Slashdot Mirror
State of the Union Address Goes Web 2.0
CWmike writes "The White House will be tapping Web 2.0 technology to reach out to Americans during and after the president's State of the Union address tonight. While President Barack Obama makes his annual address starting at 9 p.m. ET, the official White House Web site will have a live stream of the speech, along with charts and statistics to provide context and emphasize key points. 'We're putting the finishing touches on a new feature for WhiteHouse.gov that will offer an enhanced viewer experience for President Obama's State of the Union address,' wrote Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, in a blog post. Immediately after the State of the Union address, the White House will host an Open for Questions event on Twitter. Several senior administration officials will be fielding questions submitted on the White House Facebook page, the White House Webform, or via Twitter using the #sotu hashtag and responding to @whitehouse. And on Wednesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will take citizens' questions via Twitter before his post-State of the Union briefing. Anyone interested can follow @PressSec on Twitter to find out when Gibbs will take questions and post video responses. To submit a question for him, respond to @PressSec using the hashtag #1Q. At 2:30 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, Obama will take questions live on YouTube."
I won't be watching, The Real Housewives of New Jersey is on.
More honest likable people.
will it be html5, flash, or something else?
Don't open up discussion on Twitter. You can't say anything worth while there. Everyone knows this. All that will be there are trolls and worshipers.
"OBAMA U TARD KENYAN!"
**Comment Deleted**
"CENCERSHYPPP!!!!!!111"
Since when is video streaming a "Web 2.0" thing? That term seems to be tacked into everything web-related nowadays.
watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.
I will be watching Rush Limbaugh take golf lessons on The Haney Project.
Actions speak louder than words. The actions taken by government for the last twenty years show the American people are not of interest.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
We want to WRITE the state of the union in a wiki, not read about it on the web and make "comments" that are filtered, censored and nobody can read. It's a two-way free access medium, not a TV with a phone next to it.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I hope you bitches realize that no matter what your sorry asses are going to complain. Next election time I wanna see you in the running for president of the USA. If not STFU. I mean, the way I grew up was, "if you are not happy with the situation, do something about it." Are you all just lip service? Don't hate the media... BECOME THE MEDIA! .... end of line .... Beeeechaz
Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway. Obama is firmly in the pocket of the elite that run America. Forget the "hopey changy" stuff, it ain't going to happen. His job now is to smother the angry and dismayed progressives who elected him by controlling the internet.
Finally I got sick of paying US taxes and having no US rights so I left, and am again a Mexican citizen in Mexico, as well as still a "citizen" of the Web. Can I participate in #sotu and post comments too?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Wait until it's in 3D, which they are working on using the same technology Cameron used for Avatar. You'll be able to see how you're being fucked in 3D. Imagine that!
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
The question taking will most likely be moderated to only include subjectively good questions. Things like "why did you do the opposite of what 90% of your campaign said" are extremely unlikely to appear
The previous administration used the #stfu tag.
Oh wow...now politicians can lie to use with live streaming and "web 2.0" technology. The pipes are bursting at the seams...
Obama will take questions live from "users".
And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".
Conservative - Liberal
Black - White
one - zero
Binary thinking with no shades of gray is so ... adolescent.
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
How the fuck can someone respond to a speech they haven't heard yet??
Living With a Nerd
If that ends up being the case, I have a feeling it's going to be a really quiet discussion :p
Living With a Nerd
And here today at lunch I just opened a Twitter account. Sort of shatters your image of people you used to think were pretty cool. Except for Nathan Fillion. He rocks.
Anecdote: David Plouffe (once Obama's campaign manager, now senior advisor) spoke at our university last year. When asked by a student why, now that he was elected, Obama was no longer calling on the nation to do for themselves, "Yes we can!", etc. He completely dismissed (complete with dismissive hand wave) that whole concept of team effort, saying now that the election is done, "It wouldn't work. It just wouldn't." And went onto another topic. My question to him was going to be, "Remember when Joe the Plumber told the news that he felt like he needed a shower when he got off McCain's bus? I don't see Obama being slimy like McCain. You seem to fit the bill though. True?" Ran out of time though.
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".
Nah, not really. I'm not stupid.
Say what now? How do you know that ravenspear is a liberal? Conservatives and independents hate teahadists too.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Since thats what everybody will be doing since theres nothing else on TV
Actually I will be sleeping, since I work tonight
Anyway what is the political significance of having it all on Tuesdays? The elections are on 1st Tuesday in Nov, and all the primaries and stuff are on a Tuesday?
The country I was born in has elections on a Saturday - it makes for a higher turnout since more people can get to the polls, and more volunteers are available to count ballots etc.
I am about as liberal as they get. And I have been horribly disappointed in the failures of Obama. Great president? No. Clinton was worth something. Obama is just another devious snake.
Is this all flash and no substance or does it just reflect the times we live in. Defined: This is the way things are for presentation. This way of acquiring information is here to stay. They must keep up with the state of the art. Especially to appeal to the younger people who will in several years be of voting age. We complained about voter turn out and now it's gotten better that it has been in decades. You all still complain. Do something about it in a literal way. I think the best way to make change is from the inside out. Yes we are in this world. No one ever said anything about us having to be of the world.
Someone should try to Rickroll the president on live TV.
I'd watch the State of the Union if I thought that might happen.
Commentator: the President is now taking comments from the internet, and is clicking on the question. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna ... ".
Now that's entertainment. Then, of course, we need a live feed of the poor bastard whose hacked computer did this so we could watch the black-ops guys swoop in and haul him away.
Someone should get on that. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at the door.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That is what I find most baffling about the Obama presidency: The Democrats elected a republican, one who seems to have undergone something of a spinectomy at that, and the republicans are still convinced that the Democrats managed to elect a firebreathing radical socialist muslim who will be redistributing their white women at any moment now.
I just don't understand it. Is his being of the melanized persuasion really that much of a hang-up, or (more alarming) do they think that he is a radical socialist because the republican platform has continued drifting right until it settled on "Hire Haliburton to build a skull pyramid of our enemies that shall reach the heavens, in jesus' name!"
This is what our political reporting has been reduced too. If you do not toe the line, you do not get access. Ask too many uncomfortable questions, and you will only be asking questions of local school board candidates. You can argue, within the bounds set by the Washington elite, but you must stick to the narrative. Argue whichever "side" you like, as the sides have been pre-chosen and approved by the powers that be. Just don't question the narrative itself, or again, you won't be reporting in Washington.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm posting this comment with Web3.0!! Way to live in the past Obama! I got iPads and Androids running with 7G, I'm so Web 3.0 even my Sunglasses and Pickup truck are HD.
How long before presidential speeches go the way of the GPU industry and they just start skipping 100's and then thousands, unill they finally realize the number they used in the name of the speech is so long they can't print it on CNNs intro splash screen any more so they have to start preceding the number with an X to represent the digits that are too long to fit?
"CNN Covering Web XX5900HD 11.6.1 Presidential speech on Tax reform in HD, 3D, Dolby Digital and THX"
"Binary thinking" might well define the way of thinking in US politics. Unfortunately. Millions of ideas ultimately devolve to two, Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Take a drink when
- His head toggles from one teleprompter to the other. (Don't expect to survive this one.) ... Add your own favorites here...
- He says consensus.
- He says bipartisanship.
- He says "uhh". (Another killer.)
- He blames something on Bush. (Another killer.)
- He blames something on the Republicans.
- He uses "For the children". (Clinton’s killer move.)
- Someone talks about "Moving to the center"
- Someone compares him to Ronald Reagan.
The state seem to be broken....States my Chrome browser..
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
Its probably a little bit of both.
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Missed that part?
Living With a Nerd
Obama is just another devious snake.
Worse.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Here!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572
What does that do to your post?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Missed that part? Republicans (and, strangely, Bachman) have been talking about their response for days. Not day: days.
Living With a Nerd
Yeah, and WTF he was born in Kenya! And he's a Socialist! And he's a terrorist! And a Muslim! And he's totally a Republican in a Democrat suit!
It's easy to criticize from your couch, after the fact. If you're not going to do something better about it yourself, shut the fuck up.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Citation? How is Obama being paid off for his policies? Where is he hording this illicit wealth and how is he preventing his enemies from discovering it?
How do contentless posts like this get +5 insightful?
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke. Deal with the actual issues leave the childish name calling at home kids.
The left is the only side that thinks it's an issue.
Cool!
Ignorance is strength!
Because for one thing, it doesn't much matter what the other guy says, each side has their own set of talking points to stick to. And for another, those talking points don't change much from year to year, so you can usually guess what each side will say long before they put finger to keyboard.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
A great way to establish better credibility is to not quote Sarah Palin in your comments.
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do. They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets. Which is a total lie. He has never said anything even close to that. No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric. That is the real face of the Democratic party.
Just once, I'd love to see a President's State of the Union speech address points COMPLETELY different than what's written in the opposing party's response. That would be some quality entertainment!
Living With a Nerd
They don't really think he is a socialist. They know he is a moderate Republican. But people like the Koch brothers fund libertarian groups for two reasons: to repeal all government regulations, and to get rid of all taxation of the wealthy. By those standards, Obama has only given them several thousand inches, and now they want a light-year. I mean, if a guy is bending over backwards to do everything you ask, you could thank him, but then people might realize he was doing everything you asked. Better to call him a commie Muslim fascist Kenyan terrorist, in the hopes that people will not realize what he really is, and what he is really doing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yeah, and WTF he was born in Kenya! And he's a Socialist! And he's a terrorist! And a Muslim! And he's totally a Republican in a Democrat suit!
It's easy to criticize from your couch, after the fact. If you're not going to do something better about it yourself, shut the fuck up.
What do you propose that he do? Right now he's voicing his opinion. I assume he'll vote differently in the next election.
Do you propose he do something crazy, like pick up a gun and shoot some Democrats? Oh wait.
Name calling to the Tea Party is your best to refute what they have to say and what the American public did on November 2? I feel really sorry for your political party which ever that is, since it is clear your not interested in actually discussing idea, but instead just want to resort to name calling. Way to promote open debate of American politics.
The questions answer thing is a total PR gimmick. It going to be a complete cream puff PR answer and question. There won't be a single hard or difficult question in any of the questions the post and respond to. That is just a given. This White House doesn't respond well at all to well thought out factual criticism.
I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise
And I never thought liberals would stop referring to libertarians and conservatives using sexual slang, and instead debate based on ideas.
Looks like I was right. I wonder what else all of the Tea Party members have been right about while you've been mocking them?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I want it to tick over for every lie he makes.
No, this isn't specific to Obama, they all do it. Obama's just most famous for it because Alito called him on one lie during his last SOTU.
I am glad to see this happening, but saddened that it is such a big deal. In the corporate world, no CFO gives a presentation without slides showing the information and references to back it up. In every board room, you have a projector, a conference call system, and attendees with laptops. Every statement is cited with specific numbers and backed-up with links and references.
But in politics, someone can hold a speech or a debate and there are no slides, no links, and no references. Two candidates in a debate can quote entirely different numbers for the same thing, and even change their numbers from speech to speech. It it is up to the listeners to find sources after the fact. It is really quite silly. If businessmen operated like political candidates they would be ousted after the first board meeting.
I always imagined that if I was up there I would say "The US imports XXX barrels of oil, according to Gartner research" and a slide would appear showing the number within context of other nations, and a link to the research report. I know that only .01% of people would actually look that up, but much like open source, not everyone has to do that. It's just all a part of promoting transparency and accuracy. If the other side wants to quote a different number, that's fine, then they can post their links as well.
Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.
make that: devolve to minus two.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Great let's all support subverting the legal system and the Constitution and just let the President do anything he wants and screw dealing with Congress. It's after just a hassle to deal with Congress and so much more efficient to just do what you want. That is exactly what ruling by Executive Order is that you are talking about. Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress. You sir and your ideas are why America is so screwed up these days. America has always been about protecting the minority against the majority and following the rule of law. If we don't do that then we might as well raise the Communist China flag and get it over with.
I'm from the future. When they got the 3D tech worked out 3D Obama was amazing, especially the part where he reached right into my pocket and removed the cash from my wallet directly, then I got to see it handed over to Goldman-USA-GM (they have merged in our time and are usually referred to as "The Collective") in real-time!
