BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 10:17 PM

Oh gosh, the suggestive 'power of suggestion' at work....

(GfS: "It must be miserable to be on the wrong side of this stuff, with the feeling of helplessness. . ."

SRS: "You'll have to tell us, Guest, you just described yourself."

Not at all..that's YOUR take on it. As Akenaton said, "I would just for once, like to see an attempt made to answer the actual points made by Sanity, they are perfectly valid and the reason they are not being addressed...."

Not only that, I posted the EXACT tactic, used in order, as I posted them, of the methods used to avoid answering anything of substance!!

SRS(continuing): "How does it feel? Petty, self-righteous, xenophobic, constantly indignant"

Absolute nonsense, and a projection to infer that I'm like that at all!..Is Don writing your scripts, too??

SRS(Cont.): "- seems like you'd set yourself up for a heart attack or an ulcer. Stalking others just spreads the unhappiness. Time to give it a rest, go get a hobby. Go make music, not vitriol."

'Stalking others', is another nonsensical accusatory diversion from the self absorbed imagination of Don, again. He tried that once before, and when he posted the accusation, I thought he was just overplaying his hand...and I still do, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to champion it!

'Spreading the unhappiness'????? You must not have read my earlier post carefully, to say such biased ridiculousness....Here, I'll re-post it....:From earlier on this thread....(one of the ones you didn't delete):

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

BS: Voting for Hillary?   04 Jun 08 (My ninth post on Mudcat)

" Nope, no web page. I just come in here, sometimes when I come upstairs from the studio, and check my mail. While I'm on I found this blog and thought I throw in my two cents in. This is the first time I have 'held forth', (Though I posted a few above), and I don't plan on posting much more. I was more interested in what musicians were talking about (more than politics). I personally don't know any of the people on here, though I found some interesting, well, enough to respond, anyway. I'm not much of a blogger, but upon reading some of these posts, I found that there are some of my musical brothers hurting, that's all. After all, being a musician is a gift, and politics can get in the way, of the things we need to focus in on, to use that gift clearly...I guess, unless you write political songs (which I don't). What I do know is, that people are tending not to trust one another, unless they share the same political view, and there is certainly a lot of fear and hostility in our country, which, as in music, gets in the way of us all using our gifts the way we fully can, no matter what field you're in. Anyway, God Bless, and keep you all!!"

(My summation five and a half years later!).

"Now after FIVE fucking years of trying to talk some COMMON SENSE, into some fellow musicians....and they're still bitching, I don't think 'fuck-nuts' and 'wing-nuts' is too far off the track!
Seems like I've had it CORRECT for a long time!!"

If there is one thing that political hacks hate, it's the TRUTH...and no amount of 'spin', 'left' or 'right', is going to change that...only a re-examination of why certain people are so entrenched in partisan propaganda, based on a hoped-for false agenda.

It has become flagrantly obvious, beyond any question, that those who get their jollies from pretending to be some sort of integral hub of 'party wisdom', NOT BASED ON FACTS, but wishful thinking, have been the ones, distorting posts, then commenting on the distortions they concocted, and then blaming it on the one they distorted, that have been creating the hostility in the forum!!

Matter of FACT, go back to my post, and read it again.. on this thread:
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

Read it all..because those were my first nine posts, and the divide was already obvious!...but it wasn't with me, I WAS BRAND NEW!

Keep in mind I was responding to Akenaton's simple observation:

Akenaton: "....I agree Sanity can be a little over the top sometimes, but he has been subjected to loads of abuse since he started posting.."

"SINCE HE STARTED POSTING!"

Get it?...Got it??....Good!

GfS

If anything, SRS, you are being emotionally manipulated, using party politics as a platform to do it!

---

That's enough. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:45 AM

I'm sure that SRS knows the rules Ake, that is why she hasn't broken them. GfS isn't hurting anyone but himself with this rambling, insulting nonsense, for instance putting quotes around and thus belittling his own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:38 AM

Name calling is against the rules even for a mod SRS.
You surely all know what the "liberal agenda" is by now, you all see it in your newspapers, every time you turn on your TV, radio content.
and most importantly the manipulative power of the mainstream internet.
Do you think many of the people who use Twitter or Facebook actually think for them selves.....or are the huge majority not slavish followers of celebrity?.......yet they have tremendous political power. It is democracy in reverse, just as the posts of many here are the reverse of liberal.


I would just for once, like to see an attempt made to answer the actual points made by Sanity, they are perfectly valid and the reason they are not being addressed, is exactly the same as the reason my questions on the HIV epidemic are not being answered......the "liberal agenda."

Real liberals should not, when they come up against difficult issues which contradict their ideology, resort to abuse and name calling.
Real liberals, should examine their position, make sure it is correct and set out their alternative view.
This rarely happens on Mudcat, disagreements rapidly become "personalised", as this avoids the need to properly debate an issue which could call into question ones political ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 01:20 AM

It must be miserable to be on the wrong side of this stuff, with the feeling of helplessness. . .

You'll have to tell us, Guest, you just described yourself. How does it feel? Petty, self-righteous, xenophobic, constantly indignant - seems like you'd set yourself up for a heart attack or an ulcer. Stalking others just spreads the unhappiness. Time to give it a rest, go get a hobby. Go make music, not vitriol.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:59 PM

Irony?...Irony to a misconception??.....take your pick.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:01 PM

GfS, "Liberal Agenda" is your word. Why is it in quotes?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:40 PM

Hey, the truth is going to catch up with you, and as time unfolds, and this political crap plays out, you're going to find who was right...and who is full of shit.
You might as well not stick your heads in the sand, all for political misinformation.

Quick!....you'll probably delete this one, too!

It must be miserable to be on the wrong side of this stuff, with the feeling of helplessness, because you can't admit that the 'so-called liberal agenda' isn't working......it was never suppose to!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

GfS your 'use' of quotes is pretty strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

So, uh, whadaya think of this weather, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:12 AM

The personal attacks need to stop or the thread is finished.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:44 PM

You're a bit premature if you're yapping at President Obama. We'll have to wait and SEE what he does.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:39 PM

Somgwronger, get a clue. It was a Republican Congress that cut the food stamp program!

Don Firth

Subject: BS: Surely Obama will Veto Food Stamp Cuts
From: Songwronger
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:42 PM

Does slicing $8 billion from food stamps cut to bone or just trim some flab?

The farm bill that Congress approved on Tuesday contains a controversial $8 billion cut in the food stamp program that millions of Americans rely on as a defense against hunger.

Many Democrats oppose the measure, arguing the cut is too steep and will hurt about 1.7 million of the neediest Americans....

...By removing "heat and eat," the farm bill reduces food budgets for affected households by about $90 per month on average. That's a significant hit to low-income families.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0204/Does-slicing-8-billion-from-food-stamps-cut-to-bone-or-just-trim-some-flab-vid

Obama is a man of the people. He loves the poor. The new Farm Bill will cut food stamps to hundreds of thousands. Now he will get to use his famous pen, the one he said he would use to protect Americans. I have no doubt he will veto the farm bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:04 PM

>>
Evidently the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut did indeed turn out to be the watershed event that shocked America into taking draconian measures to make it nearly impossible for anything like that to ever happen again. <<

Another unkept promise from that reprehensible bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Mike B.
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:08 PM

I guess the problem of gun violence in America was solved to everyone's satisfaction over the past 12 months, because Obama (who spent a lengthy portion of his SOTU speech a year ago with a passionate appeal for meaningful gun control legislation) barely mentioned the issue last week.

Evidently the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut did indeed turn out to be the watershed event that shocked America into taking draconian measures to make it nearly impossible for anything like that to ever happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

GfS: "Obamacare, a law to force people to spend increased premiums to the insurance corporations..."

If this is true, then why is it that my wife and I don't have to do a thing? We're covered, with no increase in our premiums. And we have the additional assurance that our health insurance coverage meets the standards.

And the same holds true for everyone else I know. I've asked, and the answers I get are, "No, I'm fine. Don't have to change anything."

