Why is Gov Jindal on TV Reading A Script?

DriftingByTheStorm

WTF is this shit?

First i had to listen to Obama's hokus pokus,
and now this dill weed is on giving the other side of the partisan debate?

I've never seen anything like this.
WTF?
Do they USUALLY have someone from the opposite party come on after a prime time address by the president?

Bizzareness.

Enkidu

Wow, and I believe everything he's saying. Especially since the past 8 years have been so great.

Dill weed. Oh yeah.

Brain of J.Lo

It's standard for the opposition to give a televised response to the state of the union address, and even though this technically wasn't the state of the union address...it basically was.

edit to add: I've never heard him speak before, but it reminded me of a bad movie for some reason.

DriftingByTheStorm

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

It's standard for the opposition to give a televised response to the state of the union address, and even though this technically wasn't the state of the union address...it basically was.

Wow.
I don't remember this shit,
but you know, thinking back on it,
I realize it's probably because i've TURNED OFF the goddman SotU address for the past decade,
becausee George W Dickwad was such a fuck it just hurt my eyes.

To be honest, i turned this crap off too and went to the store.
I was just suprised to see Jindal doing counterpoint when i returned.
sigh.

I find it hard to believe that more Americans aren't willing to question exactly WHY Obama can't just let the goddamn banks go under. WHAT do the American people think big banks contribute that big auto doesn't?
WHAT great lie has the system been able to put over on us in regards to banking that makes us revere it as some mystical force that must be protected at all costs?


???

Commy

bailing out the banks doesn't seem like a such a great idea imo, but doing nothing isn't really an option.

stickfig13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

WTF is this shit?

First i had to listen to Obama's hokus pokus,
and now this dill weed is on giving the other side of the partisan debate?

I've never seen anything like this.
WTF?
Do they USUALLY have someone from the opposite party come on after a prime time address by the president?

Bizzareness.

Dude...The Republicans picked out the only "Brown" guy in the party and hyped him up over several weeks for this reponse. Have you heard much about this guy before Obama got elected?

It's actually kind of sad what poltics have become. Do they really we're that stupid?

Brain of J.Lo

Even Fox News panned Jindal's delivery. Ouch.

Solat13

stickfig13 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

WTF is this shit?

First i had to listen to Obama's hokus pokus,
and now this dill weed is on giving the other side of the partisan debate?

I've never seen anything like this.
WTF?
Do they USUALLY have someone from the opposite party come on after a prime time address by the president?

Bizzareness.

Dude...The Republicans picked out the only "Brown" guy in the party and hyped him up over several weeks for this reponse. Have you heard much about this guy before Obama got elected?

It's actually kind of sad what poltics have become. Do they really we're that stupid?

He was supposed to be the keynote speaker of the first day of the RNC, but that was canceled because of the hurricane that hit when Jindal led the other gulf state governors in the recovery effort. That is why he was picked tonight.

soulsinging

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

It's standard for the opposition to give a televised response to the state of the union address, and even though this technically wasn't the state of the union address...it basically was.

Wow.
I don't remember this shit,
but you know, thinking back on it,
I realize it's probably because i've TURNED OFF the goddman SotU address for the past decade,
becausee George W Dickwad was such a fuck it just hurt my eyes.

To be honest, i turned this crap off too and went to the store.
I was just suprised to see Jindal doing counterpoint when i returned.
sigh.

I find it hard to believe that more Americans aren't willing to question exactly WHY Obama can't just let the goddamn banks go under. WHAT do the American people think big banks contribute that big auto doesn't?
WHAT great lie has the system been able to put over on us in regards to banking that makes us revere it as some mystical force that must be protected at all costs?

First of all, I think plenty of people do question the wisdom of these rounds of bailouts. They just fear the alternative more.

I'm guessing it's a paranoia based on every kid's understanding of the Great Depression... when the banks failed, you couldn't even get your savings back. So the thought of your bank failing spooks a lot of people. They think of their grandpa who kept his money under a mattress because the banks couldn't be trusted with (might have been onto something?). Even if we have the FDIC, nobody likes the idea of having to completely overhaul their finances, mortgages, credit cards, etc... all while waiting for months while the federal government gives them back their savings.

I don't know that it would come to that in reality, but it's a powerful fear. I would have no idea what to do if my bank went under, and I have almost no assets, just my loan money in a checking/savings account. I don't like the thought of the hassle of trying to recoup my money if my bank went under.