Oddly though when I tried to give Obama a hug to let him know how awesome he was I received a mild electric shock instead of a warm embrace.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Tea Party has never said anything comprehensible enough to be refuted. The American Public rejected the Tea Party at the polls, in fact the Tea Party cost the Republicans quite a few seats. If you have a political position, you should state what it is. Then we can debate it. As for the Tea Party itself, I have no respect for the loons who identify with the Tea Party. You may as well ask why I do not debate Charles Manson over the morality of getting others to kill strangers for you. Because there is nothing to debate there.
The Tea Party gets my respect when it's members earn it by acting like grown ups. Until then, I can only engage them on the preschool playground level they seem to prefer.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke.
The tea party is just a way to elect Republicans. When you look at people showing up to rallies and looking at tea party information when voting, surveys show them as:
a Tea Party Member “is essentially someone who would've earlier identified as a Republican but now calls himself an independent despite being a conservative and voting pretty much exclusively for Republicans.”
So when you talk about republicans and the tea party, the tea party pretty much always votes for republicans, even if those republicans are now calling themselves tea baggers as well. It's just a rebranding of some of the Republican party in a way to try to lure in Libertarians and Republican supporters who are too upset by their party to vote.
It's not really very entertaining. Heck, there have been numerous Daily Show segments where Stewart tries to have a serious discussion of some topic, but can't get the politician in question to do anything but quote party lines and generalities. Talking about the issues isn't good marketing.
Yep after Obama spent more in 2 years than any other President in history in 4 years he wants to freeze the budget. He has absolutely no intention of doing that. They haven't even figured out how they are going to pay for Obamacare. You think he really will freeze the budget when they can't pay for Obamacare? Think again. You think given all the other social programs that they want that Obama or the Democrats will freeze the budget now? There is no way in hell. It makes for a good PR spin but there is no way in hell Obama will actually do it. He will find some way to weasle out it just like he did with lobbyists in his White House and every other promise he as made. The guy go back so often on his promises we should just call him Go-Back-Obama or Flippy-Obama or maybe just simply liar.
Please quote the "Well thought out factual criticism" that you feel the White House has failed to respond to.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ask any of the political operatives. Due to the high stakes of national politics, nothing is ever sprung on the populace without first going through several rounds of focus groups and smaller speeches in order to test the reaction and tune the language; for instance, the change from "spending initiatives" to "investment opportunities" in the current speech. None of these guys would be foolish enough to just stand up and give a speech where they say what they really think.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Until then, I can only engage them on the preschool playground level they seem to prefer.
And you do that so well.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise
And I never thought liberals would stop referring to libertarians and conservatives using sexual slang, and instead debate based on ideas.
Looks like I was right. I wonder what else all of the Tea Party members have been right about while you've been mocking them?
Nothing. The Tea Party has been right about absolutely nothing. They are crazy. They do not deserve respect, or a place at the civilized people's table. Nobody wants to debate crazy, it isn't a debate, it is just crazy yelling DIE! DIE! DIE! at you. Seriously, what is there to debate? You make it sound as though the Tea Party has been espousing sensible positions, hell, they haven't been espousing positions at all. The only thing I hear from the Tea Party is an unintelligible scream of rage. The only position they hold true to is a position of unrelenting fear and hatred of the undeserving "other" who is bent on destroying America. The Tea Party thinks that I and everyone like me is a terrorist bent on destroying America. How can you have a debate with that? You can't.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
you must be a racist, too.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The official link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu
All I get is:
"Our Apologies....The site is currently undergoing maintenance. We appreciate your patience while we make some improvements. Please check back soon."
I was very disappointed. I was so looking forward to getting a message about how my standards-based Linux + Firefox could not watch the video because I am not using MS-Windows, IE, and/or Silverlight.
Look up the history of Executive Order. Who issued the most executive orders, hmm? Bush Jr. HOw much do the Republicans care about protecting the minority when they are in power? None. And you DO realize that Democrats still control the Senate and the Executive office, and Republicans do not have a solid majority even in the house, right? Democrats still control government. Obama does not need to use the executive order precedent set by Bush.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do.
Attacking someone's position is not the same as attacking a person.
They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets.
Citation please. I've seen numerous comments that he wants to privative SS, which many people think will destroy it and result in old people suffering and dying needlessly. I haven't seen anyone say he wants old people to suffer and die.
No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security.
In 2010 Ryan did propose a "Roadmap for America" that included replacing Medicare and Medicaid with private vouchers with values that would slowly decrease as a way of weaning America off of what he called "the entitlement programs". I think maybe you need to do some research before you make assertions.
So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric.
Please do cite this "violent rhetoric" and "attacks" of which you speak, attacks on him, not his proposed plans.
That is the real face of the Democratic party.
I'm no supporter of the Democratic party, but I do watch the real news and I haven't seen what you're talking about. It takes about 30 seconds with Google to find evidence that Ryan did propose privatizing SS and eliminating Medicare/Medicaid. Maybe you should stop watching Fox news and try any other channel, or better yet look at a variety of sources.
I give you every opportunity to actually debate. I will not accord anyone respect they haven't earned. You do not get to act like a child, but get treated like an adult. If you have a position, put it out there and I will debate without name calling or rancor. Just don't think that you can act like an evil, spoiled child and then whine about it when others don't treat you with respect.
You want a debate? Bring it. State your position.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He has not used signing statements. He promised this when he was elected and has upheld his promise. There is a clear precedent for using signing statements (George W. Bush) and it increases the power of the executive dramatically. So, based upon how you lambast "subverting the legal system", I assume that you must support Obama in choosing not to use a political maneuver which concentrates power in the executive.
Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress.
Cite please.
Obama isn't the pocket of Corporations, but he is firmly in the pockets of the elite radical left. Groups like the Tides Foundation that sponsors ACORN. The people and groups that have sponsored ACORN and similar groups is absolutely who Obama serves. Some even say George Soros has put up big money for Obama. I do know that when Soros commented that unless Obama was going to rule by Executive Order, Soros said it was time to look for someone else to support to get their agenda served. It wasn't too long after that, that Obama started doing just that.
