State of the Union Address

[HopeMed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I think the bit about her staying seated is because she was being commended, quite like when you are the recipient of a toast- it is appropriate to stay seated and not clap. That's what I get from it at least.

I agree it was a slightly awkward the times Obama recognized her, though endearing.

You fiscal conservatives should have enjoyed that one.

To anyone upset with the stimulus bill, name an industrialized, western nation which was contrarian and didn't stimulate their economy during the recession. I don't think Obama is getting enough credit for preventing us from falling into a depression, the steps taken were in line with the global consensus on how to deal with a recession and most economists agree with Obama. Even fiscally conservative newspapers like the Economist support his decision.

That being said, it would be ideal if Obama decided that government should shrink and become more efficient during this recession. That's what the private sector, and private homes have been forced to do. However, I think he would have risked upsetting a lot of his base if he decided to decrease salaries for government employees, and it would seem hypocritical to say we need jobs and then say we need to shrink the government jobs. An awkward situation.

As for healthcare, I think the failure of the current monstrosity of a bill, as well as the election of Brown in Mass has paved the way for a more bipartisan healthcare bill because the Democrats will be forced to include things that appeal to the Republicans in order to bring them on board. This should lead to a more centrist bill, but I'm hesitant to think it will lower healthcare costs to the extent required because the physician fee for service model also contributes a lot to healthcare costs as shown in that Dartmouth report comparing medical costs across the country

Hopefully, Republicans stop being obstructionist and come to the table with an honest effort at implementing reform, as opposed to just saying "no" in hopes of derailing Obama, and possibly this country as well.

Got a bit off topic, sorry for the rant. Anyone think it was really awkward when he pointed out his wife for doing something obese kids, and everyone was clapping for her and she just sat there?

 

[learnmdabc]

I finally found out what ROFL means. Laughing the entire speech. Not because it was bad. But politics are so aggravatingly funny. Joe Biden flashing his shiny (fake teeth) and nodding his head in staunch, but obsequious, agreement with Obama's every word. Oh c'mon! The Republicans sitting there, uncomfortably, refusing to stand up, squirming as if there was tissue in their butts from their last wipe. AHHH...it's all a game! But I'm glad I got to watch. 😀

 

[JaggerPlate]

I finally found out what ROFL means. Laughing the entire speech. Not because it was bad. But politics are so aggravatingly funny. Joe Biden flashing his shiny (fake teeth) and nodding his head in staunch, but obsequious, agreement with Obama's every word. Oh c'mon! The Republicans sitting there, uncomfortably, refusing to stand up, squirming as if there was tissue in their butts from their last wipe. AHHH...it's all a game! But I'm glad I got to watch. 😀

Don't forget that horrible head of (transplanted) hair.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I thought that while it may have been kinda tacky, it was great that Obama took a shot at the Supreme Court members. I rarely hear of them getting called out for their actions... Hell, I still dont understand why they repealed that law.

Secondly, Obama has been criticized greatly, even before he took office and he always just brushed it off.. I thought it was a nice change to see him take a few shots back at his opposition...especially the climate change remark. And, if its because he's not expecting to get re-elected. I think that might be a good thing...maybe he'll do things he believes to be right for the United States, and not just what will get him re-elected.

Third, the Republican party response to the State of the Union was horrible IMO...Seriously, WTF was up with his opening joke - "I have 10 minutes before my kids leave to go watch sports center"- so he's saying that his kids dont even think what he's saying is important...

You really think he brushes stuff off? Don't all the media outlets always comment about how thin skinned he is/never lets anything go? I remember reading a letter from a democratic senator/friend of his before he ran who essentially said, if you run, you need to learn to take criticism better because you're horrible at it now.

 

[BBender716]

See, people wanted to hang me for saying the same thing when Bush was in office 🙂 You're right, it's gotta go both ways.

I would have loved to have seen the firestorm if Obama said "With regards to health insurance reform, we will not give up. We are going to stay the course!" I would have just about 🤣


Maybe that's where Bush messed up... that phrase must have just been a little too Texan for Americans.

 

[Bernoull]

You really think he brushes stuff off? Don't all the media outlets always comment about how thin skinned he is/never lets anything go? I remember reading a letter from a democratic senator/friend of his before he ran who essentially said, if you run, you need to learn to take criticism better because you're horrible at it now.

I remember that comment too, but he does brush a lot of things off.
1. The whole terrorist association during the campaign
2. the rightwing nutjobs' attempt to de-ligitimize him as he took office, birthers.
3. Constant accusations for being a Nazi or supporting nazism, hitler must be rolling in his grave ...a purported black nazi.. talk about an oxymoron
4. Teabaggers accusing him to taxing us to death with his taxcuts..
5. First President to by told YOU LIE, in joint session of congress, and he was so cool with, brushed it right off and coninued with his speech..

His skin has definitely thickened and despite all the rabid partisan, he still reached out to republicans last night. He's a class act.. 👍👍👍👍

 

[Omar Gooding]

I thought that while it may have been kinda tacky, it was great that Obama took a shot at the Supreme Court members. I rarely hear of them getting called out for their actions... Hell, I still dont understand why they repealed that law.

Secondly, Obama has been criticized greatly, even before he took office and he always just brushed it off.. I thought it was a nice change to see him take a few shots back at his opposition...especially the climate change remark. And, if its because he's not expecting to get re-elected. I think that might be a good thing...maybe he'll do things he believes to be right for the United States, and not just what will get him re-elected.

Yea, he hasnt been taking shots at the past administration for the past year..???

The supreme court made their decision based on the previous laws restriction of free speech (from the constitution if you didnt know).

 

[Bernoull]

Yea, he hasnt been taking shots at the past administration for the past year..???

The supreme court made their decision based on the previous laws restriction of free speech (from the constitution if you didnt know).

No the supreme court exercise conservative judicial activism and overturned almost a century of precedent, including their own precedent ruling. It doesn't reflect the constitution, it reflect the conservative tilt of the court after Bush's appointees. The whole premise of conferring personnage to corporations is supremely idiotic. Forget all the legal stuff, it's common sense, this ruling will turn national elections into auctions, highest bidder/corporation buys the candidate and drowns out the citizens' voices. It's a new era in political prostitution and open season for corruption..

 

[JaggerPlate]

He's a class act.

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhh. The supreme court comment with them in spitting distance during the SOU murders any 'class' this joker had.

 

[Bernoull]

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhh. The supreme court comment with them in spitting distance during the SOU murders any 'class' this joker had.

what exactly was wrong with what he said? Is it a separation of power issue, or one branch shouldn't disagree with another in their presence? Precisely what's the issue here?

 

[bamtuba]

No the supreme court exercise conservative judicial activism and overturned almost a century of precedent, including their own precedent ruling. It doesn't reflect the constitution, it reflect the conservative tilt of the court after Bush's appointees. The whole premise of conferring personnage to corporations is supremely idiotic. Forget all the legal stuff, it's common sense, this ruling will turn national elections into auctions, highest bidder/corporation buys the candidate and drowns out the citizens' voices. It's a new era in political prostitution and open season for corruption..

Not going to argue on this thread, but I want to point out how ridiculous this argument comes across in the media and elsewhere.
The supreme court is where these types of decisions are made. This is not some state court in California ignoring a public vote.

Almost every major (ie. controversial) decision that the court has made did exactly this. It does not make it wrong.

Whether you agree with the ruling or not (and I personally agree that the other two branches of the government need to get their tails in gear to address the issues this brings up), to say "oh, it's not right because we haven't done it this way in the past" is careless at best.

Oh, we can't have equal rights in this country: it would go against precedent. Oh, we can't abolish slavery: we have a hundred years of history backing it up.

Not logical.

 

[Bernoull]

Not going to argue on this thread, but I want to point out how ridiculous this argument comes across in the media and elsewhere.
The supreme court is where these types of decisions are made. This is not some state court in California ignoring a public vote.

Almost every major (ie. controversial) decision that the court has made did exactly this. It does not make it wrong.

Whether you agree with the ruling or not (and I personally agree that the other two branches of the government need to get their tails in gear to address the issues this brings up), to say "oh, it's not right because we haven't done it this way in the past" is careless at best.

Oh, we can't have equal rights in this country: it would go against precedent. Oh, we can't abolish slavery: we have a hundred years of history backing it up.

Not logical.

