LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Reactions to the 2014 SOTU Address

Sean Renaud said:
It's the things he might maybe possibly do in the future as well.
Click to expand...

Raising the minimum wages of federal contractors' employees is just the thin end of the totalitarian wedge! Can't you see it?! It'll be FEMA death camps next! Wake up, sheeple!
 
the rude pundit:

1/29/2014

The State of the Union Is We Need to Accept That We're Down to Two Branches of Government:

A few random observations on last night's big speech:

1. No less than half a dozen times did President Obama call for Democrats and Republicans to work or do something "together," as in "[L]et's see where else we can make progress together." And every time, the Rude Pundit thought, "Why bother?" There is an illusion that the President obviously doesn't believe anymore, but it is a lie that he clings to in his speeches, that somehow, somewhere down the line, Republicans will awaken to realize that the way they've been governing for the last five years in Washington is wrong and they're going to be willing to compromise and move more of his agenda items forward.

It's like a version of gay conversion therapy. No, Pastor Closeted, you're not gonna pray the gay away from someone. It's in their DNA. Sally's still gonna love the pussy. So it is with Obama and Republicans. It's as if he thinks that if he keeps saying, even half-heartedly, that people can work together, Republicans will just say, "Oh, right, we can choose to do that." They can't. Steve King and Ted Cruz ain't about to convert.

2. But, as always with Obama's speeches, no matter how much he reaches out, the GOP merely finds what he has to say tyrannical, fascistic, socialistic, mean, antagonistic, or plain wrong. The response will always be "We invite the President to work with us." So it was beyond predictable that, when Obama said, more or less, "Okay, fuck it. I'm doing what I can on my own," Republicans would go monkeyfuck insane. This madness was put most succinctly by Rep. Joe "That Mule-Fucking Yokel Who Yelled, 'You Lie' That One Time" Wilson, who offered, regarding President Obama saying he would use executive orders to accomplish some of his goals, "He calls on us to work together, then he threatens to act unilaterally? It just doesn’t fit." Which proves that Joe Wilson is dumber than a bucket of hair and can't hold two thoughts in his head. If you have to build a house by a certain time and you have a bunch of materials that allows you get started, you're not going to wait for the rest of the crew to begin.

3. The missed opportunity, as David Corn put it, is that Obama plainly refused to say that he is taking executive action only because Republicans in Congress won't do shit. Obama always blamed Congress in general, as in, "You don't have to wait for Congress to act," governors, on the minimum wage, or "As Congress decides what it's going to do," he's going to do some things on pre-K education. The one time he did call out Republicans was on the one part of the speech with some swagger, where he was describing the good of the Affordable Care Act. "[L]et's not have another 40- something votes to repeal a law that's already helping millions of Americans," he said.

But Obama seems to think that the American people connected the dots, that all of us realize that those were Republicans votes, plain and simple. When he asked Congress to extend unemployment benefits, why not say that Republicans prevented them from passing? When he asked Congress for a minimum wage hike, why not say that House Republicans unanimously voted against it? On item after item, from immigration reform to jobs, it's not the Congress as a whole who has blocked action. It's Republicans. What does he lose by calling them out? Why not tell everyone that the motherfuckers are the ones who fucked their mothers?

4. Obama was saying, in essence, that we are down to two branches of government. We've lost the legislative branch. And that's a goddamn shame, really. It's rendered itself useless for anything but passing a budget and making sure we don't default on our debt. Otherwise, it's best to ignore it so it doesn't do any more harm. No matter how hard we clap, the bipartisan fairy ain't gonna magically come back to life.

5. Even more depressingly, Obama's need to bypass Congress to get shit accomplished has led him to, in essence, deputize the private sector. Multiple times throughout the speech, the President said he was calling on or had made deals with large corporations to take some action. He wants them to lead by example and by donation to things that Congress won't fund, like Apple, Sprint, and Verizon giving money as "a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and 20 million students over the next two years [to high-speed internet], without adding a dime to the deficit." And how much advertising will be part of this?

