State of the Union Address

[section122]

Does anyone else find it annoying, lame, & pathetic the way the congress jumps up to applaud whenever the President says something they agree with? If you can't shout "you lie" is it too much to ask that you sit down & STFU and applaud after the damn thing is over?

 

I can't tell if I'm watching sycophantic idiots eagerly driven by the passions of their prejudice to hoot loudly for their views, or it they're all dutifully playing politics.

I know I should watch but I can't stand the circle jerk that it is. Interrupting for a standing ovation after every sentence is just above and beyond annoying. That said.....

 

Why is it so "cool" to bash the president now. It started with Bush so is this just pay back for the other side? Is it just that we have had back to back bad president's (that somehow managed second terms - basically bc of poor opponents)? Or is this just the new norm and the office doesn't deserve respect anymore? Kennedy had tons of warts (womanizer, questionable war history, etc..) and yet is revered still to this day. What happened to the office of President?

[jjamie12]

What happened to the office of President?

 

The proliferation of Cable News and the development of the influential blogoshpere, and the hyper-partisanship on display there. It is much easier not to think about an issue from all sides when you can go to the news channel of your persuasion and listen to pundits tell you how "kooky", "mean-spirited", "socialist", and "in the pocket of [insert hated industry of the moment here" the other side is. Thus, your world view is confirmed, while the PEOPLE with the different ideas, more and more, become less and less credible and so you can just dismiss any challenging information coming from them.

 

Edited to add blogosphere.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jjamie12

[Rob's House]

 

I know I should watch but I can't stand the circle jerk that it is. Interrupting for a standing ovation after every sentence is just above and beyond annoying. That said.....

 

Why is it so "cool" to bash the president now. It started with Bush so is this just pay back for the other side? Is it just that we have had back to back bad president's (that somehow managed second terms - basically bc of poor opponents)? Or is this just the new norm and the office doesn't deserve respect anymore? Kennedy had tons of warts (womanizer, questionable war history, etc..) and yet is revered still to this day. What happened to the office of President?

My theory is that it started w/ the post 9/11 unity hangover when emotions settled & people remembered they were still political enemies. Iraq opened the door to the anti-Bush crowd (many of whom see 1960s Viet Nam protests as their glory days) to seize the opportunity.

 

In the midst of all this came a media transformation where the pre-text of objectivity was tossed out the window (largely due to Internet & emergence of FNC airing conservative editorial shows) so the liberal factions of the media went into full swing. Much of the irreverence came from the emergence of non-traditional political coverage like the Daily Show & Bill Maher who provided a high profile venue for unbridled bashing.

 

As the lefts full frontal assault on Bush permeated pop culture (and this part is undeniable: it was a cool & popular thing to hate Bush), the conservatives and Republicans, many of whom were not terribly pleased with a good many decisions Bush was making, were made to defend him just like a girl who isn't happy w/ her bf feels compelled to defend him against attacks from her mother.

 

W/ Obama, now the tone is set (meaning Republicans see what the other side did & aren't receptive to opportunistic and hypocritical calls for civility) and a lot of the distaste for him from the right (and disillusionment from the left) is a result of a guy who was celebrated beyond, any rational justification, more for what he is than anything he did.

 

Also, the fact that Obama basically told the opposition that he won, so tough ****, get in line (specifically the back of the line) b/c he's in charge now, didn't win him any good will from the opposition.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Rob's House

[IDBillzFan]

Thats some quality critique right there.

 

Please....continue.

 

He'll be bringing up John Huntsman again in 3...2...1...

[B-Man]

After four years of mediocre leadership, the majority of Americans continue to judge Barack Obama not on what he has done but on who he is.

 

In an ironic reversal of the criteria of judgment set forth by Martin Luther King, they judge him not on the content of his character (or more precisely his actions and achievements) but on the color of his skin. The president is therefore exempt from the penalties other democratically elected leaders pay when they offend too egregiously against the truth; unlike them, he can stray into the realm of fantasy with impunity.

 

This is the curse of identity politics, but there are some grounds for believing that it will not permanently disfigure the country’s politics. The majority of Americans have decided that, whatever his faults, this president must be deemed a success, even if he has not actually succeeded — must be allowed to take his greatness honoris causa in lieu of his failure really to have earned it. There may be wisdom in the judgment that eight years of dubious leadership is a small price to pay for the sake of the symbolic value of the spectacle.