Whats makes the decision wrong is not precedence but the fact that
a) corporations are not people and they are not entitled to the rights of people.
b) this will suppress the citizens' influence on the political process and give corporations undue influence on who represents us nationally.

 

[bamtuba]

Whats makes the decision wrong is not precedence but the fact that
a) corporations are not people and they are not entitled to the rights of people.
b) this will suppress the citizens' influence on the political process and give corporations undue influence on who represents us nationally.

I agree.

Get going congress...

 

[JaggerPlate]

what exactly was wrong with what he said? Is it a separation of power issue, or one branch shouldn't disagree with another in their presence? Precisely what's the issue here?

There is no problem disagreeing ... that's why we have the balance/branches set up in the first place. However, you really see no issue with the way he did it? He called them out during an address that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or their policies (it had to do with his), with the nation watching, and with absolutely no opportunity for anyone from the Supreme Court to give a rebuttal. If he wanted to sit down in private or public, in an open discussion and give the SC an opportunity to debate their stance, that is fine. A little odd, but still fine. However, to call out the authority of a branch of government, when he is trying to talk about unity and coming together as a nation in tough times, is borderline rude, definitely unprofessional, and sets a very bad example. 'Hey Supreme Court, you're idiots ... now listen Republicans, we need to come together right now, put our petty differences aside, and get through the important issues as a nation.' I mean, really? You see no issue here whatsoever? Inappropriate remark in an inappropriate forum. I was shocked and disappointed with his childish quip, arrogance, blatant concept of his own superior authority, and inability to act like an adult. Kids bicker like this ... not national leaders. At least the 'you lie' remark came from a no named senator, not the President of the United States. The cameras even caught one supreme court justice drop his head and quietly state 'not true.' That was all they could do in that situation.

 

[BBender716]

There is no problem disagreeing ... that's why we have the balance/branches set up in the first place. However, you really see no issue with the way he did it? He called them out during an address that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or their policies (it had to do with his), with the nation watching, and with absolutely no opportunity for anyone from the Supreme Court to give a rebuttal. If he wanted to sit down in private or public, in an open discussion and give the SC an opportunity to debate their stance, that is fine. A little odd, but still fine. However, to call out the authority of a branch of government, when he is trying to talk about unity and coming together as a nation in tough times, is borderline rude, definitely unprofessional, and sets a very bad example. 'Hey Supreme Court, you're idiots ... now listen Republicans, we need to come together right now, put our petty differences aside, and get through the important issues as a nation.' I mean, really? You see no issue here whatsoever? Inappropriate remark in an inappropriate forum. I was shocked and disappointed with his childish quip, arrogance, blatant concept of his own superior authority, and inability to act like an adult. Kids bicker like this ... not national leaders. At least the 'you lie' remark came from a no named senator, not the President of the United States. The cameras even caught one supreme court justice drop his head and quietly state 'not true.' That was all they could do in that situation.

Well said. 👍

 

[makeshift123]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/state-of-the-union-drinki_n_436932.html

anyone play this game last night? i tried, but after the 12th mention of "jobs", i had to quit.

 

[Bernoull]

There is no problem disagreeing ... that's why we have the balance/branches set up in the first place. However, you really see no issue with the way he did it? He called them out during an address that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or their policies (it had to do with his), with the nation watching, and with absolutely no opportunity for anyone from the Supreme Court to give a rebuttal. If he wanted to sit down in private or public, in an open discussion and give the SC an opportunity to debate their stance, that is fine. A little odd, but still fine. However, to call out the authority of a branch of government, when he is trying to talk about unity and coming together as a nation in tough times, is borderline rude, definitely unprofessional, and sets a very bad example. 'Hey Supreme Court, you're idiots ... now listen Republicans, we need to come together right now, put our petty differences aside, and get through the important issues as a nation.' I mean, really? You see no issue here whatsoever? Inappropriate remark in an inappropriate forum. I was shocked and disappointed with his childish quip, arrogance, blatant concept of his own superior authority, and inability to act like an adult. Kids bicker like this ... not national leaders. At least the 'you lie' remark came from a no named senator, not the President of the United States. The cameras even caught one supreme court justice drop his head and quietly state 'not true.' That was all they could do in that situation.

At best this issue is very petty, one has to split hairs to find where the fault is, assuming there's one...

His comments were perfectly appropriate... You must be filtering his comments through your political viewpoints...
This is what he said:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

The 3 branches are coequal and they are designed to exist in tension with each other. His comments were deferential but dissenting. I can't imagine how you can excuse/condone the President being insulted on national TV by a congressman but the President can't respectfully disagree with another branch of gov't? Double standards, perhaps??

And no he was NOT rude or questioning the authority of the SC, you are reading ur viewpoints into his comments.

Regarding childishness etc, nothing could be further from the truth. The President railed against the "gotcha" politics that both sides play, and how that turns voters off and causes loss confidence/respect for Congress. This is why congress has chronically low esteem in the public's eye going back decades. President Obama showed leadership, maturity by trying to get the Congress to focus on solving structural issues of health insurance, energy, SS/Medicare, education rather than partisan bickering and electioneering. By taking on the tough national issues, he has shown courage, leadership and willingness to expend significant political capital on important national issues.

 

[Omar Gooding]

I find it comical how Obama called out congress for caring about their own interests and worrying about their next election, but at the same time he barely mentioned health care reform (which he hasn't stopped talking about since July) in the wake of Brown's victory. It seems that Obama is worried about losing to many of his independent voters and felt obliged to put on a good show last night in an attempt to get back his voters. His SOU sounded exactly like his campaign speeches a year and a half ago.

 

[JaggerPlate]

At best this issue is very petty, one has to split hairs to find where the fault is, assuming there's one...

You definitely don't have to split hairs to find fault. If you did, why is this issue still being discussed. I could put a blindfold on and hack wildly at his statement with a machete and still hit some fault.

You must be filtering his comments through your political viewpoints...

You must be able to see that you are doing the same. I'm not the lone gunman here, rambling on that what he said/did was inappropriate. It's been brought up countless times by news media, people in this forum, and even by the reaction of members of the supreme court (shaking head and mouthing 'not true').

" 1. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law 2. that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Here are the issues:

1. I always find it funny when people start of a statement with a pre-amble. It only happens when they say something that they know is going to be explicit. I mean think about it, if you were going to say ... 'Hey, is Joe going to the store,' you wouldn't preference your statement with ... 'Joe is a nice guy, but ...'. However, if you were going to say 'Joe annoys me,' you'd preference it with 'Joe is a nice guy, but.' It's kind of like when someone says, 'I'm not racist, but,' then goes on to spout off some inane, repulsive, ignorant drivel. Obama was doing the same thing here. If he wasn't going to something stupid, which made him sound like his authority was above that of the SC, he wouldn't have prefaced it with 'Now, all due respect.' It was a very obvious rabbit punch.

2. Listen to the language ... 'I believe' 'floodgates' 'FOREIGN.' It's scare tactics at best, and a super cheap shot at worst. This comment was extreme in both wording and theory, and I don't know if you watched the SOU, but there was a DEFINITE reaction from the crowd, so I'm not spouting off here.

The bottom line too ... is that it was just an inappropriate comment made at an even more inappropriate time. He probably did it to divert attention from himself, vilify someone, etc, but, in my opinion, it had little to do with his main points of the night.

I can't imagine how you can excuse/condone the President being insulted on national TV by a congressman but the President can't respectfully disagree with another branch of gov't? Double standards, perhaps??

I didn't condone it? I did think he was blatantly lying, but it was still rude and inappropriate. As much as I dislike Obama, I respect the position ... I respect the hell out of it. My point was that, given the two people here, who should act more respectful: a yahoo, no name senator from South Carolina, or the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. Plus, Obama had a freaking mic and got to say 'not true.' He was heckled, and was able to respond. He wasn't sitting there, alone, being attacked by a dominating power on stage with a microphone. Let me be clear, I'm not condoning either behavior ... I'm saying that weighing the two, as they stand, Obama's was far, far more inappropriate.

Regarding childishness etc, nothing could be further from the truth. The President railed against the "gotcha" politics that both sides play, and how that turns voters off and causes loss confidence/respect for Congress. This is why congress has chronically low esteem in the public's eye going back decades. President Obama showed leadership, maturity by trying to get the Congress to focus on solving structural issues of health insurance, energy, SS/Medicare, education rather than partisan bickering and electioneering. By taking on the tough national issues, he has shown courage, leadership and willingness to expend significant political capital on important national issues.

