State of the Union: Irony Edition

[Don]

As noted here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/48768.html),
What incredible irony that Obama gave the specific example of a glazier as a “beneficiary” of the “stimulus plan.” Bastiat would have gotten a kick out of that!
Here's the quote from the speech.
Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.
That's when I turned the TV off, rather than throwing the remote control through it and therefore making my own contribution to the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

Given Obama's intelligence and knowledge, he's well aware of Bastiat. He should have had a much bigger smirk on his face, secure in the understanding that his true ideological enemies would get the reference, and it would zoom over the rest of the audience. I'm betting most people missed it entirely.

I thought the rest of the analysis, although crude and simplistic, wasn't far off. ETA: I read the rest this morning.
He calls for more pork-barrel projects, protectionism, war, taxes, spying, nationalism, state jobs, student debt, business debt, housing debt, bureaucratic medicine, environmentalism, redistributionism, and general Mussolinism.
ETA: I was trying to be open-minded about his speech; really, I was. Then he pulled that glazier bullshit, and declared open warfare. Smirky-ass rat bastid.

The folks who thought he'd head back to the center were apparently mistaken. To his credit, he finally moved on DADT, but also defended his failed or failing agendas in Health Insurance Provider Welfare, Global Weather Whatever It's Called This Week, and more slaughter in more countries.

Anybody with a kinder take? :)

[Gretad08]

As noted here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/48768.html),

Here's the quote from the speech.

That's when I turned the TV off, rather than throwing the remote control through it and therefore making my own contribution to the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

Given Obama's intelligence and knowledge, he's well aware of Bastiat. He should have had a much bigger smirk on his face, secure in the understanding that his true ideological enemies would get the reference, and it would zoom over the rest of the audience. I'm betting most people missed it entirely.

I thought the rest of the analysis, although crude and simplistic, wasn't far off. ETA: I read the rest this morning.

ETA: I was trying to be open-minded about his speech; really, I was. Then he pulled that glazier bullshit, and declared open warfare. Smirky-ass rat bastid.

The folks who thought he'd head back to the center were apparently mistaken. To his credit, he finally moved on DADT, but also defended his failed or failing agendas in Health Insurance Provider Welfare, Global Weather Whatever It's Called This Week, and more slaughter in more countries.

Anybody with a kinder take? :)


Bolding mine. See Don, that's why I love reading this forum. I'm learning b/c I totally missed the reference, but, now, I get it.

I do not think Obama is an idiot...quite the contrary. What I do think is that he has no touch whatsoever with reality and he's a major believer of his own hype.

I wish I could say that the speech was unifying in some way, as he had promised his "reign" to be, but I found the speech and some of the behavior during the speech divisive.

For example, he spoke of the defecits and re-iterated the "I inherited a broken country from Bush" rhetoric. Bush spending was certainly out of control, but it didn't happen in a vaccuum. Obama was there in Washington, part of the political machine during the whole second term, and rather than controlling it once he took office, Obama increased spending exponentially.

Anyway, that's some of what I walked away with...take it or leave it.

[POPASMOKE]

Yea Don. I thought maybe he'd move just a little towards the center, but I'm not in the least surprised he didn't. Same ol' rhetoric.

Obama, pelosi and reid are like those dogs that love to chase cars. They got run over in Virginia. Chased one in NJ and got run over again. Chased a bus in Mass and really got bloodied. Still, they haven't learned. There's a freight train coming in November which I have no doubt will put an end to their obsessive behavior.

[Williebee]

There's a freight train coming in November which I have no doubt will put an end to their obsessive behavior.

But will it actually fix anything?

[POPASMOKE]

But will it actually fix anything?

Hi Will.

One can hope.

In a way, IMO, Obama's administration, Pelosi, Reid, et al, have actually done us a favor. Their extreme positions and willingness to offhandedly alienate and exclude a significant number of the American people and their elected reps has pissed off moderate center dems, repubs and independents. We've gotten a belly full of the most partisan, arrogant, and polarizing politics this country has experienced in decades. The Reagan and both Bush administrations aren't even wet matches compared to the destructive policies, extremist appointees, etc., the gang of three have foisted on this country.

People are fed up. With dems and repubs who won't put the interests of the public above their own. I know I'll be a lot more critical when I vote this fall and in 2012.

'Course I could be wrong.

[robeiae]

Hmmm.

Are you suggesting, Don, that Obama didn't actually get a letter from a window manufacurer in Philadelphia, that he made it up to needle you? Or was it just good luck that he got such a letter, so he could needle you?

I'm not certain Obama had Bastiat in mind here, at all. I think that's a bit of a reach.

