• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transcript: Obama's State Of The Union Address 2014

Any body who pays the least bit of attention to the news knows that what's changed is the conservative infestation of the GOP all doing their Rush Limbaugh impressions. The GOP knows it too and are struggling with finding the cure that costs them the fewest votes.

Anyone who has ever taken a civics class knows that your opinions aren't fact and the facts are Obama and the Senate shutdown the govt. not the House. The House passed legislation that the Senate and President refused to see, that is what shutdown the govt
 
Doesn't make sense. I agree that businesses operate on the guiding principle of making money. Related to that, they pay employees the least amount they can get away with and still retain that employee.( that btw , is the guiding principle behinde he yankess paying Tanka 215 million- that is the LEAST amount thay thought they could offer and be assured of signing him). But if this is THE guiding princple why would they pay men more than women, unless you are contradicting yourself and claiming sexism is actually the overriding principle.

Women have been taught that because of babies they are worth less. It's traditional. Of course business will, in time, correct this thanks to the actions of many female CEOs. The government has a role in the rate of change. Accepting that role will gain democrats and cost Republicans votes.

That's called democracy. Something many Republicans reject.
 
Bingo Z.

What has made civilized nations work, and America stand so far is that we are a nation of laws. If the house and senate put together a law, the President signs it, thus is it the "law of the land". The SCOTUS can shoot the law down if it is not Constitutional. After that, that is it, it is THE LAW.

Let's play this out, the House and Senate push through a law stating that all people must wear Purple on Tuesdays, but may not wear Purple any other day, the President signs this into law, and just a step further let's say SCOTUS didn't shoot it down. Thus every Tuesday, we all wear Purple! But only on Tuesdays. That's it folks. End of story. Where in the powers of the Constitution does the President have the right to say "This, is the law of the land, except in Minnesota! You can wear purple on Sundays and game day Thursdays! (That's a Vikings reference for those that aren't Vikings fans, probably means most of you missed it ;P ) Oh and the Purple Union can wear Purple when they gather, because I granted them a waiver!" He doesn't have that power. He cannot do it. The law itself must be changed by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Otherwise, the Next President can waltz in and sign an EO saying "No one can wear purple! It's Blue, everyone has to wear Blue on Tuesdays, except Dallas fans, they can wear it on gamedays!" What's to stop such idiocy?

Nothing. And that is the great danger the Executive Order has always held, why previous uses are generally clarifying, or adding a rule not completely circumventing the LAW as written. Thus the amount, isn't as serious as the course taken. Granted, I'm no fan of Obama, but I believe, and many left, right and middle are very concerned that he's taking the Office of the President and trying to play King. That's bad enough, but what about the next "King"? All of you saying EO's are good! now, will be gnashing your teeth if President Palin said "Abortion is bad, I'm signing this here EO outlawing Abortion after 6 weeks".

That's the path of anarchy, the destruction of the very fabric of Law that keeps society from flying apart. We cannot allow this to continue, but it is, we're watching national suicide in slow motion!
 
We have the 17th amendment to do away with Republicans gerry-mandering the Senate before the age of Progress--ives starting in 1900.

Huh? The republican party didn't exist when gerrymandering was coined and they had only existed for 40 years by the time the 17th was being brought to convention. And considering there was significant republican support of the amendment (wouldn't have passed without it), shows your hyperpartisanship and lack of knowledge on the issue.
 
Women have been taught that because of babies they are worth less. It's traditional. Of course business will, in time, correct this thanks to the actions of many female CEOs. The government has a role in the rate of change. Accepting that role will gain democrats and cost Republicans votes.

That's called democracy. Something many Republicans reject.

It's called selling pabulum to low information voters ; something at which Democrats excel.
 
Those Republicans you speak of were Teddy Roosevelt's progress--ives that today's conservatives completely thrash, worse than RINOs.
The republican party didn't exist when gerrymandering was coined
But they sure mastered the concept quickly in the 1860's didn't they?
and they had only existed for 40 years by the time the 17th was being brought to convention.
And considering there was significant republican support of the amendment
So you supported those Progress--ives then!
shows your hyperpartisanship and lack of knowledge on the issue.
Always an insult at the end with you.
Now that you've been completely refuted in this post, let's just "Let It Be" for another evening, unless you can stop insulting.
I always want to hear about Oregon .
 
That's called democracy. Something many Republicans reject.
I'm surprised he didn't reject democracy, since the rightie "constitutionalists" say we're a republic, not a democracy.
Guess they forgot that word used for the first party, Democratic-Republicans .
 
Bingo Z.