Jesus, you are so in love with the man that you could watch him kick a puppy and call it the greatest act of human kindness ever witnessed. I don't know if I've ever seen people more enamored for NO reason than some people are with Obama. It's absurd. I clearly lean much further to the right, but still really, really didn't like Bush in the last four years.

With regards to the gotcha politics ... what about the lipstick on a pig comments with Palin? What about bashing Scott Brown's ad campaign after the blatantly stated he doesn't know a thing about his politics? What about the freaking comment last night??? Jeeze.

And please, he's not trying to unify congress to solve things, he's trying to muscle crap through after an embarrassing loss in MA and a party that is running with their tails between their legs. Tough national issues ?? HAHAHA. Wow, I can't deal with this ... I feel like I'm arguing with an Obama ad campaign.

Listen man ... you love Obama. Don't deny it, don't try to say he's a tried and true leader, etc ... you like the man. There's nothing wrong with that (technically), but essentially I cannot argue with you if all you focus on is his slick continual advertising in everything he does and not the results of his 'selfless' acts as our leader. Since we're never going to agree, I'm going to call this my last post with you regarding this issue. I don't want to get into how dangerous I feel he is as our leader, how I feel he's pushing us into more debt without tangible solutions, how I feel he's a ***** with foreign policy, how I think he's way to far left, how I feel his healthcare bill is a complete disaster, how I feel he bullies, and acts like a baby, and mostly, how I feel he is completely inexperienced and was elected by people who completely focused on HIM and not his politics ...

but I will say this: with regards to what we are discussing (his comments made towards the SC last night), I feel he acted inappropriately.

Later.

 

[Bernoull]

You definitely don't have to split hairs to find fault. If you did, why is this issue still being discussed. I could put a blindfold on and hack wildly at his statement with a machete and still hit some fault.

You've said a lot but haven't substantiate ur claim that his comment was inappropriate. He disagreed respectfully with the court and 4 of the SC justices also disagreed with the ruling.

You must be able to see that you are doing the same. I'm not the lone gunman here, rambling on that what he said/did was inappropriate. It's been brought up countless times by news media, people in this forum, and even by the reaction of members of the supreme court (shaking head and mouthing 'not true').





Here are the issues:

1. I always find it funny when people start of a statement with a pre-amble. It only happens when they say something that they know is going to be explicit. I mean think about it, if you were going to say ... 'Hey, is Joe going to the store,' you wouldn't preference your statement with ... 'Joe is a nice guy, but ...'. However, if you were going to say 'Joe annoys me,' you'd preference it with 'Joe is a nice guy, but.' It's kind of like when someone says, 'I'm not racist, but,' then goes on to spout off some inane, repulsive, ignorant drivel. Obama was doing the same thing here. If he wasn't going to something stupid, which made him sound like his authority was above that of the SC, he wouldn't have prefaced it with 'Now, all due respect.' It was a very obvious rabbit punch.

Projection perhaps, you just prefaced/framed ur argument. Ur arugment is really petty and riddled with logical fallacies... semantics over substance. U haven't substantially said anything.

2. Listen to the language ... 'I believe' 'floodgates' 'FOREIGN.' It's scare tactics at best, and a super cheap shot at worst. This comment was extreme in both wording and theory, and I don't know if you watched the SOU, but there was a DEFINITE reaction from the crowd, so I'm not spouting off here.

Corporations, including foreign owned domestic cops, are now free to spend unlimited sums in federal elections. It's a fact. There's nothing extreme is its wording or theory.

The bottom line too ... is that it was just an inappropriate comment made at an even more inappropriate time. He probably did it to divert attention from himself, vilify someone, etc, but, in my opinion, it had little to do with his main points of the night.

Repetition of an unsubstantiated claim =/= truth. The comments were reasonable.

I didn't condone it? I did think he was blatantly lying, but it was still rude and inappropriate. As much as I dislike Obama, I respect the position ... I respect the hell out of it. My point was that, given the two people here, who should act more respectful: a yahoo, no name senator from South Carolina, or the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. Plus, Obama had a freaking mic and got to say 'not true.' He was heckled, and was able to respond. He wasn't sitting there, alone, being attacked by a dominating power on stage with a microphone. Let me be clear, I'm not condoning either behavior ... I'm saying that weighing the two, as they stand, Obama's was far, far more inappropriate.

I reject ur attempts to conflate the two events. They are in no way comparable, a congressman insults the President is nothing close to the President disagreeing with the SC. Night and day...

Jesus, you are so in love with the man that you could watch him kick a puppy and call it the greatest act of human kindness ever witnessed. I don't know if I've ever seen people more enamored for NO reason than some people are with Obama. It's absurd. I clearly lean much further to the right, but still really, really didn't like Bush in the last four years.

You have said anything substantive with respect to the issue at hand, or is ur tactic to undermine me and by proxy my argument?

With regards to the gotcha politics ... what about the lipstick on a pig comments with Palin? What about bashing Scott Brown's ad campaign after the blatantly stated he doesn't know a thing about his politics? What about the freaking comment last night??? Jeeze.

What about lipstick on a pig, wow ur still licking wounds from years past. For crying out loud, ur side repeatedly call the President a terrorist, non US citizen etc... c'mon stop the nonsense.

And please, he's not trying to unify congress to solve things, he's trying to muscle crap through after an embarrassing loss in MA and a party that is running with their tails between their legs. Tough national issues ?? HAHAHA. Wow, I can't deal with this ... I feel like I'm arguing with an Obama ad campaign.

Ok we lost a MA senate seat but gained a Republican senator, so I'll call it even.

Listen man ... you love Obama. Don't deny it, don't try to say he's a tried and true leader, etc ... you like the man. There's nothing wrong with that (technically), but essentially I cannot argue with you if all you focus on is his slick continual advertising in everything he does and not the results of his 'selfless' acts as our leader. Since we're never going to agree, I'm going to call this my last post with you regarding this issue. I don't want to get into how dangerous I feel he is as our leader, how I feel he's pushing us into more debt without tangible solutions, how I feel he's a ***** with foreign policy, how I think he's way to far left, how I feel his healthcare bill is a complete disaster, how I feel he bullies, and acts like a baby, and mostly, how I feel he is completely inexperienced and was elected by people who completely focused on HIM and not his politics ...

You may disagree ideologically, but the guy is showing leadership and trying to tackle entrenched and structural national problems (health, education, energy, immi etc). You guys had 8 yrs and what did you do? Try to privatize social security (would have been great for this recession), cut taxes for wealthiest, lie the country and world into an illegal war, turn inherited surpluses into records deficits, doubled the national debt, gave us the worst recession since the 30s, gave us torture and broke domestic and international law. Your ideas have been tried (cut taxes to solve every problem, deregulate everything, ban gay rights etc etc) and have failed epicly. These ideas are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

but I will say this: with regards to what we are discussing (his comments made towards the SC last night), I feel he acted inappropriately.

Comments are completely warranted and appropriate.

Later.[/QUOTE]

Yes we can agree to disagree.

 

[JaggerPlate]

So post SOU, Pelosi is trying to cook up some shenanigans ....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/reid.pelosi.health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/pelosi-pushes-billion-fix-senate-health-care/

(picked articles from both the left and the right ... to make it fair, though I think the Fox article is more direct)

seems desperate to me.

 

[yeastfan21]

JaggerPlate,

Earlier in this thread you criticized Obama and the Democrats for believing that the American people only oppose the health care bills because they do not understand them. You clearly found it insulting or presumptuous, perhaps rightly, that the President would doubt the public's legitimate opposition to the substance of his policies.

But repeatedly on this thread you've said that people only voted for Obama because he seemed cooler than McCain, and in your back-and-forth with Bernoull you accused him and other Obama supporters of backing the president only because they're "in love" with him. Apparently you believe that Obama's actual policies are a secondary consideration, at best, for them.

So which one is it: is the will of the American people something that we should respect with due deference, or do we have reason to doubt that public sentiment is informed by sober and reasoned analysis of policy?

I say, let's quit the posturing and agree that most people--on the Left and the Right--are a bunch of friggin' idiots. 🙂

 

[J1515]

ur side repeatedly call the President a terrorist, non US citizen etc... c'mon stop the nonsense.