But...that doesn't mean--imo--that the parable has no place, here. I think it fits in very well. ;)

[rugcat]

Their extreme positions and willingness to offhandedly alienate and exclude a significant number of the American people and their elected reps has pissed off moderate center dems, repubs and independents. We've gotten a belly full of the most partisan, arrogant, and polarizing politics this country has experienced in decades. See, here's one of the the problems. (My bold)

You are self identifying as a centrist. From your posts on this forum, I see you more as a far right conservative.

Which is fine, but it to me it underscores that in some people's view, anyone not a hard core conservative is termed an arrogant far left radical.

The admin will continue to piss these people off, no matter what they do, because they will never embrace a far right political stance.

In truth, they're rather centrist -- which is why the left wing of the party is now pissed at them.

Far from being arrogant, this admin has been far too conciliatory. It's time they start acting in the fashion they're being accused of and get something done, because the GOP will never stop opposing them, no matter what the issue.

I rather liked Jon Stewarts (http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/jon-stewart-warns-dems-republicans-are-fking-with-you-video/) take on this last night.

[Don]

But will it actually fix anything?
I'd like to believe, I really would. Unfortunately, I think Lysander Spooner has a more realistic viewpoint than I.
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Hmmm.

Are you suggesting, Don, that Obama didn't actually get a letter from a window manufacurer in Philadelphia, that he made it up to needle you? Or was it just good luck that he got such a letter, so he could needle you?

I'm not certain Obama had Bastiat in mind here, at all. I think that's a bit of a reach.

But...that doesn't mean--imo--that the parable has no place, here. I think it fits in very well. ;)
I'm certain that the White House got plenty of letters, from all sorts of industries, thanking him for playing Robin Hood in their behalf. I think some clever speechwriter put two and two together, and got some brownie points and a good laugh with The Man when they first reviewed the speech. I can damn near write the Oval Office dialog, and I bet you could too.

Did it originate with The O? More than likely not. Was he aware of it? I'd bet on it. The man's a Constitutional Scholar, after all. :rolleyes:

And I can certainly agree that the parable has a place here. As a matter of fact, my biggest hope is that everyone who reads this thread spends a bit of time in consideration of that smashed-in window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window) and how it relates to those billions of dollars The O committed to fixing glass previously broken by he and the other 544 in charge.

[Death Wizard]

I loved the speech. I found it inspirational, proactive and dead-on. If in attendance, I would have been one of the many standing and applauding, not one of the those sitting sourly in his or her seats. Surely, I'm not the only person who feels this way. But maybe I am.

[backslashbaby]

I do wonder how conservative folks expect elected democrats to be. Surely you noticed a few things that were more to the center?

I like the center, so I don't know that I'm complaining about the change. I'm mostly a Keynesian, so I don't know about the timing of it.

Will any of it pass Congress? [Ha] Will it really get more conservative voters, or are they only satisfied with what is, imho, not a democrat anymore?

And, unfortunately, I have to ask if any of it stands when it comes to making the sausage. I'm getting impatient with these speeches.

[POPASMOKE]

See, here's one of the the problems. (My bold)

You are self identifying as a centrist. From your posts on this forum, I see you more as a far right conservative.

As is quite evident from those who post on these threads, an individual's political labeling by others, isn't always accurate. From my own perspective, I support a woman's right to choose, with a caveat on late term abortion. I also think "don't ask, don't tell" should be eliminated. If someone is sexually harrassing another, regardless of gender, that's a disciplinary issue IMO and can be handled by the UCMJ, as heterosexual harrassment is handled. So where do those views fit a "far right conservative label? I readily admit to conservative views when it comes to terrorism, the military, immigration reform, etc., but see myself as slightly right of center on some issues and a little left on others.


The admin will continue to piss these people off, no matter what they do, because they will never embrace a far right political stance.So...in the bluist of states, Brown was swept into office by all those far right dems? Or was it the far left dems who were pissed at Bush who elected a republican?

I know you're far more discerning than this.

In truth, they're rather centrist -- which is why the left wing of the party is now pissed at them.Excuse me? it's not just the far left that is pissed at them. Independents, and center left and right are also. A lot of repubs crossed party lines and voted for Obama based upon his hope, change, and transparency bullshit.

[mscelina]

See, here's one of the the problems. (My bold)

You are self identifying as a centrist. From your posts on this forum, I see you more as a far right conservative.


And that's part of the problem, rugcat. You accuse everyone of being a conservative.

I'd like to believe, I really would. Unfortunately, I think Lysander Spooner has a more realistic viewpoint than I.

*snip*

Did it originate with The O? More than likely not. Was he aware of it? I'd bet on it. The man's a Constitutional Scholar, after all. :rolleyes:

And I can certainly agree that the parable has a place here. As a matter of fact, my biggest hope is that everyone who reads this thread spends a bit of time in consideration of that smashed-in window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window) and how it relates to those billions of dollars The O committed to fixing glass previously broken by he and the other 544 in charge.

He wasn't in on that glass breaking, Don. he was out campaigning.

