Dvorak Poll: What Did You Think Of Obama’s State of the Union Speech?

By Wednesday January 27, 2010

You can read the text of the speech here.


What Did You Think Of The State of the Union Speech?

View Results
Create a Poll



83 Comments
  1. Dr Dodd says:
    1/28/2010 at 6:58 pm

    #60-Ah_Yea

    This was an unprecedented and calculated public attack by a President against an equal branch of government.

    More than that it was a bold signal from those using Obama that no American institution, group, custom or tradition is beyond attack, ridicule or destruction.

    Danger signals should be going off all over the place after this attack because clearly there is danger ahead.

    Reply
  2. McCullough says:
    1/28/2010 at 7:01 pm

    #60. Nice catch. And yet I agree with Obama on this one.

    Reply
  3. Ah_Yea says:
    1/28/2010 at 7:49 pm

    #60, McCullough

    History will tell us if Obama was right or wrong on his take of the Supreme Court decision (the majority of Justices don’t think so), but this is known.

    Obama publicly declared war with the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court will absolutely have to push back. No option, if they are to maintain even the semblance of impartiality.

    Roe Vs. Wade? Guns in the classroom? Constitutionality of Universal Health Care?

    Reply
  4. jccalhoun says:
    1/28/2010 at 8:18 pm

    Obama the great orator managed to diss the entire head of the third branch of government!

    More than that it was a bold signal from those using Obama that no American institution, group, custom or tradition is beyond attack, ridicule or destruction.

    At least he didn’t call them liars when they read their verdict…

    Reply
  5. deowll says:
    1/28/2010 at 8:48 pm

    When I first viewed the poll results there were slightly more nays than yeses. It would appear that the more time people have to think about the speech the fewer people like it.

    It is my belief that the people who didn’t like the speech are going to find a meaningful way to share their pain by voting.

    Reply
  6. chris says:
    1/28/2010 at 9:48 pm

    #63 The Supremes lost any semblance of impartiality in Bush v. Gore. At the time legal experts were shocked that they took the case and shocked that they decided on equal protection grounds and floored that it was a one-time-only deal. If the Supreme Court wants to be an explicit political actor then it can be treated as such.

    “Roe Vs. Wade?” Please

    “Guns in the classroom?” You must explain further, but I can intuit that you are hopelessly wrong.

    Reply
  7. Ah_Yea says:
    1/28/2010 at 10:14 pm

    Chris. Ignorance is bliss. In this case, stunning.

    Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing ‘Roe’
    http://tinyurl.com/9qt7c

    Guns on campus. Read and be informed.
    http://newsweek.com/id/112174
    http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6432279.html

    Let me get this right. So it’s ok, or in your opinion a good idea, to shame the Supreme Court in public? What does the Great Obama expect to gain??

    Reply
  8. Ah_Yea says:
    1/28/2010 at 10:16 pm

    Does Obama think, even in his wettest dream, that the Supreme Court will kowtow to him?

    Is he that stupid?

    Reply
  9. pedro says:
    1/28/2010 at 10:19 pm

    #65 No. It only meant dullas, fido, conFusion et al woke up & had to take action to make their leader look good (and be able to sleep that night)

    Reply
  10. LOWER CASE SCREEN NAME says:
    1/29/2010 at 5:30 am

    Looking back again, I feel a little sorry for Barry. He needs to take a laxative.

    Reply
  11. Mr. Fusion says:
    1/29/2010 at 6:33 am

    As I said before, the right wing nuts won’t care for facts. They’ll make them up as they go along.

    As for the number of “I”s in the speech? Guess what? The President is outlining his agenda for the coming year. It wouldn’t matter what was said, you as**oles would still complain.

    Reply
  12. LibertyLover says:
    1/29/2010 at 6:48 am

    #71, As I said before, the right wing nuts won’t care for facts. They’ll make them up as they go along.

    What a hypocrite! You and your left wing wingnuts are constantly making up shit to defend the Obamessiah. And when confonted with facts, result to personal attacks.

    Tell us, conFusion, why would you sacrifice others to save your wife?

    Reply
  13. The0ne says:
    1/29/2010 at 7:34 am

    #71,72
    You both have nuts, apparently too big for either of you to handle. So why don’t you STFU and leave the thread alone already.

    I think it was Aliens that mind-controlled Obama to say and do what he did to make everyone so pissed. They are responsible, lets all focus our hatred towards them instead.

    Death to all Aliens! Charge!!!!

    Reply
  14. pedro says:
    1/29/2010 at 8:25 am

    #71 Wow! I’m amazed that you were able to write something while seizing. Did you left your keyboard full of foam or is it protected by a plastic cover?

    Reply
  15. Ah_Yea says:
    1/29/2010 at 8:36 am

    People! People!

    Let us have compassion for Fusion!

    His hysterical rant is normal for anyone who realizes their messiah is a false God.

    Reply
  16. LibertyLover says:
    1/29/2010 at 8:45 am

    #73, Mine are not too big, not too small, just right.

    I just know how to use them correctly.

    Reply
  17. LibertyLover says:
    1/29/2010 at 8:49 am

    Principal Obama’s Lessons for America

    http://tinyurl.com/ydg93mh

    My favorite line:

    The president took credit for the stimulus package, demanded another one — and called for budget restraint

    Reply
  18. Dallas says:
    1/29/2010 at 9:25 am

    We should be disgusted the Court now allows UNLIMITED MONEY available to buy off Congress.

    Yet, the Republican sheep here are moaning that Obama ruffled their feathers. How fucking pathetic.

    Reply
  19. pedro says:
    1/29/2010 at 10:18 am

    #78 Proof that putting Sotomayor there was a huge mistake. Now dullas, for extra extra kennel ration: Who pushed for her to be there?

    Reply
  20. Thomas says:
    1/29/2010 at 2:09 pm

    #66
    The Supremes lost any semblance of impartiality in Bush v. Gore. At the time legal experts were shocked that they took the case and shocked that they decided on equal protection grounds and floored that it was a one-time-only deal. If the Supreme Court wants to be an explicit political actor then it can be treated as such.

    What dribble. This was a fundamental issue of election protocol. It would have been shocking had the Supreme Court not taken the case. Further, the core issue is that Florida wanted to change election procedures during the election. It was Bush’s side that argued his case under Equal Protection (the Supreme Court did not come up with that) and he did so stating that the rules within the State have to consistent. You can’t change the rules of what counts as a legal vote from one place to another during an election.

    Frankly, the Supreme Court is a political actor being that they are the third branch of the Federal government. By definition, checks and balances implies checks and balances of power and thus politics.

    Reply

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25413 access attempts in the last 7 days.