This is why I hate politics. Discussion of any issue always has to turn into a democrats vs. republicans with some nonsequitor thrown in for good measure. Oh yeah? Well your people said this, and you people think that! And rebublicans said that!... It's like fighting with a significant other and saying "well what about 8 months ago when you looked at that girl/guy and smiled at him/her?"

And for the record, I think Obama could've gotten up on the podium and taken a dump right on national tv and you still would praise the man.

 

[yeastfan21]

So post SOU, Pelosi is trying to cook up some shenanigans ....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/reid.pelosi.health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/pelosi-pushes-billion-fix-senate-health-care/

(picked articles from both the left and the right ... to make it fair, though I think the Fox article is more direct)

seems desperate to me.

Dude dude dude dude. I know we disagree VASTLY on matters of policy, but I really can't comprehend how you could think the Fox News article is better reporting.

Like, seriously, it's boggling my mind.

My main objection is that the Fox piece doesn't actually explain what Pelosi's measure would do. Seriously, it reports on it without telling you what it is. Which makes me question, by the way, why you're calling it "desperate."

The second big problem is that it cites the $300 billion figure without telling you what that means. $300 billion over one year? Ten years? All eternity? Also, a "cost" of 300 billion more dollars could mean either of two completely opposite things:
Possibilty A: the government would be spending taxpayer money to, say, provide more generous insurance subsidies, thereby costing taxpayers more but not adding to the deficit.
Possibility B: the provision adds exemptions to the insurance excise tax, meaning that $300 billion dollars is lost from a deficit perspective. But this would also mean that the measure would save taxpayers $300 billion.

I really don't know which possibility is actually the case. Budgeting is complicated stuff, but the Fox article makes no attempt to explain the big number in the freakin' title of the article.

And then of course, on the rhetorical level, the article is dripping with spin:
1. Do they really need to put "fix" in scare-quotes four freaking times? Can't they use "addition" or "modification," if they don't like the positive connotations of "fix"?
2. This one's a hoot: "The maneuver would allow Democrats to pass the measure with just 51 votes, without having to first overcome the normal 60-vote threshold." I like that... the "normal" 60-vote threshold. "Just" a majority.
3. "...using the controversial tactic to ram through health care reform measures. " Yes, a bill that has been debated since last May and already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Really ramming that through.

I'm not a big fan of CNN's reporting (at all, actually, or MSNBC's for that matter), but at least they give me some sense of what's actually in Pelosi's provision. One of the components, ending the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies, is a really good idea. I thought you conservatives liked increased competition? The other part of Pelosi's proposal, the delay of the excise tax for unions, I don't like (the excise tax is one of the best ways to hold down the growth of premiums, according to the world's best economists http://tinyurl.com/23economists), but conservatives who objected to the bill's taxes should like that too. Of course, I need to look further into what else is in this proposal, and what accounts for the $300 billion.

 

[yeastfan21]

This is why I hate politics. Discussion of any issue always has to turn into a democrats vs. republicans with some nonsequitor thrown in for good measure. Oh yeah? Well your people said this, and you people think that! And rebublicans said that!... It's like fighting with a significant other and saying "well what about 8 months ago when you looked at that girl/guy and smiled at him/her?"

And for the record, I think Obama could've gotten up on the podium and taken a dump right on national tv and you still would praise the man.

Way to performatively illustrate the pettiness of political debate with your last sentence. 👍

 

[7starmantis]

His comments were perfectly appropriate... You must be filtering his comments through your political viewpoints...

Yeah, certainly none of that going on in your posts.

Corporations, including foreign owned domestic cops, are now free to spend unlimited sums in federal elections. It's a fact. There's nothing extreme is its wording or theory.

Except thats not what he said, and even as you have changed it is still not factually correct. Listen, I'm concerned as anyone about the possibility of bought and paid for elections, but let place blame and responsibility where its due. Thats not on the supreme court, let the other legs of our government kick into gear and get up to speed with this century.

And for the record, I think Obama could've gotten up on the podium and taken a dump right on national tv and you still would praise the man.

C'mon now, I would have praised the man for that one!

 

[Bernoull]

Dude dude dude dude. I know we disagree VASTLY on matters of policy, but I really can't comprehend how you could think the Fox News article is better reporting.

Like, seriously, it's boggling my mind.

My main objection is that the Fox piece doesn't actually explain what Pelosi's measure would do. Seriously, it reports on it without telling you what it is. Which makes me question, by the way, why you're calling it "desperate."

The second big problem is that it cites the $300 billion figure without telling you what that means. $300 billion over one year? Ten years? All eternity? Also, a "cost" of 300 billion more dollars could mean either of two completely opposite things:
Possibilty A: the government would be spending taxpayer money to, say, provide more generous insurance subsidies, thereby costing taxpayers more but not adding to the deficit.
Possibility B: the provision adds exemptions to the insurance excise tax, meaning that $300 billion dollars is lost from a deficit perspective. But this would also mean that the measure would save taxpayers $300 billion.

I really don't know which possibility is actually the case. Budgeting is complicated stuff, but the Fox article makes no attempt to explain the big number in the freakin' title of the article.

And then of course, on the rhetorical level, the article is dripping with spin:
1. Do they really need to put "fix" in scare-quotes four freaking times? Can't they use "addition" or "modification," if they don't like the positive connotations of "fix"?
2. This one's a hoot: "The maneuver would allow Democrats to pass the measure with just 51 votes, without having to first overcome the normal 60-vote threshold." I like that... the "normal" 60-vote threshold. "Just" a majority.
3. "...using the controversial tactic to ram through health care reform measures. " Yes, a bill that has been debated since last May and already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Really ramming that through.

I'm not a big fan of CNN's reporting (at all, actually, or MSNBC's for that matter), but at least they give me some sense of what's actually in Pelosi's provision. One of the components, ending the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies, is a really good idea. I thought you conservatives liked increased competition? The other part of Pelosi's proposal, the delay of the excise tax for unions, I don't like (the excise tax is one of the best ways to hold down the growth of premiums, according to the world's best economists http://tinyurl.com/23economists), but conservatives who objected to the bill's taxes should like that too. Of course, I need to look further into what else is in this proposal, and what accounts for the $300 billion.

well said 👍👍👍

 

[7starmantis]

well said 👍👍👍

Yeah, especially since this thread is about fox news and all. 🙄

 

[JaggerPlate]

JaggerPlate,

Earlier in this thread you criticized Obama and the Democrats for believing that the American people only oppose the health care bills because they do not understand them. You clearly found it insulting or presumptuous, perhaps rightly, that the President would doubt the public's legitimate opposition to the substance of his policies.

But repeatedly on this thread you've said that people only voted for Obama because he seemed cooler than McCain, and in your back-and-forth with Bernoull you accused him and other Obama supporters of backing the president only because they're "in love" with him. Apparently you believe that Obama's actual policies are a secondary consideration, at best, for them.

So which one is it: is the will of the American people something that we should respect with due deference, or do we have reason to doubt that public sentiment is informed by sober and reasoned analysis of policy?

I say, let's quit the posturing and agree that most people--on the Left and the Right--are a bunch of friggin' idiots. 🙂

Ahh, nice question. Let me see if I can sum up where we stand:

Me:
1. I find it insulting that Obama degrades the average US citizen by assuming that the only reason they don't want his health care bill is because they do not have the capacity to understand it. IE: It's not that they don't want the bill, they are too dumb to understand it.
2. I am irritated at the way Obama was elected because people refused to look beyond his slick exterior and examine his politics, and instead, only voted for him because he was hip, cool, and McCain looked creepy in comparison.

contradiction: I'm angry because Obama thinks Americans are dumb, but also angry because Americans were dumb enough to elect Obama?

Is that the point?

Well let me ask you one question ... what is the singular, unifying variable between my two contradictory statements?

Deception.

1. Americans didn't look beyond Obama's ad campaign because it was amazing. His PR people made him look so cool and accessible, and reached out to the youth, and relied on quick, emotionally charged sound bytes such as 'Hope,' 'Change,' and 'Yes we can.' This was pretty revolutionary in my opinion. Here was dusty old McCain playing the game as it has been for a long, long time, and next to him is Obama 'Changing' it up next to him.

