What you think of the State of the Union speech… so far?
Hey he said it:
“CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FACT”
but was on to other topics within a sentence :long:
I didn’t listen to it as it happened, but caught several of the sound bites during the news shows in the days after. Unfortunately, unlike Pope Francis whose even mentioning something can change minds, Obama’s word, really any president but particularly Obama, are meaningless. I don’t think anyone cares. It’s action that counts and that isn’t going to happen. I doubt he’ll even carry out executive orders as he mentioned.
I thought it was an excellent speech, however, he is still severely limited by the Congress. He has used fewer executive orders than any other president but the Republicans scream that he’s a “dictator” for using what little he has.
I was completely surprised that the Republicans chose that young lady representative from eastern Washington to rebut him. She was completely useless. Michelle Bachman or Sara Palin would have done better jobs than she did.
And, as an aside, as a strong Democrat, I still agreed with that New York Republican representative who threatened to throw that asshole, obnoxious reporter out the window. All the other reporters defended that guy, but to my mind he was as sleazy as those papperazis (sp) who run around with cameras trying to catch celebrities off-guard.
Occam
Occam
I thought it was an excellent speech, however, he is still severely limited by the Congress. He has used fewer executive orders than any other president but the Republicans scream that he's a "dictator" for using what little he has. I was completely surprised that the Republicans chose that young lady representative from eastern Washington to rebut him. She was completely useless. Michelle Bachman or Sara Palin would have done better jobs than she did. And, as an aside, as a strong Democrat, I still agreed with that New York Republican representative who threatened to throw that asshole, obnoxious reporter out the window. All the other reporters defended that guy, but to my mind he was as sleazy as those papperazis (sp) who run around with cameras trying to catch celebrities off-guard. Occam OccamOccam, the reporter was doing his job. His job is to ask important questions whenever the opportunity arises. It was the representative who was obnoxious and unprofessional. He doesn't belong in elected office if that's how he responds to a reporter's valid question that he doesn't want to answer. "No comment" would have been the rational response. His reaction showed that he is probably guilty of campaign irregularities and that he knows it. There is absolutely no justification for his threatening, bullying reaction. He showed that he can't control his emotions, that he is probably guilty of the charge, and that he is not capable of conducting himself in a professional manner. And this is not the first time he has exhibited such behavior. I am truly surprised at your position on this. Lois
I don’t know if you watched the video of that interview, Lois, but the reporter asked the question, the Representative said something close to, “I agreed to this interview to discuss the State of the Union speech, not that.” The reporter then said, “but,” and he repeated that question. Had the reporter not attempted to jam this down the Representative’s throat AFTER he has just rejected discussing it, I could have been on the reporter’s side. But, his second demand made him deserve the strong statement the Representative gave.
I know nothing else about the Representative so I can’t use prior events to judge this one.
Occam
I don't know if you watched the video of that interview, Lois, but the reporter asked the question, the Representative said something close to, "I agreed to this interview to discuss the State of the Union speech, not that." The reporter then said, "but," and he repeated that question. Had the reporter not attempted to jam this down the Representative's throat AFTER he has just rejected discussing it, I could have been on the reporter's side. But, his second demand made him deserve the strong statement the Representative gave. I know nothing else about the Representative so I can't use prior events to judge this one. OccamA reporter's job is to ask questions about important issues and not be be put off by an aggressive politician. I wouldn't call it "jamming it down the representative's throat." When a politician takes the job he has been elected to, he should know that journalists are part of what makes our government work and that journalists are supposed to ask elected officials hard questions in any public venue. The journalist was polite and non threatening. The elected rep doesn't get a pass because he agreed to an interview to discuss something else. When an elected official is in a political venue he doesn't get to call the shots. And he doesn't get to abuse journalist because he doesn't like a question. He could have politely refused to comment. That's all the rules of government--and professional behavior--allow him to do. His name is Michael Grimm. He has a reputation of being aggressive and abusive, not only to reporters. Even Grimm, himself, admitted he was wrong after his behavior was roundly criticized in newspapers and news programs and by his own party. He is a loose cannon. He should not hold elective office, IMO. Our government could not function without journalists asking officeholders hard questions. Their job is to hold officeholders' feet to the fire. To learn more about him go here http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/01/michael-grimm-history-losing-temper.html Lois
When you’re in the public’s eye as all politicians are one has to be careful not just what you say, but how you say it. Video journalists are taught to ask leading questions and bait the politician with the “have you stopped beating your wife lately” querys. They’re not just after news now, the key word is infotainment and has been since the 1980’s when the word came down from corporate that it will increase profits. Thus the slant on the news from every media. That’s why I watch the BBC as well. It gives you a less biased account and notice that I didn’t say non biased. That being said, the pugilistic politician’s reaction was just what the media was looking for and he allowed himself to be trapped into a physical response. Now he’s embarrassed himself and headlines (temporarily) every TV media source and YouTube. His constituents will probably still vote for him because he “stuck up for himself” against the evil media jackals and corporate will see their profits slightly rise until the next politician misspeaks or some Wiley journalist secretly records him saying something controversial. Remember politicians, ya can think it, ya just can’t say it. Too many of them forget that when the lights are turned on and the camera’s rolling. Oh, and freedom of the press, yeeeeehhaaaaaa! (Howard Dean).