I do wonder how conservative folks expect elected democrats to be. Surely you noticed a few things that were more to the center?

I like the center, so I don't know that I'm complaining about the change. I'm mostly a Keynesian, so I don't know about the timing of it.

Will any of it pass Congress? [Ha] Will it really get more conservative voters, or are they only satisfied with what is, imho, not a democrat anymore?

And, unfortunately, I have to ask if any of it stands when it comes to making the sausage. I'm getting impatient with these speeches.

Unfortunately, politicians run this country--and speeches are all they're good at. Straight down the line--liberal, conservative, moderate, independent, whatever cloak of many colors they're wearing, they always keep in mind their primary objective: to get re-elected. In order to do that, they'll switch allegiances and parties and rhetoric as often as it takes. They don't care what happens to the rest of the country as long as they keep their cushy jobs far away from the electorate they represent and negotiate deals with other politicians at nice resorts paid for by the lobbyist special interest groups.

[Slushie]

That's when I turned the TV off, rather than throwing the remote control through it and therefore making my own contribution to the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

Heh. Never heard of that before. I just got learned.

As far as the speech goes, I didn't watch it longer than the beginning twenty minutes or so. Standing and applauding after every talking point is just ridiculous. It annoyed me with Bush's SOTUs; it annoyed me with Obama's SOTU. Seriously, Congresspeople, sit down and STFU. It's annoying. And Pelosi's face reminds me of those Germans in Indiana Jones when they look at the Arc.

Anyways, ad-homs aside, I skimmed through the transcript and figured out pretty quick it's the same old rhetoric. Politician's words are worthless, whether they're mumbled on a street corner or proclaimed from a podium. Action is what matters.

[MattW]

I didn't watch - did anyone swoon?

[blacbird]

I thought he stuck it to Congress pretty good, and across the party spectrum, too. And anything anyone says that pisses off Sam Alito, I'm now all in favor of.

caw

[mscelina]

I thought he stuck it to Congress pretty good, and across the party spectrum, too. And anything anyone says that pisses off Sam Alito, I'm now all in favor of.

caw

:ROFL:

It wasn't quite a "You lie!" moment, but it was pretty damn close.

[Prozyan]

Come on now. The speech was brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, Chris Matthews forgot Obama was black (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/27/msnbcs_matthews_on_obama_i_forgot_he_was_black_ton ight.html) for an hour or so!

[rugcat]

As is quite evident from those who post on these threads, an individual's political labeling by others, isn't always accurate. True. Nor is people's self labeling necessarily accurate. If a person calls him or herself an "independent" but supports right wing positions 90% of the time, I feel comfortable in challenging their independent label.

Same would go for the left, though i can't offhand think of any liberals on the board who deny that they are.

As far as your own positions, I retract the "far right" label I assigned to you, with apologies. From my own perspective, I support a woman's right to choose, with a caveat on late term abortion. I also think "don't ask, don't tell" should be eliminated. These views are not incompatible with being a conservative.So...in the bluist of states, Brown was swept into office by all those far right dems? Or was it the far left dems who were pissed at Bush who elected a republican?I think we're seeing an anti incumbent sentiment, a disgust with government which gets focused on the party in charge. It's the same sentiment that swept the repubs out of power, and unless the state of the country, and esp the economy improves, the same will happen to the dems.

What frustrates me is that the GOP well understands this, and have decided, I believe, as a matter of strategy to do everything in their power to make sure things remain paralyzed.

If things get better, they'll remain a minority party with no power (except to obstruct) But if nothing improves, they may well regain their lost position. If bipartisan legislation is passed, it's seen by the voters as a triumph for Obama.

The only reason they would work toward this would be if they believe the welfare of the country is more important than their own ascension to power. And few if any politicians, on either side, have that kind of moral character.

[Gretad08]

Come on now. The speech was brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, Chris Matthews forgot Obama was black (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/27/msnbcs_matthews_on_obama_i_forgot_he_was_black_ton ight.html) for an hour or so!


That comment was just brilliant...what a maroon.

[robeiae]

Yeah, Mathews topped his previous "dumbest comment ever" with that one. The previous one: "Barack is now the last Kennedy brother," given after Ted Kennedy had passed away.

[Prozyan]

His clarification (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/28/matthews_clarifies_his_black_comment.html) is even better. Poor Rachel Maddow's look is classic.

[robeiae]

LOL! He was thinking about nothing but Obama being black, thus he forgot Obama was black! Great explanation...

[backslashbaby]

I'm impatient with Obama being Black, too ;) Jeez, folks, sometimes he's just the President, you know?

BTW, since Keynes is painted in various ways nowadays, and because it really is relevant to the state of the union, I'm going to link an article that I like. Sorry if it seems too much of a derail:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/13/john-maynard-keynes-conservative-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

[blacbird]

Yeah, Mathews topped his previous "dumbest comment ever" with that one. The previous one: "Barack is now the last Kennedy brother," given after Ted Kennedy had passed away.

