Comments about ‘State of the Union was evidence of Obama's ideological fatigue’

Holy cow!!! What is this? The 5th editorial on this exact same subject? And they all offer the exact same point of view. Dnews, we get it. You're a conservative paper. But this got old like... 4 years ago. Believe it or not, Obama won. So whatever he has to say, isn't getting old or else we the voters would have voted that other guy into office. And believe it or not he cannot run for president anymore. So here's a tip, LAY OFF on the hateful vitriol. Either offer a different view on his address or move on. I'd prefer the latter. It was only an address.

So here's my tip, focus on your own GOP tent. What are you folks doing to solve our problems? Last I checked the GOP was less popular than the democrats. Yet, the only response I've seen is to bash Obama. That won't get you far, especially since he can't even run in 2016. Fix your own party and the votes will come. Bash the other and do nothing else? Well... We just saw how well that worked...

It didn't

Obama always plays fast and loose with the facts. For example he claims some 6 million new jobs have been created since he took office. According to fact check, that number is less than half of what he claims. Tells you all you need to know about believing anything Barrack Obama says. The reason he gets away with it is the news media has a slobbering love affair with his liberal agenda and any means to his ends are acceptable. Honesty does not apply to Obama!

It was an optimistic speech containing some things that needed to be there but would not have been had the election gone the other way.

Second to what The Real Maverick said. How much longer is the DN going to keep pouting about Romney losing?

Don't posture by telling me that it is Republicans who are extreme if they object to the President's speech. Frankly, I don't even know what he said; I didn't bother listening and wouldn't believe anything I did hear. I think most reasonable people have stopped listening to the words and simply read the actions. This man has been so fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, throughout his term in office, that any message he verbally states or seems to project is highly suspect. He either doesn't have the fortitute to follow through, intentionally decieves to burnish his own image, or exists in a condition of such moral turbidity that he himself doesn't know how he will act even as he is attepting to articulate his position. I treat him the same as I would any personal associate, he has been so consistently unreliable that he can only be regarded with suspicion in all situations. He has lost ALL credibility.

While the business interests and their minions set about their tasks of defeating President Obama, it is the hope of the American people that he will find the ways to bypass and thwart the nay-Sayers and their ulterior motives.

How can a President, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, demand that Congress enact "gun controls" when Congress has no authority to pass a law that controls our right to keep and bear arms?

How can a President, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, demand that any part of government exceed its authority? Doesn't he know the limits imposed on Government by the Constitution? Doesn't he know that the people have severely limited his authority? Doesn't he know that doing anything outside the scope of his duties is illegal?

For someone who (supposedly) is regarded as being above average in intelligence, he's acting as if he's ignorant of his authority and ignorant of the oath that he took. We don't need a President who is either ignorant of the limits of his job or who pretends to be ignorant.

We need a leader who understands that Government is not the solution for our problems, but the cause of many of those problems. Automatic cutbacks in spending was Obama's suggestion. Let it happen. Let him get what he demanded.

@Mike Richards

Like so many others, you seem to think that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. None of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights is absolute. You remember the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment, but you forget the "well-regulated" part. How can something be well-regulated without regulations? Even Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case said: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Talk about fatigue how about some new material from the far right just once? Who exactly do they think they are convincing after six us years of the same old same old talking points?

@Skeptical

Like so many others, you seem to think that there is no control of guns that is outside the scope of the constitution.
If some regulation is ok, then where do we stop? The issue here is not that anyone actually believes there should be no gun control. The issue is that many of us believe we have already crossed the line of acceptable gun control.
So, we can disagree with where the line should be, but if we give a little more our second amendment freedom away, what will the next generation give away? And the one after that? There must be a point where we say "enough".

Once a Socialist always a Socialist. Nothing new. Move on.

@ The Skeptical Chymist,

The Supreme Court has answered that question. They specifically stated that there is NO connection between being a member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Those of you who continually try to link militia to the right to keep and bear arms are fighting against a ruling of the Supreme Court. In other words, your argument has no merit. It is settled law.

Obama knows that he has no right to regulate the arms that citizens keep and bear. That right is specifically reserved to the people, not to government and certainly not to Obama. His intention to regulate arms is illegal in every sense of the word.

@mountainman.... again..... claims on the numbers of jobs - and twisting the numbers.... here is the full story.

"Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.

And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million."

So here is the reason why you only hear complaints about this from the blogs, and not from the mainstream media. This is exactly what conservatives wanted. They wanted to reduce the number of federally paid for jobs, and to grow the private sector jobs. 6.1 million private sector jobs have replaced the millions government funded jobs.

Do you want fewer government jobs? You want smaller government, don't you?

Do you want public sector job growth?

So when you get what conservatives prescribed, you still complain. We can double the job growth rate, real easy. Its to restore all those government funded jobs cut.

But to say you want to slash government spending - fed actually ran a surplus for January - then complain we lost jobs there... not sure what you want.

On the "guns" issue even members of Obama's own party aren't toeing the line. Guns are one issue that Harry Reid, in particular, may cause to abandon the Presidents' position on. Nevadans fully support 2nd amendment rights.

When the American people see the costs of adding 20 million new poor people in the form of illegal immigrants to Americas' free social support structure, they may not like that either.

I'm relieved that the president is for good and against bad. Now he'll ask Van Jones, Bill Ayers and his other close friends to come up with definitions and programs.

His opponents wish he was suffering fatigue. Evidence indicates otherwise. That he has a lot of energy.

As usual, the usual Obama bashers present the usual nonsense from their usual hate radio mongers saying their usual things.

@brs27

"...Frankly, I don't even know what he said; I didn't bother listening and wouldn't believe anything I did hear...".

I appreciate your candor.

Thank you.

I did listen to and watch the actions of your nominee.

With some minor changes, allow me to express my opinion about your failed nominee using your standard of performance...

I think most reasonable people have stopped listening to the words and simply read the actions. This man has been so fundamentally dishonest and deceptive, throughout his Republican campaign that any message he verbally states or seems to project is highly suspect. He either doesn't have the fortitute to follow through, intentionally decieves to burnish his own image, or exists in a condition of such moral turbidity that he himself doesn't know how he will act even as he is attepting to articulate his position. I treat him the same as I would any personal associate, he has been so consistently unreliable that he can only be regarded with suspicion in all situations. He has lost ALL credibility.

60,000,000+ voting American agreed with this assessment of your nominee following your standard of performance.

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone this thread was heading no where from the start but it defiantly jumped the shark with hemlocks comment.

Mike Richards – “Those of you who continually try to link militia to the right to keep and bear arms are fighting against a ruling of the Supreme Court. In other words, your argument has no merit. It is settled law.”

For now Mike…

Just because Scalia and his buddies decided to uncouple the two fragments that make up the full gun related sentence in the 2nd amendment, doesn’t mean they were right (just Right). In fact no SC decision had ever (in our entire history) made this judgment until the 5-4 decision in Heller.

So in terms of merit, I’ll take the side of 200+ years of historical precedence over that of the partisan ideology of the right-wing five any day.

But you are correct, it is the law of the land and as citizens we have respect our laws. I assume you feel the same way about laws you don’t care for, yes?