thinkprogress.org — President Barack Obama delivered a State of the Union address that aggressively defended his successful work to save the American auto industry, the centerpoint of American manufacturing, and directly addressed the unfairness of our economic system that has led to rapidly growing economic inequality. However, the president avoided a direct admission of the greatest threat [...]
Jan 25, 2012 View in Crawl 4
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
It was an impressive speech - a nice change from the nasty negative tone the Republicans are taking.
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
A nice change from the nasty, negative tone both parties are taking. The problems in Washington are not being caused by one party alone - they are both to blame.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
I'd argue that Democrats and Obama have offered an extremely moderate platform over the last few years (often to the detriment of their liberal base) in hopes of snagging Republican cooperation... it hasn't worked because Republicans are dead set on saying No before they've even heard what is being offered. It's gotten to be ridiculous. We need to be working together. We are all Americans, and there is a whole world out there that will pass us by if we let these childish antics keep us in gridlock.
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
Keep spouting those Dem talking points. Throw enough s**t on the wall, something is bound to stick.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
It's not about talking points... it's about common sense and paying attention to what is actually happening in the world.
thechauvinistJan 25, 2012
Austin's comment is soooo moderate and you respond w/ vitriol. The funny thing is that you refuse to cooperate even on a f**king forum.
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
Moderate? It's Democrat swill and brainwashing. The fact that you think it's moderate when he spouts out the same old tired verse about Republicans being the party of no tell me all I need to know about where you stand. He's a progressive tool as I've experienced plenty around this "forum". He hangs on every word that drools from the mouth of Obama like all the other sheep who want to give him another four years. If the truth is "vitriol", it's going to be a rough campaign year for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thechauvinistJan 25, 2012
"Moderate," as in "not sensational or dramatic." The tone you take with all of your posts is insane. I am surprised you have refrained from using ALLCAPS.
I just finished replying to one of my dad's goofy conservative friends in an email thread. You know these kind of guys: they FWD basically anything that comes to their email, probably still use Internet Explorer, and are completely bigoted when it comes to other peoples' positions on a topic.
You sound exactly like that guy.
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
How typical of you to break out the race/bigot card. This is why it's pointless to even attempt to discuss anything politically or be civil to someone like you or Austin. People like you two would fall all over yourselves and throw anyone else under a bus to see him get reelected.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
"This is why it's pointless to even attempt to discuss anything politically or be civil to someone like you or Austin"
It appears that you had decided this before posting as your tone is anything but civil.
You present your arguments just like Rush and all those other pseudo-Americans, with anger and a very loud tone. Yelling and insulting are not the way to get a point across. Maybe when you grow up a bit, you will learn that.
thechauvinistJan 25, 2012
Boss, here's the definition of a BIGOT
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."
The word 'race' is absent. The word 'intolerance,' however, is included.
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
If you were following politics closely half-a-dozen years ago when Congress was Dem and Bush was in office, the Dems in Congress were blocking anything the Repubs wanted, without exception. This 'party of no' thing has been going on for many years on both sides of the isle. It's disengenuous to pretend that one party is guilty because of what is happening right now. There is a history to this, and both are equal partners in crime.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
Democrats didn't block the Iraq War (wish they would have though). Democrats didn't block the Bush Tax Cuts (wish they would have though). Democrats didn't block the Patriot Act (wish they would have though). Democrats supported Bush's immigration reform (and Republicans ended up blocking it). Democrats supported Bush's No Child Left Behind (although Bush later failed to fund it like he promised)... You can't even compare this to now. Republicans say no to the pettiest things... like paying our bills (last august). They had trouble extending what should be a common sense middle class tax cut at the end of December. This congress is not the same old politics as usual - they've taken it further, made it nastier... and I'm willing to bet the American public has noticed since Congress's approval rating is in the single digits.
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
Endless diatribe by someone who has no concept of the world outside their own beliefs. Anyone who pretends that one party is totally right and the other party is totally wrong is a 'toadie', and has bought into a philosophy that excludes anything but themselves. You need to gain some perspective, friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
You say diatribe, I say examples. I don't think Democrats are perfect (far from it), but to say they are all equal, it's a wash in who is nastier... well I don't buy that.
drich255Jan 25, 2012
President Bush did have a lot of success reaching across the aisle.