What has made civilized nations work, and America stand so far is that we are a nation of laws. If the house and senate put together a law, the President signs it, thus is it the "law of the land". The SCOTUS can shoot the law down if it is not Constitutional. After that, that is it, it is THE LAW.

Let's play this out, the House and Senate push through a law stating that all people must wear Purple on Tuesdays, but may not wear Purple any other day, the President signs this into law, and just a step further let's say SCOTUS didn't shoot it down. Thus every Tuesday, we all wear Purple! But only on Tuesdays. That's it folks. End of story. Where in the powers of the Constitution does the President have the right to say "This, is the law of the land, except in Minnesota! You can wear purple on Sundays and game day Thursdays! (That's a Vikings reference for those that aren't Vikings fans, probably means most of you missed it ;P ) Oh and the Purple Union can wear Purple when they gather, because I granted them a waiver!" He doesn't have that power. He cannot do it. The law itself must be changed by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Otherwise, the Next President can waltz in and sign an EO saying "No one can wear purple! It's Blue, everyone has to wear Blue on Tuesdays, except Dallas fans, they can wear it on gamedays!" What's to stop such idiocy?

Nothing. And that is the great danger the Executive Order has always held, why previous uses are generally clarifying, or adding a rule not completely circumventing the LAW as written. Thus the amount, isn't as serious as the course taken. Granted, I'm no fan of Obama, but I believe, and many left, right and middle are very concerned that he's taking the Office of the President and trying to play King. That's bad enough, but what about the next "King"? All of you saying EO's are good! now, will be gnashing your teeth if President Palin said "Abortion is bad, I'm signing this here EO outlawing Abortion after 6 weeks".

That's the path of anarchy, the destruction of the very fabric of Law that keeps society from flying apart. We cannot allow this to continue, but it is, we're watching national suicide in slow motion!

I'm pretty sure that what will stop this idiocy is democracy holding the GOP accountable for failure to govern.

Conservative extremists, who have been taught that government is corrupt, and we don't need it anymore, by a few uber wealthy who love money more than country, have rendered their Republican puppets paralyzed. They can no longer govern. They are no longer statesmen. It's their way or the highway.

That's simply unacceptable performance to a majority of Americans.

They will be voted out. We will recover. Media driven conservative fanaticism will go the way of leisure suits. It will be as dark a chapter in our history as the Middle Ages were in human history.

Only then will the recovery of the Republican Party begin.
 
I'm pretty sure that what will stop this idiocy is democracy holding the GOP accountable for failure to govern.
Dude, do you think for yourself or do you get your talking points from MSNBC?

Conservative extremists, who have been taught that government is corrupt, and we don't need it anymore, by a few uber wealthy who love money more than country, have rendered their Republican puppets paralyzed. They can no longer govern. They are no longer statesmen. It's their way or the highway.
You really have no idea what Conservatives stand for or believe, you just mouth breath bull**** across the screen and hit enter then move on to the next thread/post you decide requires your brilliant regurgitation of hate.

That's simply unacceptable performance to a majority of Americans.
You wouldn't know a majority of American's if they walked across your lawn.

They will be voted out. We will recover. Media driven conservative fanaticism will go the way of leisure suits. It will be as dark a chapter in our history as the Middle Ages were in human history.
What planet do you live on? It's not earth. Maybe you live in NYC? That would explain a lot...
Only then will the recovery of the Republican Party begin.
The ONLY GOP you would like is a minority GOP run by Olympia Snowe and Chaired by Arlen specter.
 
Dude, do you think for yourself or do you get your talking points from MSNBC?


You really have no idea what Conservatives stand for or believe, you just mouth breath bull**** across the screen and hit enter then move on to the next thread/post you decide requires your brilliant regurgitation of hate.


You wouldn't know a majority of American's if they walked across your lawn.


What planet do you live on? It's not earth. Maybe you live in NYC? That would explain a lot...

The ONLY GOP you would like is a minority GOP run by Olympia Snowe and Chaired by Arlen specter.

I have way more faith in democracy than your media bred opinions.
 
I have way more faith in democracy than your media bred opinions.

You don't know my opinions. You didn't address anything I posted, you just attacked conservatives with some wacky ass brush of demented ignorance.


Let me ask you three questions:

Are Conservatives for No Government, Limited Scope Government or Big Government?

Are Conservatives Racist?

Are Conservatives just Rich White Guys supported by fools that don't see the real evil in the system?
 
You don't know my opinions. You didn't address anything I posted, you just attacked conservatives with some wacky ass brush of demented ignorance.


Let me ask you three questions:

Are Conservatives for No Government, Limited Scope Government or Big Government?

Are Conservatives Racist?

Are Conservatives just Rich White Guys supported by fools that don't see the real evil in the system?

Whose opinions have you been posting?
 
Whose opinions have you been posting?

Okay, well this is enough thread derailment for me, you can't answer the questions my job is done, /wave
 
And since it favors the GOP by a wide margin at this present moment of awareness in time, no problem right ?

I don't have a huge issue with Gerry Mandering in general, as it's long been a part of our politics and I don't know of many realistic ways to actually deal with the situation better. So at the moment it's something similar to the SCOTUS, where it's a big, long lasting bonus for winning elections at random times. I didn't have an issue when I was living down in one of the worst democratically gerrymandered districts in Virginia, and I don't really care about it now. It has nothing to do with who it favors over all currently...though the same accusation you're levying here could be turned back around on you and suggested you only have an issue with it because it favors the GOP currently.

None of which addresses the fact that you laughably keep avoiding answering a pretty straight forward question by saying two words that don't really answer it and are rather non-sensical given their existence for pretty much the entire existence of the House.
 
None of which addresses the fact that you laughably keep avoiding answering a pretty straight forward question by saying two words that don't really answer it and are rather non-sensical given their existence for pretty much the entire existence of the House.


Are you pleased with the set-up guaranteeing little turnover in the current House.

Since I'm partisan but moderate upon coming to dp, my only hope is Mr. Boehner.

Though I must say Mr. Ryan is making sensible noises coming out of this "retreat" in Maryland.

Let's hope the GOP can come to an agreement with themselves so the Nation can move forward .
 
Are you pleased with the set-up guaranteeing little turnover in the current House.

I'm indifferent to it. Regardless of Gerry Mandering, which is a LONG standing process that has impacted EVERY house election so whining about it is rather silly in my mind, ultimately it'll come down to the votes of the people. If they're not happy with their representatives, they'll vote them out. If they're happy with them, they'll stay.

I do hope the Republicans keep control after 2014, and I believe they will, because in general I agree with their agenda far more than I agree with the agenda of the Democrats in the house, but I don't really care if there's turnover, or if some are primaries out, or anything else of the sort.
 
I don't have a huge issue with Gerry Mandering in general, as it's long been a part of our politics and I don't know of many realistic ways to actually deal with the situation better.
There is a "Commission" method that is just beginning to move through the states, such as California.
As you would surmise, I would want all states to use the same, fair, commission technique, instead of tainted state's rights.
So at the moment it's something similar to the SCOTUS, where it's a big, long lasting bonus for winning elections at random times.
Do you support a SCOTUS justice who has never spoken during deliberations.
I favor replacing said justice with one that the GOP settles on.
I didn't have an issue when I was living down in one of the worst democratically gerrymandered districts in Virginia, and I don't really care about it now. It has nothing to do with who it favors over all currently
Our system does make a difference overall.
There are 30 minority/majority districts.
Of the other 405, 234 are GOP.
The DEM m/M plurality of only 30 seats had one-half million more total votes than the the 234-171 GOP plurality,
with a 2-to-1 edge in individual states that are GMed for the GOP.
though the same accusation you're levying here could be turned back around on you and suggested you only have an issue with it because it favors the GOP currently.
I agree.
Here in Illinois, we really ****ed the GOP, putting two sitting GOP Reps in the same C.D. and stuff.
 
Last edited:
Those Republicans you speak of were Teddy Roosevelt's progress--ives that today's conservatives completely thrash, worse than RINOs.

And Teddy would have been no fan of the current crop that call themselves progressives either, so?

But they sure mastered the concept quickly in the 1860's didn't they?

Actually, no they didn't. The democrats had about a hundred year head start in using it to their benefit.

So you supported those Progress--ives then!

Yeah, I kinda get a chuckle out of TR, I laugh at the way he defied congress, fought the sugar trust and bowled in the White House (sans bowling lanes). But I doubt highly you would have enjoyed actually living under his presidency any more than I would have.

Always an insult at the end with you.
Now that you've been completely refuted in this post, let's just "Let It Be" for another evening, unless you can stop insulting.
I always want to hear about Oregon .

Statement of fact, not an insult unless you think it applies. :mrgreen:

You've refuted nothing and shown you don't know much about TR to boot.
 
So your opinion is that the GOP House shutdown the govt. and Obama along with the Senate had nothing to do with it? Have you ever taken a civics class?

Just ignore him. He isn't adding anything to this thread.
 