6. Yes, it was great that President Obama talked about a number of liberal issues, like equal pay for women and closing Gitmo. But, every time, all the Rude Pundit could think was "Why not tell the American people that Republicans won't pass expanded gun background checks, even though 90% of us support it?" But, you know, see #4.

7. By the way, the end of the boring-ass GOP response was downright creepy. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers concluded with the prayer that "with the guidance of God, we may prove worthy of His blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You got that? We better please our mad god in order to earn his good graces. If Rodgers had been Muslim, the right would have exploded in a hategasm. (Oh, and she also said, "[W]e hope the President will join us in a year of real action.")

And this is who Obama refused to take on last night? If he wanted, if he put his heart into it, he could destroy them with one hand tied behind his back. Or maybe this is the longest game of rope-a-dope in history.
Click to expand...
 
julybaby04 said:
Or the BEST argument would be that those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, defend and protect it, need to do so!
Click to expand...

You mean like treating gay people equally under the law as per the 14th amendment?

Oh wait you just like to ignore that little bit don't ya?? Yep, your religion trumps your politics, or your politics trump your religion....which one is it JB?:confused:

I bet you don't give 1 wet butt piss about the constitution as long as you get to legislate your Bible down other citizens throats. Typical bat shit fundi christian republican.
 
Last edited:
truthout:

The Sugar Makes the Poison Taste Sweet


Thursday, 30 January 2014 09:02
By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

The President of the United States gave the annual State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and if you ask the right people, they'll tell you it was well and truly a barn-burner. President Obama dropped so many left-leaning, frown-inducing lines on the Republicans arrayed before him that Speaker Boehner, visible over the president's shoulder, changed hues from his standard orange to alarming red to call-the-paramedics purple on several notable occasions.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) stormed out of the chamber before the speech was finished. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Also TX) sent out a Tweet calling Mr. Obama the "Kommandant-In-Chef" before the speech even began. After the speech was over, no less than four Republican members of Congress - plus Ron Paul, who threw his two bent cents in for good measure - rose up to offer rebuttals, each of which went in their own merrily deranged direction, serving to underscore the shattered state of today's GOP. It was the Sybil Syndrome on network television, with neckties and Jesus thrown in to boot.

If you're not a fan of the Republicans in Congress, which you probably aren't according to all available polling data, it sounds like Tuesday was a pretty great night. If you deal with politics the way those little skimmer summer bugs deal with the surface of your favorite lake, it was. The president talked about income inequality, job creation, environmental protection, education, women's rights, voting rights, health care, and the warfare industry. Mr. Obama hit all the g-spots, and made it sound like he was just the guy to get it all done.

But then, if you're smart, you read the damned speech in detail...and if you did, like as not you have some serious questions to ask.

Questions, for example, like why Mr. Obama spent a good portion of his speech sounding for all the world like an Occupy Wall Street protester before turning on a dime to bend his knee to the failed religion of free-market economics. He did not say the words "Trans-Pacific Partnership." He did, however, say this: "Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when ninety-eight percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create more jobs."

Moles burrowed deep underground know by now that he wants that trade deal, and wants Congress to give him fast-track authority to get it done as soon as possible, despite the fact that the whole thing has been negotiated in secret, and will be, if ratified, caustic to American jobs in general, labor rights, environmental protections and human rights across the board. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, like its smaller cousin NAFTA, will not "create more jobs" as the president said Tuesday night, but will suck jobs out of the country and send them flying overseas. Again.

And then there is the question of why the president sounded like a Greenpeace activist when discussing environmental protections, before turning on a dime once again to promote a gas-mining practice called "fracking" that has already done lasting pollutive damage to communities all across the country. There are places in America, right this very minute, where you can light the tap water on fire because of the residue left over by this practice. A number of other countries have banned the process outright, but on Tuesday night, the president of the United States was hats-over-the-windmill thrilled by the prospect of spreading fracking far and wide. "In a fact sheet accompanying the speech," noted The Hill on Wednesday morning, "the White House called on Congress to establish 'sustainable shale gas growth zones.'"