Just look at how he voted in Illinois and how he voted in the Senate. If that doesn't convince you then look at what he has done as President. If you still don't get it you never will. Look at some of the big donors he had when he was running for President. Don't let him fool you into thinking he just took grassroots small donations from average people that isn't the truth but he would like for people to believe it. Look at who Obama surrounds himself with and who he appoints to work in his White House. You have people like Bill Ayers, Van Jones and other similar radicals. That is where Obama's allegiance lays.
Compare the immaturity of the posts on slashdot between those that support the tea party and those deriding it. You're on the losing side of that comparison, unfortunately.
None of these guys would be transparent enough to just stand up and give a speech where they say what they really think.
Fixed that for you. I promise, if I ever was elected to office, I'd be 100% transparent about my nefarious plans.
So Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio didn't win? Seems the Tea Party helped republicans win back the house.
Or as you like to say, a citation is needed to back your claim.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
This is a total PR stunt. They have absolutely no plans to actually take real questions from real people. I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't already have lined up who they would take questions from and that they will be total softball or cream puff questions. There is no chance they will take any tough or difficult questions that require real thought and real committment to actually comment on an issue or make a real change. This is merely a stunt. They are only doing this so they can say in the mass media, see we are paying attention to the public, then go right back to doing whatever they want regardless of what the public actually wants.
Obama and the Democrats aren't about actual change for the better of the country. They are about change in the sense of getting them in office and letting them do whatever the hell they want. Like that is any different than any other President or Congress. Obama and his radical left would be more happy if everyone would just shut up and not bother them while they push more and more socialist crap down everyone's throat. They also don't want anyone to be rich, which is why they bash the rich. They want everyone to be poor but themselves. Obama doesn't talk about his net worth ever because he wants to seem like a common man, but that is crap. His net worth makes him a multi-millionaire but you won't ever see anyone talk about that. Nope he wants you to think he is just like everyone else in the middle class, which is a complete lie. Has the public ever looked at his actual IRS returns? He is no better than anyone else in Congress. They are all freaking wealthy beyond what the average American could ever hope to be. They fly private planes and chartered planes for god's sake. How many average American's do that?
Do you really see him as a Republican rather than a centrist progressive?
I doubt any Republicans would have fought as hard as he did to push ObamaCare.
p.s. duly noted that you continually capitalized Democrats and not republicans... and for the record, I'm Libertarian and couldn't care less about either of the major parties
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Everything? Like pushing a healthcare bill only 45% of the population wanted?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Really? The Tea Party says Obama is a Muslim Kenyan terrorist and all liberals are traitors who should be shot. What do we say that is even 1/100th as crazy?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The Tea Party has never said anything comprehensible enough to be refuted.
You proved his point with your first sentence.
"His name was James Damore."
Citation about crazy needed.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Was this a joke?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Yes, every year on the day of the SotU, the Washington Post White House and New York Times will link to an article that is no longer under embargo with the outline of the speech, and a couple minutes after the President starts speaking the full text of the SotU will be out from embargo and printed.
Example - http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address
Time the President started was a 9:00 pm, time of the article is 9:13 pm
While for weeks leading up to the SotU the President will use speeches as sounding boards for his ideas, hell NPR was just talking about this yesterday.
Furthermore, on the rebuttal, Congress members will leave the House early to rebut or support the SotU address for the media.
This year there are two rebuttals by Republicans, both will be available right after President Obama is done with his speech.
Note here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_response_to_the_State_of_the_Union_address - Pre-recorded for some, obviously they had to have some advance knowledge of the speech to record it beforehand.
First sentence in that article starts: "While losses by Tea Party-backed candidates may have helped cost Republicans control of the U.S. Senate, "
Seriously, a scant handful of Republicans masquerading as the "Tea Party" won a few seats, and this is somehow indicative of a public mandate?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's a good thing Obama hasn't used executive orders so your statement holds true.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Yet he has anyway
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Do you propose he do something crazy, like pick up a gun and shoot some Democrats? Oh wait.
Hey the ranks of the radical left were saying that all through Bush's term. They were even writing books, poems, and music on the subject. And don't forget the large number of 'bush burnings' done in effigy.
Om, nomnomnom...
Crap! Crap, I say.
Attacking someones position involves talking about their position.
If they believe that privatizing social security will destroy social security, then why are they talking about Paul Ryan instead of talking about Social Security and its privatization?
This is proving the point. They are not attacking the position.. they are attacking the person that just happens to have a position. The intent is to destroy the person, not the position.
"His name was James Damore."
You mean RomneyCare? The bill that Mittens tried to put up as an alternative to single payer back in Clinton's first term? ObamaCare is exactly the same bill, right down to the individual mandate, which Republicans pushed as "individual responsibility."
You DO know that most of that 55% who don't like it wanted a single payer system, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Instead of parroting the Fox news lies you should read this.
Give me something to refute, then. What is the Tea Party platform? Come on, quite whining and state your position.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The number of EO's signed (according to the National Archives list of Executive orders):
Obama - 75 (2 years)
Bush Jr - 291 (8 years)
Clinton - 364 (8 years)
Bush Sr. - 166 (4 years)
So Clinton beat Bush Jr. by a significant number (as did Reagan and Carter for that matter) and Obama is actually a little over Bush's average for EO's/yr.
Sorry to bring some actual numbers into this argument. Carry on with your factless rhetoric.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
He actually voted in the senate?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Obviously. Since the screaming in US politics went from 140 years!!!!111! of unprecedented democrat rule to: Oh shit, we're losing everything. I believe the turn of phrase is 'historic loss in party confidence' and yes, indeed it was.
Om, nomnomnom...
Obama does not need to use the executive order precedent set by Bush.
Then why is he?
Please talk about the issue. The issue is that Obama IS doing what you are trying to vilify Bush for. If Bush is a villain, and Obama is doing just as Bush, doesnt that make Obama a villain as well?
If not, why not? Please talk about the issue raise.
"His name was James Damore."
Obama has already issued several signing statements, fewer than GWB to be sure, but you really should look these things up.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Most people never thought they had a chance at controlling the Senate until the next election anyway. They (and I mean they, I'm neither a Republican nor a Tea Party member... notice the lack of name calling though) did however gain seats there.
I think the large shift in the House speaks for itself though. People were unhappy with quite a few things, and IMHO the vote and Pelosi's comments on ObamaCare even though the majority of citizens didn't want it sealed the deal.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Attacking someones position involves talking about their position.
Yes... or assuming your listeners know or can discover those positions.
If they believe that privatizing social security will destroy social security, then why are they talking about Paul Ryan instead of talking about Social Security and its privatization?
Who is? I asked for a citation. Where are people attacking him personally instead of his policies, or making statements about what they think the result of his policies would be?
Citation very much needed. And make sure it's one that shows that this is the party's position. Anything else is an irretractable confession that you're lying.
I don't even have to call them teabaggers for that, they call themselves teabaggers (or at least some did until someone pointed out the link to testicles).
Learn to love Alaska
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Controversies
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Turns out two thirds of the US population won't be able to participate (me included, thank you stupid Satellite "Internet").
The teabaggers aren't even a party. Every mention of their candidates list them as running as part of some other party. When there's a teabagger primary and someone wins a seat without being a member of the Republicrats, then they can claim to be a party.
Learn to love Alaska
That is what I find most baffling about the Obama presidency: The Democrats elected a republican, one who seems to have undergone something of a spinectomy at that, and the republicans are still convinced that the Democrats managed to elect a firebreathing radical socialist muslim who will be redistributing their white women at any moment now. I just don't understand it. Is his being of the melanized persuasion really that much of a hang-up, or (more alarming) do they think that he is a radical socialist because the republican platform has continued drifting right until it settled on "Hire Haliburton to build a skull pyramid of our enemies that shall reach the heavens, in jesus' name!"
There is a racist component to the Obama hatred among Republicans, but a lot of it is guilt by association. He has some radical friends and the Republican interpretation of him is that he's wearing a moderate mask over a radical core.
The Democrats' problem is that the campaign promises they're holding him to were the least realistic ones and his successes have largely been baby steps.
As a political true neutral, I've been reasonably happy with him. The criticism from the left that he doesn't play hardball to achieve his party's platform is a point in his favor.
The majority of citizens want Obamacare, according to the most recent polls. Of the ones who do not like Obamacare, like me, most actually wanted single payer, like they have in the rest of the civilized world. You can't have a free market in health care, people simply do not make rational decisions about health.
Right now, our health care system is simply a bunch of leaches. Now, real leaches have actual medical value, but I am talking about the3 paper pushing, money wasting kind. Too much of our GDP goes to health care. We pay more than any place else in the world, for very mediocre outcomes. Our health care is the most expensive, and amongst the least effective. That is what the free market does, in health care. Socialism just works better for some types of problems that the market can not handle.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh, don't get me wrong. Obama is not doing the right thing by using executive orders. But he has issued orders of magnitude less of them than Bush, and I'd be wiling to bet you didn't speak out about Bush's executive orders.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Are you trying to make a joke, or do you simply not know any history or current events?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The "National Archive" of your imagination does not count, here are some real facts and figures (bonus points when you scream "But wiki!" then read the linked citations and realize, no it isn't just wikipedia saying this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The constitution doesn't envision a 60 vote threshold for the Senate and anonymous holds. If the Republitards insist on manipulating the system for their interest with near 100% filibuster rates, Democrats are obliged to find a way to still govern.
We legitimately elected Barack Obama. Communist China does not have free elections for most political offices and heavily censors the media.
Save your delusional paranoia for fellow Retardicans.
The majority of citizens want Obamacare, according to the most recent polls.
[citation needed]. What polls? I'd love to see how they worded that question, since all the polls I've seen suggest that an overwhelming majority of the American people in fact do NOT want Obamacare. There are enough votes in the House of Representatives right now to override a veto. You know, the branch of Congress that actually represents the PEOPLE? It's only the Senate that's likely to stall the repeal, and only due to Democrat obstructionism.
If Obama were truly a president of the people, he'd agree to veto the bill once it makes it past the Senate. But he's not, and it'll go back, easily repass the House, but then fail in the Senate solely due to Democrat obstructionism.
The people have spoken loud and clear, and you're going to need a hell of a lot more than a vague reference to nonexistent polls to prove otherwise. Every poll I've seen has shown a clear majority support overturning the job killing healthcare law.
Too much of our GDP goes to health care. We pay more than any place else in the world, for very mediocre outcomes.
This is almost entirely due to excessive regulation and the ease of malpractice suits. Those are the real problems, not the free market. Problems that Obamacare completely failed to address. Try addressing those and see what happens.
I didn't see any numbers/lists of Executive Orders in your first wikipedia link, and the your second link specifically says in its first sentence, "The following is an incomplete list of United States federal executive orders." [italics mine]
GP was quoting a federal government website: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html.
Why should I trust wikipedia over that, even if I did find a simple and complete list on wikipedia?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/exclusive-obama-to-declare-the-rules-have-changed--20110125
Theres a pre-release copy of it for tonight.
name calling is all they deserve. Until they can actually have ration debate not based on logical fallacies and lies they aren't worth debating. There just a puppet show created by republican bakers to make people feel like there is a 3rd party.
I tried ration argument, but they don't actually have anything to stand on so it all comes down to some stupid fallacy.
Just to eb clear The Tea Party has never wanted open debate. Never. Ever. They want' to jsut scream their ignorant non-sense, and anyone who picks apart there argument with rational thoughts and logic becomes 'Pro Big Government' or the 'nasty' label 'Liberal'. I was extremely happy to see them n the political scene, but that was washed away after about the 20th time of them being uncivilized, and whiny douche bags.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't forget:
http://www.theteaparty.net/inner.asp?z=6
It reads like a loony conspiracy manifesto. Of course the site is also full of provable lies.
Grassroots my ass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So they are replying to the speech from 2010??
Of course he has used them. But he's used fewer than past presidents.
Want to know who has used the *fewest* (based on number signed per year in office)? G. W. Bush. Surprised? Me too.
I made a little table based on the numbers from the archives.gov page on Executive Orders.