And Teddy would have been no fan of the current crop that call themselves progressives either, so?
well, TR was against 9-YO miners with missing fingers and toes, from the other end of his party.

The democrats had about a hundred year head start in using it to their benefit.
Yeah those pesky Southern Conservatives really ****ed things up in this Nation didn't they?


Yeah, I kinda get a chuckle out of TR, I laugh at the way he defied congress, fought the sugar trust
I'm glad to see you've noticed the coincidences between TR and BHO.
But I doubt highly you would have enjoyed actually living under his presidency any more than I would have.
Cleaning up after the Gilded age would have been tough.
I certainly support the 16th amendment he championed and proudly pay my American taxes.
Statement of fact, not an insult unless you think it applies. :mrgreen:
I'm doing my best not to post like this, as per warnings in other threads.
You've refuted nothing
which is why you're still spinning.
and shown you don't know much about TR to boot.
As a teacher, our motto was "and gladly would he learn and gladly teach" .
 
Last edited:
well, TR was against 9-YO miners with missing fingers and toes, from the other end of his party.

I would have been too, but then there was another side to the issue. There was no social safety net and the families of those children working relied upon the money the kid was bringing in. That stopped, do you suppose realistically that things were any better for the kid since the family was now even poorer?

Btw, I went to work when I was 12, recapping tires with a couple other older fellows who had lost fingers.

Yeah those pesky Southern Conservatives really ****ed things up in this Nation didn't they?

Funny you should say that when a lot of that child labor you were just complaining about was in the North.

I'm glad to see you've noticed the coincidences between TR and BHO.

Proving once again you know nothing about TR.

Cleaning up after the Gilded age would have been tough.
I certainly support the 16th amendment he championed and proudly pay my American taxes.

He did no such thing. He was quite simply a president for his time. About as much as he got right, he got wrong. Btw, he was a confirmed racist with a hard "R". I suppose that's okay too as long as he called himself a progressive?

I'm doing my best not to post like this, as per warnings in other threads.

Good for you and a good idea.

which is why you're still spinning.

As a teacher, our motto was "and gladly would he learn and gladly teach" .

There's no spin involved, just correction of your multiple errors where it comes to TR and actual history. Stick with the "gladly would he learn" part, that should always precede the "and gladly teach" part.
 
Are you pleased with the set-up guaranteeing little turnover in the current House.

Since I'm partisan but moderate upon coming to dp, my only hope is Mr. Boehner.

Though I must say Mr. Ryan is making sensible noises coming out of this "retreat" in Maryland.

Let's hope the GOP can come to an agreement with themselves so the Nation can move forward .

They simply have to evict conservatives in a public way. The Southern Democrats, the root stock of the conservative genre, had the same destructive effect on Democrats during the civil rights days. They were shown the door by LBJ.

Republicans have to do the same in order to return to getting things done. A thrashing at the polls will inspire the courage and resolve required.

As a displaced but still registered Republican, I say that the recovery can't happen quick enough. Our democracy won't be effective as a one party system.
 
I voted for State Republicans here in IL for my first votes in 1972, the very good Gov. Ogilvie lost and Sen. Percy won.
I couldn't vote for Nixon, being the cynic I was, Kissinger ending the draft during an election year just coinciding with the loss of the 2S deferment.
They simply have to evict conservatives in a public way. The Southern Democrats, the root stock of the conservative genre, had the same destructive effect on Democrats during the civil rights days. They were shown the door by LBJ.
Boehner reminds me of a more handsomely-spoken and straight-forward LBJ.
Even noises from Rep. Paul sounded good.
I hope it's genuine .
 
I voted for State Republicans here in IL for my first votes in 1972, the very good Gov. Ogilvie lost and Sen. Percy won.
I couldn't vote for Nixon, being the cynic I was, Kissinger ending the draft during an election year just coinciding with the loss of the 2S deferment.

Boehner reminds me of a more handsomely-spoken and straight-forward LBJ.
Even noises from Rep. Paul sounded good.
I hope it's genuine .

Because there were a few moments when conservative's were drunk on Reagan's, "the government is not the solution, the government is the problem", Boehner was convinced that he had enough political capital to shut down government. A gross miscalculation on his part mistaking a temporary fashion with a long term shift in American values.

Now that he has committed himself to that position, and the ground beneath him has shifted, he's stuck holding the bag.

He's nothing if not a consummate politician, so perhaps he can dig himself out, but I don't see how. He just may have to be sacrificed along with those who sucked him in, to the rebuilding of the party.

I frankly would hate to be in his shoes.
 
Back
Top Bottom