A FEW people have had to change their coverage--or get coverage in the first place. But that's because they either weren't covered or their coverage was not good. IT, was a rip-off, and this tipped them off to the fact that should they ever really needed health coverage, they were in for a nasty surprise.

Don Firth

P. S. Busy right now, but I may be back later and blow the rest of this nonsense out of the water. As a political commentator, GfS, would make a halfway decent ditch-digger.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:36 AM

"While I post about his deception and crony, capital corruption, you 'so-called liberals' always come back with 'You're a bigot because you don't like his color'.....and I'm saying I don't like him because he's lying, shovel ready nothings, (but where did the money go?), Jeff Immelt, Job Czar..for China...corrupt(but where did OUR tax money go?) 'Green energy kickbacks....AND ALL OF THEM FAILED.....(but where did OUR tax money go?), 'Fast and Furious'....reminds me of Hassenfus, the tip of the iceberg for Iran/Contra....Obamacare, a law to force people to spend increased premiums to the insurance corporations...(and if Bush did that, you'd be screaming bloody murder), Lying about Benghazi!..."If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it..PERIOD!"..so on and so forth...I call it corruption, and if you noticed, I never said ANYTHING about his color..just the 'content of his character....and the fuck-nut wing-nuts keep screaming that it's about color!!!..YOU ARE the RACISTS....(because you're also idiots)"

And for those whose first language is English????

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

akenaton: "Jack and Gilly, I agree Sanity can be a little over the top sometimes, but he has been subjected to loads of abuse since he started posting.."

Ahhh!..Glad you brought that up!

I know I've stepped on the toes of the illusion, and those deluded by it...For FIVE fucking years!

Let's take a look ......

My first post:
GUEST,Guest from Sanity
        
BS: Voting for Hillary? (701* d)         RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?         02 Jun 08

"Jesse Ventura said it right, and the same thing I've said for years..There should be a box below all the names of the candidates on the ballots that reads 'None of the Above'...That shows a willingness to participate, but a 'no confidence vote' for the propped up shills'..come on folks....they all suck square eggs! None of them represent any of you, do they??..Now be honest!! Year after year, we all tend to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'..but in fact, we're still voting for evil, and someone who does NOT have any of our best interests at heart. Everyone of them is so far away from our constitution, that if they spouted their trash, when it was fresh in our founding fathers minds, they would have all been tried for treason!! I could go on. from what I know, but why bother? You either know this to be true, or you don't!!"

My second:

RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?         02 Jun 08

"This 'election' calls to mind the words of Adlai Stevenson(ran for President four times, Eisenhower-Kennedy era), whose words are surely prophetic, and obvious, before our very eyes!! "By the time a man is nominated for President, he is no longer fit for the job!"

Third(in response to a reply, touting the 'so-called liberal' position:

"Come on, Joe..Be healed!!"

Fourth:
BS: Voting for Hillary?         
RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?         02 Jun 08

"The remark, attributed to Stevenson, is accurate, and unfortunately, he was(is)right. As for the other, Obama and Hillary, are both just politicians, who do NOT embrace the constitution, as their guide to their positions, or moral compass. Just read their positions. Sorry, that some of you get your info from your local high school paper. When any elected official, takes their oath of office, they swear to uphold the constitution, not change it to fit their own ideology, which, with media support, is rammed down our throats, and is destructive, to both our will, as a democracy, and to the founding principles on which this country was founded. GWB, in my opinion, has committed perjury, as well, by not upholding the oath he took. We need another party, that has some credibility. Both the republicans and democrats are both too corrupted, and are re-actionary to the others nonsense. When was the last time either of these parties represented you, or the will of the majority??? Instead, we get their latest notion of how to 'remedy' the ills pushed forth by the other party of crooks, and buffoons. We have the best system on the planet, as far as governing, but it has been far too corrupted by both parties, all the while, leading us to a form of government so far removed from what we had, fought and died for, and worked hard to live within!!"


Fifth:
BS: Voting for Hillary?         
RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?         03 Jun 08

"So, taking an oath is purely ceremonial??????Boy, tell that to the judge! Ask a service man's widow if it was ceremonial!..Or your wife!!..Maybe to Bill Clinton and his ilk!, or GWB as...well, you know the rest. Just ceremonial!!...Shows how far far we've slid from what we hold important, you know, like the truth, or honor, or like all of these ridiculous people that are running, who actually are lifted up, to be the best we have????!!!!....These cons are the best we have to choose from???? Everyone of them have a list of lies, documented, longer than this blog thread we're on...and that's no lie!! Fox news tells you who is honest???...Excu-u-u-se me!!...CNN?????, gag...msnbc???(well I do like Keith Obermann)..but come on....folks, wake up!!...All you have to do is scroll up and read the weak 'endorsements', and 'commitments' that any blogger has toward any candidate!..Its all weak. We really do not have a choice...and if I have to, and I can,produce a link where any one of these Bozos, are caught on camera lying obviously to the people..on camera!!..That's right, you people!!!...and you just gobble it up. Every one here, knows that at least two of the other candidates are just full of it, and guess what??...you're all right!!..anyway, I'm done, for now!"

Sixth: "Jeez! I can't believe it, .. I'm waxing political!...I'd rather be composing in the studio, I've got REAL stuff to do!!..What about you??"

Seventh:
BS: Voting for Hillary?   03 Jun 08

"Vote??..of course vote! I'm just saying, give us a real candidate!..AS you stated, you are not voting for McCain or Ob-blab-o, because they suck!..That's not the same thing as voting FOR someone you think is good...you are just voting AGAINST those who you think are bad. Join the crowd of nearly everyone I've talked to!!! ..Voting for the lesser of two evils, as I stated before!!!...By the way, thank you very much, for illustrating my point, so clearly!! Now reflect..think about it...I'm not arguing with you, or any of you...just stating a common fact that has America sucked into this ridiculous debate(by design, btw)               
    P.S. Now watch all the deluded start posting the wonderful propaganda they've swallowed. telling us why they love their 'candidate'..Spare us!"

Eighth:
BS: Voting for Hillary? 04 Jun 08

"As per requested, Little Hawk, I re-read your post, and I stand corrected. That being said, Bush-Cheney, were in the same league, as Clinton during his term. Actually, not only are they in the same league, they are just more of the same person, with the same agendas...just extensions of the same agenda. It reminds me of being in the ring, with a boxer, who comes at you with a right..a left..another left, then a right....we in America have been battered by the same boxer, using both sides, and faking us out, while we are watching for the blow to come from 'the other side. We've been 'blind-sided', repeatedly, and every blow, right and left, has the agenda to strip us of our own sovereignty, while keeping us distracted from the real issue before us. Has anyone considered that the media, with their pundits, and speculations, right and left, has us focused on all the emotionalized issues while the wheels just keep grinding us down? Splitting us apart, and giving us the illusion that there is a big difference between us, that matters more than that we are all sharing this land, trying to survive, have a normal life, raising our families....just like every one else????? Whether you are white, black, rich or poor, male, female young, old, of any descent, we all share two distinctive traits given to all living beings, whether it is an animal, plant, or an amoeba, we all have the will to survive, and reproduce! Anything that gets in the way of this,(the common denominator of all living creatures) is a form of death! So, in conclusion, let's all re-consider...'Do unto others, as you would have done unto you'....not divide and conquer!"

Ninth:
BS: Voting for Hillary?   04 Jun 08

" Nope, no web page. I just come in here, sometimes when I come upstairs from the studio, and check my mail. While I'm on I found this blog and thought I throw in my two cents in. This is the first time I have 'held forth', (Though I posted a few above), and I don't plan on posting much more. I was more interested in what musicians were talking about (more than politics). I personally don't know any of the people on here, though I found some interesting, well, enough to respond, anyway. I'm not much of a blogger, but upon reading some of these posts, I found that there are some of my musical brothers hurting, thats all. After all, being a musician is a gift, and politics can get in the way, of the things we need to focus in on, to use that gift clearly...I guess, unless you write political songs (which I don't). What I do know is, that people are tending not to trust one another, unless they share the same political view, and there is certainly a lot of fear and hostility in our country, which, as in music, gets in the way of us all using our gifts the way we fully can, no matter what field you're in. Anyway, God Bless, and keep you all!!"