Fracking is not sustainable. I guess that didn't make it into the notes for the speech. Can't imagine why.

And as we're on the subject of the environment, there's this state on the Eastern seaboard called West Virginia that Mr. Obama is president of along with the other 49. A company called Freedom Industries dumped poison into the water supply - two separate and distinct poisons, as it turns out - and left 300,000 people, their businesses, their schools, their hospitals, their retirement homes, without water to drink or bathe in or cook with for days and days and days.

According to Industry Specialists, the water is safe to drink now...but here's the funny part: the poison(s) that got dumped into the water supply have a funny way of breaking down into formaldehyde after a time, which they now have, and so all those West Virginians who had to avoid drinking the water are now drinking and cooking with and showering in - read "ingesting and breathing in" - a known carcinogen, and no one seems to be dealing with it. The president made no mention of that state, those citizens, or the industry that poisoned the water in the first place. If there is right now a better example of why we need stricter environmental regulations to protect the American people from these kinds of incidents, I'm not aware of it...and the president gave it a miss.

So three cheers to the wonderful rhetoric Mr. Obama devoted to the environment in his speech on Tuesday night. So long as you ignore the hazards of fracking, and ignore entirely the state of West Virginia (mission accomplished, Mr. President), he sounded for all the world like a true green hero. And since he also didn't mention the Keystone XL pipeline, we all get to wait to find out if he's going to green-light a fragile tube that will transport the dirtiest oil available on Earth across America's breadbasket and over our most vital water aquifer.

And then...and then, there was Cory Remsburg, the last invited guest Mr. Obama made note of. Remsburg, an Army Ranger, was injured by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan during his tenth deployment.

His tenth deployment.

His tenth deployment.

Cory Remsburg rose up before that parliament of whores, disfigured, maimed for life, and was duly recognized for his service and devotion to country. He received a deafening ovation from a room filled with the worst people in the country, many of whom voted over and over again to send him back to war ten times over, who cheered so loudly to cover over their shame...including the president himself, whose Afghanistan "surge" played its own part in putting Cory Remsburg in the path of the bomb that left him barely able to stand, blind in one eye, and forever damaged.

The President of the United States made no mention of the insanity of any soldier having to endure ten deployments, made no mention of the concept of actions and consequences, even as he stood before the loudest microphone on the planet. Perhaps he and his people thought the face of Cory Remsburg said it for him, and if so, that is another sorry example of the eleventy-dimension chess being played by an administration which is trying to run a country that only knows, politically, how to play checkers.

There are times when real leaders have to say things out loud into microphones, even when those things are so obvious that they bleed on the pavement. What happened to Cory Remsburg was wrong. It was, in fact, a crime, a long act of profiteering that has fed tens of thousands of men and women like him into the meat grinder, to be spat out into a VA system that is utterly overwhelmed and paralyzed before the avalanche of bodies it is tasked to help.

Instead, Mr. Obama said this: "My fellow Americans, men and women like Cory remind us that America has never come easy. Our freedom, our democracy, has never been easy. Sometimes we stumble; we make mistakes; we get frustrated or discouraged. But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress..."

We have put those things aside? Cory Remsburg, and the tens of thousands of soldiers who share his damage, cannot put those things aside. Mr. Obama turned that soldier's plight into a pep rally for the country that fed him to the bomb that almost killed him. "Sometimes we stumble; we make mistakes" was the only apology that ravaged Ranger got from his Commander in Chief. He deserved far more than that, as do all the men and women not lucky enough to get applause from Congress on television.

It is easy peasy for politicians to talk about putting difficult issues "aside," out of mind, away. That's the bread and butter of the Teflon not-my-problem political hack. Leaders, real leaders, address those difficult issues head-on. They challenge we the people to take them head-on, as well, and that is how we heal and rise and move on. That did not happen on Tuesday night. Again.

