Did you watch the state of the union?

But Abraham Lincoln probably wrote his own speeches, and meant what he said. Obama has speech writers, and he's been talking about the same stuff since he was a candidate.. IE "We need to stop the wars," then, he goes and gets involved in civil wars that have nothing to do with us. "we need to close Gauntanamo," then, he proclaims the Right to indefinitely detain people, and despite the fact over 50% of them have been cleared of charges, they're still being detained.

 

That may all be true, but it really is beside the point I was making. Generally when he gets shit on for using a teleprompter it is simply a jab at him not being a good orator because of that use. I think that's a bunch of malarky, particularly since, at least from what I've seen, no one else get criticism for reading prepared speeches.

 

well, I can't argue with that point. I'm only guessing when I say, I think pressed rat was more concerned about the fact he didn't write it, but idk for certain.

I personally don't care about people reading speeches from a teleprompter, I'm more concerned about politicians being honest with the American public, and not just saying what he/she thinks will keep them compliant.

 

It takes a practiced skill to use a teleprompter effectively, at least as much if not more so than reading it from a written copy.

Obama is good at using a teleprompter as was Reagan.
George W sucked at it, and would often get that confused 'deer in the headlights' look when he did use a prompter.
He is said to have preferred large index cards.

Regardless of the method, it's about the content.
Teleprompters don't write or control the speech, it's just a performance tool. It's up to the speaker to covey a sense of understanding to what he's saying, which Obama does a tremendous job IMHO.

 

You're probably right about PR's point. And personally I agree with yours here as well.

 

When Bush was doing it everyone was getting on his shit. So was I. Why should it be any different with Obama in office? Funny how the people who were the most adamantly vocal against Bush are giving Obama a free pass for doing the same exact shit. SMH

 

I recall Bush getting shit on for mangling his words as opposed to for using a teleprompter. Not saying it didn't happen, but it certainly was never on my radar.

 

I know what some people are going to say, but to be honest, there's a greater likelihood of Obama following through on the whole 'closing the income gap' thing than there was earlier.

The stimulus has finally been tapering off over the past two months and the markets are still relatively strong... all of the damage that was done to the economy by the recession has been more or less repaired. Say what you will about unemployment, etc... the markets are way way up right now and though it's been a little bumpy lately panic has been avoided.

You can't exactly reform the entire economy when it's shaky and surviving on borrowed money... unless you want a total collapse. But now is the perfect time to go after the wealthy and try to restore the middle class. To me it sounded like he was just going to ignore the Republicans/Tea Party like he should have been doing earlier... you might actually end up seeing some of his original promises being fulfilled in the coming years.

 

And why wouldn't he read off a teleprompter?

I hope you don't mean that the president should stand in front of hundreds of millions of people and just make shit up on the spot.

And Bush had problems with his delivery. He was humorless, inarticulate and easy to make fun of. Obama is a smooth muthafucka. And he's a lot funnier too.

And he IS being made fun of... Jon Stewart picked apart the address on his show just last night.

 

Obama without a teleprompter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU"]Obama lost without a teleprompter - YouTube


And here he admittedly won't even begin a speech without one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF84E5n5u6I"]No Teleprompter - No Speech! Obama at a Total Loss!! - YouTube

 

Did you watch the state of the union speech, fueled by coffee?

 

I thought you didn't want to talk about Obama anymore?

And what magically changed, after 6 years of him being in office?
Just because he's renewed the lies he's been making the past 6 years, there's suddenly a better chance of him following through?

Not likely..

Panic has been avoided? the recession is repaired? Way to jump the gun there, buddy!

The Dollar is based off of nothing, but the legitimacy and word of the government, (plus bad debt.) The Federal Reserve and the government has started infinite "quantitative easing," (printing money.) which devalues the dollar more, and, more. It may ease the economy temporarily, but long-term it will collapse, and cause a greater economic recession than 2008, and the great depression combined.

Why would Obama go after himself and his campaign supporters? And, even if he really did 'tax the rich more,' how would that help the middle class?

To me, there seems to be a big hole in this logic. The Middle class is not benefited by more taxes or, more government. They are not entitled to foodstamps, college grants or, 'free' healthcare. So, how would they suddenly be restored?

He's not gonna ignore the biggest banks and lobbyists, who he has running his white house.

And he has speech writers, so could you tell by the tone of his voice, or are you just making a random guess?

When you said this, all I could think about was Obama saying that people wish he could bypass congress, and write the laws himself. To which his supporters screamed "yes you can."

Or how about, when he said he didn't need congress to make a regime change in Syria.

Opposing views are good, because they ensure no president yields dictatorial powers. The fact that his supporters don't see a problem with him writing the laws himself, and bypassing congress, shows a serious ignorance. One I would compare to Hitlers followers. To where, his bad policies are totally ignored, but his empty promises are reason enough to idolize him.

And we might end up seeing pigs soar through the sky, like bald eagles.

6 years in, what do you really think will change? Remember what he said to Putin? He'll have more leverage after his first term...

 

No to be honest. At the time I was driving on a personal 5-hr road trip, and I forgot it was even happening.