However, his PR team also did a few things along the way that are not so revolutionary ... such as hiding some elements of his back story (I heard Michael Medved the other day say they recently found out his struggling single mother actually had a PhD, the father that left them had a Masters Degree, and his grandmother who helped raise him was actually a very wealthy, VP of a bank, and he attended various expensive, private schools - if anyone tries to counter me on this ... just sit tight, because I heard it on the radio and don't know how easily I can verify via interweb). They also did things like made sure he voted very few times in office, and refused to release his education transcripts.

So, now we have this huge, distraction of a campaign drawing everyone's attention while normal behind the scene stuff takes place, making it very hard to do the research. Compare this to a normal campaign which, frankly, isn't as exciting (such as Bush v Gore, or Bush v Kerry), and there is much less distraction when trying to figure out the whole story.

Now, ideally would I wish every 18 year old college kid, 40 year old father, etc, would have gone out and done what they could to try and break down this huge, momentous campaign and get the facts? Sure, of course. However, is it feasible? No, absolutely not, and I really don't blame them for it. It's easy to get the dirt and such on your drive home from work via talk radio ... but when the stations have the options to talk about the raging campaign between the potential first woman and first African American president, one of which is running an amazing slick campaign, and some little back story about Obama's senate voting record ... I don't think it's hard to see which story is run. Is it ideal? No. Do I think that they purposely ran this huge thing and focused on these issues to purposely distract people from his lack of experience, record, etc, and get him in to office based on the campaign? Absolutely. I can't really fault Americans for struggling to look past a brilliant PR strategy.

The other major factor was the anti-republican sentiment in the country at that time. Bush was UNPOPULAR, to say the least, and most people just wanted the exact opposite. So put these factors altogether, and you have what happened. It doesn't make people dumb, it means, to me, that they were naturally swept up in a campaign (perfectly timed and executed) that was meant to do so.

deception that took away from the point ... it's not American's fault, despite how upset I may be that people were just too distracted to really look at the issues. However, that campaign is over now (despite his rehash of it last night) and people are dissatisfied. So we have deception -> dissatisfaction.

2. His comments about the health care bill. Again, the bill is clouded in complete deception and his sweeping claims of things everyone would want - free healthcare, cutting costs, improving care, no one uninsured, etc, helped keep people amped up, and kept them from looking into the bill. You compound this with the fact that the bill was 2k pages long, and was literally contrived behind closed doors, with no real public release of what was going on ... and you again have this behind the scene sneaking around, while people are distracted by the big claims. However, again, the big claims came, amped everyone up, and now went. The mystery surrounding the bill fizzled away, and guess what ... no one wants the damn thing. Had he got it through in enough time with all the claims (it had like a 70% approval rating at first, now it has like a 35%), it would have been just like his campaign ... distraction/deception while we sneak something in and THEN you are dissatisfied. Luckily, this time it broke down before the bill could get passed.

So if that makes any sense ... that is my opinion on the two matters. They are connected with a simple formula: distract with fireworks while we sneak things past, and deal with the dissatisfaction later. Fortunately, we caught the health care thing before it happened, so now, he tries to blame it on something else, which he unwisely does to the American people, which I find insulting.

In correcting what I said ealier:

Me (originally)
1. Americans were foolish and elected him based not on his politics, I'm mad.
2. Obama treats Americans foolish ... I'm mad.

Me (clarified)
1. Americans were too distracted by slick campaign + hiding things to notice. Deception + distraction = election
2. Americans were too distracted by slick promises + closed door/hidden policy. Deception + distraction = uh oh, we figured it out first and realized we didn't want it -> Obama blames us because we are too stupid ... I'm mad.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Dude dude dude dude. I know we disagree VASTLY on matters of policy, but I really can't comprehend how you could think the Fox News article is better reporting.

Like, seriously, it's boggling my mind.

My main objection is that the Fox piece doesn't actually explain what Pelosi's measure would do. Seriously, it reports on it without telling you what it is. Which makes me question, by the way, why you're calling it "desperate."

The second big problem is that it cites the $300 billion figure without telling you what that means. $300 billion over one year? Ten years? All eternity? Also, a "cost" of 300 billion more dollars could mean either of two completely opposite things:
Possibilty A: the government would be spending taxpayer money to, say, provide more generous insurance subsidies, thereby costing taxpayers more but not adding to the deficit.
Possibility B: the provision adds exemptions to the insurance excise tax, meaning that $300 billion dollars is lost from a deficit perspective. But this would also mean that the measure would save taxpayers $300 billion.

I really don't know which possibility is actually the case. Budgeting is complicated stuff, but the Fox article makes no attempt to explain the big number in the freakin' title of the article.

And then of course, on the rhetorical level, the article is dripping with spin:
1. Do they really need to put "fix" in scare-quotes four freaking times? Can't they use "addition" or "modification," if they don't like the positive connotations of "fix"?
2. This one's a hoot: "The maneuver would allow Democrats to pass the measure with just 51 votes, without having to first overcome the normal 60-vote threshold." I like that... the "normal" 60-vote threshold. "Just" a majority.
3. "...using the controversial tactic to ram through health care reform measures. " Yes, a bill that has been debated since last May and already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Really ramming that through.

I'm not a big fan of CNN's reporting (at all, actually, or MSNBC's for that matter), but at least they give me some sense of what's actually in Pelosi's provision. One of the components, ending the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies, is a really good idea. I thought you conservatives liked increased competition? The other part of Pelosi's proposal, the delay of the excise tax for unions, I don't like (the excise tax is one of the best ways to hold down the growth of premiums, according to the world's best economists http://tinyurl.com/23economists), but conservatives who objected to the bill's taxes should like that too. Of course, I need to look further into what else is in this proposal, and what accounts for the $300 billion.

All I meant was that I thought the Fox article was easier to read, more concise, and faster. I didn't mean it was better or wasn't badly skewed. Even if it did use scare tactics or distort the issues, if you were looking for a quick 30 second overview to get the basis of what is happening, I liked the first one better.

 

[Bernoull]

This is why I hate politics. Discussion of any issue always has to turn into a democrats vs. republicans with some nonsequitor thrown in for good measure. Oh yeah? Well your people said this, and you people think that! And rebublicans said that!... It's like fighting with a significant other and saying "well what about 8 months ago when you looked at that girl/guy and smiled at him/her?"

And for the record, I think Obama could've gotten up on the podium and taken a dump right on national tv and you still would praise the man.

this has to be the definition of irony...🙄🙄

 

[JaggerPlate]

Yeah, especially since this thread is about fox news and all. 🙄

Hahaha, did anyone else hear how there was a recent poll that revealed Fox is the most trusted network right now??????? If that doesn't show a political/ideological shift in the country ... I don't know what does.

 

[Bernoull]

Yeah, certainly none of that going on in your posts.


Except thats not what he said, and even as you have changed it is still not factually correct. Listen, I'm concerned as anyone about the possibility of bought and paid for elections, but let place blame and responsibility where its due. Thats not on the supreme court, let the other legs of our government kick into gear and get up to speed with this century.

I'm interested to hear you elaborate on the campaign financing issue in context of the SC ruling. Also which legs of gov't do you have in mind, legislative perhaps?

 

[phillies09]

You may disagree ideologically, but the guy is showing leadership and trying to tackle entrenched and structural national problems (health, education, energy, immi etc). You guys had 8 yrs and what did you do? Try to privatize social security (would have been great for this recession), cut taxes for wealthiest, lie the country and world into an illegal war, turn inherited surpluses into records deficits, doubled the national debt, gave us the worst recession since the 30s, gave us torture and broke domestic and international law. Your ideas have been tried (cut taxes to solve every problem, deregulate everything, ban gay rights etc etc) and have failed epicly. These ideas are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
.

Tackle these problems? How has he been trying to tackle these problems? Oh i guess you mean that by campaigning from the middle and then after getting elected hand the reigns over to pelosi and reid to try and advance the most progressive and socialist agenda since fdr that he tackling these problems. And 5 years ago, when bush ( who i dislike for his spending and increase in executive power) republicans were in office our economy was booming, because most people got tax cuts, including my family living off my dad's cop salary. It was the democrats like barney frank that scumbag who protected and urged companies to give out ill advised loans who gave us this recession. Less government involvement is always better, thats why the founding fathers gave us the constitution.That's the beauty of capitalism, let the private sector and the american people be. And for the war, everyone got the same intelligence, and even the democrats agreed at the time it was the right thing do even if it may be a mistake in hindsight. I didn't know wars could be illegal either.

