I like the sound of the soundbite. The speech sounds good. Obama will come down in history as a master orator. But with his policies and appointments I think he's on the trajectory of losing his political base that elected him.

i like the video, short and no fuckin ads.

let me fucking guess, Is the MSM is going to dissect body language for days while Obama's vacuous speech gets a pass?

[edit] more vapid or vacuous? vacillating? I mean if the state of the union speech was a fine meal, would you be able to taste anything?

Fucking Alito. Go back to sucking toes.

Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Cheers for the post. Just out of curiosity how do you like Ben Bernanke? Yeah everyone hates him but he'll stay.

You got told flowchart...

Oh snap!
>> ^kceaton1:
You got told flowchart...

Obama will come down in history as a master orator.

No he won't. He's barely average as a speaker. Way too artificial. Way too much dependance on his teleprompter. His register is mechanical. His head swinging is distracting. His tone is flat and dull. Only Obama zombies think his speeches are 'great'. What you mean is that he is 'articulate'. He avoids speech flubs like the plague because he knows that is what the far left hated about W. GWB was a much more natural speaker than Obama, but he got mush mouthed a lot and they liked to say it was because he was stupid. Obama doesn't want to be called stupid, so he PAUSES and then he WAITS ... and then he PAUSES so that he can be ... PRECISE and not make a ... MISTAKE! That's not great speaking. It's robotic.

And even the left wing is harping on this particular flub. PotUS's just don't go after the SC. Not ever - let alone in the SotU address. Obama is catching major flak from this. It may be red meat for the far left fringes, but it was stupid of him to do. The totality of the speech? Pretty much as expected. "Wasn't my fault... MY administration... MY program... MY plan... Me me me me me." Speech was a dud.

Obama is a great speaker.

Reality has never been a friend of the conservatives.

Believe it or not, just because you say that something is so, that doesn't mean it's true.

Yet it never stops you from trying.

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Actually, it's a bit more like calling out the Senate for being a bunch of dysfunctional crybabies, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

>> ^marinara:
let me fucking guess, Is the MSM is going to dissect body language for days while Obama's vacuous speech gets a pass?

Actually, our vacuous media will spend lots of time hyperventilating over whether Obama crossed the line with what he said in this clip.

There will also be (surprise, surprise) a huge focus on the effect of the speech on the eternal political horserace. In other words, "how did it play with his liberal base/independents/Republicans who long for bipartisanship", or as Fox News would put it "let me fucking guess, the MSM is going to give Obama's vacuous and vapid speech a pass?"

Also, it is great to see a President who is a Constitutional Lawyer lay out some smackdown on the Supreme Court of all things.

:eyeroll: So what? You can be a student of law, and even a professor (as leftie blogs like to call him) and still be a total numbnut. Obama's opinion on the constitution is plainly dominated by his bias towards civil rights activism. For example, he laments the Constitution for only having 'negative rights' (limits on government) and NOT saying what government 'should do'. He disdains the constitution as an incomplete, 'unfinished' document waiting for his ammendments/changes/alterations. A COMPETENT professor of constitutional law wouldn't do such a thing. Real ones restrict themselves to studying what the constitution actually says as opposed to wresting the document until it mirrors their personal philosophies.

Not to mention that his grasp of basic FACTS on the issue is in question. Obama said they reversed a 'century of law'. Baloney. SCotUS reversed part (not all) of McCain/Fiengold (2002), not the Tillman Act. Obama said foreign companies will be able to buy influence. Bullcrap. That kind of ad buying was illegal before, and it's still illegal now because the repeal didn't touch it. Obama is probably a hypocrite too because his campaign sure wasn't publicly fincanced, and the source of where he got all that money is under investigation. His campaign coffers were loaded with corporate cash.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
:eyeroll: So what? You can be a student of law, and even a professor (as leftie blogs like to call him) and still be a total numbnut. Obama's opinion on the constitution is plainly dominated by his bias towards civil rights activism. For example, he laments the Constitution for only having 'negative rights' (limits on government) and NOT saying what government 'should do'. He disdains the constitution as an incomplete, 'unfinished' document waiting for his ammendments/changes/alterations. A COMPETENT professor of constitutional law wouldn't do such a thing. Real ones restrict themselves to studying what the constitution actually says as opposed to wresting the document until it mirrors their personal philosophies.
Not to mention that his grasp of basic FACTS on the issue is in question. Obama said they reversed a 'century of law'. Baloney. SCotUS reversed part (not all) of McCain/Fiengold (2002), not the Tillman Act. Obama said foreign companies will be able to buy influence. Bullcrap. That kind of ad buying was illegal before, and it's still illegal now because the repeal didn't touch it. Obama is probably a hypocrite too because his campaign sure wasn't publicly fincanced, and the source of where he got all that money is under investigation. His campaign coffers were loaded with corporate cash.


Wait, so you think massive corporations like Wal-Mart should be able to donate as much as they want to whoever they want? It seems clear as day to me that this means they will donate hundreds of millions of dollars to whichever politicians has ideals that will make them more profit.

If politician a has a viable plan to build a home for every American and politician b has a plan that will end up increasing Wal-Mart's profits then Wal-Mart will donate hundreds of millions to politician b. Since money = votes, politician b will win.

Is my rudimentary understanding of the situation correct? How is this good for any of us?????