Cap’t Jack
Sorry Lois, I’m not trying to defend the Representative, but I believe we ALL have the responsibility of treating each other with respect. I do not think particular people or professions should be exempt from treating others with consideration.
Occam
Sorry Lois, I'm not trying to defend the Representative, but I believe we ALL have the responsibility of treating each other with respect. I do not think particular people or professions should be exempt from treating others with consideration. OccamDo you think Grimm treated the journalist with consideration? Should an elected official be exempt from this rule just because he hears a question he doesn't like? I'd like to point out that the journalist asked the question politely and did not threaten Grimm in any way. He asked an unwelcome question--which is his job, and it was Grim who came back with threats of physical harm, not the other way around. There was only one person in this confrontation who lacked respect--and it was Grimm. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Lois
Regarding Rep. Grimm, I lean more toward Lois’ take. There’s no excuse for threatening even a sleazy reporter with physical harm. It’s just plain dumb and quite possibly a prosecutable offense. If the reporter goes astray of the ground rules then end the interview. Add a tasteful insult if you must. Don’t resort to threats.
As for the SOTU … isn’t it obvious that the president’s war-on-women rhetoric was silly? Paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men? For the same work? No. Studies don’t support that. The 23-cent disparity is for all jobs, and doesn’t even take part-time status into account. Yet the president used the figure to call for equal work for equal pay–which is already the law of the land going back years and years. The Lily Ledbetter law wasn’t an equal pay statute as such. It was a statute that made gender discrimination lawsuits ridiculously easy to win, even if disparate pay was justified (the defendant now needs to provide documentation proving the justification, effectively sidestepping the previously-existing statute of limitations).
http://www.napequity.org/public-policy/current-laws-and-bills/paycheck-fairness-act/
As for the SOTU ... isn't it obvious that the president's war-on-women rhetoric was silly? Paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men? For the same work? No...... It was a statute that made gender discrimination lawsuits ridiculously easy to win, even if disparate pay was justified (the defendant now needs to provide documentation proving the justification, effectively sidestepping the previously-existing statute of limitations).Was there a time in this country when women were not equal with men Bryan? If you think they are now, could you tell me the date when they became equal with men in this country? Things that bring minorities and women closer to enfranchisement scare you don't they? As for your studies...? Who cares? Everyone on here has shown they can find a study that proves the Empire State Bldg. is an illusion! I like the laws that made racial discrimination lawsuits easy to win too!! It kind of forces the country into progress a little faster. It's able to skirt the embedded disenfranchisement that is pervasive in this country. The grinning tongue-in-cheek reactionaries with their "studies" and their ignorant ways.
