Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 SOTU

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: SOTU   1/25/2012, 10:16 am

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level

By BYRON TAU |

1/25/12 9:53 AM EST

(Jay Westcott/POLITICO)

President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address again rated at an 8th grade comprehension level, on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934.
The University of Minnesota's Smart Politics conducted an analysis on the last 70 State of the Union addresses and found that President Obama's three addresses have the lowest grade average of any modern president. "Obama's average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors," they conclude.
"The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores," the University of Minnesota's Eric Ostermeier explains.




Well, that's one way to make sure he reached his base.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/25/2012, 5:15 pm

happy jack wrote:

[b]Well, that's one way to make sure he reached his base.
It's more likely meant for people like yourself who find the election process too complicated to make a decision of their own of which candidate to support.

Quote :
Bush 1992 15.8 7.5
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/25/2012, 5:58 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

[b]Well, that's one way to make sure he reached his base.
It's more likely meant for people like yourself who find the election process too complicated to make a decision of their own of which candidate to support.

Quote :
Bush 1992 15.8 7.5
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php
I've made my decision.
However, I seem to remember a certain someone who supported Hillary right up until he saw she had no chance of winning, whereupon he jumped ship like a rat about to drown and threw his support behind a sure thing, thus making no decision at all, but rather allowing the media and the polls to make his decision for him.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/26/2012, 7:00 am

happy jack wrote:

I've made my decision.
You have? Finally? Shocked Who is it?
Quote :
However, I seem to remember a certain someone who supported Hillary right up until he saw she had no chance of winning, whereupon he jumped ship like a rat about to drown and threw his support behind a sure thing, thus making no decision at all, but rather allowing the media and the polls to make his decision for him.
Obama was not a sure thing when I switched. But that's neither here nor there. At least I had the honesty and integrity to announce who I was supporting,as opposed to the brain-dead wingnut cowards I was mopping the floor with in discussions.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/27/2012, 8:26 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

I've made my decision.
You have? Finally? Shocked Who is it?
Still waiting for an answer :bball:
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/29/2012, 6:09 pm

happy jack wrote:

I've made my decision.

If you could let us know who you have chosen and why, it would be interesting, at least to me. I have no intention of attacking you for your decision. I'm just curious. I also realize that you're probably going to support the Republican nominee even if the eventual nominee is not your current choice.

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/30/2012, 8:33 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:

I've made my decision.

If you could let us know who you have chosen and why, it would be interesting, at least to me. I have no intention of attacking you for your decision. I'm just curious. I also realize that you're probably going to support the Republican nominee even if the eventual nominee is not your current choice.

>bump<
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/28/2014, 11:05 am

None Of The Republicans Giving State Of The Union Responses Take Climate Change Seriously
Quote :
Tonight, Americans will be treated to a first-ever trio of Republican responses to President Obama’s State of the Union speech. And not one of them will have the slightest interest in tackling the looming global catastrophe of climate change.

It’s long been customary for the party that doesn’t occupy the White House to offer up a rebuttal to the President’s speech — a usually thankless task. But in 2011, frustration with the Republican establishment drove the Tea Party to tap Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for a separate SOTU response on their behalf. After that, a supplemental Tea Party rebuttal became something of a tradition: Herman Cain handled the duties in 2012, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took it on in 2013.

So this year, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) will be giving the official response, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) will be stumping for the Tea Party, and Rand Paul will be returning to give his thoughts because, well…


But before anyone starts crowing about the right’s ideological and intellectual diversity, note this: with no less than three separate speakers, the GOP still failed to gin up one candidate who hasn’t eagerly blocked, denigrated, and/or tried to roll back efforts to address climate change and America’s carbon emissions.

First off, both Paul and Rodgers are on record denying the threat. “We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing” was third on Rodgers’ 2008 list of the top ten reasons it’s good to be a Republican. As for Paul, he told a 2010 Rally for the Republicans that on climate change, scientists “are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this.”