I've dissed Matthews many times before here, so I might as well do it again. The guy needs a muzzle. If he'd clamp his mouth shut long enough to allow his brain to process thought, he might prove smarter than I think he is. But he's so busy with incessant, unremitting, unfiltered babble that it's a miracle he can button his shirt. Of all the politico-"pundit" talking heads on cable TV, he's the one I'd be most ecstatic to see disappear, way ahead of Beck, Hannity, Schultz or Oh'Really. (Actually, I don't want to see BillO disappear at all; him and Olbermann are just too much fun). I'll watch Pat Robertson before I can stand more than five seconds of Tweetybird Matthews.

Good news is I almost never watch any of them anymore. Once the 2008 election passed, they all got real lame real quick.

caw

[robeiae]

I don't think he's stupid. I think he just so desperately wants to say something "brilliant," something that is just so perfect, that he ends up saying boneheaded things. Ala Larry Merchant. I'm sure they sound better in his head...

[Norman D Gutter]

Obama said quite a few things in the SOTU address that I liked.

Unfortunately, I have no expectation he can get his party to implement any of them, nor that he will honestly try to convince them to. They are still living in Nancyland.

[robeiae]

My jaw hit the floor on the nuclear power and offshore drilling comment.

But yeah, there's no way that goes through. Hell, the Senate's already voted down the spending freeze.

[Magdalen]

From Don's link: It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented

I have a problem with this being called a fallacy. (i.e. the observation of the onlookers that the broken glass pane's replacement is a benefit to the local economy is incorrect)When considering the economic stimulus resulting from the shopkeeper's use of the glazier to replace the broken window, Bastiat suggests the funds might have otherwise been used to replace old shoes (a necessity) or for the purchase of a book (a luxury), although earlier in the example there is mention of the baker losing out. I think there's a breakdown in logic here because neither the replacement of the window nor the purchase of a book is a necessity, but man must have his daily bread. (Excepting those still looking to be carb-free) The Window Does Not Have To Be Replaced. The opening can be filled with cardboard or newspaper for weeks until the shopkeeper's son earns the money to replace the broken window, or the shopkeeper has a sale on pencils and through increased volume of sales, earns extra money to replace the window. If the shopkeeper decides to replace the window, he will still have to buy bread. Since the example ends with the assumption that the 6 francs will be spent (there's no consideration that they might be saved) on something, how is it significant whether the glazier or the baker benefit? They are both local merchants and the local economy benefits in either case. So, what am I missing here?

The possibility that the glazier paid the boy to break the glass, (which would be immoral behavior on both their parts) and at which point Don looks for his rubber brick, brings oranges into a discussion of apples, IMO.

[robeiae]

In the single instance, it IS a benefit. The fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that lots of broken windows are automatically beneficial, based on the observation of the one instance.

[backslashbaby]

I have a problem with this being called a fallacy. (i.e. the observation of the onlookers that the broken glass pane's replacement is a benefit to the local economy is incorrect)When considering the economic stimulus resulting from the shopkeeper's use of the glazier to replace the broken window, Bastiat suggests the funds might have otherwise been used to replace old shoes (a necessity) or for the purchase of a book (a luxury), although earlier in the example there is mention of the baker losing out. I think there's a breakdown in logic here because neither the replacement of the window nor the purchase of a book is a necessity, but man must have his daily bread. (Excepting those still looking to be carb-free) The Window Does Not Have To Be Replaced. The opening can be filled with cardboard or newspaper for weeks until the shopkeeper's son earns the money to replace the broken window, or the shopkeeper has a sale on pencils and through increased volume of sales, earns extra money to replace the window. If the shopkeeper decides to replace the window, he will still have to buy bread. Since the example ends with the assumption that the 6 francs will be spent (there's no consideration that they might be saved) on something, how is it significant whether the glazier or the baker benefit? They are both local merchants and the local economy benefits in either case. So, what am I missing here?

The possibility that the glazier paid the boy to break the glass, (which would be immoral behavior on both their parts) and at which point Don looks for his rubber brick, brings oranges into a discussion of apples, IMO.

See, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking. It doesn't matter, on a macro kind of level, what it's spent on if it's between shoes or a window. What would be different is if the Francs were under someone's mattress and then get spent on a window -- or shoes -- right then.

Then there are loans and things to consider (compared to the debt or deficit) but that's even more complicated.

In short, I see what he is demonstrating, but I don't think the whole thing can be boiled down so simply.

[Don]

Ah, but it does matter. The shoes would be new shoes, and add to the aggregate wealth of the community. The new window is offset by the broken damage, and no net gain is achieved.

Else it would be beneficial to the economy to blow up bridges so they would need to be replaced.

[Death Wizard]

Ah, but it does matter. The shoes would be new shoes, and add to the aggregate wealth of the community. The new window is offset by the broken damage, and no net gain is achieved.

Else it would be beneficial to the economy to blow up bridges so they would need to be replaced.

Newer windows are more energy efficient. Newer bridges won't need to be replaced as quickly.

[Don]

Newer windows are more energy efficient. Newer bridges won't need to be replaced as quickly.
That puts terrorists in a perspective I'd never imagined before. :D

[Death Wizard]

That puts terrorists in a perspective I'd never imagined before. :D


Hmmmmm ... you may be on to something!

[backslashbaby]

Ah, but it does matter. The shoes would be new shoes, and add to the aggregate wealth of the community. The new window is offset by the broken damage, and no net gain is achieved.

Else it would be beneficial to the economy to blow up bridges so they would need to be replaced.

I believe that's what I was saying :)

So extra spending is not always a bad thing for a community. It depends on where the money is coming from and why -- the alternative scenarios.

[AncientEagle]

I thought the speech was excellent and had a lot of meat in it. But then I listened to the opposition response and realized I'd been watching the wrong speech for the entire hour and ten minutes.

[Roger J Carlson]

See, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking. It doesn't matter, on a macro kind of level, what it's spent on if it's between shoes or a window. What would be different is if the Francs were under someone's mattress and then get spent on a window -- or shoes -- right then.

Then there are loans and things to consider (compared to the debt or deficit) but that's even more complicated.

In short, I see what he is demonstrating, but I don't think the whole thing can be boiled down so simply.By this light, Hurricane Katrina was a boon to New Orleans and not a disaster. Look at all the construction and clean-up jobs it created. I saw a Dirty Jobs episode about it. (Of course, the clean-up workers had been teachers, construction workers, and financial analysts.) It was a boon to the timber, construction, and home improvement industries, not to mention the flood of Federal Aid that followed.

I think we can all be pretty happy about it.

[Magdalen]

I'll bet the little boy who broke the window got a whipping, too. Accidents are seldom pretty.

[backslashbaby]

By this light, Hurricane Katrina was a boon to New Orleans and not a disaster. Look at all the construction and clean-up jobs it created. I saw a Dirty Jobs episode about it. (Of course, the clean-up workers had been teachers, construction workers, and financial analysts.) It was a boon to the timber, construction, and home improvement industries, not to mention the flood of Federal Aid that followed.

I think we can all be pretty happy about it.

If we're talking economics, I can't remember where 'happy' falls on the graph ;) I always get moody about the square root of 128, myself.

But yes, there can be economic gains from things like hurricaines. There are obvious losses. Sometimes the gains are more than the losses, odd as that sounds.

[Roger J Carlson]

If we're talking economics, I can't remember where 'happy' falls on the graph ;) I always get moody about the square root of 128, myself.

But yes, there can be economic gains from things like hurricaines. There are obvious losses. Sometimes the gains are more than the losses, odd as that sounds.If you don't think happiness, fear, greed, and other emotions don't drive economics, you don't understand it very well.

ETA: Just because some people profit from disaster (and I think the current economic policy in this country is a disaster) that doesn't make it good.

[backslashbaby]

That's all true, and I have a lot of feelings about how these things are used. The fact remains that there is a pseudo-scientific study of this stuff that is objective and hard to boil down simply.

The interpretation of what is happening when is prone to being subjective, so I don't know that my point matters at all in the end anyway ;)

[Zoombie]

I don't think he's stupid. I think he just so desperately wants to say something "brilliant," something that is just so perfect, that he ends up saying boneheaded things. Ala Larry Merchant. I'm sure they sound better in his head...

Now THATs the story of my life.

Also, this might reflect badly on me, but I was busy reading in a different room, so the only thing I got from this speech was there was a lot of applause and my parents told me that Obama said that he was going to get rid of don't ask don't tell.

So, on the whole, a good speech!

[sassandgroove]

I loved the speech. I found it inspirational, proactive and dead-on. If in attendance, I would have been one of the many standing and applauding, not one of the those sitting sourly in his or her seats. Surely, I'm not the only person who feels this way. But maybe I am.
What did you love about it?
What inspired you?
What was dead on?

[Death Wizard]

What did you love about it?
What inspired you?
What was dead on?

I loved everything about it. It all inspired me. It all was dead-on. It's as if he speaks with my own voice. The standing ovations and applause were appropriate to me. The sitting sourly wasn't.