Now after FIVE fucking years of trying to talk some COMMON SENSE, into some fellow musicians....and they're still bitching, I don't think 'fuck-nuts' and 'wing-nuts' is too far off the track!
Seems like I've had it CORRECT for a long time!!

So, I re-iterate: "I know I've stepped on the toes of the illusion, and those deluded by it...For FIVE fucking years!"

Next on, I'll get to 'Guest's' magical question, as to the 'liberal agenda'....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:53 PM

And just HOW is "liberal 'ideology'" mental suicide?

(I object to the term "ideology," by the way.)

Ake, you, like GfS, dodge any questions having to do with your OWN political position, but you denigrate all those who are clear about theirs and the positions they are willing to clearly enunciate. That's like sniping at others while hiding in the bushes.

If you can't be CLEAR about your political position, I'm just not going to bother reading what you post anymore.

I'm already deeply suspicious of anyone who believes in compelling gay men to have periodic medical exams in an effort to halt the spread of HIV/Aids. How do you plan to find out who's gay, and then round them all up?

This smacks of the nasty, grim-faced little man who was very fond of uniforms and wore a postage stamp mustache, and who caused a world a lot of trouble some seventy years ago.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:28 PM

the "liberal" political stance

Please define, Pharoah. In detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:33 PM

I don't think Sanity thinks you are stupid Ebbie, it's just that he cannot understand why you fail to see how you are being manipulated.
I have always felt the same as Sanity about the "liberal" political stance, but I am not "wedded" to any particular political ideology.
A left wing socialist who can appreciate many conservative social policies, an atheist who is able to admire the strength of "believers".
"liberal" ideology is mental suicide.
Destroy social conservatism and you kill society.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:12 PM

ake, I wasn't aiming at patronizing but I think it is beyond hilarious for GfS to chide someone for appearing to believe that 'most everyone is stupider than you(rself' when every blasted one of his posts bears that implicit message.

Does he know that? I doubt it. Which means he is not quite as smart as he believes. Maybe not even nearly as smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 03:12 PM

Ake, if that's what you call "a little aggressive in style," I wonder how far he would have to go before you would consider him beyond the bounds of decent, civilized behavior.

If anyone in my home talked to anyone the way he talks to and about people here on Mudcat, I would throw him bodily out in the street.

As any decent person would!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

Don I would NEVER publish private messages under any circumstances.
Many people on here do so. I think those who do so should be warned by admin.
When Sanity first appeared here he was subjected to disgraceful abuse from a bunch of people...you included. Fuckwit was mild compared to what GfS received in the way of abuse.
Maybe apologies all round and a new start under Jack's weather eye would be good for the forum?

As I have said, he can be a little aggressive in style occasionally, but don't poke him and he wont bite.
ANY personal abuse on a forum like this is cowardice.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:49 PM

Ake, when someone repeatedly attacks you personally, calling you a "fuckwit" and worse, and doesn't address what you have said in your posts, but responds by telling lies about your personal life (about which, he knows nothing), and demands (with piles of invective) that you answer questions that he never asked--it's pretty damned hard to answer him civilly.

He says to people here on the internet, while hiding behind a pseudonym, that were he to say the same things face to face, they'd grab him by the shirt front, shove him against a wall, and slap the living snot out of him!

In addition to being a troll, he's a coward.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 10:51 AM

Jack and Gilly, I agree Sanity can be a little over the top sometimes, but he has been subjected to loads of abuse since he started posting...I have always found him civil even when we disagree, because I treat him as a friend with some views that don't correspond to my own, not as a mortal enemy.
I wouldn't dream of using name calling to any of you, it's disrespectful, but most of you, except Jack, do it continuously.

If you look beyond the slightly aggressive style, you'll see a person who can think out of the box and who could be a real asset to this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:54 AM

Hey, with Dylan selling Chryslers, the USA will be back on track in no time. This Bud's for you, Bobbie!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:51 AM

Well Akenaton, All you have to read of GfS's post is the part where he expects an honest man to be elected President. Honesty to the level that GfS expects would require omniscience, supernatural knowledge of every upcoming event untainted by optimism.

Do you it is possible to know every event in advance? Do you think it is possible to be "brutally honest" and be elected?

We know that we are choosing among politicians. We know that politicians tend to tell us what we want to hear. On the other hand I know that in President Obama's case, a lot of people took "Hope and Change" as a promise to end all war and give everyone a pet unicorn that pooped skittles. At the time I believe that GfS was insisting that there would be no such unicorns and that we would have to buy our own Skittles and we were saying "We know. But we think the other guy will be worse." Does anyone doubt that if McCain was president we'd have boots on the ground in Iran now? And Syria and Libya Not to mention 8 years under the shadow of the probability of the emergence of President Palin.

So, if he wants to, on this forum Mr GfS has every right to go ape shit and spread his hyperbolic, naive, nonsense all over the walls of these threads like a person in a padded cell with no access to ink he does not produce with his own body. What he does not have a right to do is say things like this. "and all you fuck-nuts ever talk about" but you know that and he knows that, so it seems rather pointless and futile to point it out. About as pointless and futile and railing about politicians being dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:03 AM

Geez Ake, kind of difficult to be civil to a misanthrope like GFS who refers to you as a fuck-nut, fuck-nut wing-nut and an idiot. Did you actually read his venomous, hate-filled post?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:40 AM

GfS makes many salient points there Ebbie, I don't recognise your characterisation of him.

Please address the points he makes, and stop trying to sound so patronising. He obviously becomes frustrated by trying to debate with people who's minds are not open to political alternatives, but he does respond to the points made by "liberals".
Why do you and Don not try to respond civilly?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:05 AM

"not another round of how everybody is stupider than you!" Geewhiz



hmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:07 AM

Speaking of bullshit. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 12:03 AM

Stringsinger: "the fact that a black man made the presidency is still something for every American to celebrate."

What would be REALLY something to celebrate is that an honest man made it to the Presidency...regardless of color!


Don Firth: "But President Obama is doing his damnedest against a Congress that is hell-bent on seeing him fail--partly because he's a Democrat, and partly because some of them think he is the wrong color to be occupying the White House.
And that last is not "playing the 'race card,'" it's a simple, obvious fact."

Sure you are(playing the 'race card')....If you really believed in the Civil Rights Movement, and in particular, Martin Luther King's words, you'd get it...."I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

....and all you fuck-nuts ever talk about is his color, and NOT the content of his character!!!!!!!! Now it's shifting to Hilary, because she's a chick...No matter what a crooked, lying turd she is!
Why don't you just elect another Bush??..same difference!

While I post about his deception and crony, capital corruption, you 'so-called liberals' always come back with 'You're a bigot because you don't like his color'.....and I'm saying I don't like him because he's lying, shovel ready nothings, (but where did the money go?), Jeff Immelt, Job Czar..for China...corrupt(but where did OUR tax money go?) 'Green energy kickbacks....AND ALL OF THEM FAILED.....(but where did OUR tax money go?), 'Fast and Furious'....reminds me of Hassenfus, the tip of the iceberg for Iran/Contra....Obamacare, a law to force people to spend increased premiums to the insurance corporations...(and if Bush did that, you'd be screaming bloody murder), Lying about Benghazi!..."If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it..PERIOD!"..so on and so forth...I call it corruption, and if you noticed, I never said ANYTHING about his color..just the 'content of his character....and the fuck-nut wing-nuts keep screaming that it's about color!!!..YOU ARE the RACISTS....(because you're also idiots)
Next, as Don pointed out, it will be "P. S. And if you want to see what male chauvinist pigs are like, wait until a woman is elected president! Especially if she's a Democrat!"

No, especially if she's a lyin' crooked politician, (like the character we have in there, now) like both of the Clintons!..."What difference does it make" Hilary. If she doesn't know...why support her?? ...especially after she lied about the whole thing!!!

AND, the 'so-called liberals' just can't get past their own bullshit...and that get's in the way of them ever 'getting it'!

Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:39 PM

The last three posts, Jack, Stringsinger, and Ebbie, are right on target.

