I mean, nobody even bothered to make a thread about it. I can't remember the spin room not having a thread about a state of the union speech. I can only imagine the kind of rhetoric he must have spewed forth last night

Not really. Just a bunch of fluff as usual. Talked about making cuts without being very specific. Same "we need bipartisanship" things that have been said a thousand times before. Basically, it was the same SOTU speech that is given every year, regardless of who is giving it.

I've never watched the SOTU address. What's the point?

What I'd really like to hear is a real "State of the Union." Something like,

" We have these concerns for National Security:
-Iran
-Afghanistan
-Mexico
-etc.
We have X number of ships in the Navy.
We have Y troops in the Army.
We are expecting voluntary enlistment of M in the military for 2011. We (met/exceded/underattained) our enlistment goal of last year.
Our projected budget for 2011 is $B.
Our debt is $T, at an averate interest rate of P%.
Our current fed highway plans are...
Other major national initiatives include
-NASA
-DoE
-etc.
Our current legal issues between states include
-A
-C
-D.

Your state and local legislators will provide more information to you on all of these topics. Please stay engaged with them on these matters.

Good night"

(01-26-2011 11:25 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Not really. Just a bunch of fluff as usual. Talked about making cuts without being very specific. Same "we need bipartisanship" things that have been said a thousand times before. Basically, it was the same SOTU speech that is given every year, regardless of who is giving it.

sounded like it. i flipped to it during a commercial, heard some vague comment about making sure not to cut things we need and switched back to the commercials

Seemed to me like he flew in a lot of ordinary people to point to as he tried to make his points. I think Bush started that practice and Obama took it and ran.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/2...is-speech/

Quote:Some of the most intriguing things in the Statue of Union address were the issues the president did not address:

Rand Paul SOTU Reponse:





Libertarian SOTU Response with John Stossel, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson:

I've never heard anything of substance in a SOTU address. I didn't watch this one.

If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, then maybe he should stop accepting money from CPAC and the GOP. As for "We're not threatened militarily by any country", that's utterly insane. He uses that warped logic to form his opinion that we should scale back the military to extremely low levels, but is apparently too ignorant or obtuse to understand that the might of our military is WHY they're not about to bow the **** up at us. Remove that military and it won't work out too well for us.

I watched it all, I do every year, and there are some comments in the Don't Gotta Look at Pelosi thread.

I didn't think it was a bad speech. I certainly cringed when he went off-prompter and said things about patdown and planes crashing and how oil companies are doing OK "if you didn't know already" etc.

I though his ROTC comments were outstanding. I like that he (like each president) made mention of nuclear power. I enjoyed his remarks that the country should hold it's teachers in higher regard. I eagerly look forward to the legislation that promotes merging many sections of the federal government. He seemed to stop talking about "inherited" problems.

I didn't like his bizarre analogy about Sputnik and the space race. His comments on 1,000,000 electric cars by some year in the future is silly. He made not one mention of the housing crisis, and put scant notes out in regards to unemployment and the jobs market. And no comments on the WOT is in-excusable, considering the terror in Moscow the day before.

(01-26-2011 01:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, then maybe he should stop accepting money from CPAC and the GOP. As for "We're not threatened militarily by any country", that's utterly insane. He uses that warped logic to form his opinion that we should scale back the military to extremely low levels, but is apparently too ignorant or obtuse to understand that the might of our military is WHY they're not about to bow the **** up at us. Remove that military and it won't work out too well for us.

Didn't they bow up at us back in 2001? I guess our enormous military presence crushed them swiftly and effortlessly, right? Or have we dropped trillions to chase them across a desert for a decade?

(01-26-2011 01:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 01:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, then maybe he should stop accepting money from CPAC and the GOP. As for "We're not threatened militarily by any country", that's utterly insane. He uses that warped logic to form his opinion that we should scale back the military to extremely low levels, but is apparently too ignorant or obtuse to understand that the might of our military is WHY they're not about to bow the **** up at us. Remove that military and it won't work out too well for us.