Average of EOs/yr Sum of total # EOs
D 97.8 4758
Carter 79.8 319
Clinton 45.4 363
Johnson 64.6 323
Kennedy 71.0 213
Obama 37.0 74
Roosevelt 288.8 3466
R 84.3 3733
Bush 41.3 165
Eisenhower 60.1 481
Ford 56.0 168
G.W. Bush 36.3 290
Hoover 252.8 1011
Nixon 69.0 345
Reagan 47.5 380
Truman 111.6 893
Grand Total 90.1 8491
Dems average more than GOP, and the numbers have generally been decreasing since Hoover. I'd have expected the opposite.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I'm a conservative and I still call them teabaggers. For one, that's what they called themselves until someone pointed out what it meant. For another, it just fits.
I'd be happy to debate teabaggers on ideas, but I thought it was a requirement that you not have any ideas or ability to make ideas to join.
Learn to love Alaska
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?
Evidence and I did not bother looking for it until 2 min. ago. They probably had it a good bit longer.
Home of The Suki Series
... the Gettysburg Address will be translated into l33t5peak.
Have gnu, will travel.
I think I have to groom my poodle...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
If Paul Ryan wants to replace Medicare and Medicaid with private insurance, what does he propose for people whom all health insurance companies refuse to insure?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011
As I'm running Gnash under Chromium, all I see ATM is a static web page with a black rectangle in the middle, topped by two tabs labeled "Enhanced" and "Standard". The view defaults to "Enhanced", but clicking on "Standard" does nothing (so I presume the tabs are really static place holders for the Flash-based interface). Below the rectangle are some information boxes, including a download button for users of a certain Flash-challenged gadget.
attack on the Supreme Court during the State of the Union Address, Obama criticized the court as follows:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections"
This is when Alito quietly said "not true" (according to you that constitutes spewing ignorant rhetoric).
The claim at issue here specifically is that the Supreme Court ruling will "open the floodgates" for foreign corporation spending on political commercials in our elections. Obama then asked Congress for legislation to stop that possibility. Obama's problem fact, and certainly a fact that Alito knew, was that foreign spending (either by a principal or an agent) on political commercials in the US was already illegal under the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The Supreme Court decision at issue explicitly stated that it did not address the issue of foreign principals or their agents.
Either you didn't read the wiki article you linked, or you did and chose to lie about what it said.
Either way, you desperately hoped that nobody else would call your bluff by actually looking at the citations and seeing that they do in fact prove you wrong beyond all possible doubt. Seeing that they have, you are now shaking and crying with impotent rage over the humiliation you have visited upon yourself. As you always do.
You need to cite that "according to the most recent polls"
The majority of citizens want health care reform not obamacare. There is a difference. It's possible to want something and not like the choices you are given. People overwhelmingly rejected the Obama care and you should too. Of course it appears you already know that full well with the rest of your comment about single payer.
And Obamacare does absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to change that except force people to aid the leaches by mandating they purchase health insurance from those leaches and limit health care options by creating essentially a death panel in every sense of the word Palin meant it to be.
This is why people who would have supported health care reform and indicate it by positions in the polls reject Obamacare. It either doesn't do enough or does too much of nothing.
If you really feel that way, then simply amend the US constitution and grant the US government the constitutional authority to get involved in that way. As it sits right now, it doesn't have that constitutional authority and no matter how you attempt to reinterpret the constitution, it will not have it.
And before you go off on how the constitution is just a piece of paper written by old dudes that doesn't have any relevance in today's times, reinterpreting it to allow the federal government to mandate health care coverage and set up a panel to approve and disapprove treatments will erode away other set in stone constitutional protections. Of the arguments I have heard, one of them is that the government has the power to tax. Well OK, if that is true, then a conservative government cold impose a 1 million dollar tax penalty on everyone and give them a deduction if they never have an abortion. The government could impost a 2 million dollar tax penalty on anyone and give them a deduction of they never take their fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. Even worse, they could do that to health care providers and simply penalize them for performing abortions with a prohibitive tax.
Another arguemnt I have heard was that the general welfare clause enables them. Well, again, the abortion argument causes that to fail completely without even getting into the entire concept of that being a perfunctory statement explaining to what end the powers of congress are to be used instead of some all power do anything if they can justify a benefit to the welfare. Roe V wade specifically addressed the point in which government does not have the ability to get involved in the way it tried to and how people are trying to justify the constitutionality of obamacare.
But seriously, I'm against it simply because the US government doesn't have the constitutional power to get involved in the first place. They either follow the constitution, even if that means getting it amended, or everything is up for grabs as it can be rationalized away for anything.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
Transcript of April 1, 2016 MicroSlaw Presidential Speech (Before final editing prior to release under standard U.S. Government for-fee licensing under 2011 Fee Requirements Law)
My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law.
There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law. You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education. They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs, such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone. But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course! [audience chuckles knowingly]. But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land.
First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world. This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade. This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation.
MicroSlaw's core code defines a legal operating standard or OS we can all rely on. While I know some GPL supporters may be painting a rosy view of free law to the general public, it is obvious that any so called free alternative to MicroSlaw's legal code fails at the start because it would require great costs for learning about new so-called free laws, plus additional costs to switch all legal forms and court procedures to the new so called free standard. So free laws are really more expensive, especially as we are talking here about free as in cost, not free as in freedom.
In any case, why would you want to pay public servants like those old time -- what were they called? -- Senators? Representatives? -- around $145K a year out of public funds just to make free laws? Laws are made far more efficiently, inexpensively and, I assure you, justly, by large corporations like MicroSlaw. Such organizations need the motivation of micropayments for application, discussion or reference of their laws to stay competitive. MicroSlaw needs to know who discusses what law and when they do so, each and every time, so they can charge fairly for their services and thus retain their financial freedom to innovate. And America is all about financial freedom, right! [Audience applause].
And why should your hard earned tax dollars go to pay public citizens to sit on juries and render open justice when things could be done so much more quic
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
If by "orders of magnitude less", you mean about a quarter as many (75 vs. 291) in about a quarter the time (2 years vs. 8 years), then yeah. Going over the same time (from inauguration to Jan 25 two years later), we see Obama is slightly behind, at 75 vs. 87.
