One would think that the President of the United States, especially one who was formerly a Constitutional law professor, would know what IS ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION. <BR> <BR>But if one listened to the State of the Union Address last night, one would be mistaken. <BR> <BR>Full transcript here: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32111.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32111.html</a> <BR> <BR>Quote-in-point: <BR> <BR><i> <BR>We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise <b>enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,</b> that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.</i> <BR> <BR>Sorry, Mr. President, that's not in the Constitution. Try the Declaration of Independence.

^^^funny <BR> <BR>I couldn't help but laugh when I saw Harry Reid yawning and dozing off...priceless

FAIL <BR> <BR>He doesn't say it as though it's a quote...he's describing the effect and intent of the document as a whole. The constitution is a ruleset to ensure the equality as stated in the Declaration. <BR> <BR>Not an Obama lover, but come on...this is really grasping. Go skim the constitution, put it all together, think for a minute about what it means. It's not that difficult.

There seems to be plenty of legitimate things to criticize our politicians for, so I don't know why people grasp at retarded stuff like this.

Oh, so you are saying that members of the media shouldn't hit politicians for this mix-up? I will keep that in mind. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html " target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html </a> <BR> <BR><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/child-calls-oreilly-on-mistake-but-he-wont-admit-error/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/child-calls-oreilly-on-mistake-but-he-wont-admit-error/</a>

Such a partisan hack. <BR> <BR>The point was, that it's a shame that simple minded people are so easily distracted by stupid stuff. Doesn't matter which side it's directed at. <BR> <BR>So...yeah, it's a comment about how ishtty the media is. And how often people are stupid for paying attention.

I would have to disagree. If I gave a presentation at work, and gave an inaccurate reference that was called out, it wouldn't just be looked over like no big deal. Therefore I would make sure all references are accurate. I would expect the same if not more from the President. But again, I'd probably make sense during my presentation and not obviously be relying on the prompters and my reading flow would be smooth. Again I'm no President though.

Partisan hack, simple-minded, any other personal attacks you'd like to lob my way? <BR> <BR>People criticized Bush because they thought he looked like a chimp, and you are saying we can't be critical of the things Obama says? <BR> <BR>How about the fact that much of his speech I did support, and was actually quite similar to McCain's platform? Anyone else ever heard Obama call for building new nuclear power plants or offshore drilling, before last night? McCain sure talked about it a lot. Does Obama have a plan for what to do with the waste generated by these new plants, since he has mothballed Yucca Mountain after we spent billions studying it as a repository for decades? Anyone else think tax cuts are ok with Democrats, unless they were proposed by Republicans?

Of course you should be critical about what Obama says. <BR> <BR>But stick to the important stuff, like what you just brought up. Leave out the contrived and misguided drivel that you opened with. Then defended with nothing more than 'but...but...the other guys did it too'. <BR> <BR>You haven't spoken at all to the point that the constitution does in fact create the legal framework for equality.

also, me venting, I really can't stand the huge push to make history, talk about making it, giving credit for making it, and comparing what is currently going on with the Civil War and other major historical events. Planning and talking about making history is a lot different from actually making it, and it seems that's all the administration cares about it making history, or at least giving the perception that history is to be made. Make decisions and lay out the details, don't just promise history in the making. <BR> <BR>His speech was just trying way too hard, imo. <BR>"And while we're at it..." Never heard someone use that in serious/meaning it context.

So, Nate, since you have repeated attacked me personally for my post, can I assume that all of your criticisms of Bush were as thought-out and high-minded as you require my criticisms of Obama to be? Or would you care to retract your unnecessary insults?

the bigger problem w/the SOTU... is that it was ALL hot air. not too different from his campaign speeches.. which we now know were mostly also hot air. <BR>doing>saying. <BR> <BR>for nancy et all to stand and applaud things like posting earmarks online, welcoming republican ideas on health care, etc as if somehow he was talking about someone else in the room. <BR> <BR>The whole thing was lip service. today... business as usual. <BR> <BR>How different would that speech have been had Scott Brown NOT won on MA?

While I agree with Nate on his message, you will not hear a single democrat appologize for the continuous bombardment of drivel and intellectually dishonest arguments against Bush for the last 8 years. <BR> <BR>There are plenty of big issue to nail Obama on. Even though he did propose republican ideas (most call them common sense ideas), he added small little details to the proposals such as clean coal, newest design power plants, and so on. You see the politics of it have him on record for saying he supports these things, but, the requirements for acting on them will be so high they will never get permitted. We can drill for oil (as long as it is in the areas the government already gave them to look in that don't contain oil), you can use coal as long as it has this narrow feature, you can use nuke plants of such and such design but they don't exist yet. The things he proposed was absoulutely against his euro centric socialist being. He then goes on to say we still need cap and trade. He is trying to make it look like he is giving in to both sides without actually moving from his original positons.

I could hear the BS in the air last night, hold on.

I'm sorry that I insulted you by pointing out the erroneous nature of the content of your post. <BR> <BR>Meanwhile, noticing that you've still made no attempt to address said content.

Addressing the content of my post: <BR> <BR>NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say "All men are created equal," or "that we are all created equal," with said notion originating in the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal"). In fact, the concept of individual rights was so absent from the Constitution that our Founding Fathers passed a Bill of Rights, now considered to be the first 10 Constitutional Amendments. These amendments explicitly deal with the rights of the individual, including the equal protection of the laws (#14) as referenced by Pres. Obama in his State of the Union speech. Overall, one may view the Founding Documents of our country (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, subsequent amendments) as providing individual rights and seeking to provide equality of rights and justice, but the specific mention made by Pres. Obama, which he attributed to the Constitution, was technically erroneous. "Enshrined" literally meaning "housed within," and thus incorrect, due to the absence of said language. A minor point, admittedly, but one that a Constitutional law professor should be aware of.