 

One only wishes that the president had the self-knowledge to recognize the gift that has been conferred upon him, and the humility to acknowledge that his success derives, not from the flawed policies he continues to pursue, but from an act of electoral grace and favor.

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340602/standing-martin-luther-king-his-head-michael-knox-beran

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Read this thread and you'll see a classic example of sheeple. Both statements below are by the same poster:

 

"One would have to be a complete moron to think Rubio's speech was fine".

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

"Don't worry, Meazza, I'll keep it brief.

 

I just went back and read the transcript of Sen. Rubio's entire speech. I must admit, he put some real ideas for real solutions on the table.

 

That was actually refreshing. While watching last night, I couldn't get past how much time and effort was put into criticizing the 2nd term President who poses zero threat to any GOP contender in the next general election.

 

I'd like to see Washington get past the blame game and start working together on solutions to problems that were created by both Democrats and Republicans.

 

I am interested to hear more of what Sen. Rubio has to say and more about his proposed solutions. I would like to hear less Obama bashing - whether it's deserved or not, what is it accomplishing?

 

I don't want to hear anymore about his $100K student loans, or his bartender dad and maid mom.

 

As an American with HIspanic heritage, I am interested to hear more about his immigration ideas.

 

I have an open mind. I want people in office who are committed to doing the right thing by the citizens of our country.

 

If Sen. Rubio proves to be that person, I'll support him all the way.

 

Peace."

 

People are gullible and blindly follow their so called leaders and dishonest media.

 

 

[Bronc24]

I love these things, because there's no way you guys are polarized enough politically. We need more SOTU!

[Gugny]

Read this thread and you'll see a classic example of sheeple. Both statements below are by the same poster:

 

"One would have to be a complete moron to think Rubio's speech was fine".

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

"Don't worry, Meazza, I'll keep it brief.

 

I just went back and read the transcript of Sen. Rubio's entire speech. I must admit, he put some real ideas for real solutions on the table.

 

That was actually refreshing. While watching last night, I couldn't get past how much time and effort was put into criticizing the 2nd term President who poses zero threat to any GOP contender in the next general election.

 

I'd like to see Washington get past the blame game and start working together on solutions to problems that were created by both Democrats and Republicans.

 

I am interested to hear more of what Sen. Rubio has to say and more about his proposed solutions. I would like to hear less Obama bashing - whether it's deserved or not, what is it accomplishing?

 

I don't want to hear anymore about his $100K student loans, or his bartender dad and maid mom.

 

As an American with HIspanic heritage, I am interested to hear more about his immigration ideas.

 

I have an open mind. I want people in office who are committed to doing the right thing by the citizens of our country.

 

If Sen. Rubio proves to be that person, I'll support him all the way.

 

Peace."

 

People are gullible and blindly follow their so called leaders and dishonest media.

I gave, last night, what was my initial assessment of Rubio's speech. I gave, this morning after reading the transcript thoroughly, my more thought out assessment of Rubio's speech.

 

I know it's a foreign concept, but I form my own opinions in my own way. And I even change my mind sometimes.

 

How you somehow construed this is "blindly following" anybody, or following "dishonest media," I have no idea - primarily because the only information I had to work with were Rubio's words.

[Fan in San Diego]

My theory is that it started w/ the post 9/11 unity hangover when emotions settled & people remembered they were still political enemies. Iraq opened the door to the anti-Bush crowd (many of whom see 1960s Viet Nam protests as their glory days) to seize the opportunity.

 

In the midst of all this came a media transformation where the pre-text of objectivity was tossed out the window (largely due to Internet & emergence of FNC airing conservative editorial shows) so the liberal factions of the media went into full swing. Much of the irreverence came from the emergence of non-traditional political coverage like the Daily Show & Bill Maher who provided a high profile venue for unbridled bashing.

 

As the lefts full frontal assault on Bush permeated pop culture (and this part is undeniable: it was a cool & popular thing to hate Bush), the conservatives and Republicans, many of whom were not terribly pleased with a good many decisions Bush was making, were made to defend him just like a girl who isn't happy w/ her bf feels compelled to defend him against attacks from her mother.