Furthermore, ask american soldiers how they feel about so called torture. Do you know how many lives have been saved with aggressive negotiations with people who want to kill everyone of us. And as for gay rights, i honestly can't even entertain that idiotic remark, name one right that has been banned.

Intellectually bankrupt? Haha, why is it that liberals believe they are smarter than everyone else? This administration is driving this great country into the ground. Yes maybe bush made some mistakes, but the time for blaming him for everything is over; this administration needs to start taking responsibility, and realize that a far left socialist agenda is not answer, it never has been.

 

[Hoody]

Dear Obama- I see your lips moving but I don't hear nothing....



How bout less talk and more walk. k thnx.

 

[yeastfan21]

Ahh, nice question. Let me see if I can sum up where we stand:

Me:
1. I find it insulting that Obama degrades the average US citizen by assuming that the only reason they don't want his health care bill is because they do not have the capacity to understand it. IE: It's not that they don't want the bill, they are too dumb to understand it.
2. I am irritated at the way Obama was elected because people refused to look beyond his slick exterior and examine his politics, and instead, only voted for him because he was hip, cool, and McCain looked creepy in comparison.

contradiction: I'm angry because Obama thinks Americans are dumb, but also angry because Americans were dumb enough to elect Obama?

Is that the point?

Well let me ask you one question ... what is the singular, unifying variable between my two contradictory statements?

Deception.

1. Americans didn't look beyond Obama's ad campaign because it was amazing. His PR people made him look so cool and accessible, and reached out to the youth, and relied on quick, emotionally charged sound bytes such as 'Hope,' 'Change,' and 'Yes we can.' This was pretty revolutionary in my opinion. Here was dusty old McCain playing the game as it has been for a long, long time, and next to him is Obama 'Changing' it up next to him.

However, his PR team also did a few things along the way that are not so revolutionary ... such as hiding some elements of his back story (I heard Michael Medved the other day say they recently found out his struggling single mother actually had a PhD, the father that left them had a Masters Degree, and his grandmother who helped raise him was actually a very wealthy, VP of a bank, and he attended various expensive, private schools - if anyone tries to counter me on this ... just sit tight, because I heard it on the radio and don't know how easily I can verify via interweb). They also did things like made sure he voted very few times in office, and refused to release his education transcripts.

So, now we have this huge, distraction of a campaign drawing everyone's attention while normal behind the scene stuff takes place, making it very hard to do the research. Compare this to a normal campaign which, frankly, isn't as exciting (such as Bush v Gore, or Bush v Kerry), and there is much less distraction when trying to figure out the whole story.

Now, ideally would I wish every 18 year old college kid, 40 year old father, etc, would have gone out and done what they could to try and break down this huge, momentous campaign and get the facts? Sure, of course. However, is it feasible? No, absolutely not, and I really don't blame them for it. It's easy to get the dirt and such on your drive home from work via talk radio ... but when the stations have the options to talk about the raging campaign between the potential first woman and first African American president, one of which is running an amazing slick campaign, and some little back story about Obama's senate voting record ... I don't think it's hard to see which story is run. Is it ideal? No. Do I think that they purposely ran this huge thing and focused on these issues to purposely distract people from his lack of experience, record, etc, and get him in to office based on the campaign? Absolutely. I can't really fault Americans for struggling to look past a brilliant PR strategy.

The other major factor was the anti-republican sentiment in the country at that time. Bush was UNPOPULAR, to say the least, and most people just wanted the exact opposite. So put these factors altogether, and you have what happened. It doesn't make people dumb, it means, to me, that they were naturally swept up in a campaign (perfectly timed and executed) that was meant to do so.

deception that took away from the point ... it's not American's fault, despite how upset I may be that people were just too distracted to really look at the issues. However, that campaign is over now (despite his rehash of it last night) and people are dissatisfied. So we have deception -> dissatisfaction.

2. His comments about the health care bill. Again, the bill is clouded in complete deception and his sweeping claims of things everyone would want - free healthcare, cutting costs, improving care, no one uninsured, etc, helped keep people amped up, and kept them from looking into the bill. You compound this with the fact that the bill was 2k pages long, and was literally contrived behind closed doors, with no real public release of what was going on ... and you again have this behind the scene sneaking around, while people are distracted by the big claims. However, again, the big claims came, amped everyone up, and now went. The mystery surrounding the bill fizzled away, and guess what ... no one wants the damn thing. Had he got it through in enough time with all the claims (it had like a 70% approval rating at first, now it has like a 35%), it would have been just like his campaign ... distraction/deception while we sneak something in and THEN you are dissatisfied. Luckily, this time it broke down before the bill could get passed.

So if that makes any sense ... that is my opinion on the two matters. They are connected with a simple formula: distract with fireworks while we sneak things past, and deal with the dissatisfaction later. Fortunately, we caught the health care thing before it happened, so now, he tries to blame it on something else, which he unwisely does to the American people, which I find insulting.

In correcting what I said ealier:

Me (originally)
1. Americans were foolish and elected him based not on his politics, I'm mad.
2. Obama treats Americans foolish ... I'm mad.

Me (clarified)
1. Americans were too distracted by slick campaign + hiding things to notice. Deception + distraction = election
2. Americans were too distracted by slick promises + closed door/hidden policy. Deception + distraction = uh oh, we figured it out first and realized we didn't want it -> Obama blames us because we are too stupid ... I'm mad.

Yes, that definitely clarifies things. Thanks for the thoughtful response. (And for posting two links on the Pelosi thing... even if I thought the Fox article was ridiculous, posting two links is helpful in these sorts of discussions, I should do that more.)

I guess my response would just be that if Americans are so distract-able that they can't even look at the major issues in a Presidential election, how can you expect them to navigate the complexities of health policy?

You talk about the anti-Republican, anti-Bush sentiment of 2008 as if it were a purely emotional and superficial sentiment, and not a reaction to the actual policies of the Bush administration. You might even be right. By the same token, though, I'd argue that the current public animus against government spending and comprehensive federal legislation, while nominally related to policy, is really a matter of emotion at a time when people are highly skeptical of institutions of power and are ready to believe anything bad they hear about Congressional bills. (Obviously, there are hard-core conservatives who wouldn't like this bill under any circumstances, but I'm talking about the middle 20% of the country, the people who have started to move away from Obama in the past year.)

You're right that your two positions are not contradictory from a strictly logical standpoint (and certainly not after your clarification). I just think the same way you're reading into people's motivations regarding Obama's election could be applied to the current situation with health care reform.

Listen, there is something presumptuous about Obama's stance which is essentially: "Yes, I have heard the American people, and I've come to realize I've made some mistakes. Next time I need to explain myself better." Presumptuous, yes. I just don't think he's wrong. There's a lot of indication that the vast majority of Americans can't don't understand even the most fundamental aspects of the bills:

--According to a Pew survey (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1644), the majority of people think that, if they had a preexisting condition, these bills would either fail to help them get insurance or make it harder for them to get insurance. I don't think it is possible for someone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of the legislation to believe this.
--A Kaiser tracking poll (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf) found that only 58% of people say they are aware that the legislation would create insurance exchanges; only 58% know about the employer mandate; only 42% are aware the bills ban lifetime caps on insurance benefits; only 40% percent know that the bills preclude coverage of illegal immigrants. When asked, respondents said that all these provisions would make them more likely to support the bill, often by overwhelming margins.
--An NBC poll from August (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf) found that net support for the legislation went from -6 to +10 when respondents were read a one-paragraph description of the bill.

Listen, there's a reason we have a representative democracy in this country. If the Democrats believe the Senate bill is good for the country (and I really believe it is), they shouldn't back down now because public opinion has momentarily shifted against them.

 

[yeastfan21]

Oh i guess you mean that by campaigning from the middle and then after getting elected hand the reigns over to pelosi and reid to try and advance the most progressive and socialist agenda since fdr that he tackling these problems.

On a previous thread I challenged someone to name a single issue on which President Obama is to the Left of Candidate Obama, and I never got an answer. I hereby extend the same challenge to you.

Do you know how many lives have been saved with aggressive negotiations with people who want to kill everyone of us.

I'm sorry, I gotta admit I don't know how many lives were saved by "aggressive negotiations" (best euphemism EVER). Would you mind telling me?

