I love how Fox filmed the State of the Union speech too - the republicans sat on the right, the democrats on the left. When an issue that came up that people support and the republicans don't - they filmed the left side - hiding the shameful republicans sitting still not clapping that would turn stomachs of voters. When an issue came up that was against conservative ideology that they wanted people to think was unpopular they'd film the right side implying that everybody hated it.
Sleaze-balls.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
:eyeroll: So what? You can be a student of law, and even a professor (as leftie blogs like to call him) and still be a total numbnut. Obama's opinion on the constitution is plainly dominated by his bias towards civil rights activism. For example, he laments the Constitution for only having 'negative rights' (limits on government) and NOT saying what government 'should do'. He disdains the constitution as an incomplete, 'unfinished' document waiting for his ammendments/changes/alterations. A COMPETENT professor of constitutional law wouldn't do such a thing. Real ones restrict themselves to studying what the constitution actually says as opposed to wresting the document until it mirrors their personal philosophies.
Not to mention that his grasp of basic FACTS on the issue is in question. Obama said they reversed a 'century of law'. Baloney. SCotUS reversed part (not all) of McCain/Fiengold (2002), not the Tillman Act. Obama said foreign companies will be able to buy influence. Bullcrap. That kind of ad buying was illegal before, and it's still illegal now because the repeal didn't touch it. Obama is probably a hypocrite too because his campaign sure wasn't publicly fincanced, and the source of where he got all that money is under investigation. His campaign coffers were loaded with corporate cash.


Wait, so you think massive corporations like Wal-Mart should be able to donate as much as they want to whoever they want? It seems clear as day to me that this means they will donate hundreds of millions of dollars to whichever politicians has ideals that will make them more profit.

If politician a has a viable plan to build a home for every American and politician b has a plan that will end up increasing Wal-Mart's profits then Wal-Mart will donate hundreds of millions to politician b. Since money = votes, politician b will win.

Is my rudimentary understanding of the situation correct? How is this good for any of us?????

>> ^rougy:
It was a great speech. Said all the right things.
But the question is, will he follow through?


That's my sentiment exactly. He bought himself more time in my book, but he really needs to whip the Senate into shape. Public shaming is useless on the shameless (read: Congress).

>> ^marinara:
let me fucking guess, Is the MSM is going to dissect body language for days while Obama's vacuous speech gets a pass?

Actually, our vacuous media will spend lots of time hyperventilating over whether Obama crossed the line with what he said in this clip.

There will also be (surprise, surprise) a huge focus on the effect of the speech on the eternal political horserace. In other words, "how did it play with his liberal base/independents/Republicans who long for bipartisanship", or as Fox News would put it "let me fucking guess, the MSM is going to give Obama's vacuous and vapid speech a pass?"

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Actually, it's a bit more like calling out the Senate for being a bunch of dysfunctional crybabies, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Oh snap!
>> ^kceaton1:
You got told flowchart...

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Cheers for the post. Just out of curiosity how do you like Ben Bernanke? Yeah everyone hates him but he'll stay.

i like the video, short and no fuckin ads.

let me fucking guess, Is the MSM is going to dissect body language for days while Obama's vacuous speech gets a pass?

[edit] more vapid or vacuous? vacillating? I mean if the state of the union speech was a fine meal, would you be able to taste anything?

The sad fact is, THIS, is going on in the other 49 states of the Union on a daily basis. It is easy to dismiss someone you dont know, or care about. Rather easy to demonize them. In this video, the production group is demonizing the company directly, and health care system at large. It would have been good, to have the health care company defend itself on the charges. Frankly, I do not think I could take a company rep serious, if he said this woman could not be treated as her doctor perscriped, given that the same company has a high profit margin.

The statistics given, should be listed with a source. While the numbers sound fantastic, I'd like to know where those numbers come from in their original form. Its not that I distrust what the production team are doing, I'd like to read the information myself. I feel this *IS* important, as the other side of the arguement, typically does not want to show their sources. As those sources more often then not, come from a bias base (i.e. a 'think-tank' that opposes health care reform, because it gets it money from the health care industry).

I certainly hope that woman gets what ever treatment she needs. NO ONE, should suffer, because some citizens in our country are selfish.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

First off, decimate means reduce by ten... as in the root 'deci'. At some point we decided it would be a good idea to completely ignore the history of the root and make up a newer, modern definition: to reduce completely. Revisionism.

Secondly, personal liberty isn't a made up mental frame to be used for controlling people. Sure the Republicans are now spouting 'Liberty' from every hilltop, and I think a majority of them use it to mean Anti-Democratic or in more isolated cases to mean "Give our country back, black man."

