State of the Union 2014

[Wegra]

Any of you watching? If so spill your thoughts here

[leanlifter1]

At 1/28/14 09:20 PM, Wegra wrote: Any of you watching? If so spill your thoughts here

Why pay attention to more propaganda. Let me know if there is anything real like an apology from the USA to the rest of the planet for crimes against humanity. Short of that fuck off with your American pig shit.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

all I hear from Obama's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

[leanlifter1]

At 1/28/14 10:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: all I hear from Obama's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

Stactly !

[Camarohusky]

I always wonder why so many people watch the State of the Union. Could there be anything more useless in the Senate Chamber?

...

... nevermind.

[Fim]

At 1/28/14 09:20 PM, Wegra wrote: Any of you watching? If so spill your thoughts here

What's a state of the union? Is it like karaoke?

[Feoric]

At 1/29/14 01:37 AM, Fim wrote:

At 1/28/14 09:20 PM, Wegra wrote: Any of you watching? If so spill your thoughts here

What's a state of the union? Is it like karaoke?

It's like your ex girlfriend drunk calling you at 4 AM telling you how much she loves you and that she'll never ever cheat on you again. She swears.

[Wegra]

At 1/29/14 02:50 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/29/14 01:37 AM, Fim wrote:

At 1/28/14 09:20 PM, Wegra wrote:

What's a state of the union? Is it like karaoke?

It's like your ex girlfriend drunk calling you at 4 AM telling you how much she loves you and that she'll never ever cheat on you again. She swears.

How surprisingly accurate

[Korriken]

I had to suspend disbelief to listen to it.

[JoshuaHughes]

Yes, I watched it. Question: do women really earn 77 cents to every man's dollar? Obama mentioned this in his speech, and I've heard this claim before, but I'm not sure if I really believe it. The way it was worded made it sound like if a man and a woman work at the same job under the same conditions, the woman would earn 77% of what the man would make. I thought this was more like an overall annual average thing? I'm very confused.

[TNT]

At 1/29/14 05:30 PM, JoshuaHughes wrote: Yes, I watched it. Question: do women really earn 77 cents to every man's dollar? Obama mentioned this in his speech, and I've heard this claim before, but I'm not sure if I really believe it. The way it was worded made it sound like if a man and a woman work at the same job under the same conditions, the woman would earn 77% of what the man would make. I thought this was more like an overall annual average thing? I'm very confused.

It has been referenced several times when I was in college, so I'm only assuming it's at least somewhat true. However, there's a counter-argument that woman earn less not because they don't get equal pay, but they work less because they need the time to take care of their family.

Keep in mind that I don't have any source to back this counter-argument, but this is from what I've heard...

[MonochromeMonitor]

I watched it, stupid.

I fell for that hopey changy bullshit in 08,
none of that crap will happen.

Every State of the Union address is
"The Union is great, look at how much we've accomplished, let's do this too."
His speeches are boring as hell now too.

[MonochromeMonitor]

I did love Boehner's standing ovation though. It was adorable.

[RAMB0J3SUS]

His statement about clean energy was bullshit. I did like how he declared climate change as a fact, but to say we can help prevent it with natural gas is fucking stupid. Fracking is still being explored and it's still extremely dangerous, like for example check out this video below :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQfHDBq4M3I

I enjoyed his talk about Solar Panels, but saying they will create jobs? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Maybe if he made it a large part of his agenda then MAYBE we would see a big increase in that field, but I don't see that happening. I wish he would have talked about wind or hydro energy. We clearly have the technology. THANKS OBAMA lol

[sh40601]

At 1/29/14 05:30 PM, JoshuaHughes wrote: Yes, I watched it. Question: do women really earn 77 cents to every man's dollar? Obama mentioned this in his speech, and I've heard this claim before, but I'm not sure if I really believe it. The way it was worded made it sound like if a man and a woman work at the same job under the same conditions, the woman would earn 77% of what the man would make. I thought this was more like an overall annual average thing? I'm very confused.

There is little basis behind these statistics, and the left has been touting them for years. Use common sense< if this were really true, and you were a business owner you would have to be stupid to hire men, when you could get the same work done for 75% the cost.

[RydiaLockheart]

Oh, that was a live speech? Here I thought it was a rerun.

[Korriken]

At 1/29/14 09:51 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Oh, that was a live speech? Here I thought it was a rerun.

Speaking of which.... Not sure if this was real or not, but it is funny.

[WallofYawn]

Ok, if Obama manages to accomplish any of the shit he claims, and does so by executive authority, without extreme backlash from the republican party, not only will I take back EVERYTHING I EVER SAID about him, I will KISS HIS BUTTCHEECK. Seriously.

But I don't think he will, personally.

Actually, I'm surprised he's using any executive authority at this point. Kind of a little late, really.

