State of the Union Address discussion [Archive]

ShivaX

01-29-2010, 01:51 AM

This is all the discussion of last night's speech?

I haven't listened to it yet, but I figured there would be at least three or four pages of discussion already. Where is everyone?

It was a good speech, but I don't see anything changing really.

He basically said it how it is: The Dems are a bunch of pussies and the GOP is just being obstructionist and offering nothing. Then he goes on to say he did a shitty job of presenting his case and that Supreme Court likely fucked us all by giving non-human entities freedom of speech.

He just needs to take the reigns on the Democrats and lead the party. Then the Dems need to tell the GOP to go fuck themselves on their tactics. Put out the bill you want, let them filibuster it and watch as old men try to stand without going to the bathroom for hours without breaks. Then show the public whats going on and push the blame onto them.

People are pissed because hes not doing anything. Hes not doing anything because the Republicans are cock blocking him and taking advantage of his desire to compromise. He just needs to get the Dems to do what he said he'd do when he got elected. When the GOP filibusters then he can stand up in front of the nation and say "I tried to do everything I said I would but the Republicans are stopping me." That puts the pressure on the GOP to either back down or come up with their own reasonable solutions.

I mean Christ almighty we passed civil rights legislation through a 75 hour filibuster. Let them try. Its not that hard to let them talk about nothing and look like idiots for a couple days. Its not like the Senate has done anything in the last year anyway.

MagGnome

01-29-2010, 06:15 AM

Blame Siraris for gettin' all twitterpated - it tends to frighten normal folks. :p

But, oh, he did talk about DADT, Mags. Even if there's no telling how far it'll go, now, he at least get the ball rolling.

I'm glad he talked about ending DADT, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not saying it won't happen, but Obama did promise that Gitmo would be closed, and that hasn't happened yet.

I read an article last night that said the military was considering doing separate housing/showers for gay men. That strikes me as rather silly. Let's put all the gay guys in the shower together!

Hmmm....maybe I should enlist. :D

Seriously though, it's good this is FINALLY being looked into. Hopefully Obama doesn't think he can throw this one thing out there and then ignore gay rights for the rest of his term. DOMA needs to go!

MagGnome

01-29-2010, 06:22 AM

ShivaX pretty much summed it up.

Obama's fervent desire to earn Republican support on everything seems rather daft to me. I understand that he likely doesn't want to appear to be anything like George W. Bush, but at some point he needs to realize that the GOP isn't going to go along with anything he says, ever. They are going to say "NO!" and not offer up any ideas of their own, which is pathetic.

He needs to grow a pair and start pushing his agenda through, or nothing will ever get done. Hopefully they actually fix the healthcare bill before ramming it through Congress. If the bill doesn't include a public option then I hope it fails.

Shrinn

01-29-2010, 07:00 AM

I mean Christ almighty we passed civil rights legislation through a 75 hour filibuster. Let them try. Its not that hard to let them talk about nothing and look like idiots for a couple days. Its not like the Senate has done anything in the last year anyway.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Current_U.S._practice)

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum. In the past, when one senator became exhausted, another would need to take over to continue the filibuster. Ultimately, the filibuster could be exhausted by a majority who would even sleep in cots outside the Senate Chamber to exhaust the filibusterers. Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken.[32]

Is this true? Seems weak.

Khrymsyn

01-29-2010, 07:14 AM

Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken.[32]

Wow... I'm sorry. Didn't realize that running the country and having minority views stall the majority in the hopes to either quash, or at least at one point in time comprimise, was an inconvinience. What a shame.

Commissar Rob

01-29-2010, 07:16 AM

Mr. Obama is without question a gifted orator...but the prevailing perception is that he is an orator who has failed to achieve meaningful progress with the agenda that he brought to Washington. A quick read of the Times editorial pages has shown even his most ardent supporters feeling disillusioned. While he said the right things in his speech, he also said the right things in his campaign. What I'd love to see is some meaningful progress...and - as the ever insightful Mr. Gnome said - some more force and determination in fulfilling his agenda.

Because otherwise we face the possibility of four years of "you betcha." *shudder*

civil

01-29-2010, 07:44 AM

If anyone wants to download the speech, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2010/January/012710_StateoftheUnion.mp3) is the direct link (choose "save as").

TheFlyingOrc

01-29-2010, 08:16 AM

People are pissed because hes not doing anything. Hes not doing anything because the Republicans are cock blocking him and taking advantage of his desire to compromise. He just needs to get the Dems to do what he said he'd do when he got elected. When the GOP filibusters then he can stand up in front of the nation and say "I tried to do everything I said I would but the Republicans are stopping me." That puts the pressure on the GOP to either back down or come up with their own reasonable solutions.

With a 60 person majority that he had until just recently? His problem was that he couldn't get 100% of his own party in lockstep.

Shrinn

01-29-2010, 08:33 AM

Wow... I'm sorry. Didn't realize that running the country and having minority views stall the majority in the hopes to either quash, or at least at one point in time comprimise, was an inconvinience. What a shame.

I think the endurance contest is the inconvenience, not the fact that they're stalling but the fact that it would stay in session 24/7 and people would sleep in their chairs in the meeting.

Generation ABXY

01-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Wow... I'm sorry. Didn't realize that running the country and having minority views stall the majority in the hopes to either quash, or at least at one point in time comprimise, was an inconvinience. What a shame.

For most people, it's only the minority stalling the majority when they're part of the majority. When they're not then, by god, every ass with a photobucket account would be in here posting that stupid Transmetropolitan comic.

With a 60 person majority that he had until just recently? His problem was that he couldn't get 100% of his own party in lockstep.

Indeed. If they had had their ducks in a row, they could have been unstoppable for this past year.

RandoM51

01-29-2010, 11:36 AM

This is all the discussion of last night's speech?
Not much to say other than Obama can give a good speech. The discussion will start 3-6 months from now where we see what he has done about the issues discussed in the speech.

civil

01-29-2010, 12:17 PM

I was disappointed in the partisan swipes he took just minutes before saying partisan bickering needed to end. He's like Sugar Ray Leonard, that one.

torrefaction

01-29-2010, 12:21 PM

I was disappointed in the partisan swipes he took just minutes before saying partisan bickering needed to end. He's like Sugar Ray Leonard, that one.

You misunderstood...he wants the REPUBLICANS to stop being partisan and pass his bills.

civil

01-29-2010, 12:25 PM

No torre. Listen before that where he talks about "those on the right would have..." and how fucked the leadership of the past eight years left us. I'm not saying I don't agree with the sentiment, but that is not the path to take.

EDIT: Here is the transcript of the part I'm talking about:

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Not as damning as my original post made it seem, I'll admit. But the tone of it felt off to me, personally.

Siraris

01-29-2010, 12:34 PM

With a 60 person majority that he had until just recently? His problem was that he couldn't get 100% of his own party in lockstep.

He never had a 60 seat majority. Joe Lieberman is a Republican, no matter who he caucuses with, and Ben Nelson is an obstructionist. He had maybe a 56 seat majority, which is not enough to break a filibuster.

As for the filibuster, it's laughable. They changed the rules, and now the Republicans can essentially call it in. It's a joke. The whole process is a joke.

But in the end, people blame Obama for not getting it done, when he's one man. He can't write legislation, walk down to the floor, be the sole vote, and then sign it. They talked a bit on Zakaria the other day how LBJ was a legislative genius, (I remember bits of one example, but I don't want to retell it because I know I'd leave something out) but the point was, people do not know how to legislate anymore, or perhaps, they can't.

I think what the President said was exactly what he needed to. He chastised both sides in front of the entire country for not doing their jobs, he explained the reasoning behind the bailout, and said it's now time to focus on the middle class (I don't think he can come out and blatantly say that it was more important to fix wall street than main street before now), he laid out very reasonable and conservative plans for the economy, he took responsibility for health care, but I believe he has a VERY good reason for not being more involved in the process (it's his most important agenda item, why would he stay on the sidelines unless he felt that was the only way to get it to pass?), and he talked about how we need to come together for the country. Now, I feel he should have been more impassioned about the last part, because I strongly believe that the fighting between the two parties is tearing the country apart, but again, I believe he had a reason for his tone and focus.