I agreed that the Obama adminstration acted "immediately and aggressively" to shore up our financial system. I agreed with his many remarks about the pettiness of partisanship (and no, I don't see that as a Democrat-driven). I was inspired by his faith in Americans as a whole. I agreed when he said that he entered his tenure facing huge problems that were/are extremely difficult to fix. I think a fee on the big banks is a good idea and is dead-on. I was inspired by the many ways he detailed how he has gone about and continues to go about attempting to fix the financial mess he inherited. Using repaid billions to assist community banks rings true with me. Focusing on green jobs rings true with me. Focusing on building a 21st-century economy rings true with me. Investing in education rings true with me. Not giving up on health insurance reform is crucial beyond measure to me (and thus, I was devastated by Massachusetts). Everything that Obama has done diplomatically inspires me. Etc. Etc.

To me, Obama isn't just some average to below-average president who is just a little bit better than the rest of the mess. To me, he is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of president who could bring enormous good to our country and the world, if somehow permitted to do so. But I know that many, many disagree with me on this and scoff at it and angrily oppose this kind of thinking. There's nothing I can do about it. All I can do is state how I feel about it.

[dmytryp]

Everything that Obama has done diplomatically inspires me.
I am just curious, does that include the surge in Afghanistan?

[Zoombie]

I actually was listening to an interview on the radio with Hillary Clinton about how the Troop surge was being combined with an effort to offer alternatives for people in the Taliban to find a different way of life. The impression Clinton gave was that there were strata of people in the Taliban, with the crazies mixed in with the people who were just doing it because it pays better than anything else in the area.

The troop surge plus this new effort might have an effect.

Or it might do nothing but waste lives and money. I guess it depends on how the details are handled.

[robeiae]

I don't think he's stupid. I think he just so desperately wants to say something "brilliant," something that is just so perfect, that he ends up saying boneheaded things. Ala Larry Merchant. I'm sure they sound better in his head...

Now THATs the story of my life.

Also, this might reflect badly on me, but I was busy reading in a different room, so the only thing I got from this speech was there was a lot of applause and my parents told me that Obama said that he was going to get rid of don't ask don't tell.

So, on the whole, a good speech!
You know the comments of mine that you quoted were about Chris Mathews, not President Obama, right?

[Death Wizard]

I am just curious, does that include the surge in Afghanistan?

I've said before that you're either all in or all out.

[dmytryp]

I've said before that you're either all in or all out.
Interesting position for a guy with your beliefs.

[Prozyan]

Personally, I thought it was a pretty good speech, I thought it hit most of the right points. More importantly, I thought (and still do think) it was/is way past time for pretty speeches. I think its time for some tangible action rather than words.

I also think its time to stop blaming the past. At this rate it looks like they are going to play the Bush Boogeyman card for the rest of the term.

I might have been inspired if it wasn't basically the same speech we got during the campaign trail. Without any substance to back up what he's saying, I have to think of it as nothing more than pretty words.

Here's to hoping he can actually back up some of the rhetoric this year.

Obama has proven he is one hell of a speaker. I don't think anyone can deny that. Now he has to prove he can walk the talk.

[Don]

Obama has proven he is one hell of a speaker. I don't think anyone can deny that. Now he has to prove he can walk the talk.
He shore do talk pretty, don't he?1

Apparently, when the American people asked for deliverance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/) from Bush, Dog, practical joker that he is, decided we'd rather see a remake of an old movie.

Does anybody but me hear funny banjo music when he's speechifyin? :D





1Yes, I know it's a misquote, but it still works.

[sassandgroove]

I loved everything about it. It all inspired me. It all was dead-on. It's as if he speaks with my own voice. The standing ovations and applause were appropriate to me. The sitting sourly wasn't.

I agreed that the Obama adminstration acted "immediately and aggressively" to shore up our financial system. I agreed with his many remarks about the pettiness of partisanship (and no, I don't see that as a Democrat-driven). I was inspired by his faith in Americans as a whole. I agreed when he said that he entered his tenure facing huge problems that were/are extremely difficult to fix. I think a fee on the big banks is a good idea and is dead-on. I was inspired by the many ways he detailed how he has gone about and continues to go about attempting to fix the financial mess he inherited. Using repaid billions to assist community banks rings true with me. Focusing on green jobs rings true with me. Focusing on building a 21st-century economy rings true with me. Investing in education rings true with me. Not giving up on health insurance reform is crucial beyond measure to me (and thus, I was devastated by Massachusetts). Everything that Obama has done diplomatically inspires me. Etc. Etc.

To me, Obama isn't just some average to below-average president who is just a little bit better than the rest of the mess. To me, he is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of president who could bring enormous good to our country and the world, if somehow permitted to do so. But I know that many, many disagree with me on this and scoff at it and angrily oppose this kind of thinking. There's nothing I can do about it. All I can do is state how I feel about it.

THanks for the honest answer.

i was inspired to join the next tea party rally.

If I could believe his lies I might be inspired. As for what he was honest about, well, I disagree with him.