Didn't they bow up at us back in 2001? I guess our enormous military presence crushed them swiftly and effortlessly, right? Or have we dropped trillions to chase them across a desert for a decade?

I'm talking about 20th/21st century enemies. Not a bunch of cave-dwellers that have to use their own brains and bodies as guidance systems on an airliner. People with uniformed armies and navies. People like China. Like Russia.

(01-26-2011 01:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 01:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 01:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, then maybe he should stop accepting money from CPAC and the GOP. As for "We're not threatened militarily by any country", that's utterly insane. He uses that warped logic to form his opinion that we should scale back the military to extremely low levels, but is apparently too ignorant or obtuse to understand that the might of our military is WHY they're not about to bow the **** up at us. Remove that military and it won't work out too well for us.

Didn't they bow up at us back in 2001? I guess our enormous military presence crushed them swiftly and effortlessly, right? Or have we dropped trillions to chase them across a desert for a decade?

I'm talking about 20th/21st century enemies. Not a bunch of cave-dwellers that have to use their own brains and bodies as guidance systems on an airliner. People with uniformed armies and navies. People like China. Like Russia.

So if we can't handle a bunch of cave dwellers with limited funding, what makes you think those countries are so scared of us?

(01-26-2011 02:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So if we can't handle a bunch of cave dwellers with limited funding, what makes you think those countries are so scared of us?

They didn't come here as a standing Army or Naval armada.

BTW, we can handle those cave dwellers. Employ my tactics. It'll be over in a month.

(01-26-2011 02:09 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So if we can't handle a bunch of cave dwellers with limited funding, what makes you think those countries are so scared of us?

They didn't come here as a standing Army or Naval armada.

BTW, we can handle those cave dwellers. Employ my tactics. It'll be over in a month.

You're only further endorsing government incompetence, even in the military.

(01-26-2011 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:09 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 02:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So if we can't handle a bunch of cave dwellers with limited funding, what makes you think those countries are so scared of us?

They didn't come here as a standing Army or Naval armada.

BTW, we can handle those cave dwellers. Employ my tactics. It'll be over in a month.

You're only further endorsing government incompetence, even in the military.

The military isn't incompetent. Their hands are tied by our incompetent legislative and executive branch. Our military would have walked all over these sand dwellers had they been allowed to carry out WWII tactics. ....but oh no, no flame throwers, no WP, no carpet bombing, have to treat people who would slit our throats with dignity, etc., etc.

The left just doesn't believe we have enemies or that people want to see the US destroyed. I guess Ron Paul is in that category.

For the record, I watched a DVR recording of The Avengers.

That cartoon is the BEST, and I never liked the Avengers comic.

Wasp makes the show.

(01-26-2011 03:30 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  For the record, I watched a DVR recording of The Avengers.

That cartoon is the BEST, and I never liked the Avengers comic.

Wasp makes the show.

not sure you're in the right thread. and are you talking about the new show that's on Disney XD?

(01-26-2011 03:41 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 03:30 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  For the record, I watched a DVR recording of The Avengers.

That cartoon is the BEST, and I never liked the Avengers comic.

Wasp makes the show.

not sure you're in the right thread. and are you talking about the new show that's on Disney XD?

I watched this rather than the SOTU address. And I'm better for it.

And yes, I pretty much watch Disney XD and HGTV. (Although somehow nicktoons got Wolverine and the X-Men, which is far better than X-Men Evolution).

(01-26-2011 03:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 03:41 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 03:30 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  For the record, I watched a DVR recording of The Avengers.

That cartoon is the BEST, and I never liked the Avengers comic.

Wasp makes the show.

not sure you're in the right thread. and are you talking about the new show that's on Disney XD?

I watched this rather than the SOTU address. And I'm better for it.

And yes, I pretty much watch Disney XD and HGTV. (Although somehow nicktoons got Wolverine and the X-Men, which is far better than X-Men Evolution).

that's cool. I was very pleased with the cartoon. It had a lot of good action and gave a lot of screen time to each character. I'm surprised you're such a big fan of Wasp.

And yeah, wolverine and the x-men was pretty damn good. too bad it got canceled