As for the SOTU ... isn’t it obvious that the president’s war-on-women rhetoric was silly? Paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men? For the same work? No. Studies don’t support that. The 23-cent disparity is for all jobs, and doesn’t even take part-time status into account. Yet the president used the figure to call for equal work for equal pay—which is already the law of the land going back years and years. The Lily Ledbetter law wasn’t an equal pay statute as such. It was a statute that made gender discrimination lawsuits ridiculously easy to win, even if disparate pay was justified (the defendant now needs to provide documentation proving the justification, effectively sidestepping the previously-existing statute of limitations).War on women Bryan? If you want that type of rhetoric see the conservative Republican blather, e.g. Huckeby's women's libido comment or Santorum's pro-life anti-abortion stance just to name a few; the list is endless. oh, and the whole concept of "a war on women" was a statement made by Mitt Romney on Fox news while campaigning against Obama. So in this respect the Republicans fired the first shot. And while you may be right about the 23cent disparity, show statistics that women are paid equally to men across the board in every instance then I'll believe you. also please explain how "disparate pay" is justified. And as to the Lily Ledbetter Act, the antecedent to your claim of "frivolous lawsuits", always the Rpublican response to legislation benefitting the employee be he/she a minority, victim of age discrimination or sex discrimination, underemployed or unemployed for that matter, is to protect those discriminated against from employers hiding those practices until the statute of limitations runs out, hence the reason for passing the act in the first place. And equal work for equal pay? How many years and years back are we talking? Twenty? Cap't Jack
As for the SOTU ... isn't it obvious that the president's war-on-women rhetoric was silly? Paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men? For the same work? No...... It was a statute that made gender discrimination lawsuits ridiculously easy to win, even if disparate pay was justified (the defendant now needs to provide documentation proving the justification, effectively sidestepping the previously-existing statute of limitations).Was there a time in this country when women were not equal with men Bryan? Hey, let's go off-topic right away! Is the 77-cent stat bogus for advocating equal work for equal pay? Yes or no.
Things that bring minorities and women closer to enfranchisement scare you don't they?No. Stupid voting patterns do cause rational fear on my part, but stupid isn't gender or race-related in my mind. But I do find it interesting that Democrats will decry the existence of uninformed voters and then turn around and try to make sure that absolutely everyone votes and has their vote counted. That, to me, seems inconsistent.
As for your studies...? Who cares?Obviously neither you nor President Obama.
I like the laws that made racial discrimination lawsuits easy to win too!!Regardless of merit? Why is that a good thing? Suppose you owned a company where woman was paid less going back 30 years and no longer had the documentation detailing why the woman was paid less (assume it existed at one time). Would you consider that fair?
It kind of forces the country into progress a little faster.Progressing toward what? A lawyer's utopia?
Isn't that one of the Democrats' most popular campaign rallying cries lately?As for the SOTU ... isn’t it obvious that the president’s war-on-women rhetoric was silly? Paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men? For the same work? No. Studies don’t support that. The 23-cent disparity is for all jobs, and doesn’t even take part-time status into account. Yet the president used the figure to call for equal work for equal pay—which is already the law of the land going back years and years. The Lily Ledbetter law wasn’t an equal pay statute as such. It was a statute that made gender discrimination lawsuits ridiculously easy to win, even if disparate pay was justified (the defendant now needs to provide documentation proving the justification, effectively sidestepping the previously-existing statute of limitations).War on women Bryan?
And while you may be right about the 23cent disparity, show statistics that women are paid equally to men across the board in every instance then I'll believe you.Believe me about what?
also please explain how "disparate pay" is justified.Seniority, reliability, capability ... really it's things that make work unequal in ways that are sometimes difficult to quantify. Seniority is really kind of a thorny one. People in some jobs expect a raise every year. But often the work is about equal from one year to the next. Does "equal pay for equal work" imply that annual raises are wrong if work stays about the same?
And as to the Lily Ledbetter Act, the antecedent to your claim of "frivolous lawsuits", always the Rpublican response to legislation benefitting the employee be he/she a minority, victim of age discrimination or sex discrimination, underemployed or unemployed for that matter, is to protect those discriminated against from employers hiding those practices until the statute of limitations runs out, hence the reason for passing the act in the first place.Is there any legal justification for a statute of limitations, IYO?
And equal work for equal pay? How many years and years back are we talking? Twenty?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
Hey, let's go off-topic right away! Is the 77-cent stat bogus for advocating equal work for equal pay? Yes or no.I have no idea, and neither do you. I'm inclined to believe it. Was there ever a time when women were not equal with men Bryan? If so could you please tell me when they became equal?
