RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address

RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 7:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 One of my brothers has a genius level IQ and was an air traffic controller in the USAF, stationed in Texas for 4 years but now can`t seem to manage to keep any job or girlfriend for more than a year. Go figure. I would prefer wisdom and common sense over super-smarts any day I'm writing a book aimed at exactly this audience. I'll cmail you when it's a lot closer to done.

SternSkipper -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 7:56:01 PM)
quote: No wonder why so many lefties think he's a great speaker! Ron, there are those who'll never need to worry about acquiring the label.

Aynne88 -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 8:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine The State of the Union is not meant to convince the opposing political party of the President's intention/beliefs/plans; it's meant to convince the American people of that. This "dumbing down" isn't necessarily an indictment on Obama per-se, but rather that of the American public who have had their intelligence diminished with every generation. If you find that to be the case, then what on earth did you possibly think while listening to Sarah Palin, or that completely illiterate former President Bush? I was embarrassed listening to both of them. eta....embarrassed for them. Of course. And their followers. Sad.

tj444 -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 8:04:02 PM)
imo, he is just hoping that one of his phrases will be used by the press in their next headlines.. the next sound bite.. that one or even several will become quoted over and over.. you know.. like JFKs "ask not what your country.. etc etc".. [sm=2cents.gif]

Marini -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 8:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine The State of the Union is not meant to convince the opposing political party of the President's intention/beliefs/plans; it's meant to convince the American people of that. This "dumbing down" isn't necessarily an indictment on Obama per-se, but rather that of the American public who have had their intelligence diminished with every generation. If you find that to be the case, then what on earth did you possibly think while listening to Sarah Palin, or that completely illiterate former President Bush? I was embarrassed listening to both of them. eta....embarrassed for them. Of course. And their followers. Sad. Aynne, it is always easier to attack the messenger, than to discuss the message. PEACE

provfivetine -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 9:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine The State of the Union is not meant to convince the opposing political party of the President's intention/beliefs/plans; it's meant to convince the American people of that. This "dumbing down" isn't necessarily an indictment on Obama per-se, but rather that of the American public who have had their intelligence diminished with every generation. If you find that to be the case, then what on earth did you possibly think while listening to Sarah Palin, or that completely illiterate former President Bush? I was embarrassed listening to both of them. eta....embarrassed for them. Of course. And their followers. Sad. Exactly. Palin and Bush, as well as Obama, represent exactly what I am talking about: the "dumbing down" of American politics as time marches on.

Musicmystery -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 9:32:18 PM)
Nice try kid.

TheHeretic -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 9:45:18 PM)
I liked the part where he wrapped it all up in a flag parable at the end. Wasn't that special?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 10:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Yes, thank you for reminding people of this. Originally, the requirement was interpreted as a written document that was given to Congress and was not a speech to the American public at all. I'm not sure when it became a speech, and when it became a speech that was directed more to the public than to Congress, but there you have it. quote: ORIGINAL Wikipedia While not required to deliver a speech, every president since Woodrow Wilson has made the State of the Union report as a speech delivered before a joint session of Congress. Before that time, most presidents delivered the State of the Union as a written report. Since Wilson, the State of the Union is given typically each January before a joint session of the United States Congress and is held in the House of Representatives chamber of the United States Capitol. What began as a communication between president and Congress has become a communication between the president and the people of the United States. Since the advent of radio, and then television, the speech has been broadcast live on most networks, preempting scheduled programming. To reach the largest television audience, the speech, once given during the day, is now typically given in the evening, after 9 p.m. Eastern time (UTC−05). I was discussing this with my uncle (we talk politics, all the time) and he reminded me of a phrase I used to use (and never really knew from whence it came): "If President Reagan buys 535 subscriptions to the Washington Post, he's fulfilled his constitutional obligation". Obviously, I'm not old enough to remember a time before President Nixon so, I would have had no memory of presidents that pre-dated President Wilson just submitting a report. I do think it's a blasted shame that the idea has become a "big show", another in a long line of acts in our dog-and-pony show that we call American politics. Peace and comfort, Michael

joether -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/25/2012 10:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine The State of the Union is not meant to convince the opposing political party of the President's intention/beliefs/plans; it's meant to convince the American people of that. This "dumbing down" isn't necessarily an indictment on Obama per-se, but rather that of the American public who have had their intelligence diminished with every generation. If you find that to be the case, then what on earth did you possibly think while listening to Sarah Palin, or that completely illiterate former President Bush? I was embarrassed listening to both of them. eta....embarrassed for them. Of course. And their followers. Sad. Exactly. Palin and Bush, as well as Obama, represent exactly what I am talking about: the "dumbing down" of American politics as time marches on. If President Obama REALLY wanted to dumb down Americans, he would just give a speech that required the listener to hold a bachlors degree. In other words, he would increase the language, structure and concepts to a detail far higher than 99% of conservatives could understand. It would sound like an alien language to all those conservatives; that afterward, they would complain that the President 'doesnt talk their language' and therefore, not fit to be President. When was the last time, since this millennium started, have we seen a Republican give a highly detailed and deeply thought out concept to conservatives (i.e. economics, science, mathematics, literature)? One that addresses primary and secondary problems? And shows the information with foot notes in the event some conservatives actually wanted to check the information for being correct and factual? For example, giving a speech that explains the factual reasons why this country's deficit and debt are so high but also include reasonable and sane methods for getting both under control; and in the case of the US debt.....paid off in a reasonable amount of time? Why should the President, or Congress or anyone else, need to dumb down information to a bunch of clueless morons that find Sarah Palin 'more qualified' than Mr. Obama to teach a class on the US Constitution (given the President IS a Constitutional lawyer...)?

thishereboi -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 4:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Obama just figured out something that FOX news has known for years. Almost half of all Americans are of below average intelligence. Appeal to all them and you're golden. Yup, we even had a thread about it a while back http://www.collarchat.com/m_2941606/mpage_1/tm.htm

Anaxagoras -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 6:25:58 AM)
It said a couple of fair enough things but was also remarkably repetitive nature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo sounding almost like a partial copy and paste job from other years...