If I were him, back in 2012, I would have come in full swing with executive authority from the get-go. One of my least favorite things about this president is how spineless and wishy washy he is about things. He needs to be authoritative if he wants anything done, and now he is, but as I said before, it's a little late.

I will say that raising the min. wage for contract workers is a step in the right direction and one of the few things he's done in recent times that I actually agree with. I also like the fact that he used executive power to do so. FUCK CONGRESS. Bunch of opinionated, on the fence, pencil pushing morons who couldn't finagle their way out of a recession to save their life. I don't even care if they vote on it or not, because they can't make a definitive decision anyways, so what the hell does it matter?

[RacistBassist]

At 1/30/14 05:56 PM, WallofYawn wrote: He needs to be authoritative if he wants anything done, and now he is, but as I said before, it's a little late. FUCK CONGRESS. I don't even care if they vote on it or not, because they can't make a definitive decision anyways, so what the hell does it matter?

The fact that people have this opinion is kind of disheartening

[wildfire4461]

So he wants a private "civilian" defense force, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Yeah. Sure. We could use our own version of the SA or SS. I've only got one thing to say about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSvD5SM_uI4

[orangebomb]

At 1/31/14 04:58 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: So he wants a private "civilian" defense force, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Yeah. Sure. We could use our own version of the SA or SS. I've only got one thing to say about that:

I really wish you stop trying to compare any action that the government makes to be similar to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It makes you come off as a paranoid ignorant retard, though I will assume (correctly) that this isn't the first time that you keep putting your foot in your mouth. Please stop being wrong for once.

[wildfire4461]

At 1/31/14 09:23 PM, orangebomb wrote:
I really wish you stop trying to compare any action that the government makes to be similar to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It makes you come off as a paranoid ignorant retard, though I will assume (correctly) that this isn't the first time that you keep putting your foot in your mouth. Please stop being wrong for once.

Look at the shit you spew out of your mouth before making an opinion (oh that's right Obama supporters have permanent blinders and ear plugs).

[orangebomb]

At 1/31/14 10:36 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Look at the shit you spew out of your mouth before making an opinion (oh that's right Obama supporters have permanent blinders and ear plugs).

I'm not an Obama supporter, but even I can tell that you are still full of bullshit. Maybe you should stop exaggerating the lies you keep spewing, and not try to invoke Godwin's law next time. Don't try to make that accusation on me again.

[A-Plain-Name]

At 1/30/14 02:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 1/29/14 09:51 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Oh, that was a live speech? Here I thought it was a rerun.

Speaking of which.... Not sure if this was real or not, but it is funny.

people are so full of shit, they should have a 2nd asshole to crap out of...

[Ericho]

I admit I'm not someone who follows these things much, but I did watch at least some of this and thought it was pretty good. The best part was how he showed these bars on the side of the screen that signified what he was talking about. It's nice to be so organized. Dang, this is turning into one of my reviews, isn't it?

[AJ]

The sick burn on House Republicans for passing bills that defund Obamacare every couple weeks was the only part that was good. Everything else was pretty stock state of the union shit.

[WallofYawn]

At 1/30/14 09:55 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/30/14 05:56 PM, WallofYawn wrote: He needs to be authoritative if he wants anything done, and now he is, but as I said before, it's a little late. FUCK CONGRESS. I don't even care if they vote on it or not, because they can't make a definitive decision anyways, so what the hell does it matter?

The fact that people have this opinion is kind of disheartening

Yea, but I mean, they are the same way, right? They vetoed every bill he ever tried to pass. I understand Obamacare sucks, but come on. We had months of gridlock and bickering, and for what? Doesn't that tell you that congress is beyond negotiation or diplomacy at this point? How else are we going to get them to do shit? Ask them? I'm just saying...

[Warforger]

At 1/30/14 09:55 PM, RacistBassist wrote: The fact that people have this opinion is kind of disheartening

Well IMO politics is already too democratic. By this I mean parties are nearly powerless. If they have a member they don't like they have a very hard time trying to get rid of them in their own primary elections since party members vote for them, and in this day and age being a rank and file party member of any party is doom since everyone hates both parties it's just they vote for the one they hate the least. So if say John Boehner wanted to get rid of upstart Tea party members which humiliated the party in the government shutdown, he can't strip the GOP label from them. Even worse parties contribute a very small portion of campaign funds, making them unable to stop these members from getting elected. That would be great but the Gerrymandered districts have very conflicting political views, but each party member only has to listen to one side not the others. Combine all of that and you got the government shutdown fiasco last year. It certainly pissed off the majority of Americans, but why would these House members give a shit? Their constituents approved of it and that's all that matters. The only power the party leaders have are deciding who holds what committee seats, but even then with subcommittee's it's harder to stop that. Anyone who goes up against the party leader is rewarded by his/her constituents as being a maverick. So you have a Congress which is killing itself and the party leaders can do little about it no matter how hard they try. This has come to the point where it is TOO decentralized, if the parties had more control over their individual members then they could have averted the government shutdown and created a compromise budget. Well, at the very least Gerrymandering is the first problem, which still hasn't been dealt with.

