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."

Comments

Early Copy

[sexconker]

The early copy of the speech is included below.
I think it needs a bit more tweaking.

"My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!"

Re:Early Copy

[ravenspear]

My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!"

I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise, but, I just realized how batshit crazy they are.

Re:Early Copy

[Entrope]

And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".

Nah, not really. I'm not stupid.

Re:Early Copy

[durrr]

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

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!" I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise, but, I just realized how batshit crazy they are.

I've backtraced their emails, reported them to NSA, and - let me be clear - consequences will never be the same.

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Pojut]

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??

Re:Early Copy

[Pojut]

If that ends up being the case, I have a feeling it's going to be a really quiet discussion :p

Re:Early Copy

[Wyatt Earp]

Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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!"

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[h00manist]

"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.

Re:Early Copy

[Nadaka]

Its probably a little bit of both.

Re:Early Copy

[Pojut]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[protektor]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

The left is the only side that thinks it's an issue.

Re:Early Copy

[corbettw]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[protektor]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Pojut]

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!

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[protektor]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[protektor]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[SuperKendall]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[JonySuede]

Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.

make that: devolve to minus two.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

Please quote the "Well thought out factual criticism" that you feel the White House has failed to respond to.

Re:Early Copy

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Shotgun]

Until then, I can only engage them on the preschool playground level they seem to prefer.

And you do that so well.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Tanktalus]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

Everything? Like pushing a healthcare bill only 45% of the population wanted?

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[Rockoon]

The Tea Party has never said anything comprehensible enough to be refuted.

You proved his point with your first sentence.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

Citation about crazy needed.

Re:Early Copy

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

Give me something to refute, then. What is the Tea Party platform? Come on, quite whining and state your position.

Re:Early Copy

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tea Party says Obama is a Muslim Kenyan terrorist and all liberals are traitors who should be shot.

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.

Re:Early Copy

[AK Marc]

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).

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Controversies

Re:Early Copy

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

Are you trying to make a joke, or do you simply not know any history or current events?

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Wyatt Earp]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/exclusive-obama-to-declare-the-rules-have-changed--20110125

Theres a pre-release copy of it for tonight.

Re:Early Copy

[geekoid]

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.
.

Re:Early Copy

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Suki I]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[sumdumass]

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.

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.

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.

You can't have a free market in health care, people simply do not make rational decisions about health.........
Socialism just works better for some types of problems that the market can not handle.

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.

Re:Early Copy

[Rockoon]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

While he loves to ask for citations, I've never actually seen him provide one /shrug

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

Then tell that to President Obama who also uses the term ObamaCare these days.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

So you admit that Obamacare is the same thing as Romneycare? Who cares what it is called, it is a Republican plan.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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?

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

Well at least we both agree that the guy should be called "Mittens."

Re:Early Copy

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I don't see a problem with a pet name for someone when it's not derogatory.

Re:Early Copy

[spun]

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.

Re:Early Copy

[sumdumass]

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.

feh

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be watching, The Real Housewives of New Jersey is on.

More honest likable people.

power points for the lies!

[InsaneProcessor]

Oh, great! While he is telling us how wonderful he is about freezing the budget after doubling the debt and lying about how great the bills the dems passed, we get charts to highlight the mis-directions and false information.

Re:power points for the lies!

[protektor]

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.

what format?

[LoganDzwon]

will it be html5, flash, or something else?

Re:what format?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's streaming the video. Therefore the answer to HTML5 is a very definite no.

Re:what format?

[mcgrew]

Flash -- can't see it on your iPhone
Silverlight -- can't see it on your Linux box

They really need to finalize that HTML5 spec.

Re:what format?

[LoganDzwon]

I didn't mean format of the video, I mean the format used to present the video. As in youtube has a flash version and an html5 version. Both play video encoded in h.264

Re:what format?

[Stregano]

Isn't there also a porn site that is whitehouse.net or something like that? I wonder how many people will watch streaming porn instead of the speech (by mistake, I mean, not on purpose).

And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[eepok]

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"

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[Locke2005]

Sarah Palin uses Twitter... what kind of people do you expect to find there?

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[Suki I]

Keith Olbermann will be tweeting the SOTU at #FOK I think.

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I would sooner discuss politics on 4chan and expect rational replies than on Twitter. What's worse than Twitter? I don't know, Youtube maybe? Yahoo! Answers?

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[eepok]

My Ranking (Worst at the top, going down to "more reasonable")

Small newspaper article comment sections
Youtube
Various Forums' "Politics" sections
Twitter
Facebook
Myspace ...
Fark ...
Slashdot (I consider Slashdot to be the most reasonable and still accessible public discussion area I've ever found. Much is due to the rating system.)

Fill in as you see fit.

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled...

[geekoid]

Don't be an idiot. Twitter is ideal I'll see it in my feed and not have to see the loonies.

"Web 2.0"? Really?

[karmac0ma]

Since when is video streaming a "Web 2.0" thing? That term seems to be tacked into everything web-related nowadays.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[eepok]

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[karmac0ma]

Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody's talking about "Web 2.0" and "The Cloud" yet no one can tell for sure what they are

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious. Both are what already existed on the web.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[dn15]

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[VGPowerlord]

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Coren22]

Web 1.0 supposedly is static web sites. Web 2.0 encompasses anything that allows users to interact back. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, stuff like that. According to the marketing morons that came up with the phrase "web 2.0", Slashdot is in the list.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[The_mad_linguist]

Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Mashiki]

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Welcome to Gopher and Usenet 20 years ago? Old is new with a different label.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[lennier]

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Welcome to Gopher and Usenet 20 years ago? Old is new with a different label.

Or FidoNet 25 years ago.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

I'm waiting for them to implement Intelligence 2.0, Integrity 2.0, and Honesty 2.0. They've already implemented Bullshit 2.0 very successfully.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[tepples]

By that rule, Usenet was Web 2.0 before the Web existed.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really?

[Coren22]

That would be why it isn't web at all, it is another type of internet connection. Web implies HTML/HTTP server, therefore Usenet isn't web...

For a more titillating experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.

Re:For a more titillating experience...

[VGPowerlord]

watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.

I can't, that's blocked where I work.

I guess they're as much behind the times as you are, seeing as how whitehouse.com hasn't been a porn site for years.

Re:For a more titillating experience...

[phantomcircuit]

Personal Injury / Disability Lawyers ?

The Haney Project

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be watching Rush Limbaugh take golf lessons on The Haney Project.

nothing here to see...move along

[slick7]

Actions speak louder than words. The actions taken by government for the last twenty years show the American people are not of interest.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Nadaka]

Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible. Not old enough to have any first hand opinions of the previous presidents.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[corbettw]

Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible.

Um, Reagan left office 23 years ago.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Nadaka]

And Clinton left 10 years ago. I liked Clinton because he did his job well enough. I need to have made a new years resolution to keep tangential subjects in separate paragraphs even if I only intent on using a couple sentences, I also need to avoid excessively long sentences, and possibly excessive comma splicing.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[protektor]

Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill. Some more downhill than others, but downhill not the less. Too bad Clinton didn't actually help with the Internet. We were just fortunate that he stayed the hell out of the way and let it happen. Now Obama and his Congress seem intent on putting a nice strangle hold on it with all their regulations and what not. So we can blame Obama's Presidency for putting a major damper on the Internet.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Nadaka]

Are ye daft? Reagan oversaw the 4th worst economic downturn in US history. The three that were worse were the Civil War, the Great Depression and the Presidency of Bush jr. His economic policy was amazingly bad. Its the kind of backwards hairbrained proven bad bs that you might have expected some uneducated cowboy actor come up with.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Anonymous Coward]

We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy.

Yes, the democrats want to destroy America, so obviously a prosperous America would "drive them crazy."
Get a real perspective.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[bfields]

Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill.

Err: GDP and unemployment, graphed for your entertainment.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Anonymous Coward]

You're retarded if you think Reagan's economic policy was sane or sustainable.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[slick7]

You're retarded if you think Reagan's economic policy was sane or sustainable.

Ronnie the Raygun was a two bit actor and a two bit president. The greatest secret of the Reagan presidency was that he had Alzheimers and this gave King George the 1st two extra terms of control and power that we are just realizing what a mess it has created.

Re:nothing here to see...move along

[Nadaka]

I do not think that is the case. The policies enacted in Bush Sr actual presidency were different enough from the Reagan debacle that I do not see much of a continuity between the two.

BFD

[h00manist]

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.

Re:BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

My fellow Americans, the times have been tough and the challenges tougher. We have been through war and dark times in the economy. Some say[Weasel words] that the Union is no longer as great as it has been, I disagree. The economy is recovering at a rapid pace[citation needed].....

Re:BFD

[herojig]

Right on dude, we want to also be able to vote for all elected officials via "web 2.0+" and hold politicians accountable over the internet, from our mom's basements.

Re:BFD

[geekoid]

It will appear in a wiki and online. I'm not sure what that has to do with a live speech.

Also, this is another step toward access for people. Not the end game, and not the only way. Just another way.

This is a good thing.

One thing DAMMIT

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:One thing DAMMIT

[protektor]

It's called voting. We don't have to run for office to effect change. Also what the hell do you think blogs and YouTube channels are, just distracting fun? They are also forms of media and commenting on public events and policy. You might want to look around more before you make such foolish comments.

Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway.

[Bad Labrador]

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.

Mexican citizen, paid US taxes for twenty years

[h00manist]

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?

Re:Mexican citizen, paid US taxes for twenty years

[DigiShaman]

Perhaps if you went through the proper immigration process like every migrant is supposed to be doing, you wouldn't feel this way now would you? And by chance you don't respect following the process, as an American, I expect you to leave. Forcibly if needed.

The USA is not an open-borders country despite the fact the borders aren't very well enforced. If you don't agree, then you wouldn't be living in a country that enforces its southern border more seriously than the USA. Fancy that!

Wait until it's in 3D

[trollertron3000]

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!

Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican doesn't understand even elementary logic. They can't be reasoned with.

Barack Obama should execute his legislave agenda with signing statements and executive orders, like his predecessor.

Even trying to explain a cost benefit analysis to a Republican is an exercise in futility. Just get it done.

By the way, Obama actually has gotten alot done. Even when you don't include the fact that he saved us from another great depression, he's had a great presidency so far.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Nadaka]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[foobsr]

Obama is just another devious snake.

Worse.

CC.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[protektor]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Shotgun]

you must be a racist, too.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[spun]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[gtbritishskull]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[I8TheWorm]

Was this a joke?

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[I8TheWorm]

It's a good thing Obama hasn't used executive orders so your statement holds true.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[I8TheWorm]

Yet he has anyway

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Straif]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Straif]

Obama has already issued several signing statements, fewer than GWB to be sure, but you really should look these things up.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[spun]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[spun]

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

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[treeves]

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?

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[treeves]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[spun]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[spun]

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...

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Straif]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[I8TheWorm]

All mastered by Roosevelt, who at one point was way low in popularity because of his power grab in the Supreme Court.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans

[I8TheWorm]

Ah ok, yeah.. you're right.

Great improvement

[Frequency Domain]

The previous administration used the #stfu tag.

Re:Great improvement

[corbettw]

Really really really makes me wish the Founders had required the President to deliver a report on the "State of The Federal Union".

Now they can lie to use better

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow...now politicians can lie to use with live streaming and "web 2.0" technology. The pipes are bursting at the seams...

Text needs one minor correction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama will take questions live from "users".

Twitter Account

[lymond01]

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.

Speech is on the web

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Come on nah.... Hooowah!

[mematron]

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.

Rickroll ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Rickroll ...

[Shotgun]

Rickroll. Pffft! Man, he definitely needs a goatse!

Re:Rickroll ...

[gstoddart]

Rickroll. Pffft! Man, he definitely needs a goatse!

Nobody 'needs' a goatse.

That's like ... a weapon of mass disgusting. That would land you in Gitmo or something. ;-)

Well ... if you could Goatse Bin Laden I don't think anybody would mind.

Re:Rickroll ...

[Shotgun]

Is that a "weapon of mass disgusting" or "weapon of mass digesting"?

Web 2.0? PFFFT!!!

[Charliemopps]

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"

Re:Web 2.0? PFFFT!!!

[BuckaBooBob]

On a separate note the whitehouse did the streaming content distribution with Level 3 and Comcast users were unable to see it since Comcast is holding Level 3 up for ransom due to the lack of net neutrality laws.

Re:Web 2.0? PFFFT!!!