Sanity -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 6:28:05 AM)
I heard that clip before, its remarkable how intellectually lazy that mans teleprompter is quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It said a couple of fair enough things but was also remarkably repetitive nature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo sounding almost like a partial copy and paste job from other years...

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 11:12:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine Exactly. Palin and Bush, as well as Obama, represent exactly what I am talking about: the "dumbing down" of American politics as time marches on. I think you need to separate how Obama speaks from how smart he is. To speak of him in the same breath as Palin and Bush really does him a great disservice. I'm sorry, but Obama is INFINITELY smarter. That his speechwriters purposely choose to write a speech for him that has broad appeal and CLARITY is actually very smart on their part. I think you are confusing two completely separate things. Obama has an ability to think on his feet that far surpasses either Palin or Bush. If you would like to start a thread about the dumbing down of the American public, or the dumbing down of politics separately, I think one could certainly discuss that. But Obama is not dumb. And I'm not sure why you think the American political scene was so much "smarter" in the good 'ole days. What, exactly, are you basing that on?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 11:20:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess And I'm not sure why you think the American political scene was so much "smarter" in the good 'ole days. What, exactly, are you basing that on? I can take a swing at that. I don't think it's that the political scene was so much "smarter". I think there was a time when the world, in general, seemed a whole lot simpler (at least, to me). I do believe that there were times when issues in elections were based on some "no-brainer" ideas. Wasn't there a guy that ran against FDR, promising to withdraw us from WWII, immediately? I think there was and that would be one of the things to which I refer. It was a pretty simple decision. I think things are more complicated now, on the whole than they were, years ago. I have no facts to assert (I guess). It's just my impression. Peace and comfort, Michael

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 11:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I do think it's a blasted shame that the idea has become a "big show", another in a long line of acts in our dog-and-pony show that we call American politics. I could not agree with this more. I think the original intent was for the President to give a thoughtful written document to Congress to tell them how he viewed the state of the Union from his vantage point of chief executive. I think it was meant to include suggestions and policy directions that Congress should consider, but in a more detailed way - with support and with specifics. And it was not intended for the public, but for policy makers. It has turned into an hour of television that I'm not sure even remotely achieves its original purpose.

Lucylastic -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 11:38:50 AM)
I notice the figures of the "poll" numbers was ignored, I had something else in mind with the oversize text and dramatics but just LMAO at the attempt to hijack

DaddySatyr -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 11:53:32 AM)
I notice that the article refers to "President Obama's 'Fairness' Campaign". Is there an actual policy statement that espouses this or is it just this particular writer's take on what was said (again: I didn't watch the show because on those rare occasions I sit in front onf the idiot box, I prefer to be entertained; not depressed)? If this is an actual policy initiative, making the tax codes a bit more reflective of actual earning:taxes paid is probably a good idea. Although, I'm still not sure why the idea of a consumption tax hasn't taken hold with the populace, that's a discussion for another thread. If this is not an actual policy initiative of the Obama administration, why was this lady even at the speech? So, I think it's fair to say that the president is trying to make a campaign promise, couched in a policy initiative. It's not like *that's* never been done before. My only objection is (as I stated before): Very little of what any president says in the State Of the Union Show actually becomes a reality. In other words: "Mr. President; I'm from Brooklyn but, please, pretend I'm from Missouri!" Peace and comfort, Michael

Lucylastic -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 12:08:13 PM)
hmmm there is NO figure, Forbes was attempting to guess how much her wages are, so there is no figure. So far, no one has volunteered this information. We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffett keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income. So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings. Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do. This is going ONLY On capital gains tax figure amounts. The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand. We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation. So its all speciulation AGAIN the smoking gun article says she just bought a house worth 144 000 The Bosaneks paid $144,000 for the four-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath property (the purchase was financed, in part, by a $115,200 mortgage). WHy does this assume she makes more than 200,000. To me, a 115,000 mortgage is not a heavy burden. as for the Rush quote, well hes just running on steam from the BS he inhales daily He is as believable as newt gingrich and a few others

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Dumb and Dumber: State of the Union Address (1/26/2012 1:22:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't think it's that the political scene was so much "smarter". I think there was a time when the world, in general, seemed a whole lot simpler (at least, to me). YES, to me, too!!!! So my take on this would be that because things were simpler "back then" one could take a deeper dive into issues and keep the public engaged. The range of things that elected officials are expected to have a platform on is so incredibly wide these days, that, naturally, the dialogue remains on the surface. How else can the dialogue with the public be maintained? In addition, the scale of everything has become larger. If we believe that intelligence follows a bell curve, then 60% of Americans have always hovered around average, with 20% being dumb to exceptionally dumb, and 20% being smart to exceptionally smart. This means that in 1920 about 63 million people were "average" compared to today, where about 186 million would be in that "average" group. So any politician looking at this, in a one vote per adult situation, has a lot of people that they need to reach with their message. So even campaigning becomes much harder. There is a more difficult message that has to be delivered to many more people in the same time frame that elections always were conducted. It is almost miraculous that the campaigning is not even more vacuous than it is [&:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625