However, Democrats did block Social Security reform. Personally, I think it is better to fix it sooner than later.
ridgerunner5Jan 25, 2012
"Democrats supported Bush's No Child Left Behind (although Bush later failed to fund it like he promised)."
The Dem House of Representatives held the purse strings. They had final say of what did and didn't get funding. So THEY failed to fund it like he promised.
drich255Jan 25, 2012
And let me clarify that I disagreed with some of what President Bush compromised with. I didn't like Campaign Finance Reform as it was written and thought he shouldn't have signed it. I didn't like No Child Left Behind. I didn't like the spending levels in general under the President Bush administration. I also didn't like the light bulb ban he signed.
youareretardedJan 25, 2012
"However, Democrats did block Social Security reform. Personally, I think it is better to fix it sooner than later."
Do you realize what would have happened had the repubs plans to reform social security actually had gone through?
drich255Jan 25, 2012
@youareretarded
So your plan is to kick the Social Security can down the road and wait for it to become a crisis and then blame it all on the GOP? I believe that qualifies as "do nothing".
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
It was a campaign speech from the same empty suit who never left the campaign trail. Just pandering and propaganda. No hope. No change.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
I'll take hope and optimism over hate and fear any day.
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
Then why are you an Obama fan?
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
I like his common sense approach to solving problems. Plus, the Republican candidates are always negative. The primaries have turned into a blood sport - and they want to convince me they are the ones who can unite this country.
bossm4nJan 25, 2012
Common sense is not common in the Obama administration. The GOP primaries are no different than any other primaries in the past, or do you not recall how ugly it got between Obama and Clinton? I guess if uniting the country is your bellwether, it would be tough for someone to do worse than Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereJan 25, 2012
To each their own. I supported Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, but never had a hatred for the opposition. These primaries are just nasty to watch. I'm so glad I don't live in a swing state - they must be so sick of the negative campaign ads. Why can't Republicans run a positive campaign for once?
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
because there's nothing positive about them.
they are running on the "look how s**tty that person is, and i'm not them!" platform
langfordJan 25, 2012
When the current energy portfolio is as fossil-fuel heavy as ours is, an "all of the above" approach should naturally trend towards clean alternatives. Entropy.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
What "clean alternatives" exist today or will be ready for prime time within the next 5 or 10 years? There are none. Fossil fuels and nuclear are the only viable game in town. Geothermal and hydroelectric are the only existing "clean" sources of power available to us today and for the foreseeable future which can provide our country or even modern civilization with the power it needs. Research is going full steam ahead on solar and others both by governments and by energy corporations the world over with very little progress. We need to use what is available NOW.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
Why does it have to be available in 5 to 10? I promise we'll still need clean energy in 20 years or more.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Because we need to start exploiting things yesterday. We should not stop exploiting what we can TODAY on the HOPE that clean viable alternatives will be available soon. The fact is this will not be the case. For example the storage technology needed to bring solar and wind up to near the same level as geothermal and hydroelectric isn't even on the drawing board. It's not even on the horizon. This doesn't mean we stop research. that would be stupid. People seem to think just because we exploit our fossil fuel options today means we stop looking to better sources we can switch to LATER.
Do you get it now?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
"Because we need to start exploiting things yesterday."
We already do! We exploit more resources than we ever have before and it's continuing to grow.
"We should not stop exploiting what we can TODAY on the HOPE that clean viable alternatives will be available soon."
neither langford nor I said anything like that. Straw man.
"Do you get it now?"
I get that you're badly mischaracterizing the promotion of cleaner long-term energy sources as some kind of prohibition against current fossil-fuel exploitation.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
give us high efficiency cars (if they have to run on gas) and more electric alternatives. An increase in mpg means a decrease in the need for more oil.
Why can't the power companies buy and install solar on their customer's homes. The $20 billion they save on a new reactor can be spent on solar. I would gladly pay my current rate to have some of my power generated from my own roof and the company gets what is not used during the day. No need to expand reactors or fuel burning plants. This would create thousands of jobs and take load off existing power plants and eliminate the need for new ones.