In the end, it makes sense why his poll numbers are slipping; people thought he would change things, and he hasn't so far. But he can't just wave a magic wand and change everything about Washington. The Republicans have something up their sleeve, because they are obstructing everything, even conservative ideas; 4 Republican Senators who were for PAYGO in 2006, are against it now. John McCain, who was for a spending freeze in his campaign, now says it's not good enough. And as I said before, the President can't just pass any bill he wants by himself; he's dependent on the process.

ShivaX

01-29-2010, 07:39 PM

With a 60 person majority that he had until just recently? His problem was that he couldn't get 100% of his own party in lockstep.

He never really had a 60 person majority. That was an illusion.

Siraris

02-02-2010, 02:50 PM

I'm glad he talked about ending DADT, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not saying it won't happen, but Obama did promise that Gitmo would be closed, and that hasn't happened yet.

I read an article last night that said the military was considering doing separate housing/showers for gay men. That strikes me as rather silly. Let's put all the gay guys in the shower together!

Hmmm....maybe I should enlist. :D

Seriously though, it's good this is FINALLY being looked into. Hopefully Obama doesn't think he can throw this one thing out there and then ignore gay rights for the rest of his term. DOMA needs to go!

Do you believe now? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mike-mullen-calls-for-rep_n_446067.html)

MagGnome

02-02-2010, 04:21 PM

No, I don't. Did you read that article? They want a year to review, after which anything could happen. A year from now there could be a Republican majority in Congress, in which case it will not get repealed. Even a Democratic majority can't seem to get anything done, so I have little hope that DADT will end anytime soon.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

02-02-2010, 06:31 PM

No, I don't. Did you read that article? They want a year to review, after which anything could happen.
Don't be ridiculous. Look at Gitmo!

... Oh. Right.

EDIT: Can I just add how fucking pathetic the Adminstration's line on DADT is? This is one of the issues where the President and I actually agree, and he still manages to be so mealy-mouthed I get annoyed. "It's about equal rights." Jesus, how easy is it for opponents to come back with the highly effective argument that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right? You could have made the case based on needed skills and the solemn duty that gay and lesbian people have to serve their country -- you could have made an entire speech about how gays "must answer the call of freedom" -- but no, you had to make an argument that makes Michael Dukakis look like Erwin Rommel.

Vigil80

02-02-2010, 11:03 PM

I may catch fire for this, and I admit not having studied it, but I don't understand what's so bad about DADT. Mainly, I figure it should be expanded to include all sexuality - which may be the same as doing away with it, I'm not sure.

Sexuality has nothing to do with military service, just as it has nothing to do with nearly all other careers, and organizations of military "professionals" should be able to get the job done without worrying about who is or isn't playing grabass on the base.

The military has a hard enough time fulfilling its actual, natural role without inane bureaucracy. No need to complicate things.

02-02-2010, 11:42 PM

I may catch fire for this, and I admit not having studied it, but I don't understand what's so bad about DADT. Mainly, I figure it should be expanded to include all sexuality - which may be the same as doing away with it, I'm not sure.
So entering the military would be like entering the priesthood: no sexual relationships of any kind? That would be a hard sell. Not to mention there are a fair number of married or attached servicepeople right now; do we drum them out?

diablopath

02-03-2010, 12:08 AM

So entering the military would be like entering the priesthood: no sexual relationships of any kind? That would be a hard sell. Not to mention there are a fair number of married or attached servicepeople right now; do we drum them out?

I would like to say that I don't think that is what he was saying...but I honestly don't know what he was saying.

Vigil, care to elaborate your view?

BigJonno

02-03-2010, 04:49 AM

I thought, although I may be wrong, that the issue with DADT is that the military was still allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, but they weren't allowed to ask people about their sexual orientation. A kind of "We can't yank you out of the closet, but you better damn well stay there" situation.

MagGnome

02-03-2010, 06:30 AM

Don't be ridiculous. Look at Gitmo!

... Oh. Right.

Exactly. That's really all that needs to be said as far as the administrations credibility goes.