Taxing the banks that already paid back their money - how does that help? First of all they aren't going to pay it, the consumer - we- are. Second- our community banks were stronger and didn't need a bail out. How does REDISTRIBUTION of wealth from BIG BANKS to community banks help? It isn't even needed. We were already at a credit union for our savings and moved to a community bank from a national bank during this whole mess becuase it was performing better and we felt safer. THis whole thing is just silly and useless.

Paying out student loans sounds nice, but how is the gov't going to pay for it? Oh right- taxes. I'd rather pay for my own school thanks.

Health insurance- in short - I can shop around for home owners insurance, car insurance, life insurance, but not health insurance. you want to fix it, make it so I can decide my coverage and decide what price level I can afford. In a word, competition. The gov't has no business meddling with my health. What he was saying about saving billions is either naive or an out right lie on his part.

Not to mention lies like not hiring lobbyists when he has 20 or so on his staff.

[Don]

Another (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Special-interests-dominate-Obama_s-State-of-the-Union-82955377.html) take on the SOTU speech, including more about that windowmaker in the OP.
And even in the world of windows, political connections are becoming increasingly crucial. Consider California window maker Serious Materials. In May, the company hired its first lobbyists -- from the same firm that represents GE on trains, with lobbyists including a former top Democratic staffer at the House science committee.

Obama and Vice President Biden both used public events specifically to tout Serious' windows -- a fact made even more awkward by the fact, first reported by Fox Business Network's John Stossel, that Cathy Zoi, the White House official in charge of weatherization, is married to a Serious Materials executive.
Who's turn is it to pretend outrage? I'm all out of mocking derision.

[robeiae]

Coincidence.

[Death Wizard]

THanks for the honest answer.

i was inspired to join the next tea party rally.

If I could believe his lies I might be inspired. As for what he was honest about, well, I disagree with him.

Taxing the banks that already paid back their money - how does that help? First of all they aren't going to pay it, the consumer - we- are. Second- our community banks were stronger and didn't need a bail out. How does REDISTRIBUTION of wealth from BIG BANKS to community banks help? It isn't even needed. We were already at a credit union for our savings and moved to a community bank from a national bank during this whole mess becuase it was performing better and we felt safer. THis whole thing is just silly and useless.

Paying out student loans sounds nice, but how is the gov't going to pay for it? Oh right- taxes. I'd rather pay for my own school thanks.

Health insurance- in short - I can shop around for home owners insurance, car insurance, life insurance, but not health insurance. you want to fix it, make it so I can decide my coverage and decide what price level I can afford. In a word, competition. The gov't has no business meddling with my health. What he was saying about saving billions is either naive or an out right lie on his part.

Not to mention lies like not hiring lobbyists when he has 20 or so on his staff.

I can't relate to statements like "believe his lies." That's too far right for me. But we all have the right to our opinions.

[sassandgroove]

I can't relate to statements like "believe his lies." That's too far right for me. But we all have the right to our opinions. How is that "right?"

[Death Wizard]

How is that "right?"

As a whole, I don't see those on the left calling him a liar.

[sassandgroove]

Ok.

So you believe him when he says he's going to stop outside influences, and not hire lobbyists, while he meets with unions and hires lobbyists?

Good for you.

[Death Wizard]

Ok.

So you believe him when he says he's going to stop outside influences, and not hire lobbyists, while he meets with unions and hires lobbyists?

Good for you.


Sorry. I really wasn't intending to turn this into something negative with you or anyone.

[Summonere]

...Pelosi's face reminds me of those Germans in Indiana Jones when they look at the Arc.

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> I didn't see the speech, but that's funny as hell (a word I use advisedly).

[tiny]

Ok.

So you believe him when he says he's going to stop outside influences, and not hire lobbyists, while he meets with unions and hires lobbyists?

Good for you.

When you point out the specifics, the conversation with you dies because there is no defense to certain truths. Admission that he's not been anything but perfection won't come from some.

I didn't watch, I'm not interested in pretty speeches with applause every thirty seconds or so and I'm still not ready to forgive for the attempt to make veterans pay for their combat injuries some months ago. I wish him the best in a tough situation, but I'm seeing what I expected, not that I would have expected more with a different president. The system is flawed. Horribly flawed.

[Death Wizard]

When you point out the specifics, the conversation with you dies because there is no defense to certain truths. Admission that he's not been anything but perfection won't come from some.

I didn't watch, I'm not interested in pretty speeches with applause every thirty seconds or so and I'm still not ready to forgive for the attempt to make veterans pay for their combat injuries some months ago. I wish him the best in a tough situation, but I'm seeing what I expected, not that I would have expected more with a different president. The system is flawed. Horribly flawed.

You can call it specifics if you like, but there is a side to every story. It just becomes wearisome to drone on about it.

[tiny]

Of course, discussions are terrible things especially when faced with something which cannot be countered. Drone is an interesting word choice.

[Death Wizard]

Of course, discussions are terrible things especially when faced with something which cannot be countered. Drone is an interesting word choice.

