State of the UnionFollow

Republicans are still running on Bush's rules.

I'm pretty sure the contention of republican voters is that nothing is quite a bit better than the something that was proposed when it comes to the health care debate. Thus, the 2nd phrase you gave would be the better one, minus the the obviously wimpy tone.



During the speech, Obama talked about human dignity. The way he treated the supreme court just seemed bad. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone doing that to me. I guess human dignity only matters unless its super important.

That seems to be the contention of Republican pundits. I'm not sure the voters are on board with nothing being better than something.

Say the voters in, I dunno, Boise care desperately about tort reform. Would it not have been better to work with the committee to get tort reform into the bill rather than sitting out the discussion altogether?

I don't think he actually watched the speech.

You aren't getting it. Why does he not call out the leaders of Iran? Why does he not call out the leader of North Korea? Russia? Why does he not use the phrase "War on Terror"?

Why is it, the only people he publicly criticizes, are people that work against him in his own society?

Are there not more important things at stake than who wins elections?

So what if business can donate more? What the hell does it matter?

Is that going to matter when terrorists attack, or Iran or North Korea get nukes?

But oh lord! He's totally justified for keeping the Supreme Court in check. I mean that's such serious business! Democrats might lose more elections because of it! Its super important.

The guy focuses on things that don't matter that much to me. This is one of them.

Also, consider this: He could take advantage of this. If business actually supported him, this would be GOOD for him. If he actually started giving real growth incentives for businesses, this ruling would be good. Yet instead, he singles it out like it needs to be stopped. He's clearly not that interested in adapting.

Sure. Did you watch the 75 minutes of the speech that weren't about this ruling?

Heh... now that I think about it, if you had you would have seen him "call out" Iran and North Korea

Edited, Jan 28th 2010 1:57pm by Jophiel

Not all of them. Among the punditry, though, it is distressingly common.

Here, for those of us who didn't see the speech and haven't bothered reading anything factual about it:





Edited, Jan 28th 2010 12:03pm by Samira

If I had to guess, I'd say because it's stupid and intentionally nebulous? You don't win wars against a concept, you win wars against a country. Terrorists are fueled by war, not discouraged.

Dude, I didn't even see it and I know he called out Iran and North Korea.

1) c-span
2) transcript
3) ctrl+f
4) ???
5) PROFIT

Ok.

It's different here. It wasn't going to get passed regardless. Sure, if there was no chance, yeah, throw something in there. But the entire thing got stopped because they stood against it. It's different.

I suppose this was better than saying we had to nuke Iran until it was a glass parking lot, though. So there's that.

Spazzledorf started out fairly sane (even if I thought he was mistaken in his complaint) and seems to have slipped 80% of the way into Varus mode within 20 posts.

See what we have to deal with here?