BS: Why no State of Union address thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 04:53 AM

Donuel, Were your last two posts in reference to my article I posted?...or something else? I thought the article was rather eyebrow raising!..Serious stuff. I'm not even sure of what to make of it, but, being as it did have to do with the 'state of our union', I thought I'd post it. It, unlike Fox News, was reported here..and you decide.

Funny they'd omit that!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:31 PM

Bobert: "Thanks GfS and Amos..."

I fainted..just came to...never thought I'd see that sentence in print!

Your welcome,..and thh...thhh tthhha...than.....k--kk-----ya' ya....you...(clears throat)....th..thank..kk...kkk you,...A...Amo.....

Awww..do I have to?????

Oh, I read that I already have..so it shouldn't be so hard....here, let me read it. Can I cut and paste it, instead?...Aw , alright...

Thank you Amos!

Time out for a stiff one.....CHEERS!

Grinning,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:12 PM

Definition of polical discourse

The pursuit to corrupt the ability of individuals to think clearly, through the interposition of exagerrated or false information, misassessed importance, bizarre mis-estimation of source, and like confusions.

Or as Roger Ailes said "FOX is #1 because we are the best and most trusted news source.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:09 PM

Thanks for noticing the constant laughter that was distracting and improper.

I guess as long as you don't shout and name call the President, the media will not make note of it. Annoucers went out of their way to say there were no cat calls and only one person on TV mentioned the laughter.


TODAY Obama said that he was naieve. He said that it has always been his belief that good policy makes good politics, even if it takes time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM

Gosh, What happened to the state of our union?? Well, if I were a bettin' person, I think the political machine is churning out propaganda, on BOTH SIDES to divide us, as a nation.

Here is an interesting article. Do I believe it??..Not sure, but in any event, we need to get back doing what musicians do, and do it with all our hearts!

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?


By Chuck Baldwin <<<<<(He ran for President in Ron Paul's place, when Paul dropped out, but Paul endorsed him)

"According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), "Russian Military Analysts are Chuck Baldwinreporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to 'begin immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.

"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks 'numerous' meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a 'last ditch gambit' whose success is 'far from certain.'"
The EU Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later."

The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."

The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."

Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public," written by Alice Schroeder. According to Ms Schroeder:

"'I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,' said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank."

There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO, admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system."

Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses."

Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat: plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms."

So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?

There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.

The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees, regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is even gloomier.

I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76 at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers years ago!

The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in '76.

America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and limitations--limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that, for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington, D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!

What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column here.

As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many--if not all--states have the legal authority for such entities in their constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated. And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the governor. It's that simple!

And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency--including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.

I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity--resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit--and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is--as with most power-hungry Machiavellians--their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!"

GfS: Thought provoking, to say the least.

Warmest to All,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 05:13 PM

biLL, Try this one, biLL, same song different video. Amos you might like this as well. Don't know which one works!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebI5Ku5YkSI&feature=related

or

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebI5Ku5YkSI

biLL, if you don't like these, you might like this one, from a dear friend of our family, who has since died.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7YjCdNT27c&feature=related

or

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7YjCdNT27c    <<
Oh, and biLL, MUSIC IS THE 'STATE OF OUR UNION'!!!!!!!!!

wARMEST tO aLL, (wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:54 PM

Amos? Were you looking for an argument? You've come to the wrong door. "Having an argument" is down the hall, room 12. Be sure to pay your $5 to the man at the desk, and then state your opening proposition. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 02:14 PM

Many of which have corrupted the ability of individuals to think clearly, through the interposition of exagerrated or false information, misassessed importance, bizarre misestimation of source, and like confusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:44 PM

Stringsinger - In many cases, yes. Not always. But in many cases.

I'm not interested in religious institutions. I'm interested in many of the philosopical notions out of which religions have arisen.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:40 PM

Oh no !!

geeeezuz H.

this shcmaltzy music linking is getting to be a bit toooo much.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:18 PM

Celtic WOman sings "Send Me a Song".