Anyone who can't work up the necessary brain cells (or doesn't have them to start with) can sit on his or her flabby buttocks and snort in a smug and superior manner, "They're all a bunch of crooks!" and take snotty pot-shots at people who are actually working very hard to try to improve things (generally using meaningless blanket terms like "liberal agenda," not having the foggiest notion of what "Liberal" means or what a Liberal's "agenda" might be), and there are far too many such people.

Which is one of the reasons we all too often get some of the politicians we do.

If I am at all disappointed in President Obama, it's mainly because of my own expectations. I was hoping for another FDR, which, unfortunately, he is not. Few politicians are. But President Obama is doing his damnedest against a Congress that is hell-bent on seeing him fail--partly because he's a Democrat, and partly because some of them think he is the wrong color to be occupying the White House.

And that last is not "playing the 'race card,'" it's a simple, obvious fact.

Don Firth

P. S. And if you want to see what male chauvinist pigs are like, wait until a woman is elected president! Especially if she's a Democrat!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:53 PM

"Wise up...and post a fact, relating to the TOPIC, and not another round of how everybody is stupider than you!" GfS

Good lord! Do you listen to what you write?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:04 PM

Obama did what he had to do. The issues he didn't mention in his SOTU were deafening.

He is no FDR, , but because it would have been impossible a decade ago, the fact that a black man made the presidency is still something for every American to celebrate.

Unfortunately, inheriting a policy from Bush, and like Clinton before, he is still a war-monger president.

If Hillary gets in, watch the U.S. invasion of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:27 AM

GfS, do you think it is any news to anyone who is paying attention and who has lived through at least one election that politicians spin the truth and don't keep all of their promises.

The last election we were in a deep mess, the choice was clear. A guy with a bad plan made worse because the opposition would rather see the economy die a slow death than let that guy taken credit for the tiniest improvement

or

the leader of the opposition whose only plan was to double down on what made the mess in the first place.


Yes both parties are beholden to special interests.

But No.

There is a difference. One party wants to pull the plug on the economy and sell off the assets of the government in a fire sale.

The other wants to try to hold things together, invest in the future and have faith that America will find its way out of this mess.

As individuals I only trust them to say what they think will get them elected.

But one party has a noble goal and the other is the blind leading the intellectually bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:45 AM

Thank you for explaining liberals to me. However, it doesn't provide me with a working definition of "liberal agenda" unless it's meant to be implicit in your statement.

I got a chuckle out of the following:

"Electricity is produced by burning coal or oil in power stations. They burn the fuel to make smoke and the smoke is pushed down the wires to the appliances in your home. Then the smoke goes back to the power station on the other wire and is let out the stack. The worst thing you can do to an electrical appliance is to let the smoke out. Once the smoke gets out, the appliance will no longer function. Sometimes you can fix the leak with tape but usually it is too late. Even worse is if the smoke gets out in the middle of a wire. Then it will set your house on fire. Toasters let out just a little bit of smoke in the form of hot air."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:47 AM

I better clarify this, before the nitpickers make an overblown issue over it, "......AND can be stricken down by another Executive Order from the 'other party'.."

...should the 'other'(?) party win the next presidential elections.
...and if you go to 'Black's Law Dictionary' you'll find out the limitations of an Executive Order.
people have it quite overblown...and the government sure aren't about to clarify it!...or, for that matter, abide with the legal end of it, in regards to what exactly it covers, AND the limitations as to where and how it's supposed to be.......(but the 'Transparency' promised by this administration surely isn't about to tell you!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:23 AM

My Dearest Ebbie...That's why I said to go to the 'fact checker'. If I post it, or Songwronger post it, the idiots start attacking us, INSTEAD OF CHECKING IT OUT! To quote you, "In my opinion, the people who find fault with it, are not responding to the words, they are reacting to who said them."

Let me rephrase....."In my opinion, the people who find fault with GfS's post, are not responding to the words, they are reacting to who said them."

Beauty, as well as ugly is in the eye of the beholder!

...and BTW, the SOTU was so weak and intentionally misleading that it was nauseating....only next to the 'Republican' response! If either Republicans or Democrats, thought either one of those speeches were 'inspiring', it's only because those two are just begging to be lied to...as long as they got to hear what they wanted.....without checking out the facts!

...and as so far as Don's post....when are you ever going to post something with substance relating to FACTS, instead of your opinions based on your feeble mind, that doesn't seem to be able comprehend shit!..You think that if someone doesn't post something that goes along with your disinformation, that somehow it is incomprehensible!
Wise up...and post a fact, relating to the TOPIC, and not another round of how everybody is stupider than you!

GfS

P.S. Here, I'll do you a favor....check the unemployment rates, and the Obamacare stats...and as far as the 'Executive Order' rap, nothing that he signs as an executive order, still has to be funded by Congress, AND can be stricken down by another Executive Order from the 'other party'...problem is THERE IS NO 'OTHER' PARTY....just other groups of pigs waiting to feed at the trough!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:28 PM

I could suggest posting the "lies the President spoke but I don't think I'll bother. There are one or two people on here who have a credibility problem- and it ain't me nor Don F neither. If you - you know who you are - don't know that, right there is your problem.

Sadly, I suspect that those same one or two people don't even believe their own statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:13 PM

GtS I think the term is "sowing fear"

As far as the SOTU: I try to watch or listen to whatever my President has to say in public. This went for Bush as well as it goes now for Obama. I found the 2014 address last week to be a bit too 'touchy-feely' for me. On the whole it was okay but I didn't find it inspirational or business-like. I'd have preferred either.

I think it is quite true that the present administration has continued a lot of the policies/ practices of the previous one. This belies the criticism that it is the most socialist or the most fascist. It is rather middle of the road in reality. People are quite willing to criticize those in power, then when they get a little power they are loathe to give up even a particle of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 07:16 PM

GfS just flunked Poli. Sci. 101.

Bloody undecipherable can of worms.

It's pretty obvious that not only can nobody decipher what the hell he's talking about, but HE doesn't know what the hell he's talking about!

He throws around words he's heard, but obviously has no comprehension of what they mean.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:32 PM

Ebbie: "In my opinion, the people who find fault with it, are not responding to the words, they are reacting to who said them."

Don Firth: "Right on, Ebbie!!"

Except if you check it out with a fact checker..there were far too many lies....but that's OK for 'so-called liberals'...it SOUNDED 'nice'!

Glad you two showed up and claimed your prize!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:20 PM

Jeez! JtS almost got it right, at least he was on the right track...I have made my position of 'so-called' liberals very clear, repeatedly.
They SAY they are 'liberals', but are more in line with the 'hard right', due to their blind hypocrisy...and are just up tight, hostile fanatics, who, while they SAY they despise the 'right'...they end up supporting exactly the same corruption that the 'left' is duplicating. They apply the term 'civil rights' to about everything, and SAY they base it on the Constitution, but hypocritically, ignore the rest of the Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights, thinking that it strips the 'right' of their emphasis...but end up complaining when it dawns on them that the bullshit they heaped on the 'right', just happens to affect them, too...and then they blame it on the 'right'...but as long as they can mask it as 'progressively liberal', and an exaggeration of a 'civil right', they nod their heads like an entranced robot! They base their drivel on emotional exploitations, and very little on fact..as we have repeatedly witnessed through the threads. 'Name calling' replaces logically constructed thought...and they are for the most parts, hypocrites on steroids!!
That being said, the 'right' has a different tactic, but they exploit 'patriotism'..while sewing fear...the 'duty' as dictated by their 'party'.
Both of them are so full of shit..and with every year that passes, they just hand off the 'football' for the other to run with it..and run they do, further away from freedom and over-reach by the government, to the multinational corporations and international banksters, who only use the divide for THEIR advantage...NOT YOURS, or the citizens, of whatever country they happen to fucking over, at any given time!
They instruct you WHAT to think...instead of HOW to think...and the partisan morons just repeat their mantras...that most of the time, don't make factual sense...and are driven by hostility for any opposing ideas, that does.......and they aren't even honest enough to take a look around, and call it like it is....and what it is, is they've been duped, like a bunch of rhetorically driven imbeciles!

