SOTU Address = Pathetic Joke WTF?

[Soul Crusher]

I caught sme of the crap on the radio and on the tv towards the end.  

Sad, Pathetic, Embarrassing, Disconnected from Reality, a Hoax, Disjointed, Delusional, and one of the worst of my lifetime.

My folks called me up and said the same thing "more empty words with no meaning."

I did like the parties sitting with each other since we did not have the jumping up and down crap.  

Even Team KP on Morning Schmoe realized it was a disjointed joke.  

I really have a hard time believing any grown adult bought in to any of that bullshit.   But then again - 52.3% of our fellow morons voted for this, so I guess nothing surprises any more.  

As far as his "Sputnik Moment"   - how about producing his long form BC for fucks sake?      



  

[Soul Crusher]

Obama gives a speech we can’t take seriously
5:00 am January 26, 2011, by Kyle Wingfield



How do you take seriously a speech in which the president says we will spend more money on educating students, rebuilding our infrastructure and funding research for innovation in alternative energy sources — all while saying we’re not going to spend more money?

How do you take seriously a speech in which the only budgetary dollar figure the president gives is a made-up one — a reduction in spending (even as spending is frozen, remember) as compared only to hypothetical future budgets?

How do you take seriously a speech in which the president claims the mantle of fiscal restraint — while essentially bidding to make permanent the supposedly temporary, stimulus-inflated levels of spending we’ve seen the last two years?

How do you take seriously a speech in which the president says he will work more closely with Republicans — by making the same offers he has made, but not acted on, in previous speeches? (Examples: “If you have ideas about how to improve [the health-reform] law…I am eager to work with you,” and, “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits” [my emphasis, because he's admitting he didn't act on it when they proposed it before].)

How do you take seriously a speech in which the president acknowledges that his own fiscal-reform commission said “the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it” — and then essentially rules out cutting spending in entitlements?

Given all this, how do you take seriously those parts of the speech that did offer pleasant surprises — his calls to flatten and lower corporate income-tax rates, to simplify individual income taxes (note that he didn’t offer to simplify and then lower rates), to merge and consolidate duplicative federal agencies, and to veto any bill with earmarks?

Seriously — how?

The next two years are going to be even harder than I thought.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook

[chadstallion]

in two years I'm hoping to hear Pres. Bachmann give her speech.

[Soul Crusher]

in two years I'm hoping to hear Pres. Bachmann give her speech.

Her rebuttable in 6 minutes was infinitely better than the Hoax & Change Obama gave.   

I almost felt embarrassed for him it was so awful.   

[225for70]

Her rebuttable in 6 minutes was infinitely better than the Hoax & Change Obama gave.   

I almost felt embarrassed for him it was so awful.   

[/youtube]


Way better indeed...

[Soul Crusher]

Et Tu, Andrea? Even Mitchell Mocks SOTU
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein



How can a Dem president tell that his SOTU was a for-real floperewski? When even Andrea Mitchell pans it. Yet that's precisely what NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent did on Morning Joe today.

What was particularly unkind about Andrea's cut was that she criticized both the form and the substance of the speech. After observing that Pres. Obama's oratory lacked "energy" and "passion," Mitchell opined that "it doesn't add up. The dollars and cents don't add up." Ouch.

Before Andrea's assessment, the rest of the panel, with the notable exception of Howard Dean who managed to defend the speech, took turns lampooning it, with Joe Scarborough contributing a particularly scathing basketball analogy.

View video after the jump.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

[George Whorewell]

Et Tu, Andrea? Even Mitchell Mocks SOTU
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein



How can a Dem president tell that his SOTU was a for-real floperewski? When even Andrea Mitchell pans it. Yet that's precisely what NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent did on Morning Joe today.

What was particularly unkind about Andrea's cut was that she criticized both the form and the substance of the speech. After observing that Pres. Obama's oratory lacked "energy" and "passion," Mitchell opined that "it doesn't add up. The dollars and cents don't add up." Ouch.

Before Andrea's assessment, the rest of the panel, with the notable exception of Howard Dean who managed to defend the speech, took turns lampooning it, with Joe Scarborough contributing a particularly scathing basketball analogy.

View video after the jump.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

Racist post reported.

[Soul Crusher]

Seems like I cant get out of my own way lately with that.     

[Soul Crusher]

.FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger
FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending

 .
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, On Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.

THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."

Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.

OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook

[Option D]

Im shocked 

get a fuckin life

[Soul Crusher]

Im shocked 

get a fuckin life

Ha ha - did you actually like that hodge podge of contradictions and cliche?

[MCWAY]

Frank Luntz's focus group, on Hannity, in Atlanta TORE THIS SPEECH to shreds. "Empty rhetoric", "no substance", "He said the same thing two years ago", etc.

When Luntz asked how many people, who voted for Obama, plan to vote for him again (no matter who the GOP fields as a challenger), only TWO people put their hands up. The rest either will wait to see who's left standing in the GOP or won't vote for him at all.

[whork25]

Frank Luntz's focus group, on Hannity, in Atlanta TORE THIS SPEECH to shreds. "Empty rhetoric", "no substance", "He said the same thing two years ago", etc.

When Luntz asked how many people, who voted for Obama, plan to vote for him again (no matter who the GOP fields as a challenger), only TWO people put their hands up. The rest either will wait to see who's left standing in the GOP or won't vote for him at all.

He might be right but using him as an example?
You do know that is what he is paid to say right? Othervise he would'nt be on Hannity

[Soul Crusher]

I have been watching these things for years, same crap over and over and over. 