Byooful!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 12:35 PM

"Political parties are instruments of division, hatred, selfishness, and chaos. They do NOT secure democracy, liberty or freedom, they compromise it and threaten it in every way."

In the same way that religious institutions do as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:48 PM

Cups hands around mouth and yells across the canyons....."A-A-A-A-MOS!!!! "B-O-O-O-O-O-BERRRRT??"

Oh shit, the grammy's are on, and I've got to eat, too!...bye bye!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 05:02 PM

Yes, I've like Enya a lot, earlier, but the problem with her, is her singing is buried in the mix, and you don't get the words. that's always annoyed me. Here, I'm sending you another one. Listen to the lyrics really close...anyone who has written a song, or composed, with someone in mind should appreciate this one!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EemvDk4Kmw

Amos, get the 'Blue Clicky'! ..(mine doesn't work)

Enjoy, (maybe even get a lump in your throat!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:14 AM

Guess you are very familiar with Enya, GfS... Similar sound...

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:12 PM

You're all so VERY welcome!!!~~~~~~Got more!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:57 PM

WOW!!!

I generally ain't into over-produced, sappy-sweet, new age stuff but that YouTube song is over the top beautiful...

Square business...

Thanks GfS and Amos...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:49 PM

Those are good points, guest!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:40 PM

That's such a beautiful song! Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:48 PM

Thanks for the great link, GfS.

HEre's a clicky:

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

Great performance!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:42 PM

Rig, It's just sort of a lullaby/prayer, and a very beautiful piece. Once in a while, I send something like this to Amos. We both seem to enjoy them, and it's about the only thing we can agree on...so I know he has good taste in music!

Being as we are both musicians, and this is basically a musicians blog, isn't it what should unite us?..rather than the ridiculous and corrupt political world of lying politicians and those exploiters of the problems that they(the politicians) have foisted on the public, that they have already deceived?? Music often brings unity, and harmony, and settles matters of the heart, in contrast to the 'left wing/right wing crap, which divides the country...WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANT..or they'd be out of a job!

Often, such as in another thread, I've been 'battling' it out with a pseudo 'civil rights' activist...I look at it like this...without that 'battle' a lot of great information would not get out. Though he is mostly playing out of tune..getting him to 'tune up' is a vehicle for the music to get out, and the message to be heard. It's like playing on stage, and getting the 'groove' rolling. Actually we're making 'music' together...and when I played concerts, as opposed to bars, or pubs(for those across the pond), you either got to make them get up and dance, sweat, and buy more beer...or make them weep! Being as I hardly ever play bars any more, and prefer concerts, I go for making them weep...unless, of couse, I can get them dancing in the aisles...but the pieces I'm doing now, appeal more to their higher side, instead of playing 'background music' for the lies they tell each other, so they can 'pick up' another one night stand!

Okay, enough of that. I was going to put up another link, for music, but I'll wait.

Hey, God Bless All!...Keep playing!! Practice Practice, Practice!!

Warmest Regards, To all Who love music above politics~~!!!,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 11:29 AM

Well, GfS, we all do the best we can, right? ;-)

I'm just talking a bit about how people think, and how they sift through information, filter it, and decide what to listen to and what not to listen to. They ALL look around for info that backs their present opinion. They give barely a glance to info that doesn't, unless just to enjoy composing snide counterattacks on it.

But the only person who knows for sure about something is the one who has ALL the facts, and who understands those facts clearly in a relational sense.

Where is that person? Who is that person? Would we know that person if we met them? And if so, how? It's a mystery... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:46 PM

Send "Prayer" Ringtone to your Cell



Prayer

Let your arms enfold us
Through the dark of night
Will your angels hold us
Till we see the light
             So, here are the lyrics. Where does it come from? What do it mean?


Hush, lay down your troubled mind
The day has vanished and left us behind
And the wind, whispering soft lullabies
Will soothe, so close your weary eyes

Let your arms enfold us
Through the dark of night
Will your angels hold us
Till we see the light

Sleep, angels will watch over you
And soon beautiful dreams will come true
Can you feel spirits embracing your soul
So dream while secrets of darkness unfold

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:35 PM

Little Hawk, (yo-ho), Wishful thinkers???..Me??.....jeez, I'm from Sanity, I see both sides, some good some bad, except I don't exactly see it as 'good or bad'....just trying to make sense of it....more like 'cause and effect'.

