State of the Union thread

[DontSayBanana]

I think Hans's point is that the State of the Union speech was not the appropriate place & time to do this.

Really?  When he's trying to get the point across to Congress as well as the American people that the "state of the union" is pretty shaky because all of the branches are fighting against each other and trying to make rules that overstep their authority, that sounds pretty appropriate to me.

[Razgovory]

Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?

I think Hans's point is that the State of the Union speech was not the appropriate place & time to do this.

Did Bush in any of his SOTU complain about legislating from the bench?

[Razgovory]

Went on about 20 minutes to long.  I feel his efforts to shame the Republicans are futile.  They seem to lack any type of shame.

He's been using that tactic for a while now, and it still doesn't work so well. The Dems are running the roost, doing business as usual but even more so, which is what has voters so angry! Especially when Obama promised CHANGE! He ought to be trying to shame his own party!   

What is "business as usual" in this case?

Government deficits, multitudes of pork deals, even so embarrassing now that the Congressmembers getting them are feeling much heat, from their own states. , Obama said from day one that he was going to address all of that. Closed door meetings, dealing heavily with lobbyists and various interests when he promised change to that process. Congress doing its wheeling and dealing, all the dealing with the concoction of the health care bill, smoke and mirrors accounting for it, which has people pretty damned angry. And more. Business hasn't seemed to have changed at all; gotten worse. Some they can't change too much, as there will always be special interests, but when a President promises change and does things the same, with an over bearing Congressional leadership like Pelosi and Reid, it catches up with the President pretty fast.

Gotten worse is a change.  Besides if Pelosi and Reid were overbearing they'd actually accomplish something.  Now Johnson, he was overbearing.  He got shit done.

[derspiess]

Dialup.

Can you execsum me baby?

Anything for you, Yi.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

You do need to watch it to get the 'full effect'.

[Hansmeister]

Dialup.

Can you execsum me baby?

Anything for you, Yi.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

You do need to watch it to get the 'full effect'.

And of course Obama is lying.  The USSC did not overturn the laws prohibiting foreign interests from "bankrolling" US elections, those laws are still in place.  obama didn't argue the legal and constitutional merits of the decision, he simply launched into a political attack.

[Hansmeister]

he certainly proved he lacked any class, particularly when he launched a dishonest political attack against the Supreme Court.  He comes across as petulant, peeved, and nasty.

Weren't you the one smearing the court as unelected God-Emperors who need to be reigned in?

Indeed, by refuting their arguments on the merits, not by raging "how dare the USSC prohibit us from doing whatever we want", that is just as imperious a behaviour than that the USSC sometimes engages in.

Doing it in such a petulant manner during the SOTU speech is just bad form.  Obama has developed a certain amount of tone-deafness that is surprising.  What message was he trying to send?  Whom was he trying to persuade?  it's just very baffling.  Almost makes me miss Bill Clinton, at least he had some political acumen.  Obama just makes up a bunch of nonsense, such as claiming he had "saved or created" 2 million jobs without any evidence to support it and believes people are going to swallow it.  I think he vastly overestimates himself.  Blaming everybody else might work when you're a candidate or a community organizer, but Presidents are measured by results.

Attacking Justice Kennedy's opinion certainly isn't going to help in getting the support of the USSC, attacking the Republicans certainly isn't going to make them suddenly embrace his far-left agenda, blaming the Democrats in Congress for all the backroom dealing Obama engaged in certainly isn't going to make them want to fall in behind him, and constantly blaming President Bush for everything certainly isn't going to convince the public that you're up to the job.

[Razgovory]

Hey Hans, check out the French veil thread.  I'm genuinely curious how you'd come down on that.

[Savonarola]

And the deep thoughts of the Detroit Free Press shopping writer:

Did purple apparel send a message at the State of the Union address?
By Georgea Kovanis
Free Press Shopping Writer


During the president's second State of the Union address, television cameras panned to Michelle Obama who was clad in a brilliant dark purple dress with a full skirt by Isaac Mizrahi. And to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who wore a lavender suit. And to Vice President Joe Biden, who wore a purple tie.


Coincidence?


Maybe.


Then again, there are few coincidences in politics.


"Color sends a message,'" says Kate Smith, a color expert who works as a corporate color consultant. "There's some message on our mind, whether it's conscious or unconscious."


So, what does purple mean when it comes to politics?


Because it is a combination of red and blue, it carries some meanings from both colors. "You're communicating the trustworthiness from blue as well as some red, the power, the in-charge side of red,'' says Smith, who owns Sensational Color, a company based in Washington, D.C. "They're unifying."


And unification was one of the points of Obama's speech.


He urged the Republicans and Democrats to be trustworthy in their power, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life."


So in essence, Obama is telling the nation not to act as red states or blue states, but to come together as, well, purple states.


The fact that he wore a tie that leans more toward burgundy than a true red is significant, too, says Smith. "It still has the message of the red tie, but when you go to a deeper tone, it's not in your face, it's not quite as bold."


In other words, he's in charge but he's willing to cooperate with others.


"Purple is the color of creativity. When people wear it, it's often becasue they are looking for creative answers, creative solutions,'' says Leatrice Eiseman, director of the Pantone Color Institute, which is based in Carlstadt, N.J., and forecasts color trends.


Of course, here's what we all want to know: Did they call or text each other to coordinate their wardrobes?

Come Obama, give Prince a cabinet position.

Thanks to plastic surgery Pelosi already has a permanent hideous smile on her face like the Joker.  She really shouldn't wear purple; it makes the resemblance even more obvious.

[Caliga]

I was about to make a Pelosi=Joker post.  Bitch 

[Caliga]

btw I agree with Hans 100%.  I'm shocked he would drag the Supreme Court into a political bullshit speech like the State of the Union.

[jimmy olsen]

I missed the speech. Did he do it?

The only time an executive order was mentioned was when Obama blacked on the Senate about voting down Biden's task force and told them he'd do it anyway via executive order.  I also counted no less than four veto threats to both houses, but his hands are pretty tied where DADT is concerned; military regulations are explicitly delegated to Congress by the US Constitution.

How did Truman get around it then?

[Martinus]

I missed the speech. Did he do it?

The only time an executive order was mentioned was when Obama blacked on the Senate about voting down Biden's task force and told them he'd do it anyway via executive order.  I also counted no less than four veto threats to both houses, but his hands are pretty tied where DADT is concerned; military regulations are explicitly delegated to Congress by the US Constitution.

What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.

It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.

[DontSayBanana]

What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.

It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.

God, I can't believe we're rehashing this again.  He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders.  The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.

[jimmy olsen]

What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.

It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.

God, I can't believe we're rehashing this again.  He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders.  The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.

Wasn't segregation of the military a regulation? What's the difference?

[Ed Anger]

What he can do (and this was pointed out to him repeatedly by GLBT organisations) is to order the military to refocus their attention and not to investigate DADT issues.

It is, after all, much easier to accomplish than what Truman did, since it's much easier to "turn the blind eye" here.

God, I can't believe we're rehashing this again.  He can't do that because he'd be forever rubber-stamping those orders.  The second he made a blanket order for multiple occurrences, he's set regulation and run afoul of the constitutional restriction.

At least you didn't say "Hod" or "Gawd". Goddamn moronic shit.