«

»

SOTU Open Thread

I’ve never liked the whole State of the Union show, which smacks too much of a royal address. The endless applause, the pandering, the BS promises … Back to the written version please. Nevertheless, I’ll liveblog tonight’s version, offspring permitting.

8:59: The big news today is that Mitt Romney release his tax returns and is paying an effective tax rate of 14%. If Obama were smart, he would use this a springboard to Simpson-Bowles style tax reform. He’s not; he’ll use to flog his millionaire’s tax.

9:01: Dear Ignorant Media: there is no Buffet rule that keeps his taxes low. All capital gains are taxed at a low rate. That’s the story, not Warren Fucking Buffet.

9:06: While he’s shaking hands and kissing people, I’ll tell you what I’d say if it were me: “The State of our Union is bankrupt. We don’t need another committee. Start with Simpson-Bowles and work from that.”

9:12: Obama starting off with foreign policy. Wise. Foreign policy has been his most solid area of success.

9:22: Obama can make a good case that the economy was in free-fall when he took office. He can’t make a good case that he’s the one to build it back up again. His economic plans sound like more and more interventionism, more and more micromanagement, more and more complications to the tax code. What he is proposing is why our economy is so messed up.

9:25: This outsourcing stuff is complete bullshit. I think we can safely ignore anything he says in the next ten minutes.

9:29: Jesus Christ, this gets stupider by the moment. He uses an example of private industry doing job training to advocate for government job training.

9:32: Now a call for education reform from the party that opposes any change to the current cartel.

9:34: Now he’s talking about pumping more money into the education bubble. This is worse than I imagined. The only comfort is that, even we had a Democratic Congress, none of it would happen.

9:43: Sorry, I feel asleep when he turned to energy. He wants to get rid of oil subsidies. That’s fine … as long as we’re on one specific for them and not the tax breaks every business gets. He’s also doubling down on Solyndra. Doesn’t seem to realize the difference between funding basic research and funding specific companies.

9:50: Quote from Obama apologist Andrew Sullivan:

I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

And now we’re on healthcare. How dare insurance companies charge people more because they use more healthcare?!

9:55: And here we go with the Warren Buffet stuff. I would love to keep our “investments” in necessary government programs. But how much are we spending on garbage?

9:57: Again, we get the “we only want to tax the rich” crap. You simply can’t pay for all this spending without taxing the 98%. You simply can’t.

10:02: I finally agree with him on something! The filibustering of nominees needs to stop. By both parties.

10:09: Here’s the thing about Obama: he has it within him to be a fine President. But he’s committed to an ideology that’s just completely misguided and interest groups that are exacerbating our problems. It’s all wasted potential.

10:13: He’s wrapping up, so I’ll close with this thought. What I want is a President who is willing to admit that there are trade-offs. A President that will admit that we can’t do it all, we can’t have it all, we have to make choices. No one in the upper echelons of our political system is talking about this, least of all the man who laid out a liberal laundry list tonight. Until I start hearing that, I will continue to mock these guys. Because they are telling us … over and over again … what we want to hear and not what we need to hear.

10:34: OK, I’m liking Mitch Daniels a lot. Yes, he was Bush’s budget director, but his record in Indiana was solid. He’s not divisive, he’s fact-based and he’s … Presidential? I’d certainly take him over any of the current GOP nominees.

63 comments

No ping yet

  1. balthazar says:

    14% is about 3% more than 95% of americans pay as an income tax rate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. AlexInCT says:

    Man, this is some Disney production. It’s all fantasy with this guy. Who is gonna pay for all this shit he plans to do? He is so full of himself that I wonder if there is room for anyone else in that big room. And why is he asing Congress to do things now that he is president that demcorats never ever would have afforded a republican before or will after, if this congress is stupid enough to let him have is way.

    Like I already said: he took credit for other people’s work, work he often objected, is throwing whopper after whopper out, and again is acting as if he means well when it is obvious every damned program he is pushing is a way to grow government more. Government will decide who is right or wrong, who makes money or not, who is good or not. This stuff is biblical in nature man. I can’t make it to the end. I am sorry. There is only so much bullshit I can take.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. alemus says:

    So basically, he’s gonna do a complete 180 from the last three years?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Mississippi Yankee says:

    9:12: Obama starting off with foreign policy. Wise. Foreign policy has been his most solid area of success.

    I certainly must subscribe to much different news sources than you.

    Foreign policy, headed by “Her Filthiness”, seems to be a lot of things but success doesn’t really spring to the fore-front.

    We have Egypt, Libya, Syria hell the entire Arab Spring. Do you view these upheavals as good for America?
    What about China’s humongous, growing and unchallenged footprint in the western Pacific.
    Or the fact India (and Iran) are threatening to demand gold, instead of dollars (the international currency for oil)? BTW, watch this trend closely.

