Obama’s Last State of the Union Speech

Honestly, there should never have been a first one. So I’m boycotting it. How about you?

The following is a shorter version of  Obama’s Final State of the Union address:

 I am a lying douchebag.

Carry on.


222 thoughts on “Obama’s Last State of the Union Speech

  1. moron January 25, 2012 / 2:13 pm

    There was no speech. It was a reading.

    • Amazona January 25, 2012 / 3:56 pm

      I didn’t watch—did they have the reverb on? Did Congress let him bring in the styrofoam pillars? Did anyone faint, swoon, or break into hysterical tears?

      Did anyone have the stomach to check on Matthews’ leg tingle?

      Was watching it as entertaining as the last two, with no betting on whether or not Princess Nan could, or would, ever blink?

  2. Green Mountain Boy January 25, 2012 / 2:17 pm

    Is it not time for another round of golf or vacation? After all it has been over three weeks since they got back from the last one. I recommend somewhere on the Mediterrianian Coast somewhere. The weather is excellent this time of the year.

    The poor dears must be so tired from the non stop campaign stops and fundraisers.


  3. Chrissy Ann January 25, 2012 / 4:16 pm

    I have no problem taxing billionaires to poverty..after all, Oprah and Soros are at the top of the list.

    The State of the Union was one big snooze fest. So being a girl…I gave myself a pedicure.

  4. coulterfan January 25, 2012 / 5:29 pm

    Found the part about being a lying douchebag:

    “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

    Is that the part of the speech that you’re referring to?

    • J. R. Babcock January 25, 2012 / 5:56 pm

      I doubt it, Coulter. There’s nothing in that sentence that’s untrue.

      • Amazona January 25, 2012 / 9:58 pm

        There is not only nothing untrue in that sentence, but Liberal Prime Minister Tony Blair called a special news conference to state that not only did the British Government learn of this effort, they had proof it had been made, and stood by every word of the statement.

        Furthermore, Joe Wilson came back from Africa and in a verbal debriefing with the CIA told them that he had been told, by Nigerian officials, that some people who refused to say who they represented, but who were believed by the Nigerian government to be agents of Iraq, had tried to buy fissionable materials there, and had been turned down.

        So there were two separate, individual, unrelated accounts of efforts to buy nuclear bomb materials in Niger, from two different and unrelated sources, and the Brits were not only outraged at the lies told about their discovery but so absolutely sure of their information their Prime Minister took the dramatic step of calling a news conference specifically to address it.

        (Wilson’s later claim that he had learned the opposite was strongly denied by the CIA, and the briefing quoted by a CIA representative. But he wanted to sink Bush and also needed the money from the book deal he and wife Valerie were working on.)

    • tiredoflibbs January 25, 2012 / 6:10 pm

      How typical, coulty forgets his blasting of Matt for being disrespectful!

      Please show us where this British intelligence was a lie…..

      …asked for several times and not one liberal drone can provide this information……..

      Typical Democrat-drone hypocrite!

  5. watsonredux January 25, 2012 / 5:40 pm

    Spook, can you read? I said, “But I would advocate that people like Clown be means-tested.” Is that not clear enough for you? It’s pretty simple sentence. No big words, even.

  6. Green Mountain Boy January 25, 2012 / 6:34 pm

    Could you just imagine the fits of righteous rage the rrls would be in right now had Luara Bush worn a $2,400.00 dress to a sotu address. Rabie shots would be in order.

    Truly her excellency talks the talk but will not walk the walk.

    All hail queen mooch!!

  7. RetiredSpook January 25, 2012 / 6:40 pm

    Wow — even the Washington Post has jumped on fact checking the SOTU speech.

    Who’s next — the New York Times?

    A question for any of our resident Progressives: what was your reaction to Obama’s statement about “consolidating” bureaucratic power in the Executive Branch?

  8. Green Mountain Boy January 25, 2012 / 7:46 pm

    Naw, someone had a post or maybe two completely removed. This messes up the flow in word press. If you look in the log file of responses you will see the removed posts still in line as if they are still there.

    Not positive but i do believe you can edit that out and the proper flow of responses will return.

  9. watsonredux January 25, 2012 / 10:15 pm

    Bobby Hebb said, “Ignoramous, the Employer pays the unemployment insurance, not the employee.”