[geekoid]

That would be awesome. I would love to see comcast explain that to consumer and the government.

Drinking games

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a drink when

- His head toggles from one teleprompter to the other. (Don't expect to survive this one.)
- 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. ... Add your own favorites here...

Re:Drinking games

[TheL0ser]

Better, simpler game: Choose a side. While that side is standing and clapping, chug. Make sure you have 9-1 already in your phone, you'll probably need it.

Re:Drinking games

[SnarfQuest]

The Democrats have made this really hard to do, with the "prom dates" that they are having. You'll have to recognize them and their party by their face, which will get very hard as the address goes on, and the picture gets more and more blurry.

Re:Drinking games

[SnarfQuest]

Streakers.

Gifford is mentioned, but none of the other victims are.

He uses "attack" phrases, like calling Republicans the "enemy", "bringing a gun", "killing" legislation, or other hate speech he has been condemning (but still using himself).

More plans for spending billions of dollars on "economic recovery".

Apologizing for how evil the USA is.

Re:Drinking games

[ShavedOrangutan]

I always wanted to do that during one of W's speeches. Every time he says "Nu-kyoo-ler", everybody drinks. Preferably something potent.

Oops

[el_jake]

The state seem to be broken....States my Chrome browser..

Homey the Man

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Homey the Man.

So, you're saying that this Black Man is now the Establishment.

I guess our only hope is a chick in the Whitehouse?

Re:Haven't Heard

[TaoPhoenix]

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?

Re:Haven't Heard

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[MacGyver2210]

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.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Propaganda goes high-tech!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool!

Ignorance is strength!

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

A great way to establish better credibility is to not quote Sarah Palin in your comments.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Will it have a lie counter?

[Quila]

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.

Re:Will it have a lie counter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you build it out of something that can handle the extreme temperatures generated by rapidly rotating parts. Having your counter explode, throwing out numerous white hot gears, could be a party buster.

Re:Will it have a lie counter?

[H0p313ss]

Obama's just most famous for it because Alito called him on one lie during his last SOTU.

[Citation needed]

Not Alito's BS, I mean evidence that he lied. My recollection is that Alito blew up and spewed ignorant rhetoric.

Slides, context

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:Slides, context

[Shotgun]

no CFO gives a presentation without slides showing the information and references to back it up

Unless the CFO is actively trying to pass off a lie.

And there's your answer.

Re:Slides, context

[kbielefe]

This state of the union address contains forward-looking statements which reflect the administration's best judgment based on factors currently known. However, these statements involve risks and uncertainties, including a Republican-controlled House, talk radio, the tea party, as yet undiscovered problems to blame Bush for, and other risks detailed in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements included in this speech.

Re:Slides, context

[geekoid]

yeah, and most CFO presentation are teh suck. Do kids still say that?

Your point is valid. The media should be holding them to those numbers. and for the most part they do. Sadly the two sides consists of: Everything is black and white and those number are true AND everything is shades of grey, so we need to look closer.

SO the Black and white people look at the shades of gray and say 'see THEY don't know'. When in fact they are wrong.

This applies to pretty much every debate since 1980.

Re:Slides, context

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the corporate world". Every corporation or corporate giants like MS or HP? I have a hard time believing all corporates do it that way - mine does not. (Not huge though)

Re:Slides, context

[WrongMonkey]

When Ross Perot used charts to support his speeches, he was mocked for it. US voters don't want a CEO President, they want a surrogate father President or a drinking buddy President.

3D Obama was Amazing

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:3D Obama was Amazing

[DigiShaman]

When they got the 3D tech worked out 3D Obama was amazing

So the 3DO is making a comeback? Please, say it ain't so!

Our Apologies

[markdavis]

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.

Re:Our Apologies

[SnarfQuest]

Too bad whitehouse.com isn't under the original providers. It would have made for a much more interesting show for those making one simple mistake.

Re:Our Apologies

[zero0ne]

Site is up for me - Chrome no less

Re:Our Apologies

[markdavis]

Looks like the site is up now. Although it is not streaming video yet... so no knowing if it will work under 9pm EST. I did notice an iphone app with no Android app, though. Hmm

Re:Our Apologies

[geekoid]

Be sure to mention it the 'not all citizens can enjoy it' and not 'Why won't you support MY computer'

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[protektor]

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.