This present administration, has been a major wake up call, to MANY Democrats that they've been bullshitted to, and it's getting harder for them to keep frothing the lame excuses trying to deny, which is so patently obvious.....and the REAL 'so-calleds', just keep drooling the same 'talking points', without thinking, that the obvious bullshit, is just not true, and too ridiculous to defend without making a complete ass of themselves!....but they keep slobbering it out of their uncontrolled mouths.

I could get more specific....but if you find yourselves finding that the shoe fits well, why bother going on about it.
We know who the phony imbeciles are...we know it HAS occurred to a lot on here that just haven't RECONSIDERED why their bullshit doesn't match reality...OR the promises made them(and the country), doesn't seem to line up with what comes out in the long run.

Now, if you could wade through that...it happens to be far less convoluted, than the crap a lot of you promote, UNDER THE GUISE of being 'liberal'..(or Conservative, as well).

As for me, BOTH parties have allowed themselves to be corrupted beyond recognition!

Do we really NEED specifics??...and/or, are you really that dishonest, and stupid simultaneously??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:09 PM

Right on, Ebbie!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

I, for one, liked the President's State of the Union speech. Given that it is - it has to be - a cheerleading speech, everything in it needed to be said.

In my opinion, the people who find fault with it, are not responding to the words, they are reacting to who said them.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

Don, You are pretty much on the money. But I'll give GfS for sticking the label "liberal agenda" on an idea he'd been percolating and trying to describe for some time. It does save a lot of bickering over who believes what.

Of course the implication that all people who support a particular politician or idea all have the same agenda or even are all liberal is silly propaganda which came from people who do tend to herd together and call themselves "conservative" even though on the whole, they are pretty radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:30 PM

GUEST, don't expect an answer, or at least a sensible answer to what GfS means by "liberal agenda" because he doesn't know what he means. He picked up the expression from somewhere and uses it as an epithet.

He purports to have no political opinion. He feels he's "above it all," thus superior to we mere mortals.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, as to his accusation that I'm only a "wannabe activist," I have been working on political campaigns for number of decades now, and a couple of times have been offered a position as convention delegate by my local caucus. Can't take it, because I'm currently in a wheelchair (post-polio) and travelling is too difficult for me. But I work at campaigns and issues in any way that I'm able.

I have also put in a lot of time and effort on serious environmental issues.

What has GfS ever done? Bitch and complain on this forum, and throw mud at those who ARE active, is about all.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 10:00 AM

nice post sciencegeek

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:30 AM

GfS: As far as a quick look tells me, I am the only one posting as Guest for about 40 posts. That said, please explain this "liberal agenda" because frankly I don't understand what you're talking about. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: sciencegeek
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:08 AM

If we aren't interested in the miimum wage, how about the possibility of single payer state systems? Or are we more interested in whining about it than being pro-active? There is already a single payer system in place... and has been for longer than I've been alive... it's called Medicare.

From the Washington Post on single payer aspect of ACA:

You often hear people say that the reason the United States doesn't have a single-payer health-care system is that special interests have a hammerlock on Congress. But in the course of reporting out my article on what liberals miss about single payer, Princeton's Uwe Reinhardt, a single-payer supporter, made an interesting variant of this argument: The reason the United States shouldn't have a single-payer system, he said, is that it's too captured by special interests to manage one well.

"I have not advocated the single payer model here," he said, "because our government is too corrupt. Medicare is a large insurance company whose board of directors (Ways and Means and Senate Finance) accept payments from vendors to the company. In the private market, that would get you into trouble."

The key to a single-payer system is that the government sets prices. Usually, it empowers boards of independent experts who set those prices low. Reinhardt's argument is that in the United States, health industry interests have so much sway over Congress that the prices would end up being set by health-care interests.

"When you go to Taiwan or Canada," Reinhardt said, "the kind of lobbying we have here is illegal there. You can't pay money to influence the party the same way. Therefore the bureaucrats who run these systems are pretty much insulated from these pressures. Here you have basically a board of directors in the House Ways and Means Committee that gets money from lobbyists both at the regulatory writing stage and during normal operations. And they can call an administrator and demand they stop something from happening."

The question in any argument like this is the counterfactual. Outside of Medicare, Medicaid and some other government-run health systems, prices are set by health-care interests now. But they're much lower in Medicare and Medicaid than they are for private insurers. So it's simultaneously possible for the U.S. government to be much worse at setting prices than, say, France's government, but still be able to negotiate much lower prices than private insurers can manage.

Still, Reinhardt's argument is a reminder that the simple fact that a policy worked in another country does not mean it will work in this country. His point about the importance of independence is particularly crucial.

One of the most interesting pricing experiments in the United States is all-payer rate setting, where public and private insurers band together to negotiate with providers. There was a time when all-payer rate setting was common. Now it's only used in Maryland (see Sarah Kliff's report on Maryland's unique system). Why? Because Maryland based its plan around a genuinely independent board, argues health-care expert Paul Ginsburg:

    In the 1970s, a number of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states set hospital rates for private payers and Medicaid, and some received waivers to include Medicare in their systems. When the shift away from regulation took hold in the 1980s and Medicare inpatient prospective payment was thought by many to be adequate to control hospital costs, each of the systems was abandoned except for Maryland, which continues to this day.

    I believe that Maryland's staying power is a direct result of its structure as an independent regulatory agency. The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission resembles what some are discussing today as the "Federal Reserve Board" model of governance for health care. The governor appoints volunteer commissioners to long terms, and commission decisions are not reviewable by the legislature or executive branches.

Obamacare sets up a similar independent board to drive pricing in Medicare. As of a few months ago, that board looked doomed. Republicans were going to filibuster every possible appointee. But now that the filibuster has been eliminated for executive-branch nominations, it seems much likelier that the Obama administration will be able to staff the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- and that the board will actually be close to independent. How that board operates over the next decade or so will be a good test of Reinhardt's theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:16 AM

"Totally clueless." says absolutely NOTHING!(as usual)... If you've got a differing OPINION, supported by FACTS, then spit it out!
As much as you 'bad mouth' Songwronger, at least he backs up his position...something you don't seem to be concerned with...just more name calling from our resident pretentious troll!
BTW, you should start off by checking with a 'fact checker' about the speech.....and you'll find once AGAIN, your position of defending more lies, with your version of the same, is just another hollow attempt of you, trying to sound like know more than you do, just to impress people.
It's NOT working, either by you, or the President!

Do your homework, like a good student, and knock off trying to be the schoolyard bully!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:55 PM

Totally clueless.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:25 PM

Guest: "However, I'm still trying to get an answer to the "liberal agenda" remark made by GfS, so I guess we all tilt at windmills now and again."

To whom am I answering? Hard to distinguish all the different 'Guests'(with nothing else other than 'guest')

I'd be happy to answer you....which ever one you are...


Now this is priceless:

Akenaton: "GW Bush was also President of the United States of America, but I remember many of the Democrats here being extremely disrespectful of his tenure.
I may say, much more disrespectful than Songwronger.
Songwronger does not, as far as I have seen, indulge in personal attacks on other members. He does not break the rules."

Response:

Jack the Sailor: "The rules have changed Ake. We are now supposed to not be impolite, argumentative or unkind.
It is impolite to disrespect the President. Constantly starting threads to pick fights about politics is very argumentative. That's breaking two rules."

...........

I have to acknowledge SRS, for not deleting my last posts......(of course damned if she did, damned if she didn't).

And now Firth, Your 'so-called liberal' agenda is about as 'liberal' as Bush's war in Iraq, for Halliburton...except now it's healthcare for the select insurance corporations.....but you're still too much in awe struck that a black guy is in the Presidency, than to separate that, and see the similarities of Bush and Obama...and that they're working for the same people....and it ain't the 'common folk'!

I know, I know....you say it was a 'step in the right direction'..
yeah, the 'RIGHT' direction!..it's all the same.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Songwronger
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 10:40 PM

The minimum wage talk is a ruse. The income disparity in the U.S. (gap between the rich and poor) is now greater than at any time in our history. Wall Street doesn't pay tax, NFL franchises don't pay tax, but Obama talks about 10.10 an hour. Give me a break.