If you ask the right people, they'll tell you it was a great speech.

Ask me, and I'll tell you I saw a man talk like an Occupy protester while promoting the same tired, failed economic principles that spawned our yawning inequality in the first place. I saw a man talk like a Greenpeace activist while promoting or ignoring the dirtiest fuel industries in the business. I saw a man honor a ten-times-deployed wounded veteran with an "Oops." I saw a man talking very eloquently out of both sides of his mouth, again, and it made me sick in my soul.

"Between the idea and the reality," said a poet, "falls the Shadow."

It's the sugar that makes the poison taste sweet.
Click to expand...
 
BotanyBoy said:
You mean like treating gay people equally under the law as per the 14th amendment?

Oh wait you just like to ignore that little bit don't ya?? Yep, your religion trumps your politics, or your politics trump your religion....which one is it JB?:confused:

I bet you don't give 1 wet butt piss about the constitution as long as you get to legislate your Bible down other citizens throats. Typical bat shit fundi christian republican.
Click to expand...

Are you gay?
 
julybaby04 said:
Just curious.
Click to expand...

I always suspected that about you. It always starts as "curiosity." Don't worry. When your church and family reject you after you finally come to terms with your sexuality, you will find the gay community to be very accepting and forgiving.
 
julybaby04 said:
BotanyBoy said:
You mean like treating gay people equally under the law as per the 14th amendment?

Oh wait you just like to ignore that little bit don't ya?? Yep, your religion trumps your politics, or your politics trump your religion....which one is it JB?:confused:

I bet you don't give 1 wet butt piss about the constitution as long as you get to legislate your Bible down other citizens throats. Typical bat shit fundi christian republican.
Click to expand...
Are you gay?
Click to expand...
WTF difference does that make? Try answering his question instead of ignoring it?
Though I can see why you chose to ignore it, since your Constitution thumping only goes on as long as it doesn't conflict with your bible thumping.

Gays and Christians, and even people like you who practice some perverted version of jesus's teachings, all deserve equal protections under the constitution, which I know goes against every fiber of your being.
 
Last edited:
about_average said:
WTF difference does that make? Try answering his question instead of ignoring it?
Though I can see why you chose to ignore it, since your Constitution thumping only goes on as long as it doesn't conflict with your bible thumping.

Gays and Christians, and even people like you who practice some perverted version of jesus's teachings, all deserve equal protections under the constitution, which I know goes against every fiber of your being.
Click to expand...

Color of skin means everyone deserves equal rights.

Male or female means everyone deserves equal rights.

Choices in life does not equate to equal rights (i.e., who one chooses to sleep with).

As a matter of fact, some choices mean actually losing rights that most already have, such as someone who makes the choice to murder another individual, they lose all rights (except to that of a speedy trial, a lawyer, not having to say anything, etc.).

The Constitution is there to make sure that people have the right to life (which liberals do not uphold in their support of abortion), liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee happiness nor does it guarantee the right of citizens to have "extra" rights simply because of who they choose to sleep with.

Disagree as you wish, but choices people make do not equate to rights.
 
People don't choose to be gay. Lets say that they do though. If you choose to be gay then you also choose to be straight. Why does your decision to follow the herd like a sheep grant you additional rights that other people don't get if they don't behave exactly as you do?
 
KingofAssTards...you need to take a look at that little brave six year old from New York that is 150* the man of your lazy, slothful, welfare, pathetic life.

That kid gave his life to save a lovesld ones

You risk typing to spew crap to feel entitled and demand more welfare
 
Sean Renaud said:
People don't choose to be gay. Lets say that they do though. If you choose to be gay then you also choose to be straight. Why does your decision to follow the herd like a sheep grant you additional rights that other people don't get if they don't behave exactly as you do?
Click to expand...

No additional rights.
 
julybaby04 said:
Color of skin means everyone deserves equal rights.