The Senate and the President by comparison don't have as many issues because they can't be Gerrymandered and they're more centralized and coherent.

[Korriken]

At 2/2/14 05:47 PM, Warforger wrote:

Well IMO politics is already too democratic. So if say John Boehner wanted to get rid of upstart Tea party members which humiliated the party in the government shutdown, he can't strip the GOP label from them. Even worse parties contribute a very small portion of campaign funds, making them unable to stop these members from getting elected.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. Last thing we need is an ACTUAL ruling class who can eject people they don't like from politics. The fact that parties are pretty much toothless piranhas is a good thing. If the 2 major parties (who effectively have a death grip on politics in America) could eject people from their party because they don't like them, then we would see political purges (of the non lethal type) happening and the politicians replaced with cronies for those in charge.

That would be great but the Gerrymandered districts have very conflicting political views, but each party member only has to listen to one side not the others. Combine all of that and you got the government shutdown fiasco last year. It certainly pissed off the majority of Americans, but why would these House members give a shit? Their constituents approved of it and that's all that matters.

Yeah it's a damn shame that those in the house only have to represent their constituents...

So you have a Congress which is killing itself and the party leaders can do little about it no matter how hard they try. This has come to the point where it is TOO decentralized, if the parties had more control over their individual members then they could have averted the government shutdown and created a compromise budget.

You fail to grasp the bigger picture. Political battles have been going on since before the United States was founded. If parties could cast out dissenting members, there would be no government "of the people" because the "people" in the government at that point would be hand picked by the 2 parties, who would answer to the parties and not their constituents. In short, it would become a form of 2 party dictatorship because the 2 parties would have absolute power over the nation. It wouldn't take long before they began to agree more often than not, then it would look more like a 1 party dictatorship.

The Senate and the President by comparison don't have as many issues because they can't be Gerrymandered and they're more centralized and coherent.

If you can call it that.

[Warforger]

At 2/2/14 07:34 PM, Korriken wrote: And I wouldn't have it any other way. Last thing we need is an ACTUAL ruling class who can eject people they don't like from politics. The fact that parties are pretty much toothless piranhas is a good thing. If the 2 major parties (who effectively have a death grip on politics in America) could eject people from their party because they don't like them, then we would see political purges (of the non lethal type) happening and the politicians replaced with cronies for those in charge.

Purging people from politics is one thing, punishing a party member for disobeying the party and going against it is another. If the party leaders cannot have some sort of control or influence over their members, then the party might as well not exist, which as political structures they really don't.

Yeah it's a damn shame that those in the house only have to represent their constituents...

It is when you have purposefully drawn the district lines to avoid anyone who wouldn't vote for your party. It's why while the GOP got record low approval ratings after the shutdown, it won't really affect their hold on politics, because they have so many gerrymandered districts that agree with what they did that it doesn't matter. So while they are representing their constituents, they're not representing the American people, in essence; they choose which people they want to represent. So basically with the weakened parties, Congress actually represents fewer people.

You fail to grasp the bigger picture.

Seriously?

Political battles have been going on since before the United States was founded. If parties could cast out dissenting members, there would be no government "of the people" because the "people" in the government at that point would be hand picked by the 2 parties, who would answer to the parties and not their constituents. In short, it would become a form of 2 party dictatorship because the 2 parties would have absolute power over the nation. It wouldn't take long before they began to agree more often than not, then it would look more like a 1 party dictatorship.

No there were times in the past where parties had more control over their members and it wasn't a huge deal. They could control who could use their label, they could punish their members who disobeyed the parties objectives, in essence the Parties were pretty important and had some control over their members. They also got things done because instead of negotiating with 200 people they could just negotiate with their leaders.

And no it wouldn't cast out dissenting members, if anything it would strengthen 3rd parties. If a constituency does not want to support either major party's agendas they voted for a 3rd party, and this if often what happened. These old 3rd parties were serious parties which won seats, unlike say the modern Libertarian and Green parties which in the current party rules will never rise to power. There were parties like the Populist party which won a number of house seats and senate seats, hell even the Socialist party won a couple seats. Going into the mid-20th Century parties like the Farmer-Labor party also held seats. Nowadays the remaining non GOP and non Democratic politicians are practically either, so much so that many times they often have a background in those parties and straight up leave to join the other.

With the way it works now you can pretty much only expect to see the GOP and Democratic party win elections and few others because they're just labels telling you they have a chance at winning. They're not structures which can adequetely pass legislation

If you can call it that.

I'm getting the impression you don't know what Gerrymandering is.