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
5-10 years ago someone was saying that, which is why we don't them now.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
You really think research hasn't been going on all this time? Seriously..?
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
I'm not sure what you are arguing about , Obama said he wants to expand our own drilling capabilties to address the immediate problems...
langfordJan 25, 2012
Because it's a bogus lie of an excuse.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Germany is producing 20% of its power with renewables and green power. I would say that counts as "prime time". They are using a mix of wind (7.5% percent of total), biomass (5.6%), solar (3.5%), hydroelectric (3.3%), and waste (0.8%).
You can also save enormous amounts of energy by improving the grid and collecting waste heat at various power stations.
Furthermore, US needs to start investing in other energy sources. Thorium reactors, for example - they are incredibly safe compared to uranium reactors (they can't overheat and melt), there is plenty of it on Earth (far more than Uranium and it's easier to mine), it requires no radiation shielding to store, etc. There are also far fewer waste materials.
thechauvinistJan 25, 2012
I had never heard of thorium reactors. This is something to investigate. I see that India just recently did something w/ it.
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
"...Obama sadly ignored the costliest year of climate disasters in American history..."
He spent his time focusing on solutions nearly everyone can agree on, instead of nagging about problems and should-have's. I find much of the research regarding man's contributions to the increase in temperature to be dubious, but I am a big advocate of technology, innovation, and progress - all of which can make the United States world leaders in clean energy, and get us off the middle-eastern teat.
Regardless of politics, everyone agrees we need to stop using foreign oil and improve air quality in our cities. These are bi-partisan goals, and the motives behind them should not matter.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
problem is that some feel the air and water quality are fine
MrFrogyJan 25, 2012
They cite measures that fall within acceptable legal parameters, but obviously the parameters were set when 'bad' was defined differently. There is a difference between staying within current legal guidelines and not being able to breathe well because it's a 'no-burn' day due to inversion, etc.
If the best argument is "we are not breaking the law" then obviously your back is up against the wall. Right and wrong are not always determined by legal or not legal.
GoldJacketJan 26, 2012
Mr. Obama actually had the nerve to say "no more bailouts."
leodinJan 25, 2012
We're dependent on fossil fuels now, and will be for the foreseeable future. That being the case, there's really not much we can do about climate change for the time being, so we should really just accept it as given and move on from there. I mean, we can predict hurricanes, but when we see one coming, do we waste time trying to change its course?
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
Obama announced that he is “directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”
Not without a fight..................nice 180 Obama, lets see how he campaigns in Florida with that one
<facepalm>
ganjadude4391Jan 25, 2012
now if only we had that from the start of the admin we would have a 3 year headstart
what an assclown
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
or we could have had more Deep Water Horizon incidents
limitgovJan 25, 2012
Because somehow, if the government takes more resources from the market and puts them into companies that are owned by friend's of politicians, somehow that will really help out our economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austrologiJan 25, 2012
shhh
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Umm... Duh? A stimulus is a stimulus - although there could be ways of investing money more effectively.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
Its not a stimulus if you just take wealth from one person and give it to another person. You're left with the same amount of wealth. This is common sense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
How about if that money goes toward hiring people?
limitgovJan 25, 2012
if you're on welfare and you hire people...you probably shouldn't be collecting welfare, no?
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
We were talking about the stimulus, not welfare. Is it really that hard for you to follow a conversation?
limitgovJan 25, 2012
Use a little common sense here. Taking the wealth from someone and then giving it to someone else, even if they hire someone didn't create any new wealth. This is simple mathematics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 25, 2012
New wealth is created from the commerce generated by those new workers. Where do you think wealth comes from?!
limitgovJan 26, 2012
wealth comes from savings investment and capital accumulation. Wealth isn't created by taking it from one person and giving it to another.
vintage_verbenaJan 26, 2012
It must be super easy to be a journalist covering Obama. He's so predictable you can use a template.
Headline: President Obama blames [insert scapegoat]
Body: Today, President Obama blamed [insert name/group] for his inability to follow through with [insert campaign promise]. "It's [name]'s fault," the President intoned. "Everyone is against me all the time. If you need me, leave a message with Biden. I'm going golfing."