The problem in the U.S. is that we have a one-party system. The article quoted in the original post points out that Obama's threat to use his "pen" is a sham. The "opposition party" goes along with everything he does. Hell, the House of Reps just passed an 8 billion dollar kick in the head to poor people, right up Obama's "austerity" alley. Check out the cuts the new Farm Bill makes to social services.

I don't doubt that Obama's administration is the most fascist in American history. The feds have begun confiscating retirement accounts now, and people aren't even aware of it. Obama gets away with it because the compliant media gives you missing pet stories instead of reporting real news.

And as far as respecting Obama, he drone kills babies. Fuck him. He needs to be fairly tried and executed. Same as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:47 PM

"A minimum wage has to be a wage one can live on. It also assumes that jobs will be full-time. A tad over $10/hr may or may not be a living wage depending on where one lives and how many people depend on that wage. Obama received mixed reviews, but more importantly, it seems obvious that people have lost faith in their political leadership. Read the numbers on how many people watched the SotU address."

My limited response to a previous poster's question about Obama's SotU address which I think may have got lost in "what this thread really means" pragmatics. sciencegeek tried to get things back on track.

So, who's got papers?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 07:16 PM

I'm not arguing with you. Are you arguing with me? By all appearances SW is trying to anger people to bait them into a word fight.


Do you think this is an invitation to reasoned debate?

"the most right-wing administration in US history."


" Obama a fascist dictator. "

Do you think we have to have this same conversation constantly ongoing on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 07:01 PM

Hmmm, how do you have a discussion forum without being argumentative?

Surely if two people hold opposing points of view, the discussion is sure to involve arguments.

We are being "argumentative" at the moment, are we not?
But not disrespectful I hope. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:53 PM

The rules have changed Ake. We are now supposed to not be impolite, argumentative or unkind.

It is impolite to disrespect the President. Constantly starting threads to pick fights about politics is very argumentative. That's breaking two rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:40 PM

GW Bush was also President of the United States of America, but I remember many of the Democrats here being extremely disrespectful of his tenure.
I may say, much more disrespectful than Songwronger.
Songwronger does not, as far as I have seen, indulge in personal attacks on other members. He does not break the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:38 PM

It's a matter of numbers. Songwronger quotes from a somewhat dubious source, the usuals show up to put him in his place and then we have further exposed the dubious source to the internet. Think of it this way: if no one rises to the bait, the fisherman will go fish elsewhere.

Next Songwronger thread that is SSDD, ignore! You'll find the trolls in the first ten posts.

###################################

A minimum wage has to be a wage one can live on. It also assumes that jobs will be full-time. A tad over $10/hr may or may not be a living wage depending on where one lives and how many people depend on that wage. Obama received mixed reviews, but more importantly, it seems obvious that people have lost faith in their political leadership. Read the numbers on how many people watched the SotU address.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:33 PM

Well Jack, the SOtU address is rather an important piece of "politicking", I thought Democrats would be keen to challenge SW's views?
I agree with being respectful to the office of President, and SW is often disrespectful, but he also makes valid points regarding President Obama's use of his office.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:26 PM

"to point out the hypocrisy of your political ideology "

He first did that on August 2, 2012,

Does he deserve to have his own personal threads one after another about it constantly on this board to the point that very few read anything he has to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:55 PM

2008, should marked the death of the rapacious capitalist economic system. President Obama and other "democratic liberals", have made the victims pay heavily for its resurrection.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:44 PM

The problem is, that most people who post here are centre left, they equate basically to people who support the UK Liberal Party.
This party is presently in government, supporting a pretty right wing Conservative Party.
They are what I term "liberals", because they are in fact carpetbaggers, politicians without even rudimentary principles.
Centre left people vote for them, because they wear the label of liberalism, but in reality are no more liberal than the Conservatives.

The US and UK are ruled by the capitalist system and no president or Prime minister can be "left wing" and still do his job, which is of course serving the system and trying to ensure its survival.

I think this is the point being made by Songwronger, he is trying, in rather harsh terms, to point out the hypocrisy of your political ideology and obviously sees President Obama as a black man who sold out?

Looking from here , there does not seem to be a lot of difference between Democrats and republicans, when in a position of power.

They are both servants of a higher "God"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM

Of course, Goofballupagus would call that my "phony liberal agenda," (an essentially meaningless concept which only he thinks he understands), but I will refrain from commenting. If someone cuts a loud, smelly, juicy one, it's impolite to call attention to it. Just open the window and air the place out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:27 PM

Not only am I in favor of setting a livable wage for all workers—and for women, equal pay for equal work—but I would like to see a cap placed on executive salaries.

$10 million bonuses at the end of the fiscal year? What can one actually do that is really worth THAT much money?

A number of exceedingly wealthy people seem to be growing a conscience. Warren Buffet, a multibillionaire, has stated that if all the billionaires in the country gave half their wealth to various charities and good causes, it would not only end poverty in this country, but they—the billionaires—would still have more money than they could ever spend in a hundred lifetimes. Bill and Melinda Gates have joined him in this and are also pushing this idea. Bill and Melinda have, among other causes, dedicated their wealth to ending polio and a number of other diseases, worldwide, and within their lifetimes.

And—when Ted Turner (fortune, a mere $3 billion) built a sports stadium in Atlanta on his own dime—not asking for any money from taxpayers—and THEN gave away $1 billion dollars to various good causes, he drew all kinds of flak from other wealthy folk for "setting a bad example!" Turner responded heatedly, "Who in the hell NEEDS that much money!??"

$10.10 per hour minimum wage for the working stiff? Little enough, but at least it's about bloody time!

And by the way, Jeri, I heartily agree with what Jack says just above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 04:35 PM

I think you are making some good points sg.

The problem being, they won't be read by the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 04:14 PM

That is not very kind of you to say that Jeri. I am not trolling and I am as smart or smarter than a lot of people who have left.

I have NOT fed songwronger's trolling ever since I realized it was trolling.

If I want to say something about the SoTU and have it read here, how do I do it?

I know that if I post it here most people will do what I do. Look at the title, see that the name Obama is there without "Mr." or "President" open the thread, confirm that songwronger started it and close the thread never to open the thread again.

If you disallow other threads on the same subject and allow songwronger to continue his present tactic you are not only feeding the troll, you are facilitating his domination of and closing off of entire topics of conversation?

I don't think that he should be allowed, based on your advice "Don't feed the trolls" to be the only person on this forum allowed to discuss The President of the United States of America in the context of current events.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:57 PM

so, in the spirit of opening up the discussion of the content of the 2014 state of the nation speach...

what do you think of the proposal to make $10.10 the "new" minimum wage - at least for those hired using federal money. This means the contractors who bid on federally funded projects - I think this probably includes all state highway jobs that use "icetea" money to repave roads and upgrade highways or help fund county projects- will have to pay that wage to all their employees. From the flagmen/women to the equipment operators. That cost must be taken into account when they bid on projects.

I was more concerned with women still getting less than 100% pay parity. Up from the 59 cents on the dollar to 79 cents... but still a long way from from 100%.

And I think that as long as CEOs feel they are entitled to mega salaries, the pay inequality will persist. There just isn't all that much pie left to divide once they get done taking their "share" out of it.

what's your take on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:49 PM

It's not clever at all. It's "troll 101". He says something that irritates/pisses off people who then believe they're indispensable to setting things right.

As long as we have individuals hanging around here who are driven by anger and hatred and THINK THAT'S OK, we will be giving trolls a home here. People who think it's OK to let themselves be ruled by anger and hatred are everything that's wrong with Mudcat. Your excuses don't work with anyone but like-minded troll-fuckers.

Years and years ago, I once complained to someone at work about one particular troll. He said "don''t feed trolls." I said, "but this one really knows how to..." He said "don't feed trolls". I said "it doesn't matter, they just keep going," and he replied "don't feed trolls."

You might say it never has worked here.

I know why.