I'm glad we are in agreement on this issue, Ox. I don't get the argument that allowing gay men and women to serve openly is some sort of distraction, as if gay men just cannot go a minute without hitting on someone or trying to grab another marine's ass. That's just ridiculous.

I thought, although I may be wrong, that the issue with DADT is that the military was still allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, but they weren't allowed to ask people about their sexual orientation. A kind of "We can't yank you out of the closet, but you better damn well stay there" situation.

That's basically what it is. Homosexuals can serve, as long as their sexuality remains a secret. If someone is outed, then they are booted out of the military. Several Arab translators, for example, have been kicked out for being gay.

BigJonno

02-03-2010, 06:37 AM

Thanks for the clarification Mags. It's a truly fucking horrible situation. It'd be bad enough having to hide your sexuality at work, I can't imagine how it'd be in the military where you are essentially "at work" 24/7 for much of the time.

Panthera

02-03-2010, 08:22 AM

On the other hand, if there's ever a real war it's a get out of draft free card! Genetically, it's a win.

Vigil80

02-03-2010, 08:27 AM

So entering the military would be like entering the priesthood: no sexual relationships of any kind? That would be a hard sell. Not to mention there are a fair number of married or attached servicepeople right now; do we drum them out?
Nah, that isn't what I was saying. Although that'd be an interesting idea if it were remotely possible.

First, I think the military should continue not being allowed to ask about sexuality, and by extension, relationships, marital status, etcetera. Second, I think the military should have few to no policies on the books related to sexuality and relationships, including kicking people out over it. It isn't in the military's wheelhouse.

Having the military decide what is and isn't a distraction is like having anorexics cater your birthday party. I realize that much of military training is mental conditioning, to put it politely, but as long as they have human beings making up their numbers and not androids, it's something they should probably just let go of and focus the energy elsewhere.

So I guess that means I'm in favor of doing away with DADT. Make it Don't Ask Because It Doesn't Matter instead.

TheFlyingOrc

02-03-2010, 09:20 AM

I'm glad we are in agreement on this issue, Ox. I don't get the argument that allowing gay men and women to serve openly is some sort of distraction, as if gay men just cannot go a minute without hitting on someone or trying to grab another marine's ass. That's just ridiculous.

My ONLY support for DADT is that homosexuality causes a huge problem when other soldiers have a huge problem. Obviously, the problem is with the "other soldiers" in this case, but non-discrimination, while being a lofty goal, isn't worth your military unit not functioning correctly, even if it's because of some of your soldiers being douchebags.

Generation ABXY

02-03-2010, 11:10 AM

So I guess that means I'm in favor of doing away with DADT. Make it Don't Ask Because It Doesn't Matter instead.

Oh, so long as they aren't giving the boot to outed soldiers, I suppose I can agree with that.

diablopath

02-03-2010, 11:18 AM

EDIT: blah.

National Kato

02-03-2010, 11:27 AM

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, yesterday during testimony (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html):

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

This is the first time a sitting chairman has advocated repeal of DADT.

“I have served with homosexuals since 1968,” Admiral Mullen told the committee. He added, “Everybody in the military has, and we understand that.”So let's not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that the military is going to break down or be less effective with homosexuals in the armed forces. Believe that those with a desire to see homosexuality banned or further discriminated against (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/matthews-gets-family-research-councils-spr) have a stake in this debate. A loss here would be a loss for bigotry.

Voodoo

02-03-2010, 11:42 AM

For history on this subject of DADT, here are the original votes for HR 2401.

Senate
Democrat 54-Yes 4-No
Republican 26-Yes 18-No

House
Democrat 223-Yes 15-No 19-Not Voting
Independent 1-Not Voting
Republican 50-Yes 120-No 5-Not Voting

Generation ABXY

02-03-2010, 11:51 AM

So let's not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that the military is going to break down or be less effective with homosexuals in the armed forces.

That's kind of the beauty in having had DADT in place.

ShivaX

02-03-2010, 12:14 PM

First, I think the military should continue not being allowed to ask about sexuality, and by extension, relationships, marital status, etcetera.

That would never work. If you are killed overseas your wife and kids would never get anything from the government since they couldn't even acknowledge you had a family.