 

[Bernoull]

Tackle these problems? How has he been trying to tackle these problems? Oh i guess you mean that by campaigning from the middle and then after getting elected hand the reigns over to pelosi and reid to try and advance the most progressive and socialist agenda since fdr that he tackling these problems.

Tactically, i disagree with the President, I think they overlearned Clinton's healthcare failure, by outsourcing the effort to Congress. Charges of socialism are empty and coldwar era scare tactics. If by most progressive since FDR, you meaning fiscal programs to fight a depression/recession then your comparison is apt. But remember that such fiscal measure are standard practices look beyond our shores on how other have dealth with this global recession. In both cases, these actions were necessary bcos Republicans handed down a recession (Hoover and Bush).

And 5 years ago, when bush ( who i dislike for his spending and increase in executive power) republicans were in office our economy was booming, because most people got tax cuts, including my family living off my dad's cop salary.It was the democrats like barney frank that scumbag who protected and urged companies to give out ill advised loans who gave us this recession.

Bush's tax cuts largely went to the wealthiest (capital gains, dividends, estate etc). In 2005, our economy was booming on the crest on an overinflated housing prices and construction boom. It was caused by many things you conveniently ignored. Artificially low fed interest rates, huge sums of foreign capital looking for investment, Bush's drive to increase home ownership (remember the ownership society..), repeal of glass-steagall, regulators asleep and oblivious about complex derivatives, CDO, MBS etc... Back to your claim of boom times, the point is the decade of 2000s was the worst decade since the 40s in economic performance on the macro and micro scale. No net job creation (zilch), family networth declined and 8 yrs of that was under Republican rule.

Less government involvement is always better, thats why the founding fathers gave us the constitution.That's the beauty of capitalism, let the private sector and the american people be. And for the war, everyone got the same intelligence, and even the democrats agreed at the time it was the right thing do even if it may be a mistake in hindsight. I didn't know wars could be illegal either.

False premise, less gov't is not always better, this is simply Reganism, before that big business was the evil booogieman. There's a role for gov't, business, non-profit etc etc. Just repeating the less gov't mantra, not to mention failing to define what less means, as the solution to everything does not make any sense. Where gov't is an obstacle, say stem-cell research, then they clearly need to get out of the way.

Furthermore, ask american soldiers how they feel about so called torture. Do you know how many lives have been saved with aggressive negotiations with people who want to kill everyone of us. And as for gay rights, i honestly can't even entertain that idiotic remark, name one right that has been banned.

I have family serving in the military and like the broader society there's diverse opinions on any issue including interrogations. The point is we have, domestic and international law banning torture and I mentioned the rule of law/constitution somewhere, you can't only respect the law when it coincide with your viewpoint. It's ethically and legally wrong and it's unreliable at best. About gay rights, I'm referring refusal to enact hate crime legislation and the railing against civil unions/marriages by the right.

Intellectually bankrupt? Haha, why is it that liberals believe they are smarter than everyone else? This administration is driving this great country into the ground. Yes maybe bush made some mistakes, but the time for blaming him for everything is over; this administration needs to start taking responsibility, and realize that a far left socialist agenda is not answer, it never has been.

By intellectual bankruptcy I'm referring to the cut taxes, reduce gov't knee-jerk canned response that the right profers as the universal solution to our problems. It was done under Bush and it failed. Laissez-faire and banks self-regulate (Greenspan's philosophy) failed. Come up with new fresh ideas, that's all. Unfortunately, in this country, if you repeat something sufficiently, irrespective of its merits or lack thereof, it becomes gospel.

 

[Bernoull]

Ahh, nice question. Let me see if I can sum up where we stand:

Me:
1. I find it insulting that Obama degrades the average US citizen by assuming that the only reason they don't want his health care bill is because they do not have the capacity to understand it. IE: It's not that they don't want the bill, they are too dumb to understand it.
2. I am irritated at the way Obama was elected because people refused to look beyond his slick exterior and examine his politics, and instead, only voted for him because he was hip, cool, and McCain looked creepy in comparison.

contradiction: I'm angry because Obama thinks Americans are dumb, but also angry because Americans were dumb enough to elect Obama?

Is that the point?

Well let me ask you one question ... what is the singular, unifying variable between my two contradictory statements?

Deception.

1. Americans didn't look beyond Obama's ad campaign because it was amazing. His PR people made him look so cool and accessible, and reached out to the youth, and relied on quick, emotionally charged sound bytes such as 'Hope,' 'Change,' and 'Yes we can.' This was pretty revolutionary in my opinion. Here was dusty old McCain playing the game as it has been for a long, long time, and next to him is Obama 'Changing' it up next to him.

However, his PR team also did a few things along the way that are not so revolutionary ... such as hiding some elements of his back story (I heard Michael Medved the other day say they recently found out his struggling single mother actually had a PhD, the father that left them had a Masters Degree, and his grandmother who helped raise him was actually a very wealthy, VP of a bank, and he attended various expensive, private schools - if anyone tries to counter me on this ... just sit tight, because I heard it on the radio and don't know how easily I can verify via interweb). They also did things like made sure he voted very few times in office, and refused to release his education transcripts.

So, now we have this huge, distraction of a campaign drawing everyone's attention while normal behind the scene stuff takes place, making it very hard to do the research. Compare this to a normal campaign which, frankly, isn't as exciting (such as Bush v Gore, or Bush v Kerry), and there is much less distraction when trying to figure out the whole story.

Now, ideally would I wish every 18 year old college kid, 40 year old father, etc, would have gone out and done what they could to try and break down this huge, momentous campaign and get the facts? Sure, of course. However, is it feasible? No, absolutely not, and I really don't blame them for it. It's easy to get the dirt and such on your drive home from work via talk radio ... but when the stations have the options to talk about the raging campaign between the potential first woman and first African American president, one of which is running an amazing slick campaign, and some little back story about Obama's senate voting record ... I don't think it's hard to see which story is run. Is it ideal? No. Do I think that they purposely ran this huge thing and focused on these issues to purposely distract people from his lack of experience, record, etc, and get him in to office based on the campaign? Absolutely. I can't really fault Americans for struggling to look past a brilliant PR strategy.

The other major factor was the anti-republican sentiment in the country at that time. Bush was UNPOPULAR, to say the least, and most people just wanted the exact opposite. So put these factors altogether, and you have what happened. It doesn't make people dumb, it means, to me, that they were naturally swept up in a campaign (perfectly timed and executed) that was meant to do so.

deception that took away from the point ... it's not American's fault, despite how upset I may be that people were just too distracted to really look at the issues. However, that campaign is over now (despite his rehash of it last night) and people are dissatisfied. So we have deception -> dissatisfaction.

2. His comments about the health care bill. Again, the bill is clouded in complete deception and his sweeping claims of things everyone would want - free healthcare, cutting costs, improving care, no one uninsured, etc, helped keep people amped up, and kept them from looking into the bill. You compound this with the fact that the bill was 2k pages long, and was literally contrived behind closed doors, with no real public release of what was going on ... and you again have this behind the scene sneaking around, while people are distracted by the big claims. However, again, the big claims came, amped everyone up, and now went. The mystery surrounding the bill fizzled away, and guess what ... no one wants the damn thing. Had he got it through in enough time with all the claims (it had like a 70% approval rating at first, now it has like a 35%), it would have been just like his campaign ... distraction/deception while we sneak something in and THEN you are dissatisfied. Luckily, this time it broke down before the bill could get passed.

So if that makes any sense ... that is my opinion on the two matters. They are connected with a simple formula: distract with fireworks while we sneak things past, and deal with the dissatisfaction later. Fortunately, we caught the health care thing before it happened, so now, he tries to blame it on something else, which he unwisely does to the American people, which I find insulting.

In correcting what I said ealier:

Me (originally)
1. Americans were foolish and elected him based not on his politics, I'm mad.
2. Obama treats Americans foolish ... I'm mad.

Me (clarified)
1. Americans were too distracted by slick campaign + hiding things to notice. Deception + distraction = election
2. Americans were too distracted by slick promises + closed door/hidden policy. Deception + distraction = uh oh, we figured it out first and realized we didn't want it -> Obama blames us because we are too stupid ... I'm mad.

I'll say deception is more like
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1

 

[JaggerPlate]

Yes, that definitely clarifies things. Thanks for the thoughtful response. (And for posting two links on the Pelosi thing... even if I thought the Fox article was ridiculous, posting two links is helpful in these sorts of discussions, I should do that more.)

