to deal with as they see fit" then I very well hope we all don't.

O..O
=o=