BF2S Forums State of the Union

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?"

Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.

During the State of the Union Address.

If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".

I disagree.  What Joe Wilson did is fine by me.  All these rules of decorum are just a way to dress up some system we pretend has dignity.

One blowhard makes a national address and gets yelled at by another blowhard.  That's entertaining shit in my book.

The same blowhard makes another national address and yells at a bunch of old judges....  still entertaining.

I like the way Parliament is less formal over in the U.K.  They yell at each other all of the time, and that makes for much more interesting viewing.

The US Congress is not a Jerry Springer show... I mean, is this what you want out SOTU to really look like instead?


Would be much more entertaining, no?

so...can we stop about global warming now?  new study showed that global warming has slowed.(read it in the usa today so no link. find it or porve it wrong if you want to cry about it)  earthquakes kill more than anything from the clouds.  lets stop the stupidity.

ya thats it.

Spark wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

So, the Dems get to ram their ideas down the legislative throat of the nation because they hold a slighly higher majority than happens most of the time?

When only one side of the aisle can agree to the basic premise (and not even ALL of them), a closer examination of the idea is warranted!

Well, not "ramming down throats" but yeah, that's kinda what winning elections means.

If you believe in straight majoritarianism, sure.  The US federal government is not set up that way.  The reason we have such a complex process is to keep passing majorities from passing major pet projects that could harm a significant minority.

Diesel_Dyk wrote:

Bang that shit out. It would be a hell of lot quicker that this consensus crap and deal making that has been going on. He was elected with a strong mandate and he needs to be a doer and not a talker. If the situtation were reversed, the GOP would be using the electorial mandate like a bludgeon.

Can you explain what his mandate was for?  Was it a "not Bush or McCain" mandate, a healthcare mandate, a "do whatever you want, we fucking don't care anymore" mandate, or something else?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2010-01-30 14:03:24)

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.

Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.

So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?

Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.

During the State of the Union Address.

If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".

They are completely different. For one thing, the guy calling out "you lie" was breaking some basic courtesy rules.

As did critiquing a SCOTUS ruling during a SOTU speech. Hence my last sentence.

Dilbert_X wrote:

At least he didn't link AQ and Iraq, or claim Saddam had WMD when he knew he didn't.
Lying > Poor protocol

Oh ffs. Would you just stop beating that fucking drum? It was old a year ago and it's not getting better with age. And it's not getting any less untrue the more you say it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Meh, all this ranting about Obama making a breach of protocol compared with Bush lying to Congress and the people?

Meh, all this ranting about something that did happen vice you whining about something that didn't?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Meh, all this ranting about Obama making a breach of protocol compared with Bush lying to Congress and the people?

Meh, all this ranting about something that did happen vice you whining about something that didn't?

You know, your bum looks really big when you bend over to stick your head in the sand.

And yours looks even bigger with your head in it.

We've been over this time and again. And you've been proven wrong time and again. I'm not going to do it yet again just for shits and grins.

Once again: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. It's very simple, but if you're not willing to understand something so simple, I can't help you understand it.

RAIMIUS wrote:

True, but they certainly differ on purposes and how much it will cost me.

In the short run, yes.  In the long run, not so much.

Dems have entitlement programs, Repubs have war and a propensity to cut taxes while increasing spending.

The simple explanation is usually the right one, and in this case it is the right one.
I'd say knowingly stating as fact to congress things you have been advised are dubious at best during the SOTU speech shows a lack of decorum.

Stating something which you've specifically been told is not likely to be true is another though.

State of the Union LIES: (as provided by the AP):

Medicade, Trimming the fat of the Budget, Lobbiests in government, Unemployment, and national defense.  They guy spun until I'm dizzy.  Well, he didn't really spin -He outright lied to the people.  Again.

and then this one (my favorite):

Let me add at least one other whopper that the AP doesn’t mention.  Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class.  Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats.  In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years.  And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

YOU LIE!

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stating something which you've specifically been told is not likely to be true is another though.

Which didn't happen.

Stop the derail.

Did happen, curveball.

Didn't happen.

One source among many corroborated sources.

Again. Stop the derail.