Of course it can be countered. But the inevitable anger makes it not worth it.

[tiny]

Yes, absolutely. Sort of like the "drone" mentality is tiring so there's no point in engaging someone with it. I understand.

[Death Wizard]

Yes, absolutely. Sort of like the "drone" mentality is tiring so there's no point in engaging someone with it. I understand.

It was a long, contentious campaign followed by an enormously difficult first year. Thousands of things are said. Thousands of promises made. Things change by the minute. It's fluid and chaotic. Decisions are made every day. New decisions. Things have never been more complicated.

So to make a statement about unions and lobbyists as if this is some sort of proof that Obama is a liar is, to me, not being "specific," as you stated. It only addresses the anti-Obama version of things. And this doesn't even begin to take into account what Obama or his supporters would have to say about it in defense.

[rugcat]

Yes, absolutely. Sort of like the "drone" mentality is tiring so there's no point in engaging someone with it. I understand.There's little point in discussing the same sorts of things over and over with those whose opinions are already unalterably fixed, that's all.

[sandyn]

There's little point in discussing the same sorts of things over and over with those whose opinions are already unalterably fixed, that's all.

Absolutely correct!

I did not watch the 'speech' because IMHO anything said would be merely the 'same old, same old' we heard on the campaign trail. I wish O would get off the trail and on the job. I also wish he would cease blaming the previous administration for everything that has gone wrong in HIS administration. It's time to step up to the plate or step away.

What little I saw in recaps had me wondering why he thinks the difficult position of President is so amusing...too many smirks and jokey comments for me.

[sassandgroove]

DW-So you don't think it is worth examining what he says verses what he does? Or any one- any politician?

For example- here in Alabama our governor has been rallying against legalizing gambling. He's created an anti-gambling task force or something, and has been raiding the few legal gambling places we have. Then it comes out that he rec'd campaign contributions from the indians in MS that have casinos. (ie they want alabamians to go there to gamble) and the head of his taskforce has been seen gambling at said indian casinos. And winning.

DOn't you think that's relevant? What they are doing along with what they are saying? It casts his anti gambling rhetoric in a different light. Instead of being against it for 'moral reasons', It makes one think that he isn't opposed to gambling, but is instead helping the indians prosper in their casino by forcing alabamians who want to gamble to drive there instead of gamble at home.

DO you see what I mean? It does matter what people do not just how good they say things.

[Death Wizard]

DW-So you don't think it is worth examining what he says verses what he does? Or any one- any politician?

For example- here in Alabama our governor has been rallying against legalizing gambling. He's created an anti-gambling task force or something, and has been raiding the few legal gambling places we have. Then it comes out that he rec'd campaign contributions from the indians in MS that have casinos. (ie they want alabamians to go there to gamble) and the head of his taskforce has been seen gambling at said indian casinos. And winning.

DOn't you think that's relevant? What they are doing along with what they are saying? It casts his anti gambling rhetoric in a different light. Instead of being against it for 'moral reasons', It makes one think that he isn't opposed to gambling, but is instead helping the indians prosper in their casino by forcing alabamians who want to gamble to drive there instead of gamble at home.

DO you see what I mean? It does matter what people do not just how good they say things.

There's a difference between examining from a predisposed viewpoint and examining from a sincerely neutral viewpoint. If you're determined to see Obama as a failure, then that's what you'll see. If you have no dog in the fight and you're examining Obama, then what will you see?

[sassandgroove]

There's a difference between examining from a predisposed viewpoint and examining from a sincerely neutral viewpoint. If you're determined to see Obama as a failure, then that's what you'll see. If you have no dog in the fight and you're examining Obama, then what will you see?
The opposite is also true. If you're determined to see Obama as a success, then that's what you'll see. If you have no dog in the fight - then what will you see?

Why do you not answer direct questions? is there not value in examining what is said verses what is done?

[Death Wizard]

The opposite is also true. If you're determined to see Obama as a success, then that's what you'll see. If you have no dog in the fight - then what will you see?

Why do you not answer direct questions? is there not value in examining what is said verses what is done?

Why do you accuse me of not answering direct questions? It seems to be your main recourse against me.

From my standpoint, I do answer direct questions, over and over and over. The problem is you don't give my answers any credence (and vice versa). So eventually I stop answering.

As for the "opposite" being true, in this I am in total agreement with you. But I've never denied my partisanship. The only thing I've ever said is that I believe my side is right.

If you and I stuck to books and movies over a pitcher of beer (assuming you drink), we'd probably get along famously. But politically, we're oil and water. What's the use? It'd be like trying to talk a Christian into becoming an atheist.

[sassandgroove]

Can I have a rum drink instead?

[Death Wizard]

Can I have a rum drink instead?

Only if I can have a marguerita. And if we stray into politics, you have to promise not to punch me!