Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → State of the Union
State of the Union
2010-01-27, 6:22 PM #1
Watch it live!

http://www.youtube.com/citizentube

:hist101: or :gonk:

You decide!
Why do the heathens rage behind the firehouse?
2010-01-27, 6:32 PM #2
I JUST turned it on. How long has it been going? What did I miss?
2010-01-27, 6:35 PM #3
I am SO GLAD to hear Obama say what he just said about nuclear power.
2010-01-27, 7:09 PM #4
Originally posted by Dash_rendar:
I JUST turned it on. How long has it been going? What did I miss?


Are you serious? o_O

You missed the most meaningless string of words ever uttered, except for the previous addresses.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-01-27, 7:24 PM #5
Pretty informal for a SOTU. Mixes of sarcasm, humor, anger, hostility, not usual fare for a SOTU, but a good speech none the less.

SOTU is the best event for a drinking game, though.
"If you watch television news, you will know less about the world than if you just drink gin straight out of the bottle."
--Garrison Keillor
2010-01-27, 7:27 PM #6
I was out of the room when he mentioned nuclear power, I guess...what did he say? Are we finally going to get this thing going, or what?
Warhead[97]
2010-01-27, 7:38 PM #7
Quote:
I was out of the room when he mentioned nuclear power, I guess...what did he say? Are we finally going to get this thing going, or what?


"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
2010-01-27, 7:40 PM #8
Nice. Well, to the bolded part anyway. ;)
Warhead[97]
2010-01-27, 7:52 PM #9
I heard about a SotU bingo card, but forgot to look it up. Doesn't matter now anyway. I was watching Justice League Unlimited.
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2010-01-27, 8:12 PM #10
Yes, god yes.
If the Americans start making more nuke plants then hopefully Canada can too, we can get past the stupid idiots who think they're all gonna Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island.
Build in my backyard please!
2010-01-27, 8:32 PM #11
LFTR plants pls.
My girlfriend paid a lot of money for that tv; I want to watch ALL OF IT. - JM
2010-01-27, 9:00 PM #12
I thought the speech was fantastic, and I loved his jabs at the opposition and how you couold see the big wigs sitting there shaking their heads as he was humiliating them.
2010-01-27, 9:31 PM #13
i was really almost impressed with the parts about energy.

Quote:
and that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.


ok he has my attention...

Quote:
It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.


wow... really paying attention now.

Quote:
It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean-coal technologies.


ok. this is sounding too good to be true!

Quote:
And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.


aaaand... there it goes, yep too good to be true. all i hear now is cap and trade.

he is paying lip service to small businesses but, the government wont unbind their hands. emissions caps have been some of the most damaging legislation for small businesses.


also...
Quote:
And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service,


what the **** is this!!!! what the **** does he mean by "public service"?!?!?! is he seriously saying that if you take a job with the state or gov. that you dont have to pay as much as people who have private sector jobs!? PLEASE tell me i am misunderstanding this!
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2010-01-27, 10:25 PM #14
Interesting to see the pie chart-like standing ovations.

I thought it was a pretty good speech. It took some jabs where jabs were deserved without sounding like an attack, and hinted at plans going forward.

Good of him to reiterate his campaign promise to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Hope to see some action on that soon.
Why do the heathens rage behind the firehouse?
2010-01-27, 11:08 PM #15
Originally posted by TheCarpKing:
Good of him to reiterate his campaign promise to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Hope to see some action on that soon.


Agreed. We're well past the point of DADT serving any legitimate purpose.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2010-01-27, 11:59 PM #16
lolpolitics
This signature agrees with the previously posted signatures. To violate previously posted signatures is a violation of the EULA for this signature and you will be subject to unruly behavior.
2010-01-28, 4:43 AM #17
Education :

Improving education is worthless if there are not jobs waiting for the graduates. Result : Lots of WalMart greeters with college educations. Furthermore, the more people that have degrees, the less that degree is worth. An increase in new graduates means, A) Older employees, with experience, who are worth more and cost more, are laid off for cheap new graduates, and B) The degree is not worth as much and the new graduate can not get a livable salary.
2010-01-28, 5:37 AM #18
Originally posted by JM:
Education :

Improving education is worthless if there are not jobs waiting for the graduates. Result : Lots of WalMart greeters with college educations. Furthermore, the more people that have degrees, the less that degree is worth. An increase in new graduates means, A) Older employees, with experience, who are worth more and cost more, are laid off for cheap new graduates, and B) The degree is not worth as much and the new graduate can not get a livable salary.


