[the.crooked]

Who all of you actually looks to watch the president's weekly addresses?

let alone, who watched his q and a with the house republicans two days ago?

[.hopeless.]

i watched him address the republicans but that was about it..i was waiting for some sketchy characters to leave the block becuase i didnt feel comfortable leaving my house with them parked outside.

[nicklesndimes]

To be honest all that political stuff just isn't me...I can't absorb what they're trying to say on TV when they do it. It's just a whole different world than the one I'm living in.

[angelofdeath]

i think americans would spend their time better sleeping than watching any of these clowns give a speech

[Decyferon]

If I had access to watch them I probably would, even though they do not affect me from this side of the pond, I think in order to have a proper balanced view, you should hear the official interpretation then the how the news and internet skews it to their view, and then make up your own opinion.

[the.crooked]

Originally Posted by angelofdeath (View Original Post)

i think americans would spend their time better sleeping than watching any of these clowns give a speech

it's comments like these that I find interesting.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I know you are learned, regardless of if we disagree on our most base philosophies.

But, I should think that even you would want people informed. I don't know if you actually watched the address to the house republicans, but it was really interesting.

I just don't understand the disaffected perspective when you argue for overthrowing or fundamentally changing government. How can you do that if you don't pay attention to the nuance of current government?

bleh.

[Zig]

i didn't watch either, but i've heard a lot about both. i stopped caring about being "informed" on these types of issues because i've already come to understand their significance to the every day life of an average citizen such as myself.

as for the address to the house republicans, this was a planned political move by the Obama administration obviously. he plays well into the whole left (Dems) vs. right (Reps) paradigm and really does a good job of painting the republicans as the enemy towards all legislation being attempted. i think they are currently known as the party of no, am i right?

as much as i dislike republicans (to be fair i dislike both parties equally), instead of breaking through this left vs. right paradigm we have in this country where we feel like winners or losers when "our guy" is in power, i feel a move like this on Obama's part pretty much just promotes it and encourages people on the left to further criticize and ostracize republicans for not "cooperating" with Obama (which in my view, basically means just saying yes to every piece of legislation his administration proposes).

but, for the sake of debate let's analyze just one portion of Obama's state of the union speech where he claims that:

"So we acted, immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

and stand it up against a state of the republic speech by Ron Paul who warns of oncoming social and economic crisis, due to the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration who has done nothing economically for the middle-class of this country, bailed out Wall st. and gave the Fed even more power than they've had previously.

if someone on here is arguing for overthrowing or fundamentally changing government as it is currently, why would you assume that they would take anything coming from that entity in it's current form as valid or even worthwhile to pay attention to. obviously that person probably thinks it is all bull shit.

[the.crooked]

Contrary to your point, His address and interaction with house Republicans was civil, centrist and a good example of how sections of a representative democracy can have a productive dialog,

And quoting or referencing Ron Paul as an accurate predictive source will get you no where (with me at least).

My point is more so about becoming engaged with what is supposed to be our democracy.

I am as cynical as the next person, but I firmly believe you can't change the system by breaking it down, or counting on a people's with the malaise of being American to take on the government, you have to actually work within the strictures of the system itself and use a vast knowledge of it to go in and change it by using the mechanisms already in place to do so.

Also, the use of the phrase "planned political move" is sort of hollow in meaning. In the context of american politics and government, any act is by default and definition a "planned political move." It's a trite accusation that says nothing about the actual act itself.

I urge you to watch the full hour of his interactions with the house and tell me how you feel about it afterwards.

[angelofdeath]

Originally Posted by the.crooked (View Original Post)

it's comments like these that I find interesting.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I know you are learned, regardless of if we disagree on our most base philosophies.

But, I should think that even you would want people informed. I don't know if you actually watched the address to the house republicans, but it was really interesting.

I just don't understand the disaffected perspective when you argue for overthrowing or fundamentally changing government. How can you do that if you don't pay attention to the nuance of current government?

bleh.

no, i have no problem with people watching a president speak, i just feel its largely a waste of time. we all know what bush's agenda was. iraq. patriot act. 'defense.' federal education largesse. economic intervention. terrorists this terrorists that. obama's agenda is 'stan. 'defense.' universal healthcare in some shape or form. economic intervention. no president is going to call for a drastic cut back in spending and a return of actual constitutionalism to DC unless his name is Ron Paul.

i think overall, on the actual issues there is very little if any real difference between the two parties. democrats want government to grow super duper fast. republicans want it to grow super fast. i basically see both parties worrying about rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking titanic instead of calling for any drastic action.

[angelofdeath]

Originally Posted by the.crooked (View Original Post)

C
And quoting or referencing Ron Paul as an accurate predictive source will get you no where (with me at least).

you are representative of most of america. the man called the economic collapse. so did peter schiff. bernanke and the fed apologists said everything was fine and people talking about a meltdown were doomsayers. we see what happened. meltdown came.

[Zig]

by planned political move i was referring to the cameras that were placed in the room so that it would be broadcast live.

you're right though, i may actually take a look at this hour long standoff with the republicans and see if my opinion changes, but i'm pretty certain i already know what to expect.. and am i mistaken to say that republicans weren't too happy about this whole thing? that is how it seems from the glancing i've been doing at mainstream media about it.

and i don't see why ron paul wouldn't be an accurate predictive source, or an accurate source period. he's spent a long amount of time in washington as a career politician and is as credible as anyone else, probably even more so than Obama who is new to all of this. if you dislike or disagree with his stances on things, that is one thing to say, but to deflect his economic predictions is something else...

[Decyferon]

I don't honestly know a lot about Ron Paul, but I have watched a few interviews and read things that Casek has showed me, and he just always harps on about the constitution and how the federal government shouldnt be playing such a big role in everything, which is fine, he knows what he thinks the problems are, but I have never heard him actually say what the hell he would do to change things if he were in power, this is why I don't see him as relevant because it is easy to say what the problems are the difference is when you say what can be done to change them.

[lord_casek]

Originally Posted by Decyferon (View Original Post)

I don't honestly know a lot about Ron Paul, but I have watched a few interviews and read things that Casek has showed me, and he just always harps on about the constitution and how the federal government shouldnt be playing such a big role in everything, which is fine, he knows what he thinks the problems are, but I have never heard him actually say what the hell he would do to change things if he were in power, this is why I don't see him as relevant because it is easy to say what the problems are the difference is when you say what can be done to change them.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...h_typ e=&aq=f

[angelofdeath]

Originally Posted by Decyferon (View Original Post)

I don't honestly know a lot about Ron Paul, but I have watched a few interviews and read things that Casek has showed me, and he just always harps on about the constitution and how the federal government shouldnt be playing such a big role in everything, which is fine, he knows what he thinks the problems are, but I have never heard him actually say what the hell he would do to change things if he were in power, this is why I don't see him as relevant because it is easy to say what the problems are the difference is when you say what can be done to change them.

ron paul, during the presidential campaign mentioned many things he would do to begin the unravelling of the federal government. monetary competition is one. allow competing currencies to come into play. in another words, stop outlawing transactions in gold, silver, etc. on most of the social issues like social security, medicare, etc. he is in favor of allowing young generations to opt out of the system. on the war he has been very clear. on civil liberties he would refuse to enforce any infringements on civil rights that the federal executive branch is engaged in. these are just to name a few.

[russell jones]

Originally Posted by angelofdeath (View Original Post)

you are representative of most of america. the man called the economic collapse. so did peter schiff. bernanke and the fed apologists said everything was fine and people talking about a meltdown were doomsayers. we see what happened. meltdown came.

It's easy to be right in your predictions when your predictions never change.