    We get that, Bobby. But as folks here are fond of telling us, whatever the employer pays is money that it can’t pay the employee. So the net effect is the same. And regardless of how it is paid on behalf of each employee, the fact is that it _is_ paid, and therefore folks receiving unemployment benefits are receiving a benefit they paid for.

    • Bobby Hebb January 26, 2012 / 1:45 pm

      Now that’s a really stupid straw man argument waddle has put up; no one here (or anywhere in the real world) has ever said that “whatever the employer pays is less money that it can’t pay the employee”.

      Restricting earnings from employers means less money for the employers business; insurance costs makes hiring problematic as well as expanding or reinvesting in a business ignoramous. Your class warfare rhetoric (employers steal from employees to pay payroll taxes) doesn’t fly ignoramous.

  10. bagni January 26, 2012 / 12:02 am

    matt neo
    from one douchebag to another ?
    you gotta read this from the wsj
    you’ll love it……

    The GOP Deserves to Lose
    That’s what happens when you run with losers.

    Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

    It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

    Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

    Is this the best they can do?

    As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

    That’s my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina’s—sorry, Callista’s—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.

    Then there is Mitt Romney, even now the presumptive nominee. If Mr. Gingrich demonstrated his unfitness to be a serious Republican nominee with his destructive attacks on private equity (a prime legacy of the Reagan years), Mr. Romney has demonstrated his unfitness by—where to start?

    Oh, yes, the moment in last week’s debate when Mr. Romney equivocated about releasing his tax returns. The former Massachusetts governor is nothing if not a scripted politician, and the least one can ask of such people is that they should know their lines by heart. Did nobody in Mr. Romney’s expensive campaign shop tell him that this question was sure to come, and that a decision had to be made, in advance, as to what the answer would be? Great CEOs don’t just surround themselves with consultants and advance men. They also hire contrarians, alter egos and at least someone who isn’t afraid to poke a finger in their chest. On the evidence of his campaign, Mr. Romney is a lousy CEO.

    But it’s worse than that. The usual rap on Mr. Romney is that he’s robotic, but the real reason he can’t gain traction with voters is that they suspect he’s concealing some unnameable private doubt. Al Gore and George Bush Sr. were like that, too, and not just because they were all to the proverbial manor born. It’s that they were basically hollow men.

    Thus the core difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama: For the governor, the convictions are the veneer. For the president, the pragmatism is. Voters always see through this. They usually prefer the man who stands for something.

    What about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? They are owed some respect, especially for the contrast between their willingness to take a stand for principle against the front-runners’ willingness to say anything. But Messrs. Santorum and Paul are two tedious men, deep in conversation with some country that’s not quite America, appealing to a devoted base but not beyond it. Sorry, gentlemen: You’re not going anywhere.

    Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

    What should readers who despair of a second Obama term make of all this? Hope ObamaCare is repealed by the High Court, the Iranian bomb is repealed by the Israeli Air Force, and the Senate switches hands, giving America a healthy spell of Hippocratic government.

    All perfectly plausible. And the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers.

    • neocon1 January 26, 2012 / 8:49 am

      nanu nanu dork

      Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers.

      yeah they should run empty pant suits, community agitator drug users, homosexuals, never was, scum sucking low lives like the commie/democrats do.
      How stupid of the GOP

  11. tiredoflibbs January 26, 2012 / 7:09 am

    ObAMATEUR claims: “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.”

    The truth: Yes, 3 million new jobs were created.

    What makes it a LIE is the BLATANT OMISSION that during the same period 5 million jobs were lost. Even a government school student can do this math. That means a net loss of 2 million jobs. The fact is that there are fewer Americans working today than there were when Obama took office. Our labor force has shrunk from a participation rate of 64.6% to 64% in just two years. In fact, if the same number of Americans were looking for jobs today as were in 2007, our unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. And that doesn’t even take into account the number of Americans who are underemployed at the moment.

    The truth: 1
    The lying dbag: 0

  12. tiredoflibbs January 26, 2012 / 7:14 am

    ObAMATEUR claims: “Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.”

    The ACTUAL truth: What Obama doesn’t tell you is that this has nothing to do with his administration or his policies. In fact, oil production on federal land is DOWN by 40%. I covered this in a previous thread.