So, people shouldn't further their education because there might not be a job waiting for them? Does that really make sense to you? Personal Growth? Higher Standards?

???
2010-01-28, 1:15 PM #19
Quote:
So, people shouldn't further their education because there might not be a job waiting for them? Does that really make sense to you? Personal Growth? Higher Standards?

???


Is that what I said? No, it is not. Do not assume.
2010-01-28, 3:49 PM #20
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
i was really almost impressed with the parts about energy.



ok he has my attention...



wow... really paying attention now.



ok. this is sounding too good to be true!



aaaand... there it goes, yep too good to be true. all i hear now is cap and trade.

he is paying lip service to small businesses but, the government wont unbind their hands. emissions caps have been some of the most damaging legislation for small businesses.


also...


what the **** is this!!!! what the **** does he mean by "public service"?!?!?! is he seriously saying that if you take a job with the state or gov. that you dont have to pay as much as people who have private sector jobs!? PLEASE tell me i am misunderstanding this!


I think he is.
2010-01-28, 5:52 PM #21
Originally posted by JM:
Is that what I said? No, it is not. Do not assume.


I didn't assume anything. You came across as a greedy Jew. :P

We should improve education so we don't have a repeat of the last eight years. Education shouldn't be about money and secondary degrees shouldn't have a perceived "value". Sometimes you have to look pass the $$$ and just do what's right.
2010-01-28, 5:58 PM #22
Quote:
what the **** is this!!!! what the **** does he mean by "public service"?!?!?! is he seriously saying that if you take a job with the state or gov. that you dont have to pay as much as people who have private sector jobs!? PLEASE tell me i am misunderstanding this!


Wow, way to get your panties in a twist over almost nothing. So wow, a social worker is going to be seen in a better light by the government than someone who goes on to be CEO of a company who slowly kills us all with high-fructose-corn-syrup-laden products. Boo-freaking-hoo. :P
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-01-28, 6:02 PM #23
Originally posted by Alco:
I didn't assume anything. You came across as a greedy Jew. :P

We should improve education so we don't have a repeat of the last eight years. Education shouldn't be about money and secondary degrees shouldn't have a perceived "value". Sometimes you have to look pass the $$$ and just do what's right.


JM's right, though.

And as far as 'education' isn't about money, sorry to burst your bubble but the two are inextricably linked. Many professions require a master's plus a bucketload of certifications for it to be legal even to attempt what they do.

The basic result of all this, as JM was saying, is that it simply requires more schooling anymore to stand out from the crowd. Not a good thing at all, especially since education suspiciously looks more and more these days as simply a mechanism whereby the middle class is stripped of its wealth.


Please, think about this for a moment: In an age where information about anything is easily retrievable in seconds, and giving special consideration to the fact that school hasn't yet altered itself from the old fill-their-heads-with-encyclopedic-knowledge paradigm, shouldn't it be logical that we would require less schooling for employment, not more? Or at the very least, requirements should stay stable instead of inflating, as the complexity of fields probably isn't outpacing individual practice and available knowledge of them?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-01-28, 6:22 PM #24
Originally posted by Freelancer:
JM's right, though.


He's mostly right. Actually, in many ways that scenario already exists to a certain degree with some businesses. For instance, my Dad recently took a job with Northrop Grumman. The first thing they asked him after they hired him was, "Do you know any other gray haired Engineers?" This is because they suffered huge set backs after hiring in a string of Engineers straight out of College.

Also, it's fun to point out the greedy mindset that many people have these days.

Quote:
Please, think about this for a moment: In an age where information about anything is easily retrievable in seconds, and giving special consideration to the fact that school hasn't yet altered itself from the old fill-their-heads-with-encyclopedic-knowledge paradigm, shouldn't it be logical that we would require less schooling for employment, not more? Or at the very least, requirements should stay stable instead of inflating, as the complexity of fields probably isn't outpacing individual practice and available knowledge of them?
Actually, this is already happening in some other areas (mostly business and manufacturing). Many employers are accepting 2yrs of experience in exchange for 1yr of college now. Times are changing.

↑ Up to the top!