Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

State of the UnionFollow

#1 Jan 21 2015 at 12:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Unions and states and Obama and stuffs happened.

Edit to add content:

Very partisan speech. May as well have smacked the Republicans with a sledge hammer and walked off stage.

My favourite: "I know because I won both of them."

Man's a social genius.

Edited, Jan 21st 2015 1:23pm by Yodabunny
#2 Jan 21 2015 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Man talked, half the audience clapped while the other half clapped because of peer pressure.

All I really got out of it is that Boehner really needs to stop hitting the tanning beds so much.

Edited, Jan 21st 2015 1:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jan 21 2015 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
****
5,599 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Very partisan speech. May as well have smacked the Republicans with a sledge hammer and walked off stage.


The Republican response was way more partisan, I thought. Their response was nothing but slamming the president, and was a lot shorter. Once you remove the president bashing, there really wasn't much left. Obama at least still had content in his speech after taking out the partisan parts.

Also Justice Ginsburg fell asleep again.

Edited, Jan 21st 2015 1:46pm by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#4 Jan 21 2015 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
Smiley: lol Poor old thing.

At least it wasn't Biden this time.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Jan 22 2015 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
In a conservative commentary I was listening to this morning (I didn't catch who it was) the guy said that Obama was trying to move the democratic platform to redistribution, and the SOTU was targeted towards Hilary cuz he says the democratic party is moving back towards a 'business friendly' Clintonian Democratic party.

It was on NPR this morning. Probably not yet in transcript.

Sounds like the guy is just trying to sow discord in the democratic party.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Jan 22 2015 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Who, Obama or the unnamed conservative commentator?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Jan 22 2015 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
You're supposed to distrust both.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Jan 22 2015 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
It was David Frum. Here's an article about his SotU comments.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jan 22 2015 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It was David Frum. Here's an article about his SotU comments.

Frum has been wrong about everything for about 20 years now. That said, Hillary is a center right Democrat. It's not a mystery. Obama has governed similarly, maybe from necessity, maybe because he's a fucking push over who is easily manipulated. There is no way to determine why, but the idea that Obama has checked many boxes on the left's scorecard is mostly a make believe one.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Jan 22 2015 at 4:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Yoda wrote:

Very partisan speech. May as well have smacked the Republicans with a sledge hammer and walked off stage.
That was far from partisan. Even Paul Ryan applauded him for not being partisan.
#11 Jan 22 2015 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I did not watch the speech, so bear that in mind. Also, I mostly agree with the assessment about Frum. He's more about color personality than accurate and insightful assessment. But hey, that's how he makes his living. Having said that, based solely on Frum's article, I'd say that Obama is stretching the field, which will not hem Clinton in, but will give her more room to move. By talking about things that most people view as too far to the Left, he makes any position Clinton takes look positively moderate by comparison. It gives her a lot more room between "too liberal" and "too moderate/conservative".

I suppose there might be some small number of super liberals who will be disappointed in a Clinton position that isn't the marvelously liberal ideal that Obama spoke of, but they'll get over it and aren't remotely the voters that the Dems are concerned about (worst case is that they don't vote on election day, which just costs one vote versus a swing voter which costs you two). Most voters will see Clinton take more moderate positions and be relieved.

Now, that doesn't mean that's why Obama did it. I'm just talking about the effect it will have for a Clinton run. I'm reasonably certain that Obama believes that if he proposes such things, maybe one day people will do it. He'd drag the whole country to the far left if he could. But if he can't, then putting the seeds in people's minds is the next best thing. It's not called progressive for nothing. But yeah, I think the net effect can benefit Clinton if she's savvy enough to thread that needle properly. Of course, if she looks like she's rejecting Obama's ideas entirely, she might just alienate the Left, but still not draw in the middle. Which would be disastrous for her.

And in that vein, one way conservatives can use this to their advantage is if they try to pin the nutty-left positions on Clinton and she rejects them, but does so awkwardly or insincerely. This will cause that very problem to occur. She'll **** off the Left, but not appeal to the middle in the process. I'd normally say she's savvy enough to avoid this, but she does have a history of saying things in ways that don't appeal to a lot of people. She's really not a very people friendly person. She can usually hide this, but sometimes she lets her real feelings about people and ideas slip, and it's usually not pretty at all. I honestly get the impression that Clinton views most of "the people" like something unpleasant that's stuck to the bottom of her shoe. It's just a look she gets on her face sometimes, and a tone in her voice. And that tends to turn people off of her.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2015 7:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Jan 23 2015 at 12:51 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I'll not comment on the rest because I don't have a dog in this hunt and I didn't see the speech either, but this caught my eye:
gbaji wrote:
I honestly get the impression that Clinton views most of "the people" like something unpleasant that's stuck to the bottom of her shoe.
I felt the exact same way about Romney. I wonder if that feeling in others cost him the election?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#13 Jan 23 2015 at 1:59 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll not comment on the rest because I don't have a dog in this hunt and I didn't see the speech either, but this caught my eye:
gbaji wrote:
I honestly get the impression that Clinton views most of "the people" like something unpleasant that's stuck to the bottom of her shoe.
I felt the exact same way about Romney. I wonder if that feeling in others cost him the election?


If by Clinton, he meant Hillary, I disagree. Jon Stewart got it right when he said HRC was like your nagging wife. She's been there with you all of the years, knows everything about you, but isn't as exciting as the hot young co-worker (Sen. Obama) who seems like such a change in your normal routine.