When asked about the President's remarks, [name] protested (s)he was not to blame for Obama's inability to follow through on any of his rhetoric. The President was out golfing and did not respond to requests for further comment.
dougnic55Jan 25, 2012
way to go obama...
gkiltzJan 26, 2012
Congress hasn't done much the last couple of administrations.
They passed more bills just during Lyndon Johnson's Presidency than the GRAND TOTAL of what they have passed since the elder Bush's administration.
You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of veto fights Johnson lost.
grannysrightJan 25, 2012
ya I was really impressed listening to his line of bs all over again. Lets get someone who knows what they're doing come November. The country can't stand 4 more years of his ignorance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
while I agree we can't stand 4 years from Romney or Gingrich either.
grannysrightJan 25, 2012
Yes we can. At least they will not tell you you're lazy, and that you should live like the Europeans do.
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
no, they tell us we should live like the chinese do.
grannysrightJan 25, 2012
No that would would be the head of GE, Obama's 'jobs' czar.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
the establishment is the establishment...republican? democrat? it matters not.
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
"Lets get someone who knows what they're doing come November"
it's too bad the republicans arent running anyone like that.
grannysrightJan 25, 2012
Even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat and believe me, Barack Obama is not the best Democrat.
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
and thats why you lost the last election and will lose the next
norman619Jan 25, 2012
This headline might as well read:
State Of The Union: President Obama Blames Congress For Inaction On The Wetness Of Water, While Calling...
This is just as stupid. We can no more stop the climate from changing than we can stop the sun from rising and setting.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
balzorJan 25, 2012
the headline makes it sound like an Onion article. If Obama actually didnt read his speech that someone else wrote for him that contradicts itself, that's a real problem. Between him and the turds on the republican side (i like Ron Paul tho), our country is in for more problems. Let us all pray that we do in fact perish on Dec 21, 2012.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Jan 25, 2012
this is probably best....
had to kill the village in order to save it
drich255Jan 25, 2012
Does anybody think that making it illegal for kids to drop out of high school will solve anything?
drich255Jan 25, 2012
I thought several of his statements were misleading. Claiming to have signed fewer regulations than President Bush in an equal amount of time may be technically true, but you don't measure regulations by how many you pass (or don't pass). You measure them on their size, scope, cost, side effects, etc. NPR said that over a certain monetary threshold, President Obama signed twice as many regulations as President Bush.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
You say Climate Change, I say Climate Gate. :yawn:
concusionJan 25, 2012
know-nothing. :yawn:
corydorningJan 25, 2012
know-it-all :yawn:
(let's keep it going!)
concusionJan 25, 2012
what other science do you want to call into question. Is the earth flat now? are dinosaur bones planted in the earth as a conspiracy? Just wondering how far your denial of science and facts goes.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
Are you kidding me? The scientific community has never come to a consensus on climate change, much less whether it caused by us or if it can be reversed. stop reading one sided reports.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 25, 2012
the debate has shifted from whether it has occurred to what is causing it a while ago.
Most people that are denying this in the science community tend to be people with ties to the oil industry which has paid millions of dollars for info that would confuse and misdirect people
It's been proven to occurred naturally such was the case with a mega eruption that occurred in Siberia a long time ago which BTW helped wipe out 95% percent of life on earth.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
"Most people that are denying this in the science community tend to be people with ties to the oil industry which has paid millions of dollars for info that would confuse and misdirect people"
except now we even have a Koch funded study saying it is true.
drich255Jan 25, 2012
Raising Warren Buffet's taxes won't do anything to alleviate the tax burden of his secretary.
sapana543Jan 25, 2012
Maybe if Obama came up with some policies that made sense, Congress would move on them.
flowingeventsJan 25, 2012
I just post a dig about Obama.About his statement..
KapsiotJan 25, 2012
There is incation on climate change because there is no such thing as man made climate change.
concusionJan 26, 2012
ever hear of acid rain? Umm yeah humans can effect the climate. Just admit you are anti-intelligence anti-facts.