Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29



1 hour and 15 minutes.
That was a long hard slog.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
\:lol\:

Say has there been any new polls on Obama lately boys? (snicker)


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
I don't really pay much attention to polls, but since you're interested: Gallup reported lowest approval rating yet for Obama.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
\:lol\:
Sure if you average his whole year it gives Obama haters something. That of course obscures the upswing of the last month. For a presidential 6th year it also does better than some other Presidents in comparison. (Bush)


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
I'm not sure I understand the direction POTUS took. he's not gonna be able to push very much of that through congress, which makes it come off like he's either a delusional ideologue or he's setting congress up to look like the awful obstructionists who blocked his blueprint for utopia. he's too clever for the first explanation, so it kinda feels like grandstanding to me. it would've been more productive to venture beyond simply paying lip service to bipartisanship and set more attainable, less ideologically 'pure' goals which would benefit both sides of the aisle.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
You didn't understand it because it in many places presented diametrically opposed ideas, was hypocritical and internally contradictory, and ultimately only made sense to the liberal-indoctrinated who will accept any rhetoric their side feeds to them, like M E M and Pro.

For example Obama talked about bipartisanship and not getting locked into ideology, looking for common ground to work together to pass legislation.
Then almost in the same sentence, Obama said he would veto any legislation that goes against his partisan line in the sand!

The Keystone pipeline legislation, for example, does have bipartisan support. But Obama has vowed to veto it, despite the bipartisan consensus.
Likewise sanctions against Iran.
Likewise repealing portions of Obamacare.
Likewise tax reform.

Obama himself is the partisan obstruction to legislation!




  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
\:lol\:
Sure if you average his whole year it gives Obama haters something. That of course obscures the upswing of the last month. For a presidential 6th year it also does better than some other Presidents in comparison. (Bush)







OBAMA'S SUTU ADDRESS EARNS HARSH CRITCISM


 Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's State of the Union address drew unsparing morning-after reviews Wednesday from majority Republicans in Congress, including a rebuke on nuclear talks with Iran and a lament from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell that a high-profile speech can be about "more than veto threats of strident partisanship."

McConnell, R-Ky., said the Democratic president "may not be wild about the people's choice of a Congress. But he owes it to the American people to find a serious way to work with the representatives they elected."

Obama's first State of the Union address with Congress under Republican control was studded with veto threats. He defiantly unfurled an agenda on taxes, spending, social programs, energy and foreign policy notably at odds with Republican priorities. He did end with a plea for the two parties to "debate without demonizing one another" and find compromise where possible.

The quick challenge on Iran came courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner, who announced he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress on Feb. 11.

Assuming the Israeli leader accepts, he would stand at the same podium in the House of Representatives where the president spoke Tuesday night - with a notably different message.



Netanyahu has been an outspoken opponent of the direction of negotiations with Tehran that the Obama administration is involved in. Administration officials say the hope is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Israeli leader says he fears the United States and other countries will give away too much in the talks, and the existence of his country will be at risk.

The U.S. and other Western countries believe that Iran is intent on trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and exists only to produce energy for civilian use.

The invitation to Netanyahu wasn't the only Republican rebuttal on the horizon at the dawn of a new Congress under GOP control.

The Senate is debating legislation to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline despite a veto threat, and the House has votes scheduled this week on two other bills the president has signaled he will reject. One would ban abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant; the other would give the government one year to act on construction requests for natural gas pipelines.

Republicans unleashed their counterattack as Obama headed to promote his proposals in Idaho and Kansas, two of the most Republican states.

The speech itself was memorable for a split-screen sort of response, in which Democrats on one side of the House chamber repeatedly rose to their feet and applauded the president, while Republicans who intend to vote down his proposals sat silently. When Obama promised to send Congress a budget "filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan," a disbelieving snicker swept through the rows of Republicans.




It must hurt for the liberal-indoctrinated like you, M E M, when even the Obama-adoring media has to acknowledge the blatant untruths in what Comrade Obama tries to allege.

"We won in Iraq, and have left it behind us...."
"Al Qaida is in retreat..."
"The economy has turned the corner..."

Laughably over-the-top untruths.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29


Woman showcased by Obama in State of the Union is a former Democratic campaign staffer


 Quote:
The woman whose story of economic recovery was showcased by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address is a former Democratic campaign staffer and has been used by Obama for political events in the past.



Rebekah Erler has been presented by the White House as a woman who was discovered by the president after she wrote to him last March about her economic hardships. She was showcased in the speech as proof that middle class Americans are coming forward to say that Obama’s policies are working.

Unmentioned in the White House bio of Erler is that she is a former Democratic campaign operative, working as a field organizer for Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.).

This also wasn’t the first time the White House used the former Democratic campaign staffer as a political prop. Obama spent a “day in the life” of Erler in June so that he could have “an opportunity to communicate directly with the people he’s working for every day.”