We have never, ever NOT fed them. Somebody always gets his chain pulled enough to jerk him, and others join in because they figure "if x caved, I guess it's OK for me to jump in.

I don't like anything Songwronger's ever said (as far as I'm aware), but it would have been relatively easy for anyone who isn't a stooge to talk about the actual SotU address. We used to have nicer people here. We used to have smarter people here. Or maybe it was just that people used to TRY.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:39 PM

>>people didn't respond to the OP the thread would die. <<

And Songwronger, if he holds to his usual pattern would start or refresh another one with the same theme.


<<>>

and with the current unwritten rules for thread titles no one would be able to talk about the 2014 state of the union without out going through songwronger's thread.

I've been thinking about this for a while and trying to think of approaches that would satisfy my need for discussion (mostly posting things like cartoons and Jon Stewart bits) without feeding this particular troll. Its beyond me. I've given up. I can't do it on my own.

One has to admit his manipulation of us all is pretty clever.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:25 PM

"Also, I do feel a certain need to speak out against or try to provide what I may consider correct information... and then try to let it die a fitting death."

If no one at all replied it would die a fitting faster death :-)

However, I'm still trying to get an answer to the "liberal agenda" remark made by GfS, so I guess we all tilt at windmills now and again.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:18 PM

I agree about letting the thread die... but I'm also hearing that if there is already one thread, a second more neutral thread can't be started. yes .. no ... maybe?

Also, I do feel a certain need to speak out against or try to provide what I may consider correct information... and then try to let it die a fitting death.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:46 PM

And that is what I too find offensive: the content. However, that said, if people didn't respond to the OP the thread would die.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:40 PM

"Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014"

I fail to see anything offensive with the thread title."

I suspect that while the thread title is inoffensive the following line in bold is the true intent of the thread - and THAT is what many of us find offensive... beyond the overall pattern of disrespect and spewing forth of negativity.   

"Obama's State of the Union address: An empty and reactionary charade" all in bold

Now - THIS is what the wronger really means for the thread. Not.. what do you think about the speech, here's my take on it.

And I'd like to note that there are more than a few folks who can spot a Songwronger thread post as soon as it pops up. I have no idea how anyone can maintain such a level of animosity without exploding. Anymore than I comprehend the need post it here on what is generally a music site... sciencegeek, not pysch major.

I am not black.. or hispanic ... or Irish, Polish, etc... but I am half Italian, so I have had my share of nasty jokes and comments based on ethnic animosity by total strangers- usually by people who had no idea of my heritage. Ethnic and racial profiling has no rational basis other than the unreasoning fear and distrust by some of those who are different for whatever reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:25 PM

Bill,

I think we all understand your original post.

I totally sympathize if you did not read to the end of the opening post which did not have the words of the cut and paste separated from the poster's. I did make the mistake of, for once reading tho whole thing. I was showing off when I corrected you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:08 PM

Let me correct my earlier post. Whatever the original source of SWs copy & paste, it has been picked up by many sites, right & left, which love to throw mud. It is hard to be sure who actually wrote the original.

Enter " a cynical and reactionary charade." in Google and see just how complex it is to follow and pin down the origins of all the crap these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:03 PM

I was told in school that it is rude (impolite) to refer to the President of The United States by last name only.


I'm not saying that you can't do that at all. But this rudeness is part of a pattern.


I know it is a songwronger thread whenever I see this done in a thread title. He does it to irritate people. That is argumentative.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:49 PM

"Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014"

I fail to see anything offensive with the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:36 PM

What I want is for Joe and perhaps you if you are doing it as well is stop playing a silly thread name game that is being played in favor of this particular troll.

This you will recognize from the "membership" page

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

I was told in school that it is rude (impolite) to refer to the President of The United States by last name only. That was in Canada. Am I wrong in believing that people born and raised here are not aware of this too?

I'm not saying that you can't do that at all. But this rudeness is part of a pattern.

Don't you think it is argumentative to start thread after thread in the pattern for title and Outrageous Insult to the President as the opening post. He is using a loophole in the rules to get away with trolling.

There used to be several people who trolled the Mudcat this way (not exactly the same but similar technique). Now there is one. That is progress we are all grateful for. Isn't the fact that so few people are posting to these threads and you are encouraging those who do post to stop, enough reason to do something about them.

The topic of this thread is "I hate Obama! by songwronger" and the purpose of the thread is to provoke people into bickering with him to defend common sense. God Bless Don for his patience and persistence. But I think all of us are tired of seeing two or three reminders of this bickering and trolling every time we scan the Mudcat list of thread titles.

One thread with an inoffensive title would be much more manageable.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:50 AM

state of the union, like state of the state, addresses are politcal pep talks...

and while President Obama is no Knute Rockne, he's also NOT Mitt Romney...

you know...

the guy who "likes firing people" and thinks that investing in Chinese labor camps... or sorry, barb wired surrounded factories, are the ideal places for the American rich to invest their hard stolen $$$.

So while there are those pissing and moaning about our current President, they should take a long hard look at the guy who would have had the job otherwise. I still think that George Romney is spinning in his grave thanks to the actions of his offspring.

And while the current health care law is far from perfect... guess what - states like Vermont have figured out that the current law will let them set up single payer systems in their states -- and THAT is why the Conservative Right wants to abolish the ACA... because it has a provision that empowers the PEOPLE not the mega corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:17 AM

I hadn't even read Don's post when I wrote mine. I wasn't talking about him. I don't think he's a troll. I think he does trolls.

But look at where this thread is, and look at how easy we've all been to control. Seems like trollery is what Mudcat wants... at least the ones still here.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:02 AM

I think you have to start fights to be a troll. I also think you have to look for more people to fight with to be a troll. I've not seen Don do either.

SRS, I your point about Songwrongers tactics, if I were deciding what to do, I would simply take every thread by from now on that starts with a silly an over the top attack such as "the most right-wing administration in US history." and put it in a thread called. "Attacks on the Obama Admin" or some such. Amos had a similar thread, was it called "reflections?"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:54 AM

GfS: WTF is this "'liberal agenda'" you refer to, often. You're harder to nail down on that than goose shit in a bucketful of eels.

I can't be arsed to get into who is and who isn't a troll. It's my perspective that for almost all posters, anyone who doesn't agree with their remarks/opinions is a troll. So that's a lost cause.

But this liberal agenda thing intrigues me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM

SRS: "I know Jeri thinks Don is a troll, I have to respond that I know Don well enough and for long enough to know that he isn't."

...and of course, if anyone ever caught SRS lying, she's delete the post, and close the thread!

Repeatedly!

Jeri might be closer than you thought. Don is a hardcore wannabe activist he loves to get attention, and uses every tactic of a troll, while accusing others of about everything under the sun...THEN PM's his posse(Some of which are sick and tired of him), who show up to give him support, and help him make excuses for his almost 'progressive', corporate owned administration!!!

I wonder how long this post will last.....SRS doesn't like independent thinkers, who are cut from the usual cookie-cutter mold!

...and God forbid, if you don't fall in line with making excuses for what they foolishly believe is a 'liberal agenda'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 11:39 PM

Songwronger spins Limbaugh and Coulter with ease. He jumps in on topics that he knows have wide support by many U.S. mudcatters in order to start more fights. He hopes to create chaos ahead of any rational discussions that might start on a given topic.

I know Jeri thinks Don is a troll, I have to respond that I know Don well enough and for long enough to know that he isn't. We probably won't agree on that. But it seems that there should be one toxic place to simply transfer the various toxic threads that Songwronger starts to keep it all in one place. The Mother of all BS threads is taken and is a charmingly whimsical place, so it would have to be the Mother of all Noxious Theories thread, a place for malcontents to vent their spleen and rational people can avoid it unless they feel like slumming.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:57 PM

A couple of posts addressing the State of the Union speech, the rest personal invective. Typical.

The speech was a disaster. The ovation about Obamacare was an attempt to cover up the laughter in the gallery. People literally laughed at Obama when he tried to pass Obamacare off as a success. What a shameless whore.

At any rate, from Time magazine: Vulnerable Democrats Distance Themselves From Obama after State of the Union. The speech was a train wreck.

