Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jkdbuck76, Jan 13, 2016.
I didn't watch it. Did you? If so, what did you think?
Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk
Did not see it. Wifey wanted to watch Downton Abbey.
Didn't watch it. Avoided it like Internet Theologian's posts.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
I heard a lot of it from the other room. There was not much new.
On Cuba, he said that the cold war was over, as if Cuban policy had been dictated by the cold war.
He called for an end to the embargo--but Cuba can already buy almost everything for cash. What the Democrats really want to do is send food via Cargill and other huge corporations with payment guaranteed by the taxpayers and knowing full well that Cuba will default on payment. It is called crony capitalism or corporate welfare. Cuba had never paid anything sent to them on credit since 1959.
The Democrats want to help Cuba because they are collapsing due to the low value of oil (given them by Venezuela, which the former President of Costa Rica says that the Cuban military runs). Obama never mentions Cuban communist crimes against humanity. The Castros have been in power some 55 years. Raul shot 70 people one day early in the communist revolution in spite of the fact that the Cuban constitution did not allow executions.
I only saw a brief bit, but that 2-3 minutes was so full of "other worldliness" that I had to shut it off!!
Pure BS also, from clips I've heard from critiques afterward. NOTE I said the clips I heard, not the critique itself.
Thisd guy apparently lives in the world of Peter Pan!!RolleyesRolleyes
I never watch the State of the Union. Takes too long and too much political theater. Besides, there was hockey on...or something else, like turtle racing that would have been better.
Usually I read the transcript the next morning...I'm probably not going to do that for this one. Who cares? The President has nothing left to offer this union and outside of him saying the state of our union is weak, terrible, or deteriorating...this speech meant nothing. He should have sent it over on a 3x5 index card and saved us the bandwidth.
Where is the state of the Union weak, terrible, and deteriorating?
In case you missed last night’s State of the Union address, here’s President Obama’s three biggest lies and omissions:
1) Obama claims America has “the strongest, most durable economy in the world”
In direct contrast to reality, the president said anyone who points out America’s economy is in decline “is peddling fiction.”
“Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” he asserted. “We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.”
But here’s what Obama’s not telling you: not only are 17% of U.S. jobs now held by immigrant workers, but the average U.S. stock is already down over 20% this year and the global economy is flirting with severe recession.
“We have never seen global exports collapse this much outside of a recession,” economic journalist Michael Snyder wrote. “Clearly we are witnessing a tremendous shift, and it boggles my mind that more people cannot see it.”
“As for this current wave of financial turmoil, it is hard to say how long it will last.”
In fact, the Royal Bank of Scotland even warned its clients to “sell everything” and exit the stock market as soon as possible.
2) Obama claims “we need to focus on destroying” ISIS, omits fact NATO arming, funding ISIS
“We need to focus on destroying ISIL,” the president stated, adding that ISIS militants “need to be rooted out, hunted down and destroyed.”
But in the real world, the White House and several NATO nations, particularly Turkey, are arming and funding ISIS-linked militants.
A leaked 2012 Pentagon document revealed the U.S. and other NATO nations deliberately backed al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad.
“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the Pentagon document stated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”
This support continues to this day. For one thing, the White House gave ISIS a 45 minute warning before bombing their oil tankers by dropping leaflets advising jihadists to flee before air strikes in Syria.
“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the leaflet read.
Continue . . . http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-three-biggest-lies-of-sotu-address.html
If prices for oil and other commodities keep falling, what is going to happen?
Well, Gina Martin Adams of Wells Fargo Securities says that what is happening right now reminds her of the correction of 1998…
Recent market volatility has dredged up memories of previous times of turmoil, most notably the 2008 crisis. But Gina Martin Adams of Wells Fargo Securities has been reminded of another, less dramatic correction year — 1998.
Adams posits that the current economic environment is suffering from themes that also played out in 1998, including falling oil prices, a rising U.S. dollar and troubles in emerging markets. Consequently, stocks may see a similar move to the 1998 correction, which saw a 20 percent drop for stocks over six weeks.
To me, it is much more serious than that. Just before U.S. stocks crashed horribly in 2008, we saw Chinese stocks crash, the price of oil crashed, commodity prices crashed, and junk bonds crashed really hard.
All of those things are happening again, and yet most of the “experts” continue to refuse to see the warning signs.
In fact, the mainstream media is full of articles that are telling people not to panicwhile the financial markets crumble all around them…
Continue . . . http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...l-copper-and-junk-bonds-all-continue-to-crash
Most of the folks added under Obama were at the beginning of his inherited recession. As the housing market collapsed and people lost everything, there should have been a spike for folks seeking government assistance for food and housing. That's a no brainer.
I believe your 1st chart doesn't tell that story. If you look at my chart from Trivisonno, you see that after the initial spike from the recession, the number of NEW people getting food stamps under the Obama administration started to drop right about the time he started to turn the economy around.
As for the second chart, haven't we been expecting for decades that more folks would qualify for coverage as baby boomers reached retirement? So I don't see how this, either, would be Obama's fault.
Your point #1 didn't disprove what he said.
Your point #2 doesn't disprove what he said either.
So where again is the state of the Union weak, terrible and deteriorating outside of race relations which again, frankly, ain't his fault.
No, the rate of new people being added to the food stamp program started to lessen. People were still being added to the program up through 2013, then they started to leave in 2014. My chart shows people were not leaving the food stamp program until 2014, as well.
Second chart is for Medicaid, not Medicare, so it reflects low income people getting benefits.
I think you missed my point, I said only if the President were to say the state of the union was these things would I be marginally interested in watching. The President never will say these things. We prefer the veneer of stability.
Okay.Biggrin I was just wondering because I don't think in all of my teen and adult life that I've ever heard a President say that the State of the Union was anything but strong or some positive variation therein.
The state of our Union has never been stronger," President George W. Bush said in 2002.
"As we gather here tonight, the state of our Union is strong," President Ronald Reagan said in 1983.
Generally, I would think that any President who offered a less than positive descriptor for what he believed the Union to be, wouldn't do to well if he were up for re-election, nor would his party.
The state of the union speech should be abolished. The Speaker of the House has the power to deny the President the podium. The constitutional duty can be discharged in writing, as it was in the past, as you know.
Obama is not a good speaker and the content of his speech was merely leftist politics. For example, the Democrats claim that their foreign policy is based upon making the USA popular overseas. But we have never been more unpopular overseas. The Democrat agenda, for example, of closing Gitmo and extending credit to the Castro murderers has nothing to do with either Islamic terrorism worldwide or American popularity in Latin America, which has some of the poorest countries in the world coupled with some of the most repressive dictatorships in the world.
And blah, blah,blah. The world probably learned to stop listening to political conservatives who rave about everything that's done when their party is in the White House while constantly complaining about everything when they aren't.
Oh, you are such an establishment Democrat that you dare not have an opinion that contradicts the party line. Even Democrat David Brinkley wanted to abolish the state of the union speech so don't try to blame it on conservatives although we will take credit if we are the ones to end this political rant.
So David Brinkley is the new standard? That just came out of left field.
Look at you naughty political conservatives trying to step all over the Constitution.