Just once - just freaking once,  want someone to get up there, give a very good 10-15 straight up speech and leave.   No promises of rainbows, ponys, and grand schemes, just plain cold truth and leave.   

[MCWAY]

He might be right but using him as an example?
You do know that is what he is paid to say right? Othervise he would'nt be on Hannity

The focus group consisted of 29 people from Atlanta. I like when Luntz does these. The debate can get heated and the folks take the gloves off, turn off the PC stuff, and talk turkey.

One common theme I've seen is a lot of disgruntled folks who voted for Obama.

[Soul Crusher]

The State Of Confusion Address: The Bad, The Ugly, The WTF
www.absolutelynobama.com ^ | January 26, 2010 | Alan Levy

________________________ ________________________ _______________



Is it me or is the game passing Chairman Obama by ?

The 2011 State of Confusion Address proved one thing: Our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama is a shadow of his former self. We did not see the fiery, charismatic demogogue of the 2008 Popularity Contest. Last night, we saw a shell shocked man who knows the gig is up. It was almost sad to watch.

Obama looked like as if he were barefoot and standing on shards of broken glass. It was almost as if you could feel his discomfort. I don't know if Obama's still smarting from the "shellacking" he and the Democrat party took in the Midterm Massacre. I don't know if he appreciates being forced to pretend he's a centrist instead of the wild-eyed radical we saw on the campaign trail a mere three years ago. I can't read minds, but I know what I heard: a flat speech that wasn't going to inspire anyone to do anything but vote against Obama and the Democrat party in the 2012 elections. This, Dear Reader, is the "bad" part of the State of Confusion Address. It was bad indeed.

The "ugly" part of the evening came from the fact that Chairman Obama decided that the whole "civility" thing applied to those evil Conservatives only and decided it was time for some more class warfare and socialist rhetoric.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133224933/transcript-obamas-state-of-union-address

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, Dear Leader, that's not promoting "America's success", that's promoting social justice, which at last check, is at very best socialism and at very worst communism. What is being suggested here is that wealth should be redistributed, and for the life of me, I can't name one American success story that ever began with the redistribution of wealth. "Civility" ? Into the nearest Memory Hole! It's time for the ugliness of class warfare, yet again.

The WTF moment of the State of Confusion Address was this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We'll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We'll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what's best for the economy, not politicians."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133224933/transcript-obamas-state-of-union-address

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, paint me a shade of skeptical, but wasn't this what the Stimulus scam was for ? Didn't we just spend 786 billion dollars on the "crumbling infrastructure" ? Why, I seem to remember a certain inexperienced socialist saying this back in '09:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Already, more than 10,000 of these [infrastructure] projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead. "

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point you have to wonder: Does Chairman Obama even remember what he says anymore ? Do his sycophants? Do they even care anymore ? A true WTF statement for the ages indeed.

For the last two-plus years, I've been telling myself "Relax, it's going to get better."

Well, the Bad, The Ugly, and the WTF of last night's State of Confusion Address has proven that I've been lying to myself.

God help us all.

[kcballer]

had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing.  Terrible woman. 

[Soul Crusher]

had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing.  Terrible woman. 

  

Oh yeah, because until MadoffCare, n one ever got treated and everyone was dying in the streets.


MadoffCare is far worse than doing nothing since itwill bankrupt the states and existing socialist welfare programs already on the brik of collapse. 

www.usdebtclock.com

   

[kcballer]

 

Oh yeah, because until MadoffCare, n one ever got treated and everyone was dying in the streets.


MadoffCare is far worse than doing nothing since itwill bankrupt the states and existing socialist welfare programs already on the brik of collapse. 

www.usdebtclock.com

   

Never said the current plan was the best one.  But for damn sure it's better than what we had.  Health care for all is more important than dollars or debts.   

[Soul Crusher]

Never said the current plan was the best one.  But for damn sure it's better than what we had.  Health care for all is more important than dollars or debts.   

How old are you?   Serious.   

[kcballer]

How old are you?   Serious.   

Old enough to care about the welfare of my fellow Americans.  It seems you're still in the toddler selfish phase.  Maybe one day you will grow up, but i'm betting not. 

[Soul Crusher]

Old enough to care about the welfare of my fellow Americans.  It seems you're still in the toddler selfish phase.  Maybe one day you will grow up, but i'm betting not. 

So why not food and water for all?   How about homes for all?


Who is going to pay for that?


Oh yeah, lets model ourselves after Cuba - worked out great for them.             

[kcballer]

So why not food and water for all?   How about homes for all?


Who is going to pay for that?


Oh yeah, lets model ourselves after Cuba - worked out great for them.             

You just don't get it and never will. 

[MM2K]

had to turn it off when her solution to health care reform was to repeal and then do nothing.  Terrible woman. 

The Republican Plan is not to do nothing. FOr the last time, offer a tax break/credit for those who purchase individual insurance. Tax employer provided plans. Put a cap on malpractice awards. Declare Health Insurance to be Interstate Commerce so that insurance companies can compete freely in other states. Get rid of needless mandates and coverage requirements, so that people have the choice to buy only catostrophic insurance. Reform medicare and medicaid so that people are given an annual health tax credit instead of a blank check on whatever procedure they get. The thing is that most of these problems are occuring on the state levels.

But, politically  the burden shouldnt be on the Republicans to have a backup plan. First DO NO HARM. They were proven right about Obamacare. The burden should be on Democrats to defend this monstrosity that they own, and they arent doing a very good job of it.

[Soul Crusher]

You just don't get it and never will. 

  

All of your bogus cmmunist ideas have been tried and failed everywhere they have ever been tried.