Vigil80

02-03-2010, 01:38 PM

That would never work. If you are killed overseas your wife and kids would never get anything from the government since they couldn't even acknowledge you had a family.
Maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining.

Of course your next-of-kin, beneficiaries, etcetera should be listed. But your status should not affect your assignment.

ShivaX

02-03-2010, 01:45 PM

Maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining.

Of course your next-of-kin, beneficiaries, etcetera would be listed. But your status would not affect your assignment.

You're not explaining it well or I'm just dense.

Once you list next-of-kin then your whole point seems blown out of the water. If you're straight, you list your wife and kids. If you're gay you list your partner. At that point you're screwed already.

You said the military shouldn't be able to ask about sexuality "and by extension, relationships, marital status". How can they give any benefits to your family if they don't know your marital status or even any relationships you're in? Or are you suggesting they just have a space on the form that says "who do you want to give your benefits to"? Cause thats a whole other can of worms and invariably will end up being worse.

If I put "Jeff Smith" on as my beneficiary then I've pretty much let the cat out of the bag. Plus then theres the inevitable issues of people working the system and corruption and so on. If I can put whoever why not start handing out military benefits to friends? I don't have kids, but my buddy does so I put them down even though he doesn't serve. It would just be easier to let gay people serve and not create a clusterfuck of other issues.

MagGnome

02-03-2010, 03:50 PM

On the other hand, if there's ever a real war it's a get out of draft free card! Genetically, it's a win.

I'll readily admit that there's a part of me that enjoys having DADT around for this very reason. I have no desire to serve in the military, so if there was ever a draft, I would just let them know that I am gay, gay, gay and won't be quiet about it. It's selfish, but there you have it.

Overall though I am strongly in favor of the repeal of DADT, along with DOMA.

Vigil80

02-03-2010, 04:12 PM

Shiva, you're overanalyzing what I said. Or perhaps I oversimplified.

Either way, nothing's going to be done about it - or most anything else - any time soon. The wonder of our modern congress.

J Arcane

02-06-2010, 09:58 PM

On the other hand, if there's ever a real war it's a get out of draft free card! Genetically, it's a win.

Not entirely. IIRC, it's a dishonorable discharge, which means a loss of any benefits you would've otherwise gotten once you left the service. That sounds pretty expensive to me, though depending on your perspective and your position, maybe less expensive than actually dying in a war.

For history on this subject of DADT, here are the original votes for HR 2401.

Senate
Democrat 54-Yes 4-No
Republican 26-Yes 18-No

House
Democrat 223-Yes 15-No 19-Not Voting
Independent 1-Not Voting
Republican 50-Yes 120-No 5-Not Voting

Indeed. Lest one be too hasty in treating the issue along party lines, one would do well to remember that it was the party of Clinton who got the mess put in there in the first place.

Frankly I think the situation would probably seem less asinine if gays were still flat out banned. At least it prevents people being put in such a Damocletian situation.

ShivaX

02-07-2010, 01:52 AM

Indeed. Lest one be too hasty in treating the issue along party lines, one would do well to remember that it was the party of Clinton who got the mess put in there in the first place.

Yeah, the irony of DADT is that, at the time a lot of people thought it was a positive step for homosexuals.

02-07-2010, 09:02 AM

What we may see is the sort of limited integration that women have: gays may be permitted to serve openly, but being gay may cause you to be excluded from frontline units... which, especially for officers, would severely restrict their promotion opportunities (the US military is historically wary of promoting REMFs). The argument would be exactly the same as for women: under the stress of combat, any person is more likely to resort to sex as a relief, and sexual tensions are precisely what a unit under fire does not need. It's a rationale the Supreme Court has spoken approvingly of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg).

While gays might be dismayed at such a half-victory, they shouldn't be. First, even limited integration would presumably make it easier to argue for full integration later, as people adjusted to openly gay servicepeople. Second, such an exclusion would at least be neutral and non-bigoted. Third, that discrimination against women is breaking down these days, because rear-echelon units are unusually likely to come under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ban on female combat troops is increasingly one of labels rather than practicalities. I imagine similar things would happen with homosexuals.