Maybe you should do the research before spouting your "orders of magnitude" crap...
Source
FWIW, people of both parties need to get the fuck over this EO panic. EOs are necessary and proper when they concern matters within the scope of the president's authority, and bad when they usurp power not given the president (whether given to congress, or reserved to the people or states). Of course, it's harder to read all the EOs and try to judge their constitutionality than it is to just look up totals, and when people are so lazy that they'd rather spew "orders of magnitude" bullshit than look up the totals, it's no wonder the government is riding a now left, now right zig-zag course to totalitarianism.
The only thing ridiculous was that hilarious character Bachmann. Absolute train wreck of a response.
I'll tip my hat to the new administration
Take a bow for the hopeification
Smile and grin and the changes all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
.
No, no
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Oh, don't get me wrong. Obama is not doing the right thing by using executive orders.
That should have been the end of your reply, but it wasn't.
You need to examine your own extremely strong bias (everything you wrote afterwards was spawned from it) before you take losing "bets" on what I did during Bush.
"His name was James Damore."
They stated their positions, but you apparently felt that they "never said anything comprehensible."
Your extreme bias has already been exposed in your last reply to me. Thats all there is to it. Anybody that you feel diametrically opposed to is automatically "incomprehensible" which obviously equates to "I wont try to comprehend it because a dirty teabagger said it"
What is it, MSNBC? Is that your source of news?
"His name was James Damore."
Aren't true neutrals the guys who don't care/are moderate about order vs. chaos and good vs. evil? Sounds like a career politician from here...
+5 insihgtful to troll sucker!
Wasn't Web 2.0 a 2004 thing? Aren't we supposed to call it Cloud Computing now, or something?
Hey, you know, this being the Internet and all, I'm sure you can point to some of your previous anti-Bush comments about his use of executive orders.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
All you need to do is point out where I am wrong. Which you haven't done. Why not? You say it is easy, but you have not done it. Perhaps YOU are the one hoping no one will read the link...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's called "RomneyCare" not "ObamaCare" because it is exactly the plan that Mittens Romney come up with during the Clinton administration, individual mandate and all.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your own sources prove you wrong.
You do realize your wiki links use the National Archives as their primary source don't you and that by clicking on almost any of their reference links you will be brought to see the complete list of EO's signed by each President since Hoover.
It's not rocket science. Just click your own link and read the source data. The Archives even have a nice list of EO's signed per year if you click on a President's name.
Simply put, GWB is not even close to the #1 spot for EO's (even Carter signed more in half the time in office) and at the current rate BO is right on par to equal or pass W.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Maybe now they do, but at the time of the voting they didn't. I assume you know that, which is why you talk about now rather than when the President was pushing it and the House and Senate were ignoring their constituents.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
While he loves to ask for citations, I've never actually seen him provide one /shrug
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Then tell that to President Obama who also uses the term ObamaCare these days.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
All mastered by Roosevelt, who at one point was way low in popularity because of his power grab in the Supreme Court.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
You twist facts, conflating those who opposed healthcare reform as doing to little with those who think it went too far. Only by putting both of those very different categories together in one can you say that a majority of people opposed health care reform when Obama first proposed it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So you admit that Obamacare is the same thing as Romneycare? Who cares what it is called, it is a Republican plan.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Where did you see me "admit" anything? I just pointed out that I was using the same term as our President uses.
p.s. Captain Citation Needed, you still haven't provided any yourself
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Usenet isn't web
Tell that to any user of the web-to-Usenet gateway known as Deja News (now Google Groups), which began in March 1995. Protocol doesn't matter as long as gateways like Deja and Hotmail are possible.
And one more thing.. there are some distinct differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
1) RomneyCare was for Massachusetts... at the state level... which is purely constitutional based on the 10th Amendment. ObamaCare is for the entire country (one size fits all) and is strictly forbidden by the 10th Amendment.
2) RomneyCare was implemented after the state balanced its budget. Not so for ObamaCare. And mind you, many people argue against ObamaCare because the nation cannot afford it.
3) Romney met with MA insurance companies to get agreement on the bill before it was voted on. He also sought bipartisanship.
4) Romney's plan did not include insurance price controls nor a public option.
5) Romney's plan was a readable 70 pages long, not 2000.
6) Romney's plan doesn't cut Medicare, not impose new taxes.
So yeah, other than those (and probably a few I missed) they're exactly the same. The same but different that is.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Well, The American Conservative plainly states Oamacare is Romneycare, and they quote plenty of examples from pundits, both left and right leaning, stating exactly why and how the two plans are alike.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
1.) Commerce Clause. We may not like it, but it exists, and has been used in this fashion for decades. The issue was decided by the Supreme Court, long ago, and therefore, it's use it, by definition, constitutional.
2.) Obamacare will reduce the deficit, as the non-paertisan CBO points out.
3.) Obama did the same thing.
4.) Obama's plan does not include a public option. Thankfully for point 2 above, Obama's plan DOES include insurance price controls, the only way to reduce healthcare costs in this country short of a public option.
5.) So, you are saying that Mittens' plan is less detailed and comprehensive? And you are furthermore claiming that 2,000 pages is too long to read and understand?
6.) Obama's plan does not cut medicare, nor raise taxes.
Got any more bullshit you wish debunked?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Holy crap you DO know how google works!
Interestingly enough, the article describes the plans as "similar" while you use the word "is" in comparison.
The differences still stand. One was legal at the state level, one was illegal at the federal level.
Should I cite the Constitution for you?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
1) Citation needed... healthcare falls under commerce? gimme a break
2) Citation needed
3) Wants and gets are two different things. The insurance companies have made their stance pretty clear. Sadly, he can't promise them what he promised states like LA and NE to get their reps on board.
4) Point taken.
5) I'm claiming a good number of members of congress said it was too long to read.
6) Weird, so once again, since nobody can answer this question... how does it get paid for? We're ADDING people to federal payment for healthcare. That costs money.
Got any other fake bullshit disclaimers?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Yes, please cite the constitution, taking into account the commerce clause which states, "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" and also the century and a half of Supreme Court case law precedent which defines its usage, much of which relates specifically to the tenth amendment and how the commerce clause permits the federal government to do things that a naive reading of the constitution might seem to forbid.