    And that Obama’s administration has had absolutely ZERO influence in Europe since day one. How successful will our economy be when the euro goes tits up in the very near future?

    But that big red RESET button we gave Russia looks like it’s working great right?. The choices for the Kremlin it would appear are 1) return of the Bear or 2) Anarchy.

    Hal, you weren’t by any chance a Hillary supporter in 2008 were you?
    [for the record I still think she's the Antichrist and I'm not even a christian]

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. davidst says:

    Funny I felt that way about Mitch’s response. How do you pay for all this? Rich people remember? The Buffet tax rule and all that? (EDIT: also more debt of course). The real reason it’s not going to get done is because the corporate sponsored Congress will block and/or poison all the bills (or not write them). I can’t decide whether or not Obama is counting on that or actually trying to do something useful.

    The idea that government spending or investing equals bigger government and can’t improve productivity or create and sustain growth is demonstrably false right-wing propaganda. It can be done, and sometimes it’s absolutely necessary. People are broke, jobless and very seriously in debt right now. How can there be much growth in the private economy? How can the private sector create jobs when there are no customers? Why does China prop up the dollar? Because they need the U.S. as a customer. There is only one entity in the world right now that can take on debt and stimulate the U.S. and the world economy, and that’s the U.S. government. Nothing else is big enough. We need to do something intelligent with that capability while we stil have it.

    Government sponsored research and infrastructure improvements, particularly anything related to energy (clean or not), are exactly what we need. I dare any of you to read Eric Janszen’s “Post Catastrophe Economy” and challenge the propaganda you’ve been soaking up for a decade or more. Trying to give giant businesses random tax breaks to hope they will magically fix the economy is the absolute worst thing we could do right now. They’re not going to invest in America. It’s just going further increase wealth disparity (and hence political power disparity).

    By the way, did you notice Obama talking shit about China, Libya, Syria and Iran? We’re probably fucked. This is probably all theater, but that should give you all an idea of where we’re heading if we don’t get our shit together. We need to wise up quick.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    I certainly must subscribe to much different news sources than you.

    bin Laden dead. AQ broken. Our troops out of Iraq. Keeping us the hell out of Arab Spring and the Iranian rebellion. Torture ended. Those are all wins in my book.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. davidst says:

    I’ve heard it argued that the Arab Spring is because of the world wide economic collapse putting pressure on their populaces (more than anything else). So while it may not be great for American energy security, you couldn’t lay that at Obama’s feet. Unless you’re arguing that somehow Obama started those revolutions or could have prevented them.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Section8 says:

    Here’s the thing about Obama: he has it within him to be a fine President. But he’s committed to an ideology that’s just completely misguided and interest groups that are exacerbating our problems. It’s all wasted potential.

    Fine how then? I mean any good orator who’s smart enough to get a circle of advisors of even moderate ability could be a fine leader of any nation. They have the ability to motivate people and stir up the energy. Some choose to be dictators, some choose the cause of free will, some choose a different path, but they could all be great depending on the path they choose, and that’s what defines their greatness from the start. Obama’s ideology was misguided from the beginning. I think it’s nuts to have seen past that in the first place. We don’t need potential, we need proven.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Mississippi Yankee says:

    bin Laden dead. AQ broken. Our troops out of Iraq. Keeping us the hell out of Arab Spring and the Iranian rebellion. Torture ended. Those are all wins in my book.

    As I said ‘different news sources than you.’

    bin Laden dead – definite feel good moment for USA. Kudos to Seal Team #6 golfer-in-chief, not so much.

    AQ broken – I wish I was so certain.

    Our troops out of Iraq – Not working out so good for the people in Iraq but I know this has been a 10 year goal for you. Although history may show that a measured withdrawal would have been more prudent.

    Iranian rebellion – What does that mean? This administration has been horse-whipping Europe to cut off all trade with Iran (which they can’t). And we are on the knifes edge in the Straights of Hormuz right now. Or do you mean we’ve been quiet as a mouse publicly concerning the popular rebellion i Iran? Yanno like the one in Iran friendly Syria but different from the ones in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya…?

    Torture ended – … Really? Or is the Leni Riefenstahl wing of the DNC maybe no reporting it as freely as pre-2008?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  10. AlexInCT says:

    bin Laden dead. AQ broken. Our troops out of Iraq. Keeping us the hell out of Arab Spring and the Iranian rebellion. Torture ended. Those are all wins in my book.

    MY got it right, but I want to pile on.

    Seal Team 6 got Bin Laden. When the details come out I bet the picture painted will not make any of these people look good. And I base that on what I have seen otherwise. They only take bold action when they can gain a political advantage, and practically never if there is any risk of political fall out, even when it is of benefit for America in general, so unless this decision was made by them so Obama could have Hollywood make a movie and he could use it to campaign on, which I grant you might be the possibility, I guarantee you that their involvement was minimal so they could distance themselves from this if it went bad. Lucky for us it didn’t go too bad.

