State of the UnionFollow

I wouldn't even say "attack the Court" as much as "criticize rulings". I didn't see much venom from him, and certainly no attempt to belittle or embarrass. He criticized a ruling with which he strongly disagrees.

You know it never ocurred to me that it must have come as quite a shock to you to have an intelligent man in office. You're probably all sorts of knocked off your tuffet. No wonder you don't make any sense. Quite the stranger in a strange land.

Yes and no. Unions have already had a disproportionate effect on politics. Now businesses can. I see it more as enforcing the 1st amendment and having a wider variety of organizations involved in the political process. Didn't Obama say diversity makes us better? Now our political process will be more diversified.



Ah yes, the internet. Where e-thugs abound and know no fear. Of course I'm stupid.. it couldn't be that you are condescending. Its not like your signature implies you look down on people.

That's ok, you can still guru me.

When did I claim not to be condescending towards you.

If this is a problem, wouldn't a better solution be to limit the influence unions have on the system? Personally, I think that politics should be limited to actual people. People can be concerned about business concerns, and vote in a certain way, but to let the companies have a direct hand makes no sense, especially considering the overwhelming resources that are available.

They get around it in some means anyway, but to just give them a carte blanch is absurd.

Edited, Jan 28th 2010 11:39am by Xsarus

Interesting analogy. Except that there is no reason to draw the attention of 50+ million people to the decision. Does he need the support of the people to do what he proposed? No. He called the Court out intentionally.




Yep, I edited my post shortly after.



It's not like it solely shaped his opinion for me.

If you have a problem with what other people are doing at work, you don't just call them out at your 10 o'clock meeting do you? "God, that Jacobs guy is really not keeping up".

He could have resolved the issue without mentioning it on TV. There are a lot of issues dealt with not mentioned on TV.

Interesting analogy, aside from the complete lack of any commonalities in the situation beyond someone being unhappy.

Edited, Jan 28th 2010 11:45am by Xsarus

Really? You don't think a ruling that completely changes the campaign landscape in an election year affects the state of the union?

This is always a part of the 'equality' issue that troubles me. For real equality, you have to bring one group up, and another down. Like the 'equal pay' for women Obama mentioned doesn't necessarily mean women are going to get more, it could result in men getting less. (Not to mention dozens of other complications related to government control of compensation and discrimination based on gender.)

I agree it should be limited to 'actual' people, the problem is; different people have different resources. People would have to be truly equal for their to be any semblance of fairness in the political process if it were limited to 'actual' people.

Also, the poor outnumber the wealthy, and the business owners outnumber the non business owners. I'm not a cynic, but sometimes people vote for what's best for them, and that's not always what's best in the big picture. Of course, the best solution is making what's best for them and the country synonymous, but that's pretty difficult to do.

Businesses having more influence will, at the very least, help the economy. Unions and such tend to care more about 'fairness' and such, while business concern with profit. And profit can mean expansion. The ruling is good at least for the short term.

Alluded.

To be fair, and I have said this many times before: the President doesn't have that much direct control over the economy. He gets the blame; sometimes he gets the praise; he deserves neither in the same measure he receives.

This goes for any President, not just Obama.