And Amos, I'm 'stooping so low', using C&P????
Well I had to!...How else could I communicate with you???(wink)..Hey, I got something cool for you.....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCsmvNzneg
   
or maybe it's

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

...anyway enjoy! You too, Little Hawk!...(yo-ho)!

Still waving, and smiling!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM

Well, I am not stupid enough to take him literally. How could anyone be expected to interpret a SOU address in literal terms"?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:19 PM

Yeah, Amos, you asked!
The one: http://budget.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1650 is right from the government...I would think that office should know who the top guy who runs it is....but I agree with you...I don;t trust them, or that source for accurate information, either...which, I believe, was the point of my original post!!! I mean do You actually believe the President?????????

Waving,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM

"At the end of the day" (to quote an overused expression) everybody just believes whatever they WANT to believe and they look up sources that agree with them and quote those sources.

Ever noticed that, Amos? I have. ;-) I make no exceptions. A source that agrees with YOU (or ME) (or ANYONE) always appears "credible" to that one. A source that doesn't appears in-credible to that one. That's the way the human mind works.

The only man who really KNOWS, however, is the one who really KNOWS...and that isn't you or me or GfS. It's someone who is right there at the actual source of the information, has ALL the real info about it by direct knowledge and witnessing, and REALLY KNOWS. The others are just parrots who pass on the propaganda from someone else.

I don't know for sure if I've ever met anyone like that...the one who REALLY KNOWS, I mean. I've just met a few million parrots, guessers, opinionators, propagandists, and wishful thinkers...much like you, me, and GfS, and everyone else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:40 PM

Pointing to a undred copies of one rancorous opinionation is not naming the source. Ghost of S., do you think mad multiple re-copies and pastings across the blogosphere add any credibility to the assertions?

If you do, I suggest you track back and find how many copies in the cyberuniverse were made of Rumsfield's assertions about weapons of mass destruction about to be discovered in Mesopotamia. There were hundreds, and they made the statements SO much more true...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:28 PM

Well, Amos did ask GfS to reveal his sources, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:22 PM

These cut & postes remind me of the one's that BB used to post during the mad-dash-to-Iraq... Endless proclamations by very opinionated people who get a fat paycheck to write this crap...

Persoanlly, I thought this kinda stuff was below GfS...

Guess not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:12 PM

Amos, oops here's the first one:

http://budget.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1650

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest From Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:07 PM

Amos, here's the last C&P
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25064.html

The ones below are for the other one you inquired about

here take you pick:
   1.
      Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ...
      Some Democrats aren't afraid to say they don't like the health care reform plan. ... Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ...
      www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25064.html - 111k - Cached
   2.
      The Freedom Project - Politico: Rank-and-file House Democrats ...
      Politico: Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... Rank-and-file Democrats don't like it — and aren't afraid to say so. ...
      freedomproject.org/News/NewsRead.aspx?... - 203k - Cached
   3.
      Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan
      Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... And one outspoken Democratic critic doesn't think his leaders are "even close" to the votes they need to pass ...
      floppingaces.net/2009/07/18/rank-and-file-house-democrats... - Cached
   4.
      Newsvine - universal-coverage
      Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... Democrats' triumphant rollout of a sweeping health care reform bill earlier this week ...
      www.newsvine.com/universal-coverage - 71k - Cached
   5.
      Sparks from the Anvil: Change we do not want
      Illuminating the untempered soul and the blunt mind by hammering out sparks of Clarity and Truth on the Anvil ... Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ...
      hammeringsparksfromtheanvil.blogspot.com/2009/07/... - Cached
   6.
      Rank (Comparative, Ranker, Superlative) @ OverstockUniverse.com
      Rank -and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... Some Democrats aren't afraid to say they don't like the health care reform plan. ...
      www.overstockuniverse.com/rank - Cached
   7.
      Newsvine - What and when President Obama likes to drink
      Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... It's a stressful position and the President should be allowed to indulge himself in a few libations. ...
      jfxgillis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/17/... - 66k - Cached
   8.
      File News (Raquo, Kazaa, File Sharing, Peer) @ Paperwork.ws
      Rank-and- file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ... Rank-and- file Democrats don't like it and aren't afraid to say so. The speaker has already backpedaled on a ...
      www.paperwork.ws/file/news.htm - 62k - Cached
   9.
      Democrats to bypass GOP on compromise | Government ...
      WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said ...
      allbusiness.com/government/.../13682661-1.html - 68k - Cached
10.
      File (Files, Filing, Tif File, Papers) @ UglyTeenagers.com
      There was no error, and the jar file executed when I double-clicked its icon, but it does not show the images. ... Rank-and- file House Democrats resist health care reform plan ...
      www.uglyteenagers.com/file - Cached

.and that's just the first page.....

Obama was lying, in his national pep rally. Fair enough??

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:58 PM

Amos: "have no idea whose lengthy diatribe you just posted, but from the tenor of it it sounds like someone with a partisan interest in seeing the healthcare movement fail quickly. Who wrote it? Who published it? Or don't you believe in revealing your C&P sources?


Here is a 'cut and paste' as to who the previous post, that you're inquiring about:

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt today announced their support for Dr. Douglas W. Elmendorf to become Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Under the Budget Act, the Director is appointed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, after considering recommendations from the House and Senate Budget Committees.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:45 PM

"we cannot afford second place to China or anyone else"

Yeah, sure. Tell me another one. ;-) Look, no country stays in first place forever in the world. Time moves on. One day, none of us can say when, the USA WILL have to accept second place in this world. Then maybe third place. Fourth place. what are you going to do when it happens, all commit ritual suicide in front of the Washington Monument?

I was born in a country that is a very secondary power in this world, and I like it. I don't mind one bit not being "number one". I don't mind having a small military. In fact, it feels really good not having to live up to being a colossus, armed to the teeth, with enemies everywhere, standing arrogantly astride the globe, but rather being just one of many in a great community of nations. I've been in many other countries. I haven't seen one yet where people despair because they are in "second place", "third place" or whatever the hell place. They find joy in simper things than that kind of bullshit.

Get over yourselves, America. You will not always be in first place in the world, and life on this planet will still go on just fine in any case. Rome fell! Italy is still there. Spain became a minor power, after being number one in the world. Spain is still there. And the Spanish still think it's a fine place to be and they are proud of what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:55 PM

Jack The Sailor Wrote:

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.


I want it to be recorded that I agree entirely with this post.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:21 PM

Can we agree to call that person "Fugitive From Sanity" - or "FFS" for short?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:14 PM

I have no idea whose lengthy diatribe you just posted, but from the tenor of it it sounds like someone with a partisan interest in seeing the healthcare movement fail quickly. Who wrote it? Who published it? Or don't you believe in revealing your C&P sources?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:45 PM

Rolls eyes...That's all you got?? Here, this is a report from the GBO's office...and this just deals with ONE of his lies!



    Rank-and-file House Democrats resist health care reform plan

Democrats' triumphant rollout of a sweeping health care reform bill earlier this week already feels like a distant memory.

Rank-and-file Democrats don't like it — and aren't afraid to say so. The speaker has already backpedaled on a key tax increase — putting her in a weaker negotiating position. And one outspoken Democratic critic doesn't think his leaders are "even close" to the votes they need to pass it.

But perhaps the biggest blow came from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, who told a Senate committee Thursday that legislation offered in both chambers "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." In other words, it doesn't fix the problem of runaway cost.

If Tuesday's unveiling was a celebration, Thursday was the expected hangover. And the discontent in the House stands in contrast to the possibility of a long-awaited breakthrough in the Senate, where Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) claims to be close to a bipartisan deal.

The grumbling is reminiscent of an internal fight earlier this summer over climate change, one that produced landmark legislation, despite heavy foot-dragging by rank-and-file Democrats. But finding the votes on health care is a much greater challenge. Because this is viewed as the must-pass bill for President Barack Obama's first year in the White House, lawmakers have a much greater incentive to shape this legislation and challenge their leaders.

But if Democrats have more days like Thursday, they're in trouble.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) kicked off the day by pulling back on the highly controversial surtax, saying she might be open to reducing the special tax on the wealthy. Democrats have proposed an extra levy on individuals who make more than $280,000 and couples who make more than $350,000 to raise $544 billion.

Later Thursday, Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a key negotiator for the Democrats' 52-member Blue Dog Coalition, blasted away at his party's bill, saying, "There's no way [party leaders] can pass the current bill on the House floor" unless they make major changes.

And then a collection of Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee criticized the bill within earshot of their chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a principal author.

All this bickering came on the heels of complaints from a group of first-year Democrats, led by Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, who sent Pelosi a letter complaining the surtax would impose an onerous burden on small businesses.

"This process is fluid," a senior leadership aide said Thursday. "Things continue to change minute to minute. But the one thing that remains the same is that we will pass health care reform."

Despite the obvious hurdles, the three committees with jurisdiction over the bill have no plans to delay its consideration, with the Education and Labor and Ways and Means committees both expected to approve the bill by the weekend.



The Energy and Commerce Committee will continue to be the trouble spot. Ross has said the seven Blue Dogs on the committee are all planning to vote against it unless Waxman and party leaders make major concessions. That would give them just the votes they need to defeat it because Democrats have a 13-vote advantage on the panel.

The group picked up at least one more "no" vote when Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak told Waxman and the rest of the committee, "I cannot support the bill in its current form." Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher also gave the bill lukewarm support during the first round of comments.

Asked if there was enough time to change the bill to his liking, Ross said, "I suspect we'll have all the time we need, given they don't have the votes to get it out of committee."

So where does that leave Democratic leaders, with the August recess deadline looming?

"All of these issues will be worked out through the legislative process," Pelosi said.

If that's the case, fundamental changes will have to be made, several Democrats said.

"We have to have real reform," said Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee who is pushing leaders to revisit Medicare's complicated funding formula.

With dissension growing among House Democrats, the Obama administration is now getting much more involved.

During a Thursday meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, members of the moderate New Democrat Coalition told her the legislation needs to reward health care providers who get the best results for the least amount of money, not the other way around, and scale back costs wherever possible — simple concepts with very complex solutions.

"She wanted to hear our ideas," New Democrat Coalition Chairman Joseph Crowley said afterward. "She was receptive."

And Pelosi reviewed the bill with her freshmen Thursday afternoon. Those same rookies are headed to the White House on Friday to build up their confidence before taking such a tough vote.

But despite all the behind-the-scenes meetings and legislative wrangling, the critical CBO cost estimate was perhaps the most damaging development for Democrats.

"In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount," CBO Director Elmendorf said in his testimony for Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Pelosi was dismissive: "Is he the same person saying we are not giving any credit for prevention or negotiating for a lower cost for pharmaceutical drugs?"

But Ross and the Blue Dogs are looking increasingly powerful.

"Director Elmendorf's comments today only underscore what the Blue Dogs have been saying all along," Ross said. "We have to take steps to hold health care costs to the rate of inflation, or we will never balance our federal budget again, and health insurance costs will continue to become less and less affordable for the American people."


I told you I could have made it longer..............(next)!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:24 PM

Agreed...

There's more BS in GfS's 2:53 post than at the county livestock yard... Nothin' but "procalmations"... Very BBish...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM

Oh, I see lots of bullshit, all right. Just not where you are looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:01 PM

Amos: "Gawd, GfS, don't you EVER take advice?
Don't write MORE when you're having one of these histrionic seizures. Write LESS!!!"

I wouldn't have had to write hardly anything, if that stupid political 'excuse and blame rally' wasn't so needlessly long, wrong, dance and song, aimed at ding dongs!

Besides, Ebbie wanted the bullshit in the speech pointed out.....I didn't want go even longer...which I could have!...easily.

BTW, no 'histrionic seizures'......and is that all you could come up with??...Jeez!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

The two party system is only part of the problem, LH, but not the entire problem...

The way we finance elections is a major problem... The average Senator has to round up $8000 a day in order to have enough money to run a competetive campaign... That means alot of promises and quid pro quo...

Also, the Senate is completely broken and become a death chamber for good legislation... The Founding Fathers wouold be disgusted with the fillibuster... That was not their idea and it is a bad rule that the Senate itself enacted... For what, who knows... This promotes minority rule and constant gridlock... This, BTW, is why the American people arr so pissed off....

No, I'm not saying that the two party system is good... I'd like to see coilition government with about 10 different parties... That would be the best scenerio and force folks to communicate...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 12:02 PM

If you have a public permanently divided against one another because of the existence of 2 (or more) gigantic propaganda-spewing entities called "political parties" whose very reason for being is to perpetuate division and conflict and to compete against one another....then you can never have a positive, effective government...you can never have a truly united public (except in the case of a temporary dire outside threat such as is posed in a war or a great natural disaster)....and you can never have a sane, rational and responsible form of government.

Political parties are instruments of division, hatred, selfishness, and chaos. They do NOT secure democracy, liberty or freedom, they compromise it and threaten it in every way.

Have you ever seen a film about a Native culture, such as any of the North American Indian cultures....or the fictional culture presented in the film "Avatar"? Do you notice that these natural cultures which are the basic form of natural human development always function around a united council of citizens that represents the collective views of the whole community, with experienced elders usually having the most influence? Naturally, there are always differences of opinion in a community, and in a council, and those differences WILL be debated vigorously every time a matter comes up before council. But they will be debated by many free individuals whose loyalty is not to a political party or to some formalized hierarchical coalition...but to their own intelligence and conscience. Those individuals will not be artificially divided against one another on a permanent basis by party label or political affiliation. Therefore they will be free to think independently on every issue. Their professional future will not be imperilled by "breaking party ranks", no matter how they decide to vote on an issue. Their campaign funds will not come from a "party war chest".

Campaign funds should, in fact, come from a public purse....should be EQUAL for every candidate, and should be quite modest. All candidates should receive EXACTLY the same amount of air time and public exposure during an election, so no one has monetary advantages (which are just a way of rigging the election). A candidate's ideas and character and experience alone should be the only significant factors in getting him or her elected.

What has made everything I'm suggesting impossible in our society is the utterly corrupt and insane tradition that has grown up in relatively recent historical times of dividing a nation's politics up into competing party blocs and setting them AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC against one another in a battle royal where some bloc wins and another bloc loses.

That's stupid. It's destructive. It's entirely unnecessary. It's EXPENSIVE. It has destroyed the legitimacy of our governments and the trust of the public in government. It has destroyed public unity and fractured the public into separate groups who detest one another along party lines.

But you all take it for granted, because you grew up with that ludicrious system already in place around you and you thought "this is democracy".

Well, it isn't. It's insanity.

Now just let me roll it back to that Native tribe with their council. Just suppose that we "modern" idiots managed to convince a Native race like that to take their council system and arbitrarily divide it up into 2 or 3 competing political parties. Every council member would then be expected to work for his party from then on, ensure that his party won the next election, and if he didn't by God work for his party then he'd soon be kicked out of it and lose the professional friends he had there...and either have to join one of the other damned parties or quit politics altogether.

And what would you have happening in that Native tribe in just a few years that had never happened before? Hatred. Permanent division of the community into irreconcilable competitive blocs who couldn't stand each other and who worked from then on to attack each other, discredit each other, and cut each other down. You'd have political warfare such as had never been seen in that tribe before, and it would be enshrined and perpetuated by the party system. In a generation or two they would have forgotten that things had ever been any other way...and they'd be trapped in it.

As we are. We are trapped. We are living in a broken system that cannot function as a government ought to, because it is founded upon the very principle of division, and that leads directly to dishonesty, compulsion, influence-peddling, and graft.

I look at the society I'm living in and I know with no doubt in my mind that it's being run in an insane manner by millions of people who are lost in a dream of their own making. It makes me sick. I feel like an alien being who has woken up on a crazy planet filled with deluded people who have no idea what the hell they are even doing. I despair of it. There's nothing I can do except try not to let it get me down too much, and just attempt to make something of my own private life as best I can in a lunatic society. What else can you do when you're living in the village of the mad?

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:49 AM

Gawd, GfS, don't you EVER take advice?

Don't write MORE when you're having one of these histrionic seizures. Write LESS!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:47 AM

The Republican laughed during the entire speech, Rigs... I mean, everytime the camera panned in on them they were chattin' way and laughing... Maybe they think that 10% unemployment is funny, I donno???

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:43 AM

I thought the telling moment in the speech was when he announced that he was going to start paying down the debt. Then he followed it with..."in 2012." And all the Republicans laughed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:00 AM

Continued from the bottom of the previous post:

Personally I never believed you or in you, but I was honestly willing to give you a chance,..sort of a 'look-see'. You, Mr. President proved me right.....and that's a bummer. If I was wrong, and the nation was better off because you were right, I'd be okay with that.....

Now, the state of the union was originally supposed to be the Presidents report to the country, on the state of our economy,..and just our general state of affairs.....He couldn't even do that, either!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:53 AM

Ebbie, from Obama's 'state of the union':

Obama: 'Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.'

He did??????

Obama: '"As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers'

We do????

Obama: 'I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage, patients who've been denied coverage, families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin."

Except if you have pre-existing condition. Why wait for just one illness away...my plan would financially ruin you before you even get sick! The whole nation CANNOT afford it!

Qbama: 'There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best ....."

Many, but not near the majority of doctors and nurses, etc. they clearly are opposed to it!

Obama: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it."

Strengthen Medicare???? You mean phase it out. Stop insurance company abuses???? ..OOOH, That's why the insurance companies were lobbying for it??...So the law would be to buy medical insurance from them or be fined??.....Naw, that's not abuse..its getting the government to mandate private companies profits, with no ceiling!

Obama: '"Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done. Let's get it done."

Okay, congress, Let's find a way to finish the job.....and if you do, so what if the American people finish YOUR job, next election, BECAUSE they DON'T WANT THIS BILL!....unless, of course..Obama: '
"Now, let's clear a few things up. I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt.'

Yeah, its a power grab, and a hostile take over of 1/6th of the American economy!...AGAINST THE PEOPLE WILL!...if that matters.

Obama: '
"To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."


Not to worry, we'll just print more money, to make up the difference! Oh, and forget that we'll tell the doctors how much they'll be allowed to charge!

Obama: '"Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket."

Forget what I said earlier: 'But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare...."

Make up your mind. Strengthen or scale back funding for Medicare???

Obama; ""Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- when the economy is stronger."

Yeah, and AFTER I jack up the deficit more than ALL Presidents before me, COMBINED, THEN let's freeze it, so it can't come down, either...lock it in! By the the economy will be so fucked, you'll need to submit to anything our ideology dictates, because you'll have no choice!

Obama: "The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again."

We don't need to do it again, now we just pick up where Bush left off! ...Change you can 'what' in?...See Bush and I are actually partners in crime. Now you see it..Now you don't!

Obama: '"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. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.'

Unions of Federal employees excluded!!!..of course! Now that they make up 53% of all union employees, and 'contributed' 63 million dollars, from union dues, so I can push through their agenda AGAINST, the private sector, who don't want to unionize! Yes, that was a bad judiciary decision...for YOU!..not me!

Obama: 'The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators."

And I promised you that I wouldn't hire lobbyists for my top posts...like the eight I did!.......Oh, and 'those pesky pet projects'?..Like the over 8000 I signed into law, included in the 'stimulus' packages??...Pork is the 'other' white meat..I thought it would appeal to ya'.

Obama: 'Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government."

Now this is an interesting one..no matter how 'false' ..or perhaps true, as well..I mean to say, I've been getting some bad press lately. Scott Brown was elected because of all those nasty little lies!

And as far as 'distrust in our government' I think you've done a great job with all that, yourself. You had a super majority in the Senate, and a majority in Congress, and you still needed backroom closed deals excluding the Republicans, AND CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, not open on CNN, you bribed votes,(Nebraska, Louisiana, Unions)...and STILL accomplished NOTHING this past year!!! NOTHING!!!!! And now you blame the public for not trusting you???....Oh man of CHANGE you can believe in!!!!

Obama: '"We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work.'

How about allowing employers to pay for the productivity regardless of gender, race, or creed?

Obama: 'And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation."

Hey Obama, you're the President...you can order that anytime you want!..stop bullshitting us!

Obama: 'I campaigned on the promise of change -- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it.'

We???? You mean YOU MIGHT CHANGE??? YOU NEED TO!

Personally

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 12:12 AM

Here are excerpts from the President's Address. How can anyone say it is "full of bullshit"? How can anyone say he didn't discuss the state of the Union? How...? Well, you get the picture.

The Whole Address

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."


"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans, made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

"As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime."





"Now, let's clear a few things up. I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage, patients who've been denied coverage, families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin."



"So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it."



"Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done. Let's get it done."



"That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.

"To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

"Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline."



"Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. But understand -- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing and jeopardize our recovery -- all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again."



"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. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."



"But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -- a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators."



"Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government."




"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."



"We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a civil rights division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.

"We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation."



"I campaigned on the promise of change -- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it.

"But remember this -- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.




"Our administration has had some political setbacks this year and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting -- is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on."

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:03 PM

"...there are some truths and goals that supercede partisanship."

That was meant to be sardonic.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 09:52 PM

I'm not sure what you are referring to, Bobert. (?)

GUEST - Well, yes, Kennedy may also have been dutifully serving the Great Invisible Oligarchy...as may Carter too...maybe. What bothers me about Kennedy, though, is that I think the Oligarchy had him eliminated....quite possibly...which suggests that he might have started not cooperating quite the way they wanted, but running his own independent policy. Or maybe it was just one particular faction IN the Oligarchy that eliminated him. Internal power struggle? Hard to say, really. I don't think it was a lone gunman acting alone, I really don't, but we'll probably never know.

Bobert - GfS clearly can't stand Obama...whereas I kind of like Obama, personally speaking, I like his style...but I have to agree with GfS's general take on the situation regardless. I think Obama is serving hidden masters and doing what they want him to. If I'm wrong, then he might take the extreme risk of opposing them...and that's the greatest risk an American president can possibly take. We shall see.

Surprise me, Mr Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:23 PM

Well, GfS, you have just agreed with one who is livin' proff that all that is on the left coast is not all the left... That is my point here... During the campaign you bounced all over the place... One day you were some kinda Hillary liberal... The next a haters of the two party system... Alot of us tried to pin you down which was like tryin' to pin down jello...

Now yer back to yer Obama hatin' ways... At least that is a maybe a re-set for you... Face it, you hate the guy... You hated him during the campaign and you still hate him... Just own up to it, will ya???

Oh, BTW, the LH defense just don't cut it... That is a total cop out for anyone but LH...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 08:12 PM

Perhaps a Mauser would bebetter applied.

ANyway, GfS, you're doing your histrionic wrath shtick again, and I am surprised at you for not having learned by now that the best thing you can do when this feeling overtakes you is go out back and yell at the moon, or scream into a pillow, or sing in the shower or something until you can re-center yourself. You do yourself so much discredit, when you succumb to the call of the irrational and the hate-filled, that you can't make back the territory lost.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:54 PM

GfS, a "Mouser" is a cat. I'm a mouse (see my cute little sig line?). Just FYI.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:51 PM

John on the sunset coast, Absolutely right on!

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:50 PM

ALmost every section of the speech addressed something about the state of the union. More to the point, it was an energetic series of points that needed to be made. I think G f S must have read some other speech, maybe one of Carter's or Bush 2's.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:47 PM

Actually, there wasn't much about the State of the Union in the speech. A wasted hour to go with a wasted year. Meanwhile my new date of death has moved two years nearer because of the economic doldrums he's keeping us in.

Subject: RE: BS: Why no State of Union address thread?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM

No, Mouser, that's not what I meant..but, isn't that what BOTH parties are doing?????

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=

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: 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: 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 - 07:22 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: 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,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
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,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,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: 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 - 05:29 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: 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
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:23 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:09 AM

Well said, Amos!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.