    And about AQ, if it truly is broke and a fraction of itself, is there today DESPITE anything Obama or people that believe like you that Iraq was a bad idea, have done.

    You must have missed our ass kissing of Islamists in Egypt and let us not forget all the nice new “Kinetic Actions” he started in places like Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and several others. I grant you that I like that we are killing these scumbags in Pakistan, but we should be killing more of them and cutting off their funding. BTW, is this selective memory on your part, or as I suspect simply your bias against the last guy, showing?

    The fact that you do not know torture from rough sex aside, I think you should have added that rendition is back in vogue and we now drone kill bad guys so we can avoid having to deal with the trouble of holding them.

    As Borat would say, “Great success”, indeed. Seriously, our foreign policy the last 3 years has made the cowboy that came before him look like a genius. That the LSM doesn’t do its due diligence to inform people of how many disasters, real ones, we have now, but instead goes out of its way to pretend these guys have a clue, doesn’t make them successful at this. Ask the Brits, the Israelis, the Canadians, the Mexicans, and some other allies that they have screwed over in one form or another, most of them numerous times, how they feel. How is that “reset” with Russia going, too?

    The list of failures is long and distinguished, despite your biased attempt to pretend that because they supposedly –emphasis on that supposedly, BTW – are not doing what you disliked by Bush, they have a win. Know what I am saying?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  11. West Virginia Rebel says:

    I didn’t see it, but from what I’ve heard it was mostly same old, same old. I think Obama knows he’s in trouble so he’s going for broke with his tax the rich schtick and ideas that either failed in the past or wouldn’t fly with Congress now.

    Maybe he was thinking that this could be his swan song?
    West Virginia Rebel recently posted..The ProfessionalsMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    Maybe he was thinking that this could be his swan song?

    Actually he made much ado about the fact that he plans to do a lot of this by executive order or by working around congress. No mention that he feels this way because Reid in the Senate is playing obstructionist, though.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  13. hohokiss says:

    Status is I’m still missing any trace of Obamacare in my world.

    10:13: He’s wrapping up, so I’ll close with this thought. What I want is a President who is willing to admit that there are trade-offs. A President that will admit that we can’t do it all, we can’t have it all, we have to make choices. No one in the upper echelons of our political system is talking about this, least of all the man who laid out a liberal laundry list tonight. Until I start hearing that, I will continue to mock these guys. Because they are telling us … over and over again … what we want to hear and not what we need to hear.

    I just don’t see how you could possibly say that to the American people of any stripe or color

    “STFU whiny cunt”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  14. davidst says:

    Earth to Republican Land. We need to tax the rich. Don’t worry, the middle class will pay too via inflation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  15. Xetrov says:

    Earth to Republican Land. We need to tax the rich. Don’t worry, the middle class will pay too via inflation.

    Earth to Whatever Land you’re on. The rich are already taxed beyond what any rational person would consider ‘unfair’ in relation to the rest of the population.

    The class warfare agenda being pushed by the left is BS myth.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Dick Fitzwell says:

    I thought this was pretty funny. To be fair though, you could probably go back through a bunch of SOTU speeches through the years and do the same.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    And about AQ, if it truly is broke and a fraction of itself, is there today DESPITE anything Obama or people that believe like you that Iraq was a bad idea, have done.

    Yes, all those drone attacks have done nothing! As for the ST6 attack, it’s just amazing the contortions people will go to to not give the President any credit at all. There was a huge risk to him. Had the mission gone wrong, it would have ended in a firefight between US and Pakistani troops. it could have blown up into a massive international incident. But, in the absence of any information, you guys just assume that he had nothing to do with it. Ridiculous. If a Republican had done it, you would want to have his babies.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. AlexInCT says:

    Yes, all those drone attacks have done nothing! As for the ST6 attack, it’s just amazing the contortions people will go to to not give the President any credit at all.

    Actually I gave Obama huge kudos for this Hal. I wish Bush had had the balls to do this. But I do not see this as a foreign policy success (and granted I do not see it as a foreign policy failure either). My point was that you seem to have serious issue when it comes to anything related to Bush, and that seems to color how quickly you are willing to ascribe success to whatever Obama does.

    There was a huge risk to him. Had the mission gone wrong, it would have ended in a firefight between US and Pakistani troops. it could have blown up into a massive international incident.

    And who would have then gotten the blame? I bet you the CIA and the military. Not Obama, whom I am willing to bet would even pretend he wasn’t briefed, just like they are doing now with Fast & Furious.

    But, in the absence of any information, you guys just assume that he had nothing to do with it. Ridiculous.

    Actually we have plenty of information. We might not have the exact details, but we certainly know how this WH – and for that matter any group of politicians covering their ass – has reacted to things going wrong and things going bad. Its Bush’s fault that after 3 years of Obama’s policies we are worse off, but it is a credit to Obama that we withdrew troops from Iraq on a time table that the military put together under Bush. I need to apologize for using Bush as and example, but I admit I did it because I know how much you like em.