As far as the World Socialist Website, it reports on "workers' struggles." I know that's hard for you liberals to relate to, but read it for yourself. The reportage is hard on Obama because, well, he deserves it. He works for the banks.

I find the people here to be intensely aversive to dissent. You want to shut out opposing views. That's fascist. You Obamanoids are truly reflected in your idol's eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:29 PM

Right, Jack!

The other State of the Union thread had some promise before it got removed.

The thread heading all too often has little to do with the thread itself. It's often the OP merely using the subject as a saddle so he can gallop in yet again on his favorite hobby horse.

As is the case with THIS thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 07:13 PM

The sensible way to do it would be to not censor other threads because TROLL ONE got to the topic first.

I want to talk about the State of the Union, not the "the most right-wing administration in US history."

I don't want to see disrespectful thread title after disrespectful thread title to the President when the topic of the thread is ALWAYS "Songwronger Hates Obama."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:39 PM

Here is a complete transcript.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:25 PM

Dueling trolls.

One thing I'm sure we all know is that just because a person we don't like starts a thread or a particular subject is supposed to be what the thread's about, that's not usually the way things go.

Unfortunately, what we have in this thread is a bunch of...

...people who'd rather bitch about Songwronger than talk about the SOtU.

You deserve what you get.

I watched the address, and was mightily heartened with the several-minute-long standing ovation he got when he said the attempts to repeal ACA were pretty much over and Republicans should deal with reality. (paraphrasing)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:58 PM

Songwronger: The virtual version of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:52 PM

Well said, Don.
Stim, please note that Wrongo will go to any site that's flinging excrement at President Obama, regardless of ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:34 PM

Songwronger is dragging a wagon-load of dingoes' kidneys in with him, as usual.

The most right-wing administrator in the past century, with the possible exception of those who gave Wall Street and the other financial interests free rein, thus precipitating the Great Depression, was Ronald Reagan.

Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted a bunch of regulatory agencies to curb their abuses, thus going a long way, not only to aid in ending the Depression, but to prevent others in the future.

Reagan gutted these agencies. And this has a great deal to do with the recent mess we've been in. President Obama is doing his damnedest to end all this, but the Republicans are fighting him every step of the way.

This thread is not really about the State of the Union address, it's about Songwronger (and of course, the body-lice who accompany him) grasping yet another opportunity to spout his (their) pathological hatred for President Obama.

Get that, Songwronger (and friends)! That's President Obama, the duly and legally elected President of the United States. Suck it up!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:24 PM

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:30 PM

Stim,

I can set the record straight.

These are SW's words.

"The article calls Obama's "the most right-wing administration in US history."

SW and, if SW, isn't mistaken, that website are going well beyond what you just stated in terms of rhetoric.

It is shrill, hysterical, exaggerated Obama hatred, nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:12 PM

Bill, Songwronger's post is not from a right wing website, it is from a website that is created and maintained by the Socialist Equality Party (and has been for a long time).

The Socialist Equality Party are about as far from right wing as you can get, being what are often referred to as "Unreconstructed Trotskyites".

The fact that Songwronger often posts links to and posts text from this site ought to have given you a hint, long ago, as to his sympathies.(and, in case you didn't guess, he has pointed it out often enough!)

He regularly underscores the views of the SEP on Obama, which, from the Wikipedia article on them, can be summarized as:

"The Socialist Equality Party claims that the majority of left-wing opponents of the Bush Administration have "lined up behind the Obama Administration", despite the fact that the Obama Administration's policies are in many respects similar to those of the Bush Administration. The Socialist Equality Party seeks to create a mass movement in opposition to the Obama Administration on the basis of a Socialist program."

Obama, especially early on, had a lot of support from "Progressives"and, though it has been carefully redacted, from what
remains of the American Hard Left. From that perspective, a lot of what Obama has done seems accommodationist, if not an outright betrayal. I can appreciate that there would be a lot of bitterness and anger toward him. Even if there was no sense of betrayal, at least there would be a strong desire to show that he is advancing the agenda of capitalism rather than the agenda of the workers struggle.

If this is wrong, SW, please set the record straight...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:57 PM

Actually he said is is a Socialist website. If a socialist says it its got to be true right? ;-p

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:50 PM

SW did not make clear that his entire post was a Copy & Paste from multiple right-wing web sites. Parroting people and sites who give knee-jerk criticism of anything Obama tries to do is hardly a 'discussion'. Let's just leave him to stew in his hate and not enter a conversation with him.... all you end up doing is wasting time dodging mud.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 11:57 AM

This is part of one long chain of thought whereby Songwronger vilifies the President. It is clearly not a discussion of The State of the Union Speech, as evidenced by the responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:41 AM

Here's a song that says what needs sayin'!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:04 AM

Joe you didn't delete my post yet you took the time to lecture me on the other thread. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:52 AM

Why not???...Do you want to only have a discussion with those to whom you agree with??
You either have a weak position, or only like to sing to the choir.
I think the speech could be looked at objectively.......AND...
"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep him, and save $2500 a year per household....."

The rest is in the eye of the beholder.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:17 AM

Please delete my posts from this thread. I do not mean to participate in the fucking Songwronger HATEs OBAMA FUCKING State of the Union thread.



Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:17 AM

I don't think I've ever watched one, and I don't plan on doing so. Nor do I care to read what other people think of such -- I'll read six or eight news sources, foreign and domestic, and try to get a balanced view that way.

But mostly I don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:08 AM

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain -- and most fools do."
-- Benjamin Franklin,

John

Subject: BS: President Obama's SoTU 2014
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:22 PM

a more balanced take on "the daily show."

Yes, he gave a speech, and it pissed some people off. Blah de blah blah...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:01 PM

Mr. Obama has to walk SUCH a tightrope, balancing between Muslimism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Populism, Monarchism, the right wing and the left wing, and the Know-Nothing-at-Allism. And you expect him to succeed??

Subject: BS: Obama's State of the Union Address, 2014
From: Songwronger
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:12 PM

Obama's State of the Union address: An empty and reactionary charade

US President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday was, perhaps even more than his previous addresses, a cynical and reactionary charade. Empty rhetoric was combined with a complete disconnect from the reality confronting millions of people and an assertion of executive power.

The thrust of the speech was a mixture of pro-business nostrums, militarist jingoism and a jumble of penny-ante proposals. The media's attempt to promote the speech as a major address on inequality was a deliberate falsification aimed at drumming up interest among a generally indifferent and hostile population.

Instead it was a threadbare attempt to cover over the reality of the past year, a year in which the mask fell off a society riven by historically unprecedented levels of social inequality and mass poverty, overseen by a vast police-state spying apparatus, on the verge of another global war of incalculable consequences and presided over by the most right-wing administration in US history....

The president, who has done more than any of his predecessors to funnel money into Wall Street, acknowledged that "corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better," as if the policies of his own administration had nothing to do with it. He quickly claimed, however, that the American people "don't resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success."

Presumably Obama was referring to the likes of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Obama's favored banker, who, despite the repeated and documented criminal activities of his company, has not only gone unpunished, but last week received a 74 percent pay raise....

In the run-up to the speech, there was a concerted effort in the media to paint a picture of partisan gridlock, which Obama was proposing to overcome through executive actions. Given that Obama's actual proposals amount to nothing, and that the parties are agreed on fundamentals, Obama's repeated insistence that "I'm going to do" what is required has the distinct and ominous odor of a presidential dictatorship....

As has become traditional in such events, Obama singled out individuals in the audience, generally victims of the policies of the ruling class, who are exploited to make various political points. Nowhere was this more sickening than at the end of the speech, when the president heaped praise on a veteran severely maimed by an explosion in Afghanistan.

The assembled congressmen—responsible for wars of aggression that inflicted a similar fate on thousands of Americans, while killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis—gave a lengthy standing ovation to one of the victims of their criminal policies. This spectacle was a fitting conclusion to a nauseating political ritual.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/01/29/sotu-j29.html

The article calls Obama's "the most right-wing administration in US history." This is a Socialist website, monitoring the interests of the working class. It just called Obama a fascist dictator.