Obama's State of the Union Speech

1. 60

   tobey100posted 14 years ago

   Thought about doin' a hub but what's the use?  After a quick review I found He used the first person "I" 96 times and his comment slamming the Bush administration, something he never does you know, saying many referred to it as the 'lost decade' has never been used by anyone to describe the last decade.  I found 26 references in a simple Google search and every one applied to the impending Obama administration.  Too nauseated to continue.............

   replyreport
2. 80

   Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago

   The "Lost Decade" began Jan.1,2010.  There is no "I" in "We."  I guess now it is "I the people."

   replyreport
3. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   I didn't understand the "It's time to stop the bickering and blaming and come together" versus the "It's Bush's fault" mentality. And although I have mixed feelings about the SCOTUS's latest decision, it was totally inappropriate for the president to call them out in the speech.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, habee, I completely disagree about mentioning the SCOTUS decision in his speech.  It is a decision that, if not corrected, will have a catastrophic effect on this nation, and Obama took a stand on it in front of the entire country, knowing that millions of people would be watching and listening.  What better way to draw attention to it and shame Congress into taking action?
      
      The Supreme Court overturned a ruling that had stood for 100 years.  Corporations already have plenty of say in our elections process.  Granting them more influence will completely RUIN whatever shred of decency is left in it.
      
      Alito's reaction was very telling.  So much for "judicial temperament."

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ever heard of freedom of speech?  Its not freedom of speech unless a corporation wants to make a donation.  Any 'but', 'unless', 'except', or any other condition you place on freedom means its no longer freedom.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            If you really think that when James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights  he wanted to ensure that Enron could spend millions of dollars on a single ad promoting its chosen candidate or political cause, then we'll just have to disagree.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Strophiosposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            There is no "'It's Bush's fault' mentality," not at all. That would imply that he blames everything on Bush, which is kind of ridiculous, especially given that he was perfectly willing to take his fair share of blame and to hand some out to both parties in congress. What he did do was remind a public and an opposition who seem to want to blame everything on him of the situation when he entered office.
            
            
            
            First, we have freedom of speech 'except' for things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.
            
            Second, rights are for people, not legal fictions. Corporations should not have the ability to influence elections, certainly not in the same way people do, because they are not people. See, the purpose of a democracy is that decisions are made by the will of the people, ergo corporations stay out of it.
            
            And don't even try to argue that corporations "represent people's interests," because corporations are not effective aggregators of interest. The vast majority of the members of a corporation (i.e. the workers) have no say in its policies, and yet they are the ones who allow its existence. Giving corporations free reign to spend on elections is basically giving the management/shareholders leave to convert their workers' labor into political capital, with or without their workers' consent, for or (very likely) against their interests.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Nicely stated Mark, and I agree...

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  ...errr... Strophios...(the avatar threw me...)

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         JON EWALLposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Deleted
         1. 74

            Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I heard one justice yell out "That's Not True!"
            
            Joe Wilson must be laughing.

            replyreport
   2. 58

      lovelypaperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, Habee. He's so contradictory. He says one thing and does another. I would say I've lost confidence in Obama, but I never HAD confidence in him to begin with. Maybe in three years the county will vote someone more qualified into office. All politians are a little shady but there's got to be someone, Someone better than this narciscist.

      replyreport
4. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   But Panther, Obama wasn't telling the whole truth. Foreign companies cannot contribute to US elections, in spite of the court's recent decision. I looked it up. I don't mind that the prez disagrees with the ruling - I just think he should have handled his response differently, like in private. I just think the different branches of government should respect each other, especially in public. I didn't like it when Joe Wilson yelled "You lie!" to the president, either. I think BO's comment made him appear small, and I'm sure it will lead to more divisiveness, which we don't need.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Dig a little deeper.  What about U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations?

      replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   I'm still researching it, Panther, but like I said - I'm not really happy with the decision - I just don't like the way the president handled it. I don't like any of the campaign money from special interest groups or big business - on either side.

   replyreport
6. 69

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   I watched the entire speech and the Republican counter.
   