    Oil production is high because of those evil, private oil companies increasing production on PRIVATE, not government lands. These private lands are not subject to the same level of government regulation as are federal lands. The lesson here is pretty easy to comprehend. More government, less production. Less government, more production. How about another duhhhhhhh.

    balddoof brings up the fact that oil exports are up. Why is that? One reason is that this oil is surplus. It cannot be refined here because our refineries are at capacity. We have not built a new refinery in this country in over 30 years. We could have all the oil we want but our very limited refining capacity is what keep the price of gasoline up.

    The ACTUAL truth: 2
    The lying dbag: 0

  13. js03 January 26, 2012 / 9:39 am

    “government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion that companies haven’t repaid from the financial bailout, and some of that will never be recovered.”.

    this is from the 700bn credited to the Bush Admin…so when we figure the 413bn deficit that was applied when BHO took office…and apply the repayment of 318bn of that…you see that the BHO Admin has also use these figures to offset the amount that the deficit has grown since BHO took office…so figuring that the amount of public debt held at the end of the Bush Admin…which was 5Tn US dollars…and that the figure is now at 10.7Tn…Obama/DNC is directly responsible for around 6Tn dollars in publicly held debt (domestic, but mostly foreign) over the last 4 years…

    The 9 tn thats held from public debt is mostly from SS…

  14. tiredoflibbs January 26, 2012 / 1:58 pm

    ObAMATEUR says: “Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it.”

    The WHOLE TRUTH: ObAMATEUR is half-right. Our corporate tax rate is the highest among industrialized nations. But where the lie comes in, his “change it” doesn’t include lowering that rate! Duhhhhhh! Instead of lowering tax rates at home to perhaps attract foreign investment in America, ObAMATEUR’s solution is to punish the people who are already here. He wants to erect an economic Berlin Wall — not as much to keep other businesses out, but to keep American businesses locked in. If you keep these jobs here you’ll have to pay our absurdly high corporate income tax rates. If you try to move your manufacturing processes overseas we’ll punish you with some more confiscatory tax rates. That’s the way to create jobs in America.

    Let me make this absolutely clear: The jobs belong to the businesses .. not to ObAMATEUR and the DEMOCRATS … not to the workers .. not to the government. I’m sure many of them would ideally like to create jobs in America, but until we get serious about tax reform (and not just trimming around the edges with some incentives), those jobs will be created wherever the company feels is best and that is absolutely their prerogative.

    Notice, he does not give examples of these so-called “subsidies”. We all know of the sweetheart deal he made with GE. I and others have asked countless time for the drones here to provide details on these subsidies. But unfortunately (for them) all they can do is regurgitate the dumbed down talking point – they have no knowledge of what they mindlessly parrot.

    The WHOLE TRUTH: 3
    Lying Dbag: 0

  15. tiredoflibbs January 26, 2012 / 10:28 pm

    ObAMATEUR says: “At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers.”

    The ACTUAL TRUTH: Despite what the looting Democrats may claim, we actually have more teachers in the classrooms than ever before. The number of teachers has increased at a faster pace compared to student enrollment. Does that really make any sense? From 1971 to 1984, the number of students in government school actually declined by 15%, while the number of teachers increased by 7%. In 1955, the number of students per teacher was at 26.9. By 2010, that figure has been lowered to 15.6 students per teacher. It seems that the higher the student-teacher ratio the worse our system works. Now I would maintain that the REAL problem is the bloated number of administrators, but that doesn’t make as sexy of an applause line as teachers getting fired.

    The actual truth: 4
    Lying dbag: 0

  16. tiredoflibbs January 27, 2012 / 10:03 am

    ObAMATEUR claims: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.”

    The Real Truth: ObAMATEUR gets this one half right. You can read the fact checking here from Poli-fact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/10/barack-obama/obama-says-border-patrol-has-doubled-number-agents/) on the number of boots on the ground at the border. But where ObAMATEUR gets it wrong is that there aren’t fewer illegals coming to this country because of these agents … the illegals aren’t coming because our economy is in the crapper! The reason they were coming illegally in the first place is because of the giant magnet of American economic opportunity. Thanks to Obammus, we aren’t worried about opportunity. We are now worried on “economic equality” based on some vision by a Marxist. Let’s see how far THAT gets us.

    The Real Truth: 5
    Lying dbag: 0

Comments are closed.