So..use a little bit more of the quote... <BR> <BR>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" <BR> <BR>Following which, they drafted the consitution in order to secure those rights. The constituion forms a government, the purpose of which is to provide a framework to secure those individual rights. <BR> <BR>The amendments were added to further clarify those rights and prevent them from being misconstrued. <BR> <BR>The original articles, together with the ammendments known as the Bill of Rights, make up the Constitution of the United States of America. The document that Obama was referring to. <BR> <BR><Edit: But back to my original point. In today's world, it's really a stupid thing to even be talking about. Smoke and mirrors. We all know that the constitution has been dead for decades anyway.> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by mammoth on January 28, 2010)

Jeff, is that a Genesis reference? If so, bravo good sir, bravo!

Yes sir.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

No matter how we slice it, we're digging out from the last 8 years of piss-poor, unregulated decisions. If someone was pissing your money out the window, what would your opinion be of your business partner? Set aside all your damn personal feelings about your "party" and start using some damn common sense.

Mark, so far the Democratic response to the deficits under Bush is to pass budgets with even larger deficits. What part of common sense should tell me that doing so is a good thing? <BR> <BR>Regarding regulation, the Senate cap-and-trade bill would be one of the costliest regulations ever, with annual costs to private industries in the billions. Think about it: billions in new taxes EVERY YEAR, on utilities and "emitters." Is this what you want for our current economic condition?

Mark, you blast the last 8 years which anyone with sense knows you are blasting Bush with that and then say in the next sentence to set aside your personal feelings about your "party". The reality is, the bleeding started over 12 years ago with the .com business and maybe earlier than that. It had little to do with who was in office. The government is there to stimulate when we are down and regulate when we are up. That way you keep a nice even trend. So, you are correct with the unregulated issue. The problem is, when everything is up the politicians love to let it ride and get all the political capital they can from it. Common sense tells you that is how bubbles get made. The nice thing about economy 101 is prices adjust for the new found wealth and things crash. Now add in a global economy and our monitary policy is more important than ever. When we have a bubble, it really stings because we become noncompetitive with the rest of the world.

Vote all incumbents out, that is what we need to do, Clean House we need new blood IMO. <BR> <BR>No vote for Perry from me, I am voting for Debra Medina for Texas Governor. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.medinafortexas.com/" target="_blank">http://www.medinafortexas.com/</a>

I agree with Someone Else because the dealings I've had with liberals proved to me that they cannot take criticism and have no idea what it takes to own a business. In addition, the banks paid back their loan (TARP) money with interest and are now to be penalized (by taxes of course) for enforcing policies that the Clinton administration passed which required the banks to make the risky loans in the first place. I bet Barney Franks forgot about that part. Why aren't the automobile manufacturers not getting any additional taxes? Why aren't local business owners not getting bailed out? All I can say is a BIG thank you, Massachusetts, for electing Brown.

"I agree with Someone Else because the dealings I've had with liberals proved to me that they cannot take criticism and have no idea what it takes to own a business." <BR> <BR> <BR>Well then you might want to talk to more people, I have had a successful business for over 30 years. I also consider myself a liberal. I have good personal friends (both staunchly conservative, and liberal) non business owners, and they can both be clueless on what it takes to run a business. The money policies that Republican administrations push for and get for big business and corporations have virtually no benefit for me. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>"Why aren't local business owners not getting bailed out?" <BR> <BR> <BR>Because they don't give a rip about small businesses, it's all lip service. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by magicr on January 30, 2010)

"Because they don't give a rip about small businesses, it's all lip service." Unfortunately, that is reflected in our--at one time in the majority--liberal administration. The tax on banks could hurt us all--especially small business owners--because it could limit loans and increase fees--therefore slowing the recovery. I'm not 100% conservative but spending just to be spending is no way to run a country. I don't see how more taxes and more spending is going to help anyone unless you sell bonds.

The Banks are frozen right now without being taxed. I have a hard time feeling sorry for the commercial banks at this time. With all the money they've received from the bailout they haven't seemed to learn anything except how to not help the rest of the country. <BR> <BR>I don't beleive it's spending to be spending. There are viable infrastructure projects in my area that may not employ a lot of people, but there are projects all over this country that don't get much publicity. It all helps

I agree. Where I live, a local place will be getting 1 million dollars to replace a roof that could go another 10 years or so before it needs replacing and the job will employee an estimated 15 people for 3 months, so that's roughly $66,666 per employee. Unfortunately, the problem is the money has not yet been funded (no one knows how long before the money is actually provided) but now the recession is ending. However, I do feel sorry for the banks because what most do not know is some institutions are forced to provide loans to people who cannot afford them. For example, one institution I know is required by law to give anyone a loan. So what happens when someone defaults? The institution absorbs the cost. Now the banks will be taxed and that burden will fall mostly on the poor because it will more than likely cost more to borrow money and own a credit card. Ironically, investment banks do not to like to lose money either so they have changed their regulations so this will not happen again. An additional tax is not necessary. I was always taught not to spend more than I earn. I guess that's not the case anymore.

And if you believe Obama really thinks will we will should build new nuclear power plants and start new off shore drilling, you are living in a dream world. You would be better getting stoned and waking up in three years.

In my opinion, with all of the upgrades in technology, the nuclear plants and off shore drilling rigs are less dangerous than the oil tankers.