As for Romney, I think people really tried to like him ( I did), but realized that no one knew the real Mitt.
#14 Jan 23 2015 at 6:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I felt the exact same way about Romney

Well, to be fair, Romney has stated as much, so it's not really a good comparison. "I feel like my dad is a mass murder" "I feel exactly the same way about Charles Manson!"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Jan 23 2015 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Quote:
I did not watch the speech, so bear that in mind. Also, I mostly agree with the assessment about Frum.
After all this time you've still learned nothing about formulating your own opinions.

'sigh'

No worries, the asylum will never give up on you.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#16 Jan 23 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I honestly get the impression that Clinton views most of "the people" like something unpleasant that's stuck to the bottom of her shoe.
I felt the exact same way about Romney. I wonder if that feeling in others cost him the election?

That's unfair. Romney only feels that way about 47% of Americans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Jan 23 2015 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney only feels that way about 47% of Americans.
And dogs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Jan 23 2015 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
I did not watch the speech, so bear that in mind. Also, I mostly agree with the assessment about Frum.
After all this time you've still learned nothing about formulating your own opinions.


That I can reasonably noodle out based on Frum's article (and other comments in this thread) the nature of Obama's proposals and make an assessment of my own based on that (gasp! My "own opinion" even!)? And that folks around here will find any possible way to respond negatively to my post other than actually addressing the assessment I made? Yeah. I learned all that long long ago. Smiley: grin

So... One response turns my observation about Clinton into a "Yeah, but Romney!" (don't get whiplash kids), and the other claims that I don't form my own opinion (despite quite clearly doing precisely that). No actual addressing of what I said though. You guys are nothing if not consistent. Constant as the northern star and all that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Jan 23 2015 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
So... One response turns my observation about Clinton into a "Yeah, but Romney!" (don't get whiplash kids), No actual addressing of what I said though.
You failed to note that I did not in any way dismiss your assessment of HRC. I simply noted I had the same feelings about Romney (which I think cost him votes) ; if you're so fucking smart you would have understood that I was touching on your assessment of HRC (might cost her votes). Way to actually take what you read and think before you respond as you claim you always do and we fail at so hard.


gbaji wrote:
You guys are nothing if not consistent. Constant as the northern star and all that.
The Department of Redundancy Department wants their pots and/or kettles back.





EDIT: terrible grammar.Smiley: mad

Edited, Jan 23rd 2015 7:48pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#20 Jan 23 2015 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And that folks around here will find any possible way to respond negatively to my post other than actually addressing the assessment I made?
Six days.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Jan 28 2015 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So... One response turns my observation about Clinton into a "Yeah, but Romney!" (don't get whiplash kids), No actual addressing of what I said though.
You failed to note that I did not in any way dismiss your assessment of HRC.


I also didn't claim you did this. What I claimed is that you deflected my assessment of HRC by saying "Romney too!".

Quote:
I simply noted I had the same feelings about Romney (which I think cost him votes) ; if you're so fucking smart you would have understood that I was touching on your assessment of HRC (might cost her votes). Way to actually take what you read and think before you respond as you claim you always do and we fail at so hard.


If you were actually trying to say "Yeah, that could cost her votes, but if she runs against Romney, it might just wash out because he has the same thing going for him too", then that is a valid response to my assessment. I didn't get that in your response though. Maybe I'm just jaded from years of people using language like that, not to engage in discussion, but to divert attention away from a topic they don't want to discuss, that I jumped a bit. If that's the case, then I do apologize. But surely you can also understand how one could get the impression that your post might just be about deflection? You didn't actually elaborate on the point at all.


I guess to me, an response that consists solely of "him too!" isn't much of a response. Having dealt with the whole "Bush did this too!" spin whenever someone on the right criticizes something Obama does has kinda soured me on that. In that case, it's pretty much always about getting the other guy to engage in an argument about Bush's actions, and not talking about Obama's. Which is kinda obviously the whole point. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Now, to be fair, your comment does have a lot more relevance because of the possibility of Romney facing Clinton, so I'll grant you that. It just wasn't clear that this is where you were going with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jan 28 2015 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I took it as "I understand what you mean, that's how I viewed Romney". Maybe you were expecting backlash and so you took it as such? I can see how either interpretation could have been made.
#23 Jan 28 2015 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wouldn't be Gbaji without the martyrdom complex.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jan 29 2015 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I guess pondering if a political candidate might have been rejected because of a personality flaw that is shared with another candidate is quite polarizing, or something.


Haha, joke. Either gbaji is a total idiot (I mean really, could I have been plainer in what I was saying?) or he'll try to spin anything I write because...reasons?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#25 Jan 29 2015 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I do apologize.
As you should. Accepted.
gbaji wrote:
But surely you can also understand how one could get the impression that your post might just be about deflection?
It was simply an observation, as CLEARLY stated.

Here, let me hold your hand; just replace "AMC Pacer" with candidate" and "bad paint job" with "personality quirk":

gbaji: My friends' dad owned an 1976 AMC Pacer and it had a terrible paint job that peeled within a year

me: My mom's 1975 Pacer peeled like that, too. I wonder if that's why Pacers were not popular?
gbaji wrote:
. Now, to be fair, your comment does have a lot more relevance because of the possibility of Romney facing Clinton, so I'll grant you that. It just wasn't clear that this is where you were going with it.
It wasn't. At all. It was an observation about a possible shared trait as compared between two humans.


Get it yet?



Holy fuck. I'd give up on responding to you but I noticed Alma has passed me and may beat me to 10K and I can't let that happen, now can I?Smiley: tongue
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#26 Jan 29 2015 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess to me, any response that consists solely of "him too!" isn't much of a response.
A good way to keep people from making fun of your double standard would be to not have a double standard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)