 

W/ Obama, now the tone is set (meaning Republicans see what the other side did & aren't receptive to opportunistic and hypocritical calls for civility) and a lot of the distaste for him from the right (and disillusionment from the left) is a result of a guy who was celebrated beyond, any rational justification, more for what he is than anything he did.

 

Also, the fact that Obama basically told the opposition that he won, so tough ****, get in line (specifically the back of the line) b/c he's in charge now, didn't win him any good will from the opposition.

 

I think that is being misunderstood. My take from that statement is that he is reminding Republican's that the majority of Americans want to handle the deficit, spending and budget cuts the Democratic way and to stop blocking everything they propose. It's time to stop whining about everything and time to start acting and passing budgets to get this country moving forward.

[meazza]

I think that is being misunderstood. My take from that statement is that he is reminding Republican's that the majority of Americans want to handle the deficit, spending and budget cuts the Democratic way and to stop blocking everything they propose. It's time to stop whining about everything and time to start acting and passing budgets to get this country moving forward.

 

Except that he said it right after he got elected (in 2008) therefore there was no history of any interference as well as a majority of Democrats in the Congress.

Edited February 13, 2013 by meazza

[Magox]

Why should the R's agree to anything Obama proposes? Virtually everything he has passed has or is destined to failed. The economy sucks, debt is exploding, government is continuing to grow at an exorbitant rate, entitlements are being ignored and he passed a health care bill that is going to seriously !@#$ up the entire system come here shortly.

 

Sorry, but everything the fool proposes ends up being detrimental to the economy.

 

No thanks

[3rdnlng]

I gave, last night, what was my initial assessment of Rubio's speech. I gave, this morning after reading the transcript thoroughly, my more thought out assessment of Rubio's speech.

 

I know it's a foreign concept, but I form my own opinions in my own way. And I even change my mind sometimes.

 

How you somehow construed this is "blindly following" anybody, or following "dishonest media," I have no idea - primarily because the only information I had to work with were Rubio's words.

 

How could you think someone was a moron for thinking Rubio's speech was "fine" at one time and a few hours later think Rubio made sense? My guess is that you hadn't heard what Rubio said in the first place and you were just following the party line. You freely admit you don't know what his immigration policy is, and since he's been at the forefront of the issue, my guess is that you hadn't known much about him prior to actually reading the transcript. It's good that you think you have an open mind. Follow what people actually say and DO and you might find out that you have been hoodwinked all along.

[Rob's House]

I think that is being misunderstood. My take from that statement is that he is reminding Republican's that the majority of Americans want to handle the deficit, spending and budget cuts the Democratic way and to stop blocking everything they propose. It's time to stop whining about everything and time to start acting and passing budgets to get this country moving forward.

I think you're doing what most people do and reaching for the most positive way to interpret your political candidate's words/actions, and then deciding to believe that's the case because that's what you would prefer to believe rather than because it's the most likely conclusion.

 

Plus, I'm not referring to just one statement. I'm considering several statements and actions in developing that theory.

[meazza]

How could you think someone was a moron for thinking Rubio's speech was "fine" at one time and a few hours later think Rubio made sense? My guess is that you hadn't heard what Rubio said in the first place and you were just following the party line. You freely admit you don't know what his immigration policy is, and since he's been at the forefront of the issue, my guess is that you hadn't known much about him prior to actually reading the transcript. It's good that you think you have an open mind. Follow what people actually say and DO and you might find out that you have been hoodwinked all along.

 

3rdnlng, keeping trolls honest.

Edited February 13, 2013 by meazza

[DC Tom]

I know I should watch but I can't stand the circle jerk that it is. Interrupting for a standing ovation after every sentence is just above and beyond annoying. That said.....

 

Why is it so "cool" to bash the president now. It started with Bush so is this just pay back for the other side? Is it just that we have had back to back bad president's (that somehow managed second terms - basically bc of poor opponents)? Or is this just the new norm and the office doesn't deserve respect anymore? Kennedy had tons of warts (womanizer, questionable war history, etc..) and yet is revered still to this day. What happened to the office of President?

 

Mostly that.

