Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 It's hard to taint that post... it's a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Jenks, it's probably just a condition of circumstance, you clearly made fun of reid for being old, too. However, it seems to me that many criticisms around Pelosi are based off of looks, ON the board. And with H. Clinton in her presidential run, the same thing. I think there are some really fantastic women politicians, and it bothers me that so often derisive criticisms of them are about their looks. (All directed outside your post) Often compared with men, implications they are lesbians in a critical way, etc. So I immediately get turned off when these criticisms are made. And as a personal aside, I thought much of the speech was applauding the house, and I agree. Obviously, yeah, the house can fix the HC debacle by passing it, but it's worth noting that pelosi has gotten action on so many of the presidents priorities already, and tried to do it in a way that could protect her more conservative members from having to vote. Though it's fair to disagree with how effective the policies she's whipping to vote are, I don't think it's fair to say she has been the problem. The senate holds that honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 The state of our Union is . . . * 2010: Strong * 2008: Strong * 2007: Strong * 2006: Strong * 2005: Confident and Strong * 2004: Confident and Strong * 2003: Strong * 2002: Never been stronger * 2000: Strongest it has ever been * 1999: Strong * 1998: Strong * 1997: Strong * 1996: Strong * 1995: Stronger than it was two year ago * 1994: Growing stronger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 Sigh A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 After Obama's complaining about perpetual campaigns, I got an email from Obama asking for money. Using the SOTU for fundraising. Frank– I just finished delivering my first State of the Union address. I set out an urgent plan for restoring economic security for struggling middle class families. This is my top priority, but I cannot do it alone — and that’s why I’m writing to you now. Tonight, I called on Congress to enact reforms and new initiatives to defend the middle class — to create millions of new jobs, support small businesses, and drive up wages; to invest in the education of our children and the clean energy technology that must power our future; and to protect the economy from reckless Wall Street abuses. And I made my position on health reform clear: We must not walk away. We are too close, and the stakes are too high for too many. I called on legislators of both parties to find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. I have no illusions — there have been setbacks, and there will be more to come. The special interests who have shaped the status quo will keep fighting tooth and nail to preserve it. So tonight, I’m asking you to join me in the work ahead. I need your voice. I need your passion. And I need your support. Can you help fuel our fight for the middle class with a monthly donation of $15 or more? https://my.democrats.org/SOTU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 LOL. How are you on their mailing list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:53 PM) Sigh This is one of his worst areas so far, and one where he has been nothing short of dishonest. He said no lobbyists in the White House, and hired a bunch. He is truly speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:27 AM) This is one of his worst areas so far, and one where he has been nothing short of dishonest. He said no lobbyists in the White House, and hired a bunch. He is truly speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this topic. I couldn't care less about him hiring them. I care about the fact that the paid ones are still the dominant force shaping policy (see: healthcare, banking regulation) and he's unwilling to publicly confront that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 07:30 AM) I couldn't care less about him hiring them. I care about the fact that the paid ones are still the dominant force shaping policy (see: healthcare, banking regulation) and he's unwilling to publicly confront that fact. You couldn't care less that he has been, and continues to be, patently dishonest about something he made a major campaign point? I mean, I realize campaign promises are often unfulfilled, but that doesn't mean I am OK with the fact that a President goes beyond just not meeting a promise, and actually lies to say he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) You couldn't care less that he has been, and continues to be, patently dishonest about something he made a major campaign point? I mean, I realize campaign promises are often unfulfilled, but that doesn't mean I am OK with the fact that a President goes beyond just not meeting a promise, and actually lies to say he did. The campaign promise itself was basically meaningless as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter to me whether or not a person hired has worked for a lobbyist if they're qualified for the job; they certainly know the policy if they've been lobbying on it. The question is always the actual policies and the currently active lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:00 AM) The campaign promise itself was basically meaningless as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter to me whether or not a person hired has worked for a lobbyist if they're qualified for the job; they certainly know the policy if they've been lobbying on it. The question is always the actual policies and the currently active lobbying. Yet, if this were a republican, you'd be screaming about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Yes. Balta is known to scream quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share Posted January 29, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:34 AM) Yes. Balta is known to scream quite often. F***ing AT&T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Re: Jenks's comment about Obama making fun of Pelosi being unable to pass anything - he actually shat (thank you Rex for using this word earlier, lol) on the Senate, hard, much more than the House. How many times did he point out "the House passed..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts