quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

I can't be the only one to notice how Obama's addresses are meant for the lowest common denominator. His most recent address was absolutely laughable and it was a low point in American politics.

Apparently, a couple of researchers from the University of Minnesota agree with me: Link.

"Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR."

No wonder why so many lefties think he's a great speaker!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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...)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

I can't be the only one to notice how Obama's addresses are meant for the lowest common denominator. His most recent address was absolutely laughable and it was a low point in American politics.

Apparently, a couple of researchers from the University of Minnesota agree with me: Link.

"Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR."

No wonder why so many lefties think he's a great speaker!

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

I can't be the only one to notice how Obama's addresses are meant for the lowest common denominator. His most recent address was absolutely laughable and it was a low point in American politics.

Apparently, a couple of researchers from the University of Minnesota agree with me: Link.

"Obama's SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR."

No wonder why so many lefties think he's a great speaker!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

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"..

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I liked the part where he wrapped it all up in a flag parable at the end. Wasn't that special?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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...)?

Oh jeese, Joether, what did they teach you in college up there in Massachusetts?
Not history.
How many people do you know with bachelor's ( bachlors) "degrees" who are really smart?
If "anyone" can now get one then what are they worth anymore?
And how about law "degrees?" A lawyer once told me that , "every divorced woman who sold real estate in the day went to law school at night and became lawyers." We were talking about the "law" of supply and demand.
I want that speech to be a "report" to the American People on what the govt. is doing or not doing, give us an accounting on the financial books, do more of this, less of that. A Financial Audit! But,....they REALLY don't want to do that,....do they? It shouldn't be "political" at all!
And talk about "dumbed down", JFK really wasn't that smart, none of the Kennedys were. Old man Joe bought him a "degree" from Harvard! That's what rich people do. And if you have a "degree" from Harvard everyone thinks you're..... "smart" right?
And LBJ was a dope! Both of them voted against Eisenhower's Civil Rights Bill in 1957!
Look at President Pantload. He's been the beneficiary of "affirmative action" programs all his life.
People probably just automatically gave him "affirmative action" because they thought he needed it and now the lefties for whatever reason are "telling" us that he has an I.Q. of,.......(snare drum)...."162!"
He's half "white" too so shouldn't he only get "one half" of affirmative action?" The "white" half is getting something it shouldn't be getting.
And, he's never had a real job.
Just ask his college buddies,...if you can find any.
He's on third base and he thinks he hit a triple!

quote:

..and to think, I don't know of a single repub politician or wall street capitalist...that's had a real job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

As long as you're selectively fact checking...

Obama worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

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.

...then how do you account for this ? 98,950 to 99,000 income 21,330 / 16,994 / 21,748 / 19,511 taxes directly from the tables and even the lowest of $16,994 is over 16%. Were taxes raised since 2009 ? That's the rate of taxes for everybody as 'adjusted gross income, not an average.

quote:

I wasn't fact checking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

selectively fact checking...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

..and to think, I don't know of a single repub politician or wall street capitalist...that's had a real job.

Here is one...

http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57579---,00.html

"Gov. Snyder earned his undergraduate degree, MBA and law degree from the University of Michigan - all by the age of 23. After teaching at the University of Michigan, he went to work as a tax accountant at Coopers & Lybrand - now PriceWaterhouseCoopers - where he made partner after only six years. He then joined the fledgling computer company Gateway and helped it grow from a little over 700 employees to a Fortune 500 company with more than 10,000 employees before leaving to form his own successful venture capital firm."

Sounds like he had a "real" job

and here is another...

http://www.ci.livonia.mi.us/Government/CityCouncil/CityCouncilBiographies/LauraMToy/tabid/631/Default.aspx

She co owned a florist for 30 years. Does that count as a "real" job?

That's just two off the top of my head. Maybe you just aren't looking or you think it's cute to play dumb like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I liked the part where he wrapped it all up in a flag parable at the end. Wasn't that special?

Typcial republican penis envy. He had the balls to actually go and get the fucker and somehow thats not special? Give me a fucking break. Bush had 7 years and never layed a hand on Al Queda. And we all know why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I wasn't fact checking.

I know. You were

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

selectively fact checking...

Just as easily could have countered the entire "never had a job" thing; you chose only a partisan one.

quote:

The facts are...it is irrelevant and just more ridiculous partisan buuullll...shit.

quote:

And if you are so concerned with people being partisan, why didn't you call him on the original post?