And, come on, dude. Democrats are afraid of Corporations? Seriously, you want me to believe that? If you cannot see how the Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth, then neither I nor anyone else can reach you. Corporations don't fear Obama, especially when he's willing to bail them out. And if you ever have the curiosity, I beg that you look into the Center for Public Integrity at the campaign donations and see who gives to which party. Each big Corporation hedges its bets by giving to both parties.

And what of the military efforts? Obama cares more about how he'll be perceived than giving any credence to ending any war. The Neocons (read: Bill'O) clamor on that pulling out of the Middle East would mean the terrorist win, and Obama is now conflicted whether or not to pull out of Iraq and bolster more troops in Afghanistan. Spineless.

And even his Administration seems divided. Eventually they want 500,000 more troops. Hillary/Holbrook wants to put into place a North/South Korea military presence in Afghanistan for an indeterminate amount of time while we "spread democracy" there and nation build. Biden, however, wants to scale down the nation-building but wants to invade Pakistan. And what the fuck about the humanitarian crisis in Somalia?!

That aside, you're right, I am in favor of Capitalism over Socialism. Please don't confuse Capitalism with Corporatism. I mean working from Capital (or surplus) to create jobs and create wealth. I believe in a free market where private individuals can trade without government coercion. Socialism on the surface appears to be a system that is meant to help the people, but instead it powers the government, and even though you may disagree I still must point out how the National Socialist German Workers' Party really did a bang up job in Germany taking care of the people.

"We the people" doesn't mean democracy. No where in the Declaration nor the Constitution does it say word number one about a democracy. Not one. It does, however, say in Article 4 section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." (not to be confused with the current Republican Party) By saying "We the people" implies this to be a Democracy is like implying decimate means to reduce completely. It simply isn't true even if it's a widely accepted idea.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't see how government, in light of all the advanced nations who have such plans, can do worse at all.

They already have. Medicare. Medicaid.

10 percent of your fellow citizens are $$$$ed when it comes to healthcare. Now, what do you propose to do about that? Nothing, right?

To start with, not everyone who is 'uninsured' is uninsured because they can't afford it. A huge percentage are young, healthy people age 18-35 who voluntarily choose to not buy insurance because they don't need it. There's another huge chunk of people that are switching jobs and are only 'uninsured' for a brief time while HR catches up. 14 million uninsured are 'poor' which are already elligible for Medicare/Medicaid but deliberately do NOT sign up because they don't want to pay the fees. 27 million uninsured have incomes of $50,000+ a year.

You're like Obama. You paint a rhetorical picture of a huge number citizens that are craving to be insured, but can't because they're too poor. That's a false image that doesn't jive with reality. When the cold, hard facts are analyzed only a TINY percentage of citizens are (A) too poor to afford insurance and (B) not already ellgible for a government entitlement health program. The vast bulk of the uninsured are uninsured by choice, because of predicted temporary circumstances, or because they aren't citzens.

But what about that very small percentage of the poor but ineligible? There's plenty of common sense, non-government ways to control costs & make medical care affordable for them. #1. Tort reform. #2. National portability of insurance (increased competition). #3. Health savings plans. #4. Removal of government regulation. #5. Municipal or State run clinics. #6. Voluntary charitable donations. There's dozens of simple solutions. Regardless, there is NO need for a trillion dollar government boondoggle to address the needs of this tiny percentage of needy citizens by creating a massive plan that covers EVERYONE. That's like using a nuke to swat a fly.

Bush...liar...deserved it...

The place to voice disagreement is not by booing and hissing during the State of the Union address. Just like it isn't the place to voice your disagreement during an address to congress. Basically, EVERY politician lies. And if you belong to an opposing party, you are all to willing to say the 'other guy' is lying, but ignore the lies 'your guy' tells on a regular basis. The place for politicians to voice thier opinion is not right in the middle of a nationally televised speech. Do that crap in debates.

Disrespectful? Sure. "No president has been treated like this ever?" Hardly. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

So let us not pretend that this is some sort of 'Republican' problem. People from both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, and they're doing it with increasing frequency. Its a little late in the game for neolibs to be clucking their tongues at such behavior now. Such protestations are reserved only for the innocent. From the guilty it is nothing but hypocrisy.

Now - on to substance...

I for one am not so willing to say that Wilson's accusation is wrong. He shouldn't have blurted it in the middle of a speech, but his sentiment is correct. While Obama is not OVERTLY lying about the immigrant issue, he is not being honest, straightforward, or clear either. That's typical political speech though. Skate close enough to the truth that you can always back up and say, "Hey I'm not totally lying." But at the same time play pretty fast and loose with facts.

For example - it is 'technically' true that the immigration bill claims to exclude immigrants. So Obama can make his two-faced claim, "Hey - illegals won't be covered..." And it's the 'truth' right? Not exactly.

