Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2010, 4:31 AM Reply   
1. Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court in his SOTU address was a stunning example of:

a. Unparalleled arrogance.
b. Egregiously bad judgment.
c. Deplorable lack of respect for the role of the Court.
d. A craven ploy to rouse the masses against the third branch of government.
e. A failed attempt to intimidate.
f. How really bad and/or ineffective his advisors are.
g. A cheap shot at a group that could not respond.
h. A gratuitous serving of red meat to his detractors.
i. Inexcusable behavior by a professor of Constitutional Law.
j. All of the above.

2. An apology by Obama would be:

a. Far too inadequate.
b. Meaningless, as his only regret is getting caught doing something stupid.
c. Impossible because in his mind this was the right thing to do.
d. All of the above.

3. At the end of this part of the SOTU address, Obama kind of trailed off. This was because he:

a. Finally realized how small and petulant he sounds.
b. Finally realized how stupid and hollow his suggestion of legislation sounds.
c. Became distracted by the Justices expressions and mumbling, and finally realized this was a really bad idea.
Old    Paul (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2010, 7:22 AM Reply   
Lame.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       01-28-2010, 7:39 AM Reply   
1. A
2. C
3. D - Aside from slamming the court and issuing an executive order which supercedes congress, there was nothing to conclude, b/c that's all his speech was - rambling BS. Touting how wonderful the first year in office has been, how he "saved the financial system" even though he opposed the motion, yet taking credit for it? While only addressing unemployment by "creating 2 million jobs, promising to create another 1.5mm jobs."
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-28-2010, 9:04 AM Reply   
For someone whose message was government unity and working together, he sure fired alot of shots accross the isle, and even had a retread of the blame game.

Clowning the supreme court WAS pretty lame.

I had high expectations for this address.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       01-28-2010, 9:44 AM Reply   
I have to admit the this is the first State of the Union address I've sat through from beginning to end, but I was very disappointed because I thought it was going to be an explanation of where we are at at this point in time (the "state" of the union). To me it just seems like a campaign speech from someone running for president making promises to fix everything. Is that how they usually are? I want that hour of my life back!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-28-2010, 10:01 AM Reply   
z. Calling a spade a spade.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       01-28-2010, 10:19 AM Reply   
That speech could have easily been made by Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. Equal pay for women? Wasn't that a 70s issue? More chicks attend college now than guys. "I am not going to quit... I am going to continue with my agenda whether you people like it or not" LOL

Blame Bush was in full force last night. This guy is a total joke.
Old    jason (hbguy)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-28-2010, 10:34 AM Reply   
"Is that how they usually are?"

Yes.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-28-2010, 11:32 AM Reply   
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-28-2010, 11:32 AM Reply   
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913/

What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders — but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.

One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.

And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

Federal election law has long prohibited any foreign national from directly or indirectly making “an independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.” And the Supreme Court’s ruling does not explicitly address the issue of foreign corporations. However, in his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-28-2010, 12:54 PM Reply   
So, this gives all our enemies foreign and domestic the God given right....




....to make commercials. I doubt they stop there. They may even invest in buttons, or worse BANNERS!

To top it off, they may infiltrate those ads you ignore before the videos play on the news sites!! Add those to the ads we already FFwd through from the unions and the candidates themselves, and we may not have a decent commerical all evening!!!
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2010, 1:20 PM Reply   
Yeah, I love it when Obama gets exercised about the horrors of corporate campaign money and the potential for foreigners (!) to contribute to campaigns.

Isn't he the same guy who first opted for PUBLIC financing of his campaign, and then reversed himself and went ALL OUT to collect - corporate contributions from fat cats? Hmmmmmmmm.

And isnt he the guy who DISABLED the feature in his donation software that allowed tracking the location of the donor, thus PURPOSEFULLY evading information that would show whether he was receiving foreign contributions. And, coincidentally, didn't he just happen make a major campaign speech in Germany? Just sayin'.....

I'll listen when I hear him map out a principled approach on the issues rather than self-serving and hypocritical demagoguery. But I fear I'll have a long wait.....
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       01-28-2010, 1:42 PM Reply   
But I fear I'll have a long wait.....

and, your expectations are far too high to be applied to politicians.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-29-2010, 7:10 AM Reply   
I thought Obama was a child of the world....
Old    Ron T (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       01-31-2010, 6:22 PM Reply   
How did Judge Sonia Sotomayor vote?
Old     (fogey)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-31-2010, 7:19 PM Reply   
She voted exactly as you'd expect from someone with her philosophy and writings. The actual facts in the case, and even the actual words in the 1A, don't count for nearly as much as getting the "right" answer. So, she proudly voted with the minority. If a "corporation" wants to say it, you don't need to hear it - unless, of course, that corporation happens to own the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Los Angeles Times, etc.
Old    Ron T (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       01-31-2010, 8:21 PM Reply   
I understand why he's so upset now, thanks.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us