    If a Republican had done it, you would want to have his babies.

    Actually I would still have credited the military for the win (and blamed the politician for the fail). I would definitely be less inclined to think any republican did it for pure political gain, simply because my experience has cemented a belief that unlike democrats, whom feel the military is composed of dumb hicks to be used and abused by them, their superiors, that the members of our armed forces are smart, hard working, patriotic people and most republicans get that. I could bring an example of Bush’s behavior towards our troops and contrast it with what I have seen from Obama, but that would be piling on, and I am not trying to do that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. davidst says:

    Earth to Whatever Land you’re on. The rich are already taxed beyond what any rational person would consider ‘unfair’ in relation to the rest of the population.

    The class warfare agenda being pushed by the left is BS myth.

    I was originally from Republican Land but I moved to Independent Land several years ago. The weather isn’t as good here but the people are more open minded.

    The tax figure you’re looking at is only for federal income taxes. Why would you look only at that? You’re thinking ideologically instead of practically. Look at the total amassed wealth on a percentage basis. The distribution of wealth between rich and poor people has gotten worse and worse over the last several decades. The more money they have (percentage wise), the more they own the political process. They are using both parties to protect their wealth as the economy crumbles around us. We’re going to get much poorer and they will not. I think it’s already too late honestly. I just wish so many of us weren’t blithely going along with their propaganda. It makes it a harder pill to swallow.

    Ask yourself this. What happens in a world where a small group of rich people own all the resources and they already have everything they need? Imagine production is automated and they have intelligent robotic servants. They have zero need for any peasants like us. What happens to us when we have no resources and can provide no utility to the oligarchs.

    Replace the intelligent robotics servants with the next best thing. Peasant laborers who can’t demand anything more than a subsistence wage (because there are billions of us and they only need a small percentage). Then you have something much closer to the reality we’re headed for (as it doesn’t require any technological leaps). And of course since they still have some shred of a conscious and it would be messy, they went let us starve outright. But they have the power and the inclination to soak us for everything we’re worth and they’re going to do it because the finite abundance we’ve been living off of is going to come to begin declining. When it does, they will make sure it is our decline not their decline. They will continue to enjoy modest growth and we will decline.

    If that sounds like a fine idea to you, keep believing the standard left/right BS.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  20. Xetrov says:

    The tax figure you’re looking at is only for federal income taxes. Why would you look only at that?

    Because this is a discussion about…federal income taxes… That’s sorta like having a discussion about where to go for lunch and then asking why people are only talking about restaurants that are open for lunch…

    As for the rest of it, it’s a fallacy (that is mainly perpetrated by the left) to imply because the rich are getting richer that the poor most consequently get poorer due to the fact that there is not a finite supply of wealth in this country so long as it remains a free market.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  21. davidst says:

    No, a discussion about taxing rich people is a discussion about taxing rich people. Why does it matter what the tax is called? If you cut the income tax in half and draw it twice instead of once, does that make it double taxation?

    Also, what is a fallacy? The idea that in a world with 7 billion people most of us are useless to very wealthy people? I suppose there needs to be a system to produce the few special people that innovate and improve technology, and since you can’t grow them in a vat yet, rich people have to put up with the rest of us. That’s very reassuring to me.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Xetrov says:

    Why does it matter what the tax is called?

    Because income tax is the exact thing that Obama, and Democrats are claiming is “unfair” in favor of the rich, when the actual stats indicate the opposite.

    Also, what is a fallacy?

    Trying to claim that because the rich are getting richer, that the poor will get poorer, or there will be more poor people as a result (Non sequitur, Ignoratio elenchi, and/or Affirming the consequent. Take your pick).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. davidst says:

    I never said the poor necessarily get poorer in nominal terms (although I think they clearly have). The important thing is the distribution, because wealth is power. How much congress can you buy if you have the vast a majority of the wealth? The vast majority of congress. Rich people will use their power to maintain their wealth even as wealth overall is declining. That will come as a de facto tax on less than rich people in order to maintain the wealth of rich people. And if things ever turn around, they will use their wealth to ensure that they get a lopsided share of the increasing wealth. Prove me wrong.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. CM says:

    And that brings with it an increasingly disjointed society where groups feel increasingly alienated and seperated from each other. Walls get built higher. People get angrier (evem though they are told not to be whiney cunts). How does that not become an ongoing cycle? How is that a good place to live? For anyone?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Xetrov says:

    Prove me wrong.

    Try to disprove something that doesn’t exist in the US today? No thanks.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  26. davidst says:

    CM: while we have wealth, we live in Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World. In poverty, it will be Orwell’s 1984. The transition from one to the other will be interesting at least.