This is the same guy that keeps going around claiming that we have "43 million uninsured". Well he BLOODY WELL KNOWS that a huge chunk of those 43 million uninsured are illegal immigrants that he's including in his total to make it sound like 20% of Americans are running around not able to afford insurance. That's bullcrap. He can't go around saying we have "43 million uninsured" that he means to cover, and then turn right around and say "illegals won't have access." But it isn't very compelling when you realize that he's asking for a TRILLION DOLLARS to cover only about 15 million people if he's serious about his 'illegals won't have access' claim. That's asking for almost $70,000 per uninsured person. Pretty expensive plan, eh? No wonder he's trying to bury his facts.

And that's not even touching the fact that not a single one of the plans in the House or Senate has any plan for verification of citizenship. They say that illegals won't be able to get in - but if they have no plan to verify (and ENFORCE!) citizenship then it is nothing but words. And leave us not forget that not a single bill is out of committee yet. Who can say with certainty that there won't be some last minute provision, or scheme, or whatever that jams in an illegal coverage loophole?

So Obama can flap his gums all he wants, but just because it 'says' illegals won't be covered in the bills doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. I remember the 1986 Reagan immigration & control reform act. Know what? That act 'claimed' that it was going to start enforcing immigration rules and clamp down on illegals. Know what? It DIDN'T! Why should I believe that this bill is actually going to exclude illegals when there is no plan in place, and every past attempt to enforce citizenship has failed completely?

So was Obama lying? Maybe not technically, but in practical reality his claim that illegals won't be getting insurance or medical care is complete load of honk. He's got no plan, he's got no enforcement. As far as I'm concerned, that's as close to a lie as you can get.

I'm tired of letting politicians get a free pass when they talk smack answers to questions and skate by on technicalities and half truths. I don't like it when any politician weasels his way out of the SUBSTANCE of an accusation by hiding behind puffery and bureauratic double-speak. So I'm going to call things like I see it and come out and say that Obama IS lying. Neolibs can pretend that his jargon makes him 'technically' truthful, but it's in every practical way he's spewing lies. Until Obama comes up with a CONCRETE (IE written in a bill and NOT just rhetoric) solid, provable, and enforcable plan that clearly and plainly excludes ALL illegals from ever getting insurance or receiving medical care then he's lying.

1. Bye, have fun with your new nation. You wont be missed. But thank you for just making the Republican Party even more irrelavent in Congress. Maybe you can ask GWB to be your leader. He does have experience running a country in to the ground....maybe he'll do better with your nation.

2. Sounds like a bunch of people with bloated ego's and not enough wisdom. I'm sure this is not even 2% of texan residents thoughts. Notice that all the people speaking, and those in this crowd are white, and seem to hate those who arent.

3. So if this does happen, what are the things that will happen?
A. No more military support or funding. That's right, all those communities that rely on military and defense contracts disappear, and those people are put on unemployment. The tax revenue disappears.
B. Most citizens of the USA flee to other states, further losing tax revenue.
C. The Coast Guard pulls out, and no longer protects the sea ways. Customs agents move out of Texas. Like wise, the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and even FEMA pull out. That's alot of money going in to texas communities.
D. The US Goverment no longer gives financial support to Texas, and treats them like any other country.

So after all that, what does this new Texas nation have to look forward to:
1. High unemployment
2. Creation of its how military service (can you say 'Drafted'?). This includes land, sea, and air units. The sheer logistics that go with fielding a military are also figured in.
3. Infrastructure. Roads have to be maintained, communication systems have to be set up, and even clean drinking water has to be in place for anyone to live there.
4. Creation of your own goverment, along with all the idiots you hate to have with it. In our goverment, we call them lobbyists, other goverments have names for them. These guys will try to draw the lion's share of your meager income in to their pockets.
5. Revenue will be a bitch. Since to pay for all this, you will have to tax ever citizen about 87% of their take home pay. Funny how you complain about taxes in the USA right now. Go have your own nation and find out how deluted thinking works.

So yes, if these bloated idiots want to succession from the USA, let them. When they finally learn that they were stupid and foolish and want back in, we say 'tough shit'. And if we, the 49 states of the Union vote them back in, I'm sure there will be a consetion that each of these people will have a tattoo placed on their chest that says 'I am an idiot', and have no right to vote until the day they die.

Actually, I wouldnt put it past the birthers to do something like this, and actually try to get the rest of us to believe it. After all, they are willing to ignore obvious fact and evidence, in favor of their fantasy (oh, and that fact that Republicans get PWN'D in the last election). This, is just an example of desperate tactics.

But then again, Mr. McCain, wasn't born in the 50 states of the Union, either....