The State of The Union Address - President Obama - January 27, 2010

[Babe_Ruth]

The State of The Union Address - President... | Gather

I'm sure a few people here will be paying attention to The State of the Union Address of President Obama. It starts in fifteen minutes or so from now.

I'll definitely be watching, we can post our thoughts in this thread.

The biggest question is how well or bad Obama is going to connect with the people.

 

[micfranklin]

Depends on their definition of "connect" or even if anyone will pay close attention to the speech.

 

[MenInTights]

As embattled as he is, I thought he would go big. A 'We're going to the moon' type speech. He didn't and overall I thought he was rather flat and uninspiring.
------
This is interesting: Alito Appears To Mouth 'Definitely Not True' After Obama Criticizes Court Decision (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

Another "You Lie" at an Obama speech before Congress.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I thought overall it wasn't a bad speech. I disagree with him about how to fix most of the problems we have and I agree with you MIT, I expected it to be bigger, but overall I thought he delivered it well.

 

[Swiftstrike]

I think Obama's speech was the most realistic and down to earth I have seen.

I watched all of it and he addressed nearly everything I expected and I thought it was overall a good speech.

You can see his frustration and his bluntness in some circumstances. It is good though that he showed a little humor despite the darker situation. I felt like it was the "darker and grittier" sequel to a trilogy.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I disagree with his healthcare plan and I disagree that his stimulus plan "saved our economy from the brink of disaster", if anything it has retarded growth we should have seen already.

I do agree with his proposal to cut capital gains taxes for small businesses and tax incentives for investment.

I found his comments about putting earmarks on bills on the internet to be disengenuous, why not just veto any bill that has them?

 

[kcdad]

I found his comments about putting earmarks on bills on the internet to be disengenuous, why not just veto any bill that has them?

Because ear marks are attached to IMPORTANT legislation and the Supreme Court ruled that line item vetoes are unconstitutional.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Because ear marks are attached to IMPORTANT legislation and the Supreme Court ruled that line item vetoes are unconstitutional.

They're not ALWAYS attached to important legislation. He was referring to earmarks going to certain districts in exchange for votes, the corruption behind them. Put them on the internet, sure, but he still has the power of the veto.

 

[kcdad]

They're not ALWAYS attached to important legislation. He was referring to earmarks going to certain districts in exchange for votes, the corruption behind them. Put them on the internet, sure, but he still has the power of the veto.

An earmark is a spending bill attached to another piece of legislation. An earmark is NEVER an isolated piece of legislation.

 

[CaptainObvious]

An earmark is a spending bill attached to another piece of legislation. An earmark is NEVER an isolated piece of legislation.

Did I say that it was? He ran on not signing legislation that contained earmarks. He has signed legilsation containing earmarks. Now he wants them listed on the internet so everyone can see them. Why not just veto them like he promised? (I know, they're attched to legislation, that doesn't preclude him from sending it back and having the earmarks taken out like he promised)?

EDIT: The emphasis on the previous post should be on the word important.