Male or female means everyone deserves equal rights.

Choices in life does not equate to equal rights (i.e., who one chooses to sleep with).

As a matter of fact, some choices mean actually losing rights that most already have, such as someone who makes the choice to murder another individual, they lose all rights (except to that of a speedy trial, a lawyer, not having to say anything, etc.).

The Constitution is there to make sure that people have the right to life (which liberals do not uphold in their support of abortion), liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee happiness nor does it guarantee the right of citizens to have "extra" rights simply because of who they choose to sleep with.

Disagree as you wish, but choices people make do not equate to rights.
Click to expand...

First, it's not a choice. Sexual orientation is innate, as is eye color, the color of our skin, our IQ (unfortunately for you), etc.. The fact that it is your "opinion" that it's a choice doesn't make it true, it just makes you dumb and closed-minded.

Second, what "extra" rights are they asking for? They're asking for equal rights. If you're opposed to someone having the same rights you have simply because they're different from you, you're a bigot. Do you see the disabled the same way? Handicap access is the law; are you equally offended by their "extra" rights?
 
How are they not additional rights? If your concept is correct and people CHOOSE to be gay or straight instead of adhering to the factory settings then the NORMAL person is by default asexual. At the point that they choose to be straight they get access to the rights of marriage and equal treatment and if they choose to be gay they never gain these rights. At best they are forever treated as children since there are lots of things we don't let you do until you reach fairly arbitrary ages but that would still by definition be additional rights.

Unless you're wrong and being gay isn't a choice.
 
Lorilei said:
First, it's not a choice. Sexual orientation is innate, as is eye color, the color of our skin, our IQ (unfortunately for you), etc.. The fact that it is your "opinion" that it's a choice doesn't make it true, it just makes you dumb and closed-minded.

Second, what "extra" rights are they asking for? They're asking for equal rights. If you're opposed to someone having the same rights you have simply because they're different from you, you're a bigot. Do you see the disabled the same way? Handicap access is the law; are you equally offended by their "extra" rights?
Click to expand...

Hmm, thought you were ignoring me.....

Disabilities are not a choice.

Just because your "opinion" is different from mine does not make it correct either, however I do not view those with differing opinions as dumb nor close-minded....just an individual having a differing opinion.

An example of a choice is that simply because of those differing opinions, you CHOOSE to insult. I suppose, in your mind, it makes you feel better in some strange way, but in reality, it just is insulting another person

If you believe being gay is not a choice and there is some sort of "rights" that go along with that lifestyle, then that is your opinion.

I believe it is a choice and therefore it no different than choosing what kind of car to drive, for example.

I am quite sure you will have some wonderful insult to hurl my way because of my opinion and that is fine. You have your way of dealing with opposing views and I have mine.
 
julybaby04 said:
Hmm, thought you were ignoring me.....

Disabilities are not a choice.

Just because your "opinion" is different from mine does not make it correct either, however I do not view those with differing opinions as dumb nor close-minded....just an individual having a differing opinion.

An example of a choice is that simply because of those differing opinions, you CHOOSE to insult. I suppose, in your mind, it makes you feel better in some strange way, but in reality, it just is insulting another person

If you believe being gay is not a choice and there is some sort of "rights" that go along with that lifestyle, then that is your opinion.

I believe it is a choice and therefore it no different than choosing what kind of car to drive, for example.

I am quite sure you will have some wonderful insult to hurl my way because of my opinion and that is fine. You have your way of dealing with opposing views and I have mine.
Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
But, is it drugs?
Replies
4
Views
253
bboner4u
bboner4u
J
Lien Geller
Replies
0
Views
98
JoeOzo
J
R
Looking for a story
Replies
0
Views
31
Rocksolid0202
R
S
Searching for story
Replies
0
Views
68
SereneGrizzly
S
gxnn
A 60-y-o man dressed as a lady having sex with 1691 men
Replies
1
Views
425
Treeview
Treeview
Back
Top