    Xetrov: What do you think doesn’t exist? That the rich’s rate of gaining wealth has been far greater than the poor’s rate? That is a fact. At these rates, the rich will eventually own everything. The window of opportunity for average people to join the ranks of the is closing (although the window for rich people to become destitute will remain wide open of course; that’s why they’re such greed bastards… they’re terrified). Again those are facts. In what world do those facts scare you less than foreign terrorism?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  27. AlexInCT says:

    That the rich’s rate of gaining wealth has been far greater than the poor’s rate?

    Whenever this comes up I usually only have to point out that there is one party that every rich person knows is the one you bribe to keep this going, and their mascot is a donkey. Usually that derails the people that want to claim the rich are getting their money nefariously from pushing that nonsense further.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. davidst says:

    You must be exempting the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex to name a few. Not that those aren’t bi-partisan, but they are Republican favorites. Besides, Republicans don’t need to pass questionable government spending to put money in the hands of rich people, they just pass corporate tax cuts. Yes yes, I know that just means they get to keep the money they “earned” (by raping the earth for finite natural resources for their own benefit more than anyone else’s), but I think you’re missing the bigger picture here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  29. CM says:

    How does Republican policy do the opposite? Specifically, how does it arrest the concentration of wealth. If you’re simply going to reply with ‘a freer market’, then that’s not specific enough. Precisely how does it mean the rich will have less? Honestly, I don’t understand how the vague theory translates into reality.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. davidst says:

    Exactly. I was distracted by the form of the question. If the fundamental problem is concentrating of wealth until we have a society of serfs and lords, then plain old laissez-faire capitalism is dangerous in the long run. It’s especially dangerous when it degenerates into crony-capitalism. And as I pointed out in a separate thread, potential wealth is not infinite as long as we’re still using non-sustainable energy systems (not to mention finite amounts of land of varying quality).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  31. CM says:

    Inflation also obviously takes care of the ‘infinite wealth’ fallacy. Yes technically wealth may be infinite, but as it increases it’s worth increasingly less.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  32. davidst says:

    Even if there is infinite wealth, it’s not all currently available. You have to look at how much “wealth” can we make per day? We may have 100 years of tar sands, but what really matters is daily production rates (btw, they’re not near as high as we’d like them to be).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  33. CM says:

    And how much future potential wealth is squandered by long-term adverse effects from using resources such as tar sands (in the short-medium) term. But that triggers the ‘enviro-loony’ tag around here, so no intelligent discussion is even remotely possible. Sustainability has no place in the free market apparently.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  34. JimK says:

    In the last 36 hours the civility and standard of discourse had plummeted around here. Which is noticeable because for a brief period there it had gone up.

    So what’s changed? Annnnnd…go:
    JimK recently posted..Re-discovering an old musical friendMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Seattle Outcast says:

    Trolls.

    CM and hohokiss, I’m looking at you two….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Section8 says:

    Trolls.

    CM and hohokiss, I’m looking at you two…

    I thought maybe he was referring to me. I know I can be a rude asshole (most of the time). I know I need to tone it down a bit. I just can’t help myself. I made a New Year’s resolution on it too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    I thought I’d just post the sort of shit that Section8, Seattle Outcast, Balthazar and Alex do whenever they’re faced with something they don’t like and see if it made a difference.

    (This is where you respond that I’m a whiney cunt and around we go again)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  38. Seattle Outcast says:

    I assume you’re back because Christchurch ran out of chickens and lube?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  39. CM says:

    Whiney cunt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  40. hohokiss says:

    Trolls. CM and hohokiss, I’m looking at you two. I assume you’re back because Christchurch ran out of chickens and lube?

    I can’t get as sick as I recently was again quickly enough to please ya’ll, but I am gonna be homeless and offline by the end of Feb,, so why not indulge me a little. Go ahead and save some virtual urine for me.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. CM says:

    Quote from Obama apologist Andrew Sullivan:

    I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

    More recently:

    After Some Sleep

    It does help, after these frenzied few weeks. I think my reaction to the SOTU reflects a skewed perspective – much different than most people tuning in, who were the speech’s core audience. A big part of the speech was reminding Americans of the facts about Obama’s record – as opposed to the massive lies and distortions we keep hearing in the GOP debates. That’s new to many; and it’s Obama-crowd impressive. But since I wrote that argument and have been defending it for more than a week, I didn’t hear that part, or heard it and dismissed it as old news. It may be old news to me, but it isn’t old news to most Americans. So I was focused on policy specifics, which were indeed underwhelming, as others have noted, with a few possible exceptions (the task force targeting Wall Street corruption; the mass mortgage refi proposal).

    And the focus entirely on getting the wealthy and successful pay more – outside the context of comprehensive tax reform – rubs me the wrong way. It puts Obama in the position of liberal crusader against the wealthy, rather than centrist reformer of the system. Yes, I know he can’t reform the system with this GOP. But since they favor tax reform, that proposal would have put them on the spot. By all means, make it revenue-neutral and then in a second term raise the rates a little, if revenue continues to be a problem. I just think Obama needs a big centrist cause in the campaign as well as a few big liberal ones.