 

And it actually started with Clinton.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DC Tom

[Magox]

Obama's economic Growth record, the worst in 60 years

 

0.8% — The Abysmal Rate of Economic Growth under Obama

President Obama's defense of his economic stewardship has effectively amounted to this: At least we no longer have the Bush-era economy. With an entire 4-year term in the books, it's now possible to confirm, and to lament, the essential truth of those words.

 

Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%. That's according to figures from the federal government's own Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

 

Obama's first term, however, puts the paltry level of growth during Bush's second term in a newly favorable light. According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%.

To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter.

It was the worst tally achieved during any presidential term in the past 60 years.

 

And here's the kicker: If it had been doubled (to 1.6%), it still would have been the worst tally in the past 60 years.

True, Obama inherited a recession, but that recession only lasted for the first six months of his term. Eighty-eight percent of his term was post-recession.

 

 

 

Obama's first term legacy is

 

1) That he was incapable of ushering us into a decent recovery and oversaw one of the most anemic economies in modern day U.S history

 

2) Exploded the U.S deficit with 4 straight Trillion dollar deficits. No sitting president even achieved half that amount.

 

3) Signed into law one of the largest and unpopular pieces of legislation in U.S history.

[Gugny]

How could you think someone was a moron for thinking Rubio's speech was "fine" at one time and a few hours later think Rubio made sense? My guess is that you hadn't heard what Rubio said in the first place and you were just following the party line. You freely admit you don't know what his immigration policy is, and since he's been at the forefront of the issue, my guess is that you hadn't known much about him prior to actually reading the transcript. It's good that you think you have an open mind. Follow what people actually say and DO and you might find out that you have been hoodwinked all along.

Don't get me wrong ... I still don't think his speech was "fine," by any stretch. I don't care about his sob story about student loans. I don't care about his parents, his grandmother or his neighbors. He spent the first third of his speech bashing the first 4 years of a 2nd term President's tenure. So I stand by my assertion that anyone who thinks he was "fine" is a moron. I doubt you're part of that crowd, to be honest.

 

And I still think Pelosi is hot.

[B-Man]

Except that he said it right after he got elected (in 2008) therefore there was no history of any interference as well as a majority of Democrats in the Congress.

 

 

 

He called on getting arguments out of politics, which really is a call for duly elected Republicans in Congress to forget who elected them and why, and just do what he wants.

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Fig Newton's Hot Babe.bmp

Don't get me wrong ... I still don't think his speech was "fine," by any stretch. I don't care about his sob story about student loans. I don't care about his parents, his grandmother or his neighbors. He spent the first third of his speech bashing the first 4 years of a 2nd term President's tenure. So I stand by my assertion that anyone who thinks he was "fine" is a moron. I doubt you're part of that crowd, to be honest.

 

And I still think Pelosi is hot.

 

So tell me, what was there to praise about Obama's first term in office? So humanizing his speech and saying that he came from humble beginnings and relied on federally backed student loans to get his education is somehow wrong? That was in the context of stating that the federal government had legitimate duties and responsibilities. He was pointing out that it was a good program. Setting aside the humanizing and the bashing of Obama, what did you like about his speech, and again what about Obama's first term did you like?

 

While we are at it, why don't you explain to the whole board here why you think Nancy Pelosi is hot?

Edited February 13, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[IDBillzFan]

He called on getting arguments out of politics, which really is a call for duly elected Republicans in Congress to forget who elected them and why, and just do what he wants.

 

 

 

.

 

Which is why only the kool-aid drinkers defend him any more. It's clear to everyone that he simply says what he wants without being challenged by virtually anyone in the media.

 

Of course, these crazy media conspiracies would finally end if the GOP would just wise up and go with John Huntsman! He can save the GOP!!!!

 

So tell me, what was there to praise about Obama's first term in office?

 

It's the same answer you always hear: he saved everyone from hypotheticals.

 

"If Obama didn't (fill in the blank) then unemployment would be at (pick a number greater than 13%) and the economic growth would be (pick a number lower than zero) because he pulled us back from the worst (fill in the blank) since (fill in the blank.) Don't you remember when Bush (fill in the blank)? And if Romney won, then (fill in the blank) would be at an all-time (low/high/circle one) since (pick a year).

 

It's become The Mad Libs Defense followed with the newly formed John Huntsman recommendation.