No. Stupid voting patterns do cause rational fear on my part, but stupid isn't gender or race-related in my mind. But I do find it interesting that Democrats will decry the existence of uninformed voters and then turn around and try to make sure that absolutely everyone votes and has their vote counted. That, to me, seems inconsistent.Really? It's not that hard to turn uninformed voters into informed voters and then get them to vote. The problem you have with that is that most of the information one could Objectively supply to potential voters will most likely make them vote Democrat. That's obvious. How do you inform your average potential GOP voter? Tell them the Dems want to repeal the Cap on Soc.Sec. contributions? Tell them that Gun Control Advocates are going to start teaching their children in school? Tell them that Dems want to do away with Low Taxes on Capital gains, off-shore money havens, and carried interest rules?
Obviously neither you nor President Obama.I'm sure Obama had a study behind his statements too. I trust his study more than I trust yours.
Regardless of merit? Why is that a good thing? Suppose you owned a company where woman was paid less going back 30 years and no longer had the documentation detailing why the woman was paid less (assume it existed at one time). Would you consider that fair?Yes. It's a good thing because it forces the issue. Are you going to answer the question about women being unequal in this country or not? If you feel they are being treated equal now, tell me when they became equal.
Progressing toward what? A lawyer's utopia?Ha ha ha. Do you have a "lawyer walks into a bar joke" to go along with that too? I know some other lawyer Utopias too. They exist on K Street in Washington. Now that's a Utopia. But I'm sure mentioning the "Lawyer" thing really resonates with all of the slack-jawed "Hardhats" out there!
Hey, let's go off-topic right away! Is the 77-cent stat bogus for advocating equal work for equal pay? Yes or no.I have no idea, and neither do you. I'm inclined to believe it. Of course. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/28/fact-checking-the-2014-state-of-the-union-address/
Really? It's not that hard to turn uninformed voters into informed voters and then get them to vote.You're inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic. Do you vote?
The problem you have with that is that most of the information one could Objectively supply to potential voters will most likely make them vote Democrat. That's obvious.It's obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.
You haven't bothered to look into it, then. Perhaps because you're already so well informed. ;-)Obviously neither you nor President Obama.I'm sure Obama had a study behind his statements too. I trust his study more than I trust yours.
Unfairness in the name of fairness is good. Gotcha.Regardless of merit? Why is that a good thing? Suppose you owned a company where woman was paid less going back 30 years and no longer had the documentation detailing why the woman was paid less (assume it existed at one time). Would you consider that fair?Yes. It's a good thing because it forces the issue.
Are you going to answer the question about women being unequal in this country or not?Not. I don't think most people think that wanting fairness justifies unfairness. Hence there's no point in addressing your question.
Of course. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/28/fact-checking-the-2014-state-of-the-union-address/You don't get it do you? I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed. As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I'm against them. It's really simple. I don't like to get caught up with reactionary's ideas of selective objectivity. That's like a toothache.
You're inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic. Do you vote?Yes I vote the Democratic ticket because that's the closest I can get to voting even farther left. I vote the Party line. I'm an idealogue. Most definitely. One of my biggest passions is getting others to vote that way too. So whether the information is true of not, if it matches the party line, then I vote for it. Pretty standard. Let me guess, you are going to apply selective objectivity to this too?
It's obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.Are you faltering here? Stay on topic.
You haven't bothered to look into it, then. Perhaps because you're already so well informed. ;-)See the lines above.
Unfairness in the name of fairness is good. Gotcha.Ah yes, more selective objectivity. And you haven't shown any proof of unfairness... Why can't you answer a simple question about History Bryan? I'll ask again...Were women ever discriminated against in this country? Are they still discriminated against? If not, then tell me when the discrimination ended. I'll help you along Bryan. Did the discrimination end when they got the right to vote in 1919? Is that when the discrimination ended? Or was it later?
