State of the UnionFollow

Sure, people usually vote for what seems to be in their favor. Don't think business owners are exuded. They are often voting for different reasons than what is good for business or the economy at large.

This is a very commonly held view, these days. It has not always been.

It is largely untrue. Were it true, then we would have a complete ideological shift with each election and the result would be chaos.

The business of statesmanship is compromise.

So you seem to agree that foreign corporations should not be allowed free access to influence US elections. Obama said, explicitly, that he thought the SCotUS ruling was in error because it gave foreign corporations free access to influence US elections. However you want to continue to argue that Obama was wrong to say this because you insist that his motivations were elsewhere.

That's fine, I guess. But you're not really discussing the State of the Union speech any longer, you're just generally ******** about Obama. You've pretty much laid out that you're not interested in what was actually said last night but just how you feel about the general situtation.

Of course, test cases don't come through until someone is actually doing it and then it takes its sweet while to wind through the court system. It's better, if we agree that this shouldn't be happening, to settle the matter now legislatively.

I already told you I don't believe what he said. :)

The discussion has evolved, so it's not particularly important whether I'm specifically speaking about the State of the Union address.




Yep. That's why you have things like what Mary Landrew (sp?) and Ben Nelson got. Buyouts. Bribes. Whatever.
Doesn't make it right.

My point is, that I absolutely believe the republicans would be 'bipartisan' if the bills actually contained anything they wanted. So when our president, who's party currently has a super majority in congress, calls for 'bipartisanship' it seems to actually translate into "republicans need to stop blocking this".

There are plenty of cases where a compromise is better than nothing, though on the flip side there are cases where a compromise is worse than either party's main position. But there are plenty of issues on which both parties are in complete agreement, even if the radicals on both sides are not, or things that do not cut across traditional party lines, where there's a significant group for and against on both sides of the aisle, although that was much more common in the past, when parties weren't whipped as much. Both parties are essentially centrist. Besides this there are matters of process which both parties both agree on. Yes, I was talking about foreign companies contributing. Also, how could he deal with that without "calling the supreme court out"? Isn't it worth it, in the name of transparency and fostering debate, to tell people that he is trying to deal with it, even if it means "calling the supreme court out"? Why is "calling the supreme court out" so damaging that it is to be avoided at all costs? Why do you keep using that phrase?

Edited, Jan 28th 2010 6:47pm by Kavekk

Haha, after we buy up your politicians using our federally run companies, all of your states will be belonging to us!

but then you'd also own pubes.

do you really want that?

Edited, Jan 28th 2010 12:59pm by Bardalicious

He'd last 2 minutes in a Canadian winter, which you all get by default.

Wrong. Towards the end they weren't invited because there was no point to it. In the beginning, damn near any Republican who wanted in the door could have walked in at any time because the Democrats were so eager to put a bipartisan veneer on the debate.

Healthcare, Gay Marriage, and pubesicles?

Sign me up.

haven't you heard? having a disagreeing opinion from the supreme court means you are treating them as an enemy of America. Anyone who disagrees with the Supreme Court hates America.

I'm looking at you, Roe v. Wade