   Neither side addressed the root cause of debt.  Obama came across to me as a spoiled kid who wasn't getting his way and was angry because he couldn't force his agenda on the People.
   
   I wasn't terribly impressed with the Republican Response either.
   
   This is just more of the same.  Meanwhile the debt load keeps climbing, the jobs keep disappearing, and the Media Keep spinning.
   
   Obama's claim that he had nothing to do with accelerating debt is laughable.  He likes to bash Bush, but when you look at his appointments of key financial positions you see George Bush written all over them.
   
   You can not attack the symptoms of Banking, you have to attack the disease within the symptom.
   
   This past year Credit Card Laws were enacted that will go into effect this spring/summer.  And what happened?  Immediately Banks Raised Interest Rates and Fees.
   
   How much of in idiot do you have to believe that if you tax Banks they won't just raise fees and interest rates again?
   
   Banks/Lenders are getting money at 3.5% and raising credit card fees to record highs.
   
   Nothing Obama says really makes sense when you break it down.  It's just populist pandering.
   
   His claim that he didn't raise taxes is ridiculous.  Across the country State and Local Governments are raising taxes as a result of his Monetary Policy endoresements.
   
   All Obama has done is Borrow and Spend.  This is the same as Tax and Spend because at some point all the additional money has to be repaid or the system has to collapse.
   
   Debt is not Capital!  The Countries Balance Sheet is so Debt Laden that it can not be repaid.
   
   The whole speech was just ripe with arrogance and denial.

   replyreport
7. 73

   Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

   I haven't seen it anyone have a link to it?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1m63CB8Bx0
      
      I do not have sound but I think this is it.

      replyreport
8. 73

   Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

   Thanks Arthur, it is just a 2 minute clip from his speech, I keep finding little clips but can't seem to find the speech in it's entirety....   

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 74

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         See you in an hour or so.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I found it here ----> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi … part.1.cnn

            replyreport
9. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   "But Panther, Obama wasn't telling the whole truth. Foreign companies cannot contribute to US elections, in spite of the court's recent decision."
   
   That is not the case....
   
   But a further point...
   
   Is Walmart working for the best interests of the United States populace?
   
   How about KBR?
   
   I'm not so sure...
   
   China, recently, tried to pass legislation that would enable workers to gain more rights, better wages and benefits from "American" companies like Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes (they are all on the same Pacific Maratime Trade Commission as well as the Chamber of Commerce in China)....But these corporations use their money and influence..namely through the Chamber of Commerce in China to keep workers down...
   
   Oh wait...that is exactly what "American" corporations typically do....
   
   I don't want Chiquita (good ol United Fruit) having any sway in our elections....
   
   But when the president of said corporation spends nights in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House (check it out)...we know that such influence will not be curtailed...
   
   A company cannot vote....
   It cannot draw on unemployment......
   
   But now politicians won't need to do so much ad work of their own....they may actually need less money to get the same, or more, influence across....
   
   So, if my community wanted to put pressure on, say, our local representative....and let him know that we will not fund his campaign if we did not see him working on our behalf...he can now care less....or at least less than he would have before...
   
   We can still withold our votes...but it will be only more difficult for grassroots efforts without similar funding (or advertising ability) to get the work done...
   
   But the work will still get done....

   replyreport
10. 66

    Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

    If anyone's interested, transcript and video are also available at New York Times.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

    I saw the last part of the speech.
    First of all, he seemed to be using the platform to chew everyone out instead of giving the PEOPLE a transparent explanation/evaluation of the state of the Union.
    
    And....drat....I've no time to talk anymore.  Good thing,  'cause I have NOTHING good to say about the O's address.

    replyreport
12. 73

    Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

    I thought it was a good speech for the most part.
    The best part of the whole thing was when he started talking about the resilience of the people and how we were doing what we always do... Making the best of it and carrying on, and then the entire assembly got deathly quiet, and were obviously listening, raptly...
    
    That was a beautiful moment. It felt to me like a moment when the senators and congressmen/women were put in their place in their own minds.
    I felt an admiration of 'We the People' by/from our leaders in that moment.
    
    ....Nice.

    replyreport