You really have not shown how Obamacare is any different from Romneycare, while I have cited sources showing the incredible similarities between the two, from a conservative source, no less. You also have not shown that Obamacare is illegal or unconstitutional. You appear to have made up your mind, and no amount of debate or facts can change it. You are not engaging in debate, you are simply stating an uninformed opinion, and refusing to budge from it. You seem to feel that certain things must be true, and then you attempt to use logic to reason backwards to find support for those things you feel strongly about. You do not appear to start from rational premises and work forwards to draw conclusions. You have unshakable faith in the correctness of your feelings, and refuse to listen to reason. Given that, and the fact that this is now and old story that isn't on the front page anymore, any further discussion here is a waste of my time.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
1.) Everything that affects interstate commerce falls under the commerce clause. Let me illustrate with a situation where I personally found its use abhorent. I used to do computer security for a medical marijuana non-profit in San Francisco. We bought entirely from within the state, legally under state laws, and did not engage in interstate commerce. Yet the federal government said, "Any pot grown anywhere affects the national market for pot, even if it is entirely within state borders. Therefore, the commerce clause lets federal drug laws trump state laws." You can argue for changing the way the commerce clause gets used, and I might even agree with you, but that is still a change, and right now, the commerce clause makes Obamacare constitutional, like it or not.
2.) I cited the congressional budget office. Are they not authoritative enough for you? What would you accept? I'm not going to keep citing things only to have you say they don't count.
3.) Obamacare has the insurance reps on board, as it helps the insurance industry and kills the idea of a public option. They may hoot and holler for more concessions, but even without more, they support the bill.
4.) Well, thanks.
5.) Boo hoo, poor members of congress, having to, like, read and stuff. That's their fucking JOB.
6.) It gets paid for by reducing waste and fraud in the insurance industry. You remember how that works, right? You remember Clinton, the guy who balanced the budget? He cut the fat without cutting the meat. That's what Oama hopes to do.
Fake disclaimers? Like point 3 which you conceded? Or point five, where you parrot back whiners in congress claiming that they don't want to do their very, very hard job of reading? Or point one, where you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the constitution? Or point two, where you ask for a citation when I cite the CBO?
You are losing badly, you know it, and you are resorting to more and more childish tactics. Good day, sir, this discussion is now finished.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You act as if I'm the one running the polls. Maybe you should take your beef up with them instead... I can only recite the results of their polling.
Or, you could fund me doing a poll that separates the people to fit your model. That wouldn't be twisting anything though.
I'll send you my paypal account info and we can get started.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Ah. Willing to hold others to a standard you won't follow yourself, I see. Very well, I'll humor you:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
That's linked directly from your Wikipedia link*. The ranges of EO numbers alone confirm Straif's figures, but if you don't feel like doing some math, each Presiden'ts name is also a link that plainly states, among other things, the total number of EO's issued by that President
Obama: 75
Bush Jr: 291
Clinton: 364 (note that 364 is more than 291, so that utterly destroys your original claim all by itself)
Bush Sr: 166 (exactly what Straif said)
You smugly told protektor to "look up the history of the executive order", but were steadfastly opposed to the very notion of doing it yourself.
You are a liar and a hypocrite. That is an absolute fact, and you have no choice but to agree with it. Your desperate attempt to deny it won't even fool yourself, let alone anyone else.
*It's also in the above reply by treeves, which was made before your reply to me, which means you had already seen it before you replied and had chosen to ignore it because you knew it proves you to be a lying scumbag.
It's called obamacare because Obama was president and demanded that something got passed. The democrats took some old republican counter to one of their old attempts and claimed the republicans would support it.
And no, it isn't exactly the same plan that Mittens Romney come up and you should be thankful for that because Romneycare in MASS sucks balls big time.
Well at least we both agree that the guy should be called "Mittens."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You have now slinked away with your tail between your legs. You haven't learned from this experience, and your stupidity will soon lead you to embarrass yourself in this manner again, just as you're already dreading will happen.
Lol.. I don't see a problem with a pet name for someone when it's not derogatory.
Of course it is derogatory. I mean, mildly derogatory. Who wears mittens? Children wear mittens. Mittens make you clumsy and goofy looking. Who else is associated with mittens? Cute, cuddly kittens! Its a non serious nickname, meant to make him sound less serious. It is about on the level with calling Obama "Barry." And that is about the level I want to keep it at with Mitt, he is not my least favorite politician. Not by far. He'd be the best shot at challenging Obama, I think. And I think someone should. Oh, I think Obama would win, but I think we progressives should primary the corporatist bastard, to send him a message, and Republicans should send their most serious guy to challenge him in the election. Much as I would love the hilarity and easy win for my side of, say, a Palin campaign, that wouldn't really help the country. A serious primary challenge and a serious election challenge to Obama might.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hmm.. I always imagined a cute little furry cat when someone calls someone else mittens.
Perhaps you are just thinking too hard and as usually, have your own thoughts that few other share.
Oh yea, it's on a different level then calling Obama Berry. You see, it's not really common knowledge that Romney's nickname was mittens. It is common knowledge that people who know berry called him that.
Also, Palin has a better shot at beating Obama then Mittens does. You want to know why? It isn't because she is some intellectual wizard or anything, it's because she pisses people like you off. Think about it, ever since Reagan, we have had people like you who call themselves progressive say they are moving out of the country if X is elected president or that guy for president is the worse ever. Well, not only do we elect X only to watch those people renig on their promises, we like to watch them squirm in trashing talking the president while sidestepping their own failures to live up to their promises. We have a short history of electing people just to piss others off. And the more polarized this country gets by idiots like you spouting off BS like this, the more chances that Bush or Palin or whoever isn't your guy has to win. And yes, McCain's loss can be largely factored into him trying to appease both sides too much. He ran on a platform that he wouldn't follow the republican party line (even though as president he essentially would set it) as he was the maverick that democrats could trust.
It was supposed to be. The sad part is that you can't tell in today's environment. Anyone that raises issues with his policies is eventually labeled a racist.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Ah ok, yeah.. you're right.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.