I guess my response would just be that if Americans are so distract-able that they can't even look at the major issues in a Presidential election, how can you expect them to navigate the complexities of health policy?

You talk about the anti-Republican, anti-Bush sentiment of 2008 as if it were a purely emotional and superficial sentiment, and not a reaction to the actual policies of the Bush administration. You might even be right. By the same token, though, I'd argue that the current public animus against government spending and comprehensive federal legislation, while nominally related to policy, is really a matter of emotion at a time when people are highly skeptical of institutions of power and are ready to believe anything bad they hear about Congressional bills. (Obviously, there are hard-core conservatives who wouldn't like this bill under any circumstances, but I'm talking about the middle 20% of the country, the people who have started to move away from Obama in the past year.)

You're right that your two positions are not contradictory from a strictly logical standpoint (and certainly not after your clarification). I just think the same way you're reading into people's motivations regarding Obama's election could be applied to the current situation with health care reform.

Listen, there is something presumptuous about Obama's stance which is essentially: "Yes, I have heard the American people, and I've come to realize I've made some mistakes. Next time I need to explain myself better." Presumptuous, yes. I just don't think he's wrong. There's a lot of indication that the vast majority of Americans can't don't understand even the most fundamental aspects of the bills:

--According to a Pew survey (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1644), the majority of people think that, if they had a preexisting condition, these bills would either fail to help them get insurance or make it harder for them to get insurance. I don't think it is possible for someone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of the legislation to believe this.
--A Kaiser tracking poll (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf) found that only 58% of people say they are aware that the legislation would create insurance exchanges; only 58% know about the employer mandate; only 42% are aware the bills ban lifetime caps on insurance benefits; only 40% percent know that the bills preclude coverage of illegal immigrants. When asked, respondents said that all these provisions would make them more likely to support the bill, often by overwhelming margins.
--An NBC poll from August (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf) found that net support for the legislation went from -6 to +10 when respondents were read a one-paragraph description of the bill.

Listen, there's a reason we have a representative democracy in this country. If the Democrats believe the Senate bill is good for the country (and I really believe it is), they shouldn't back down now because public opinion has momentarily shifted against them.

Again, thank you for the response. Well thought out, etc. I wish I could respond to every point ... but I'm tired, and would be utterly useless. A few things though ...

1. I think the point you made comparing the anti-Bush feelings of 08 and the anti-Obama feelings of today do have some validity. However, I really don't know how realistic it would be to try and pry feelings from political ideology, and I think we would see a huge connection between the two, hence making our position hard to prove either way.

2. I'm a bit disheartened by your paraphrasing of Obama, because I believe there is a crucial sentiment included, which he does not boast ... regret and humility. I only heard him take responsibility for very, very few things in the SOU, and I believe his comment towards healthcare was 'sorry I didn't explain it clearly, but trust me ... you still want it.' Not, 'I've made some mistakes in pushing forward without the majority interest of the citizens in mind, and I want to fix that.'

I understand what you are saying with regards to him apologizing for not explaining it clearly, but to me, that remark showed no sentiment and also revealed what obstinate resolve he has to pushing this bill through, no matter what the people say. I mean, yes, there are points in it that people will like, and sentiment will always change when people experience a moment of clarity (it feels good, and you're much more inclined to automatically respond), but there are a lot of daunting points in the bill, which I feel like people just blatantly do not want. These points, in my mind, are what the democrats want to pass, and greatly overshadow smaller, more advertising friendly points. I just really dislike the attitude that he knows what is best for us and essentially told Reid/Pelosi to do it because we clearly don't get it. To be honest, that mentality scares me. That just simply isn't democracy, and you can call me idealistic, but it's just not right to have this bill jammed down our throats if we don't want it, and, on the whole, the people do not want it http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I just want the democrats to slow down and not feel the undying need to get this bill through, simply because they must pass it. When I hear Pelosi talk about reconciliation and dirty practices of that sort, I honestly feel like she only cares about a democratic victory, and not for the welfare of the American people. Maybe that is wrong, but it's just the vibe I get.

Also, if it was not clear, I still don't like the senate bill. It's a vast improvement over the house bill, but I would really like the whole thing scrapped at this point. A reform bill that doesn't include tort reform or competition across state lines is just a bummer for me. Those are honestly the two proponents I've wanted all along. I feel like these elements will alleviate stress and allow implementation of getting basic coverage to the 12 million, etc, but I think ripping up the entire playbook and dropping it all down in one big thud (ie the senate bill), is too much in this economic and political climate.

Anyway, I guess I did pretty much respond to all your points ... haha. Hopefully my arguments had some validity, because I am tired!

 

[JaggerPlate]

I'll say deception is more like
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1

I'm sorry ... I'd love to watch that video, but I have an extreme allergic reaction to Jon Stewart. He just makes me very nauseous ...

😎

 

[Bernoull]

I'm sorry ... I'd love to watch that video, but I have an extreme allergic reaction to Jon Stewart. He just makes me very nauseous ...

😎

he's not even comic relief?? Do u watch/listen to anyone from the left? I listen to Savage and watch O' Reilly sometimes. Even though I disagree mostly with them, they can be entertaining... F**k it, we'll do it live!!! That tape's gotta be worth its weight in unobtainiu..

 

[JaggerPlate]

he's not even comic relief?? Do u watch/listen to anyone from the left? I listen to Savage and watch O' Reilly sometimes. Even though I disagree mostly with them, they can be entertaining... F**k it, we'll do it live!!! That tape's gotta be worth its weight in unobtainiu..

It has less to do with his politics, and more to do with the fact that I just do not find him funny. He annoys me. I mean don't get me wrong ... he's very liberal, and I'm not - to say the least -, but I listen to lots of liberal entertainers. Hell, David Cross is one of my favorite comedians (Tobias on Arrested Development) and he's as left as they come ... but he's also funny. I think the combo of not finding him funny + politics makes me cringe when I heard the intro music to the Daily Show.

 

[iraklis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

 

[tinery]

this is a pretty serious discussion...

isn't anyone else excited about high speed trains?

 

[ShinyDome19]

this is a pretty serious discussion...

isn't anyone else excited about high speed trains?

its pretty serious and as useless as most political talk...

Yeah, these high speed trains are gonna be awesome, especially seeing that our current slow speed trains tend to have derailments and collisions periodically...whats a high speed derailment/collision gonna be like?

 

[J1515]

this has to be the definition of irony...🙄🙄

Ironic how? I never told you if im a dem or repub or which side i stand on. Infact I'm neither. I never commented to you on any issue. What I did say is that you refuse to admit any wrong doing regardless of what the president does. That's why Jagger arguing with you is futile. Plenty of americans (including those who voted for him) can admit that our current president is not doing what he said he would do or not keeping the publics' opinion in mind with his decisions. I'm not commenting on my opinion, nor did I bother watching his speech because it's all just bs talk. Either you believe you are smarter than the majority of americans or you have some kind of unhealthy political obsession that draws you to one side and doesn't allow you to look at the truth rationally.

 

[JaggerPlate]

this is a pretty serious discussion...

isn't anyone else excited about high speed trains?

I want to ride the high speed FL train so badly.

 

[BBender716]

Ironic how? I never told you if im a dem or repub or which side i stand on. Infact I'm neither. I never commented to you on any issue. What I did say is that you refuse to admit any wrong doing regardless of what the president does. That's why Jagger arguing with you is futile. Plenty of americans (including those who voted for him) can admit that our current president is not doing what he said he would do or not keeping the publics' opinion in mind with his decisions. I'm not commenting on my opinion, nor did I bother watching his speech because it's all just bs talk. Either you believe you are smarter than the majority of americans or you have some kind of unhealthy political obsession that draws you to one side and doesn't allow you to look at the truth rationally.

zing.

 

[7starmantis]

its pretty serious and as useless as most political talk...

Yeah, these high speed trains are gonna be awesome, especially seeing that our current slow speed trains tend to have derailments and collisions periodically...whats a high speed derailment/collision gonna be like?

Wow, what an optimistic viewpoint. 😀

Think about those detachments and collisions horse and buggys have... whats a car collision going to be like? Couldn't resist. Sorry.

I want to ride the high speed FL train so badly.

I do too! I dont know much about them, is this going to be interstate?