    But we have entered a purely political season. And Obama is being purely political here – in a way he pledged not to be in 2008. It may be a master-stroke – since he sure has painted the GOP into a corner on fairness, and his arguments here have broad traction. And if he destroys the GOP this year – and he probably will if Gingrich is the nominee – then it may all come together. But it will mean a much more liberal Obama, which is why this centrist supporter gets a little queasy.

    Still, the GOP asked for it. By denying him any cooperation, they have ceded policy to him. And if he wins, they will be on the ropes for a while. And that’s how Obama could truly become the liberal Reagan I spotted in 2007. Because he will not only shift the landscape toward more government intervention, he will have reformed the opposition party to reflect that change.

    And who should really get a big part of the credit for turning America to the left? The Republicans who made Obama more liberal than he ever wanted to be. Congrats, guys. You may really be making history.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. davidst says:

    You know how you’ve made a good point that challenges partisan assumptions? Everyone just ignores you. *crickets*

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  43. CM says:

    What I find fascinating is how they don’t actually think they occupy a very narrow band of thought, and they probably don’t even realise how instinctively they reject anything that challenges or questions this narrow band. To the point where they attack things that aren’t even remotely designed to be abusive or trolling or whatever. They clearly don’t realise how blatantly obvious it is. Because they see things and misinterpret and misrepresent things in the same way, they get some sort of perverted sense of justification, which then cycles around and around again. From the outside, it’s astonishing. The lengths they go to with the vitriol, in the absence of an ability to discuss like rational adults, never ceases to amaze. They’re no different from the equivalents on the left whom they claim to despise.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  44. hohokiss says:

    The lengths they go to with the vitriol, in the absence of an ability to discuss like rational adults, never ceases to amaze. They’re no different from the equivalents on the left whom they claim to despise.

    I sometimes wonder what Taliban fighters in Afghan caves would do if Internet access were kosher and available to all of them; where and what they would write, and their general tone of voice.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  45. sahrab says:

    So what’s changed? Annnnnd…go:

    I thought I’d just post the sort of shit that

    how they don’t actually think they occupy a very narrow band of thought, and they probably don’t even realise how instinctively they reject anything that challenges or questions this narrow band.

    I sometimes wonder what Taliban fighters

    Not much, justt more of the same ad hominem bullshit disguised as poor attempts of “thoughful” (notice the quotes) posts

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  46. Section8 says:

    What I find fascinating is how they don’t actually think they occupy a very narrow band of thought, and they probably don’t even realise how instinctively they reject anything that challenges or questions this narrow band.

    I can only speak for me. I have no problem subscribing to a narrow band of thought. I believe in a free market system as much as feasibly possible, a strong defense, limited international involvement on a government level. Limited government involvement in personal affairs. Where government is needed, state and local government should be the primary influence other than defense and can tax accordingly for their needs. I’m honest, I have absolutely no issue stating where I stand, as opposed to some who claim to be open minded and accepting of many forms of ideas, yet given enough time in any thread are just parrots for the daily kos. It’s not your views that piss me off even though I disagree with many of them, it’s your constant denial. Why are you afraid to state where you stand? I’m not. I guess you are just ashamed of yourself.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  47. sahrab says:

    Quote from Obama apologist Andrew Sullivan:

    I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

    Why would it work this time? He’s used the same platitudes and superlatives in all 3 SOTU addresses.

    But then maybe he finally understood this one?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. hohokiss says:

    ,

    limited international involvement on a government level.

    Killing pirates abroad is “limited involvement”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  49. hohokiss says:

    You know how you’ve made a good point that challenges partisan assumptions? Everyone just ignores you. *crickets*

    Or the generic, dim, rote cussathon ensues. “Yo mama lol”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  50. Section8 says:

    Killing pirates abroad is “limited involvement”

    It’s providing for the defense and protecting our citizens from pirates or any other group or nation that attacks this country or its citizens, I have no issue with it. That’s the primary premise of our government to begin with. Provide for the common defense, and the Constitution also clearly states Congress has the authority to make the rules on piracy. While this abduction was on land, it’s still by the same bunch.

    Limited involvement would not be doing the UN’s bidding, like Libya for example, or getting involved in foreign conflicts like Iraq War I which is what got us into the whole mess to begin with, while the royals in Kuwait were off on vacation. It would not be having bases all over creation which are leftovers from WWII, and establishing new ones, or other conflicts we’ve gotten ourselves into in the past which were unrelated to direct attacks or imminent threats against Americans, but when we are attacked, I have no issue doing whatever is necessary to remove such threat from continuing the attacks. The government of Somalia was apparently ok with us going in to get our citizen back. Hell, you even posted it.