Mike Lee has managed to avoid saying anything quite that pointed, but he joined the other two in signing the “No Climate Tax” pledge. That’s a document cooked up by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which commits its signatories to oppose any legislation “relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” Since most solutions to climate change involve either raising the cost of pollution or spending money on investments, it effectively rules out nearly all meaningful responses to the problem.

The pledge served as a rallying point for organized efforts to kill climate change legislation, according to a report by American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop. AFP used the pledge to explicitly target the ultimately-doomed cap-and-trade bill of 2009. And as of July 2013, the entire House Republican leadership, a third of all U.S. representatives, and a quarter of all U.S. senators had signed it.

In the House of Representatives, Rodgers voted against the cap-and-trade law, and voted for the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 — which would have amended the Clean Air Act to expressly forbid any regulations aimed at addressing climate change. In 2009, she also cosponsored the ill-fated H.R. 391, which would’ve rewritten the Clean Air Act to essentially the same effect.

Meanwhile, Lee and Paul have both signed the “Contract from America,” which includes a pledge to reject cap-and-trade and to stop “costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.” They both joined up as cosponsors for the Senate’s equivalent to the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 — which ultimately died in that chamber — as well as S.228, which was also dedicated to yanking all greenhouse gases out of the regulatory purview.

Just for good measure, Rand Paul also went on record dismissing the need to regulate mountaintop removal coal mining, he spearheaded an attempt to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of cross-state air pollution, and he called the Obama Administration “un-American” for putting pressure on BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster.

Instead of ideas to reduce carbon pollution, those who tune in are likely to hear more inventive ways of avoiding the problem — assuming climate change gets mentioned at all. Sen. Paul’s Tea Party response in 2013 did not mention energy or the environment at all.

IMO,Besides their environmental ignorance,the fact that they're having 3 separate responses just highlights how much in disarray their party is.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: SOTU   1/29/2014, 12:45 pm

Here's what Obama said that made Republicans sit on their hands
Quote :
Most people were pretty happy with President Obama's State of the Union speech, but we shouldn't overlook the fact that it made Republicans—specifically, congressional Republicans—very sad. So sad, in fact, that his words forced them to sit on their hands throughout nearly the entire speech.

Here's a video showing everything that President Obama said that made them stay silent:

To recap, when President Obama said these things...

   That it's a good thing that after 12 long years the war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end
   That Congress shouldn't shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States
   That Congress should pass legislation to put more Americans to work in the tech manufacturing sector
   That he'll protect natural lands with his executive power
   That Congress should repeal tax breaks for Big Oil
   That Congress should restore unemployment insurance that it let expire at the end of the year
   That women deserve equal pay for equal work
   That nobody who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty, so Congress should raise the minimum wage to $10.10
   That Congress shouldn't have another 40+ votes to repeal Obamacare
   That votes, not money, should drive democracy
   That he'll work to prevent more tragedies like Sandy Hook

...Republicans couldn't bring themselves to applaud. And if you can't understand why in the world they'd be against all that stuff, then you definitely should be voting Democratic in November.

Republican response was typical...no new ideas or plans,but they actually got themselves a gal to recite it. (See,What "war on women) On the plus side the woman who gave the response was able to look straight into the camera and got through the entire 15 minutes or so without having to lunge for a water bottle.  Shocked making Late-night comedians very unhappy.

Her story was that she grew up on a farm,worked for minimum wage (25% higher at that time compared to now) and saved for college. (Of course college was a whole lot cheaper back then,and the one she did go to was to was an unaccredited christian college. Rolling Eyes }
She reminded us that she had a special needs child (Take that Pro-Choicers! Thankfully she didn't pull a Palin and use him as a prop.) Obamacare isn't working and finished up by offering prayer to her imaginary friend who will guide us blah,blah,blah  Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: SOTU   

Back to top Go down
 
SOTU
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: