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.