    As far as guilt driven Americans who think any action is beyond scope, I suggest pushing for a waiver amendment, then you guys can all sign and if we are attacked, and the victims have all signed wavers, we’ll give it a pass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. CM says:

    Not much, justt more of the same ad hominem bullshit disguised as poor attempts of “thoughful” (notice the quotes) posts

    That’s all I get in response when I try, so what’s the point in even trying? And why don’t you have an issue when others do it? Why doesn’t JimK see an issue with “civility and standard of discourse” when the rest of the time it’s just others engaging in the same ad hominem bullshit over and over again? It’s ok because they’re right wingers? They get to engage in the same ad hominem bullshit over and over again and that’s considered civility?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  52. CM says:

    I can only speak for me. I have no problem subscribing to a narrow band of thought. I believe in a free market system as much as feasibly possible, a strong defense, limited international involvement on a government level. Limited government involvement in personal affairs. Where government is needed, state and local government should be the primary influence other than defense and can tax accordingly for their needs. I’m honest, I have absolutely no issue stating where I stand, as opposed to some who claim to be open minded and accepting of many forms of ideas, yet given enough time in any thread are just parrots for the daily kos. It’s not your views that piss me off even though I disagree with many of them, it’s your constant denial. Why are you afraid to state where you stand? I’m not. I guess you are just ashamed of yourself.

    Sounds like you’ve never actually been able to explore ideas like an adult with any people that don’t share your opinions. That’s a real shame. I have no problem with you having different ideas and opinions than me, it’s when you abuse me for having different opinions that you indicate your lack of ability to engage on anything beyond a narrow range of thought. Resorting to abuse is incredibly and desperately weak. And concluding that if people want to discuss issues without putting forward a fixed binary position means they’re “ashamed of themselves” then that’s just really sad. It’s more clear evidence of what I’m saying. You “think” I’m some sort of leftest extremists because you can’t cope with any alternative. So you fill in gaps and misinterpret and misrepresent to suit. Lame and weak and sad dude.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  53. CM says:

    I sometimes wonder what Taliban fighters in Afghan caves would do if Internet access were kosher and available to all of them; where and what they would write, and their general tone of voice.

    It would be little different in many ways.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  54. Xetrov says:

    Again those are facts.

    Uhh

    The window of opportunity for average people to join the ranks of the is closing

    Opinion

    they’re such greed bastards… they’re terrified

    Opinion

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. Section8 says:

    Sounds like you’ve never actually been able to explore ideas like an adult with any people that don’t share your opinions.

    Hmm, that’s the interpretation you came up with from my comment? Well ok then.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. sahrab says:

    Why doesn’t JimK see an issue with “civility and standard of discourse” when the rest of the time it’s

    Probably because you come accross as someone not really interested in discussing a topic.

    Your MO: get your in your hits, ignore anything that counters them, or if/when you do address either ask (repeatedly) for clarification or misinterpret (accidently of course) the point of the post.

    Look at the history of this site. I was never an active poster, until Jim moved to this server, but since then there have been disagreements (usually civil) betwen myself and Alex (Gay Marriage), HAL (Man-Mad Global Warming), CzarChasm (just about everything, but he was a bit of a loon) and Rich (anytime he excuses law enforcment)

    It has nothing to do with your opposite view point, but you come on here with a chip on your shoulder, and then cry foul when your treated like someone with an agenda.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  57. davidst says:

    I believe in a free market system as much as feasibly possible, a strong defense, limited international involvement on a government level. Limited government involvement in personal affairs. Where government is needed, state and local government should be the primary influence other than defense and can tax accordingly for their needs.

    And these are all fine things to believe… Can I assume you’re voting for Ron Paul then and would not even consider voting for any of the other Republicans any more than you would vote for Obama? Or have they got you convinced that Ron Paul’s idea of national defense would result in terrorists detonating nuclear bombs on American soil?

    Honestly, I’m more scared that if Ron Paul and his ideas started to take root, the powers that be will allow or even encourage another 9-11 just to get us back on “the right track” (the track of American Empire). But if we can’t capitulate to terrorists, we have to take that risk I guess.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  58. Seattle Outcast says:

    At what point do we start telling davidst that we pretty much know he’s a Daily Kos plant and a troll?

    I mean, it’s getting pretty obvious at this point that his only purpose for being here is to “educate” us hicks in time for the election.

    Seriously dude, stay away from the card table, you’re going to get cleaned out…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  59. davidst says:

    Seattle Outcast, I’ve never visited Daily Kos once in my life. I’ve been a reader of this site since well before Lee died, though it’s much harder to read lately. You folks are so paranoid about “plants” from liberal websites. It’s really weird.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  60. CM says:

    Seattle’s post about sums it up – if you’re not on-board then you’re a plant.

    Probably because you come accross as someone not really interested in discussing a topic.

    Horseshit. For example I’ve discussed climate change, abortion, death penalty, taxation, energy. We even had a decent but short discussion not that long ago without you resorting to personal attacks or this woefully lame tactic of claiming “you’re not interested”.

    Your MO: get your in your hits, ignore anything that counters them, or if/when you do address either ask (repeatedly) for clarification or misinterpret (accidently of course) the point of the post.

    You mean by asking questions to try and get some detail behind the reasoning of other points of view? Isn’t that an integral part of a rational discussion? How is it not?
    One thing I most certainly don’t do is ignore comments. I get blamed for posting too much because I try hard to ensure I can’t be accused of avoiding anything. So that’s an even larger pile of horseshit. Unless you consider requesting evidence or asking questions “ignoring”.
    But the largest pile of horseshit is your last accusation. I would never misrepresent anything anyone said because it’s dishonest and obvious. Of course I sometimes misinterpret what someone says. If I do, I pretty always accept that this is what has happened. Contrast that to the likes of Section8 and Alex, who ‘know’ they’re not misinterpreting (even when they are).

    Look at the history of this site. I was never an active poster, until Jim moved to this server, but since then there have been disagreements (usually civil) betwen myself and Alex (Gay Marriage), HAL (Man-Mad Global Warming), CzarChasm (just about everything, but he was a bit of a loon) and Rich (anytime he excuses law enforcment)

    Yep there’s always a basic level of civility between those on the correct side, even when there are rather minor disagreements. You don’t call each other retards every five minutes.

    It has nothing to do with your opposite view point, but you come on here with a chip on your shoulder, and then cry foul when your treated like someone with an agenda.

    I most certainly did not come here with a chip on my shoulder. I came here hopeful that this place would have the same basic level of respect enjoyed at MW forums for so many years (where I was never accused of being a ‘whiney cunt’ or anything remotely similar, and where I got on well with a whole range of conservatives/liberatarians despite differing in opinion on some issues). I get the impression from other posters that things here used to be a lot healthier and less nutty and conspiracy-heavy. Maybe that will settle down if Obama loses.
    Absolutely I’ll push back when people accuse me of having an agenda. Sometimes I’ll just ask for examples to support the accusation. I’m at the very moderate end of the liberal side of the spectrum. That doesn’t inherently mean that I have an agenda. If people decided to take one thing I say and pretend it means something else, that’s entirely up to them.

    I’ve visited Daily Kos twice in my life, and just to see what it was.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  61. Section8 says:

    And these are all fine things to believe… Can I assume you’re voting for Ron Paul then and would not even consider voting for any of the other Republicans any more than you would vote for Obama? Or have they got you convinced that Ron Paul’s idea of national defense would result in terrorists detonating nuclear bombs on American soil?

    You can assume that yes. I don’t agree with Paul 100%, I don’t think I could agree with anyone 100%, but he’s closest to my ideology. Plus I think we need a “nut” in office to just get the ball rolling let alone start making any major changes.

    Honestly, I’m more scared that if Ron Paul and his ideas started to take root, the powers that be will allow or even encourage another 9-11 just to get us back on “the right track” (the track of American Empire). But if we can’t capitulate to terrorists, we have to take that risk I guess.

    That’s rather paranoid. We talk about our bumbling politicians as idiots, yet they always seem to be able to conjure up vast conspiracies in dark corners. Dark corners mainly due to the fact they’d probably be too damn stupid to figure how to turn the light on.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  62. richtaylor365 says:

    Maybe that will settle down if Obama loses.

    Doubtful

    It wasn’t that long ago when Bush was still the man, many here, including myself, were not happy with much of his agenda and railed vociferously about it. I’m going to make another one of those generalizations that you probably won’t like, but I think conservatives are extra hard on “one of our own” that we think has lost his way. The fur was flying around here over Bush and his enablers wrt out of control spending and growing the government. Oh, and those delightful EIT debates, could never get enough of those.

    And don’t forget that we will always have the core villains to castigate (Hollywood, the media, academia), nobody’s going soft, no threat of that.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  63. davidst says:

    That’s rather paranoid. We talk about our bumbling politicians as idiots, yet they always seem to be able to conjure up vast conspiracies in dark corners. Dark corners mainly due to the fact they’d probably be too damn stupid to figure how to turn the light on.

    Yes it is a little paranoid, but history shows that rulers aren’t averse to doing that sort of thing. Whatever it takes to pacify and direct the people to the ruler’s ends is done. As for the intelligence of politicians, remember they aren’t really calling the shots, their job is just to put on a convincing show so people can believe we still have democracy. They lie all the time and we know they do! I think some of them may believe what they’re saying (maybe Bush) and some of them are really trying to help in their own way, but understand they’re working within a corrupt system (maybe Obama… probably not). Others are just playing their part dutifully for personal gain (most of Congress). The fact that the whole system is massively corrupted by corporate interference is transparent (lobbying). It’s amazing that there isn’t more popular anger about it. There is certainly plenty of political apathy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      

Comments have been disabled.