Reuters revealed Erler’s Democratic affiliations following that June event, and the Minnesota Republican Party attacked Obama for being “so out of touch with reality that he thinks a former Democrat campaign staffer speaks for every Minnesotan.”



Not the truth.

Just Obama's Ministry of Truth.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29




FACT-CHECKING OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS (by Politico)


Again, this isn't conservative media, but they still acknowledge Obama's blatant untruths.





Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
\:lol\:

Say has there been any new polls on Obama lately boys? (snicker)


Wow, you really have become a parody of yourself, haven't you?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Oh don't bother playing that card. It's ridiculous, especially with WB's above posts as a backdrop. You wanted to talk polls when you liked them. Either way the polls go you bitch about me. It's not very principled. Just saying.


Fair play!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
It got a lot of coverage here. Mostly because of the "I know because I won two of them" one-liner.

Otherwise, promises of vetoes on Republican initiatives, and a continued extension of presidential power. No bipartisanship at all, except in the closing minutes and a slip service to the concept. No great surprise. Obama said he would be playing offence, not defence in his final years in power.

There's a non-partisan issue in that. All recent presidents of whichever stripe have sought to subvert hostile Houses. Would be interesting to read some literature on that.

You guys remind me of yesterday's Onion story, "Man Delivers Presidential Rebuttal Directly Into TV Screen."


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,069
Public Enemy #4
4000+ posts
Offline
Public Enemy #4
4000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,069
hi dave


Oderint, dum metuant.


You are a god damned idiot, you know that? You ought to be smacked upside your dumb-fuck head, even after all these years. Shame on you!
-USCHI showin' some love


Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Konnichiwa, Herr Hobbes, konnichiwa. Long time no Word With Friends.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Oh don't bother playing that card. It's ridiculous, especially with WB's above posts as a backdrop. You wanted to talk polls when you liked them. Either way the polls go you bitch about me. It's not very principled. Just saying.



I cited factchecked facts, not polls, and mostly from non-conservative sources. You're hiding behind a vague innuendo that something I cited is partisan or incorrect, but I pointed out that even the liberal media says Obama fronted incredible lies in his S O T U address.

I've said many times of polls, that I enjoy when the polls agree with my opinion, but they are almost always a survey of the uninformed, a survey of perception, not facts. And perception is mostly shaped by a media and popular culture that is at least 80% liberal, and by a news media that increasingly is smart enough to lyingly self-identify as "independent" in reporter polls, but whose true colors are revealed in that 88% of reporters donate to Democrat candidates.

What part of obvious don't you understand?

https://ricochet.com/archives/political-views-of-journalists-my-feud-with-eric-alterman-part-2/

http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/andrew...ore-liberal-too


Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Yes I get it. Polls, fact checks and the media are all unfair unless you can use them.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
M E M, the point is that even the Obama-adoring media at this point is forced to report the truth, or lose all credibility as news organizations.
The media are capable of good coverage and information, on stories they are not as emotionally invested in. But on the subject of Obama, they clearly have a bias. And for them to have that bias, and STILL report the above cited facts, is testament to how undeniable the truth is.
Except to a DNC talking-points Obama-bot like yourself.


I think this last bit is the capstone on just how serious Obama was in his State of the Union address, Obama's interview by Youtube video blogger Glozell Green:



As in: Not at all.

Pure cynical politics. Obama's SOTU address fronted laughable untruths and a diversionary agenda (free education, etc.) that he has no intention of pursuing, beyond demagoguing Republicans.
If he truly valued and wanted to fight for these things, why didn't he ram them through when he had overwhelming Democrat House and Senate majorities?

Because 1) they aren't a real priority, just partisan rhetoric, and 2) because even the previous Democrat majorities would not have passed them.
Just like Democrat non-support of his "Cap and Trade" bill.
Just like Democrat non-support of his second Stimulus bill( deceitfully re-named a "Jobs Bill")
Just like Democrat ambivalence on passing Obamacare, which was actually a win by cheating, passed by "reconciliation" with less than 60 Senate votes, and by purchasing the votes of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) paid off with billions in tax-paid perks for their states, by the tax dollars of the 53% majority nationwide who vocally opposed Obamacare's passing. And it also barely passed the House.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: WB
Obama's SOTU address fronted laughable untruths and a diversionary agenda





Apparently Sen. Menendez doesn't buy Obama's version of events.

And neither does Sen. Barbara Boxer, who has criticized Obama's release of Al Qaida prisoners,
and other lapses of U.S. foreign policy.

And neither does Sen. Chuck Schumer, saying passing Obamacare instead of focusing on economic
recovery was "a mistake".


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,971
Likes: 29

Also laughable how Obama in his State of the Union address touted Yemen as one of the "successes" of his strategy against [Islamic] terrorism.
A Yemen government that collapsed days after his badly-timed SOTU victory lap.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5