You don't get it do you? I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed. As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I'm against them. It's really simple. I don't like to get caught up with reactionary's ideas of selective objectivity. That's like a toothache.So I had you pretty much pegged last time by noting that you think unfairness in the name of fairness is good. There's a parallel to the Bill Ayers' early days when his group of radicals proposed sending those in opposition off to concentration camps to die. It's for the people.
This too in addition to what? Weren't you the one who told me educating uninformed voters is easy? You're the test case. You describe yourself as an ideologue. That's a great start. ;-) This is just showing that you say stuff that's silly.You're inclined to believe the 77-cent statistic. Do you vote?Yes I vote the Democratic ticket because that's the closest I can get to voting even farther left. I vote the Party line. I'm an idealogue. Most definitely. One of my biggest passions is getting others to vote that way too. So whether the information is true of not, if it matches the party line, then I vote for it. Pretty standard. Let me guess, you are going to apply selective objectivity to this too?
VYAZMA translated: "Ouch."It's obvious like your mastery of the free will issue.Are you faltering here? Stay on topic.
Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough. Most are like you. They vote for the party and don't really care much about the facts. Give them studies and they'll lean toward Obama's 77-cent statistic.You haven't bothered to look into it, then. Perhaps because you're already so well informed. ;-)See the lines above.
Why would I need proof of unfairness? You've already confirmed the accuracy of my assessment: "I believe in pro-active legislation from initiatives, the bench, Congress or anywhere else laws can be changed. As long as they meet a progressive/left standard. If not then I'm against them. It's really simple." Logical extension: A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good if it meets a progressive/left standard, even if it allows some employers to be unfairly sued (having placed them in a position where defense against a civil suit is MOL impossible). Why should you care if it's unfair? Go Progressivism! Go Leftism! Hopefully it's right-wingers who get screwed over by the system!Unfairness in the name of fairness is good. Gotcha.Ah yes, more selective objectivity. And you haven't shown any proof of unfairness...
Why can't you answer a simple question about History Bryan?You do like trying to go off-topic. Props for the fallacious premise to your question. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you're faltering.
So I had you pretty much pegged last time by noting that you think unfairness in the name of fairness is good.Yeah you're a real sleuth. You got everything pegged. So now what? Do you want us all to sit around in a circle and listen to you lay down the facts? You got me pegged...Wow! Is that going to change the value of my vote Bryan? :lol: You are a real sleuth.
This too in addition to what?Wha? Is there context to this?
Weren't you the one who told me educating uninformed voters is easy? You're the test case. You describe yourself as an ideologue. That's a great start. ;-)Yeah. You see it moving the country in a direction? I do! By your frustrated comments I'm guessing you don't like the direction... We don't need to educate voters as much as we need them to just get out an vote. They already have plenty of innate education. It's just as easy to educate people on what NOT to vote for. That's the easiest part!
This is just showing that you say stuff that's silly.Hmnn. Well said.
VYAZMA translated: "Ouch."Yeah-ouch! Let's get back to the Free-will thread. You can tell us all how god gave us the power of free-will to fight evil.
Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough. Most are like you. They vote for the party and don't really care much about the facts. Give them studies and they'll lean toward Obama's 77-cent statistic.Yeah you are bright. Educating people to vote Republican must be difficult. How do you educate people to vote against their own interests? That's a problem you'll have to worry about. The Republicans are having an image problem... Must be because you guys suck at educating voters.(to vote against their own interests.)
Why would I need proof of unfairness?Because you claimed the Ledbetter Act was unfair. That's why. Did you have any proof? No? That's what I thought. If you make a claim it's nice to have proof. But you don't have to have it. You're OK.
Logical extension: A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good...See right here. How do you prove your statement? I don't think it's unfair. I say it isn't unfair. Now prove me wrong!
You do like trying to go off-topic.That's not off-topic Bryan. Answer the question. When did women become equal with men in the US? Did you have a date? Or a specific piece of legislation that made them equal? Or do you just not like to discuss things like this? Women should be in the kitchen and not heard kind of a thing? Or perhaps your knowledge of history is lacking? I don't know.... I'm sure it's not one of the topics the Republicans use when they are "educating" voters. :lol: Image problems....uh oh....Think it's gonna get worse? I do.