 

LOL yes, let's fix the economy by ignoring every single bank and every single corporation in a country where corporations and banks are pretty much the entire economy. That's not a recipe for disaster at all.

I don't know how some people can seriously expect Obama to NOT work with the banks. What is he supposed to do then? Give billions to people with shaky startups? Sell everything to China? Or just let it all collapse so people are finally desperate enough to elect Ron Paul as their neo-feudalist king?

And Stp I really have to wonder if you've actually been reading the news. 2013 was the best year the American markets have seen in 20 years. Your entire argument against his economic success rests on your ability to know the future, and it's really not hard to say 'omg it's all going to turn to shit!'... you can say that about pretty much anything. Quantitative easing is coming to a stop... to the tune of 20 billion over the past two months. If you had been paying attention, that's why I said the recovery is finishing up and he now has a chance to actually do something constructive.

And it's not annoying to discuss Obama when the topic actually is Obama, Stp.

 

And what does this mean for the average person, or somebody out of work?

When it comes to the economy, it seems like most people don't even know how it all works. They just repeat shit they heard on TV like it means something.

 

The average person is affected through there retirement account be it IRA, SEP, or pension.

The out of work people will hopefully be affected by a american company growing and hiring them but that doesn't work so well today but you never know.

 

It was too cold for me to watch it so i put it on the dvr and will watch it when the weather warms up.

 

"I will not have ANY bankers or lobbyists in my White House"-Candidate Obama, 2008.

He has more bankers and lobbyists than any other president. Btw, are you now insinuating that corporate bribes/influence are no longer bad?

He should let the free market run itself, and stop giving our hard earned money to businesses, period.

The market is going to collapse either way. Mainly because we can't afford this system anymore. As I said, printing is a temporary solution, which only delays the blow, and will cause a greater collapse when the devaulation of the dollar causes an Oz of silver to rise to $100. That'll mean the dollar will be worth 1/100th of the amount it was worth when it was created. It's already only worth 1/30th, and that's the reason for inflation and hidden taxes.

Secondly, the current system is close to feudalism. Especially when people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and all there money goes to corporations and government. This is the reason no small businesses are able to compete. Taxes and regulations are leveraged against them, and in favor or an economic structure that justifies any inhumanity in it's name.

I don't watch news with a leftist bias, like you do. I don't know the future, I understand the concept of fiat money, and I'm smart enough to realize that America is not exempt from the laws of history. And everyone other country that devalued its currency, ended up collapsing. Take Rome as an example.

Look at what happened to Sterling in London. They devalued 14% in one day, and they coudn't even afford to garbage disposal.

The Federal Reserve promised to print 1 trillion dollars last year alone. It's far from finished. We're gonna have serious issues with the economy, and people who understand economics see that.

I wouldn't put my money on the market, unless it was the Cannabis Industry.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2013/12/18/bernanke-begins-to-slowly-taper/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-highest-since-2011-as-tapering-to-begin.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579266432764849504

^Yes, look at all of those horribly slanted socialist propaganda machines. The Wall Street Journal and Forbes have a terrible reputation for being pro-Obama!

Oh and hey, look at this:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2013/12/18/fed-reveals-qe3/

FOX NEWS has covered the tapering story.

I get that you're a right wing nutbar who only listens to conspiracy sites, but it's not slanted to acknowledge that something that is happening is actually happening.

And Stp aren't you unemployed? Maybe if you stopped smoking so much dope and actually tried to get a job, you would have a legitimate reason to bitch about people stealing 'hard-earned money'.

 

Yeah, you definitely know how it works, don't you? Just like you gained deep insights into the State of the Union address by not even watching it.

If you had invested just a small fraction of your pay on blue chip stocks, you would have profited too. I'm pretty sure that I'm an average person and I made money on the markets last year, the year before that and the year before that as well.

You don't need to be uber-wealthy or have insider secrets to buy mutual funds. You don't need to be super smart to have a diverse portfolio that shows long-term growth while protecting you from your losses. You can even get a loan to buy them if you don't have money. But yes, you need to be willing to live with a little risk and people aren't just going to hand it to you.

If you really believe that the game is fixed then you should know that that makes it relatively easy to bet on the winners... if you were smart, you would have done just that, and you would have been able to exploit the crash in the same way others did. But you were too busy living in conspiracy fantasy world, hating reality and being manipulated by the Koch brothers.

Unemployment is caused by a lot of things-- improving technologies, outsourcing, free trade... and a lot of these things are directly due to your precious free market. If there are no tariffs on trades, then it's easier to ship jobs overseas. If you work online, someone in India can do your job for $4/hour and provide for his whole family. I read an article a few weeks ago about a guy who sat in his office all day watching youtube and paid a guy in China a small part of his salary to do his entire job for him... you think employers haven't caught onto this as well?

Globalization is transferring wealth out of the formerly well-off west and into the developing world... and that means jobs are going over there as well. Meanwhile, the rich are exploiting tax havens and loopholes, the banks are helping them do it, and your buddies in the tea party think it's not fair that they have to pretend to pay their taxes.