PR Stunt

[protektor]

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?

Re:PR Stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

You're damn right it's a PR stunt, that's the whole dog and pony show that is the "State of the Union Address".

Do you know what makes American politics annoying? The Republicans & Democrats are two heads of the same beast, a tiny handful of you down there get it but others get sucked into the idea that the two big parties have opposed views or stand for anything, sort of like wrestlers back in the 80s barking out hatred for each other, at the end of the day they share the same rewards from the idiots going to watch them do it.

What you really have in the United States is a conservative right leaning party and a conservative far right learning party, both suck, neither have done anything useful for you in decades and has left the Government stuck in neutral allowing greedy people to swoop in and take advantage of this ridiculous deadlocked framework.

It's one big circle jerk with the US Citizen in the middle.

Forget left and right for fucking minute and look at what your Government is doing, regardless of historical Party affiliation, they've taken America away from you all.

Re:PR Stunt

[geekoid]

Your]'re an idiot, and you twist everything that shows you are wrong into some dumb ass conspiracy. Go buy yourself a shack in Montana and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Mashiki]

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.

And I just installed Web 1.0.

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap! Crap, I say.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of parroting the Fox news lies you should read this.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[I8TheWorm]

He actually voted in the senate?

Speaking of US broadband penetration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out two thirds of the US population won't be able to participate (me included, thank you stupid Satellite "Internet").

Re:Haven't Heard

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are replying to the speech from 2010??

In related news ...

[PPH]

... the Gettysburg Address will be translated into l33t5peak.

Nope. Noy gonna watch the SOTU address.

[n6kuy]

I think I have to groom my poodle...

The uninsurable

[tepples]

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?

Re:The uninsurable

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

According to his page on the Republican party Website his plan addresses that point in that it:

...requires the Department of Health and Human Services to certify plans and publish an annual list of Medicare-approved plans, at least one of which must be targeted to the “special needs of Medicare’s highest cost seniors.”

I'm unclear as to how the DHHS certifying plans means that insurance providers must offer one, but perhaps it is somehow a requirement. It would be nice if they clarified the point.

Re:The uninsurable

[bar-agent]

...requires the Department of Health and Human Services to certify plans and publish an annual list of Medicare-approved plans, at least one of which must be targeted to the "special needs of Medicare's highest cost seniors."

So if you are not a member of the AARP but still uninsurable, they won't lift a finger for you.

Looks like Flash

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

The link to the SOTU site is actually embedded in the Fine Article. Here it is in its naked glory:

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.

In an unprecedented

[Quila]

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.

The 2016 SOTU Ahead of Time...

[Paul Fernhout]

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

SOTU 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Redicululus speech.

The analogy of the US economy and an airline passanger plane with no engine is the most asinine statement I have ever heard from a politician, even Sarah Palin. Any 7-year old would quickly point out his logical error.

What the US needs is to be rid of Barak Hussain Obama and his Oligarchs, and quickly.

Then put on trial for crimes against humanity (torture of Pfc Manning and murders world-wide).

-308

Re:SOTU 2

[ravenspear]

The only thing ridiculous was that hilarious character Bachmann. Absolute train wreck of a response.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A Joke Heard on K-street DC

[Anonymous Coward]

Sceen: Sarah Palin walks up to Barak Hussain Obama on K-Street.

Palin: Hay Barak-O, what's the difference between a dog and you?

Obama: I don't know; what?

Palin: A penus.

Palin: Here's another one. What is the difference between a dog and you?

Obama: I don't know; what?

Palin: Stupid! Didn't you pay attention! A penus.

Palin: Now the last one. What is the difference between a half-breed dog without a penus and you?

Obama: A penus?

Palin: No stupid! Nothing! Barak-O Barak-O, Barak-O got not brain-O, cuz he's drink'n drain-O. Hay hay hay.

-308

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 insihgtful to troll sucker!

2.0, huh?

[MoleyGhost]

Wasn't Web 2.0 a 2004 thing? Aren't we supposed to call it Cloud Computing now, or something?

Usenet on the web

[tepples]

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.

Re:Usenet on the web

[Coren22]

Than I would consider those gateways web, web is short for world wide web, the standard convention of which is www.x.x