That said, it's time to cull the herd.

puremagic

Jindal is not the answer for the Republican Party

--Jindal sounded like a customer service 'call center' representative following a script that made no sense on how to fix the problem. A failure by the republican party to remember their own guilt by association tactics by realizing that Jindal, in this time of economic crisis, unfortunately reminds people who got the jobs that were outsourced. He reminds people of where those jobs went.

--Jindal's whole flaunt it attitude of hey America, see my mansion, the economy is not that bad backfired. A failure by the republican party while telling the American people that the Stimulus is wrong and opposing continued unemployment assistance. It came across as arrogant in the face this economic crisis.

--Jindal's attempt to ride the Slumdog bandwagon with his I'm a successful immigrant story didn't work. Again, a failure of the republican party to realize that the American public still feel that their tax dollars have supported too many illegals who have obtained citizenship by default hardship programs. Many Americans strongly believe that the laws that allow children of illegals to become automatic American citizens is wrong and should be repealed.

Solat13

puremagic wrote:

Jindal is not the answer for the Republican Party


--Jindal's whole flaunt it attitude of hey America, see my mansion, the economy is not that bad backfired. A failure by the republican party while telling the American people that the Stimulus is wrong and opposing continued unemployment assistance. It came across as arrogant in the face this economic crisis.

So I take it you were against the Democratic rebuttal of W's SOTU last year delivered by Kansas governor, Kathleen Sebelius, from the governor's mansion as well? When a governor does the opposing view, traditionally it's from the governor's mansion.

JaneNY

Maybe my standards have been lowered by being forced to watch a president for 8 years who could barely form complete coherent sentences, but I didn't think Jindal was that bad, even if I disagreed with some of his later comments. (I voted for, donated to, and wholeheartedly support Obama btw, but Jindal was far from the worst I've seen from the Republican crew)

Cosmo

Joe The Plumber wasn't available to represent the Republican response... he was busy digging out a septic tank in Skankville, PA.

stickfig13

Not that I'm a fan, but what happened to Mitt Romney?

He seems like the most put together memeber of the party food chain.

Solat13

stickfig13 wrote:

Not that I'm a fan, but what happened to Mitt Romney?

He seems like the most put together memeber of the party food chain.

I think tradition mandates that the opposition view is given by a currented elected member of the opposition party and since Mitt doesn't hold an office, he wouldn't be eligible.

KDH12

puremagic wrote:

Jindal is not the answer for the Republican Party

--Jindal sounded like a customer service 'call center' representative following a script that made no sense on how to fix the problem. A failure by the republican party to remember their own guilt by association tactics by realizing that Jindal, in this time of economic crisis, unfortunately reminds people who got the jobs that were outsourced. He reminds people of where those jobs went.

--Jindal's whole flaunt it attitude of hey America, see my mansion, the economy is not that bad backfired. A failure by the republican party while telling the American people that the Stimulus is wrong and opposing continued unemployment assistance. It came across as arrogant in the face this economic crisis.

--Jindal's attempt to ride the Slumdog bandwagon with his I'm a successful immigrant story didn't work. Again, a failure of the republican party to realize that the American public still feel that their tax dollars have supported too many illegals who have obtained citizenship by default hardship programs. Many Americans strongly believe that the laws that allow children of illegals to become automatic American citizens is wrong and should be repealed.

Not to mention that Jindal already stated that he was not going to accept some 200 million dollars in stimulus money that go unemployment benefits.... IMO that seems like a bad move, not going to help people that lost there jobs and can't find new ones?

Seems like that will come back to bit him in the ass..... either he does not take it and he has a bunch on unemployed people with no income at all or he changes his mind and it looks like a stupid political maneuver

blackredyellow

KDH12 wrote:

Not to mention that Jindal already stated that he was not going to accept some 200 million dollars in stimulus money that go unemployment benefits.... IMO that seems like a bad move, not going to help people that lost there jobs and can't find new ones?

Seems like that will come back to bit him in the ass..... either he does not take it and he has a bunch on unemployed people with no income at all or he changes his mind and it looks like a stupid political maneuver

Any of these republican governors who actually go through with refusing some of the stimulus money are setting themselves up for a losing re-election. Every single time that a state issue comes up about a money shortage, the democratic candidate can attach the fact that the governor passed on money that could help. And the states where governors have spoken out against the money, aren't in the best financial shape in the first place.

stuckinline

i heard on one of the news shows that jindal will be the republican presidential candidate for 2012. so, the campaigning has already started. the rnc is putting jindal out into the media, getting people familiar with him, getting his name known, etc. expect to see a lot more of him in the next few years.

and sorry i can not recall which station discussed this.

evenflow

It's not like the money they are refusing is "free money" to spend how the state sees fit. All the money that Jindal and the other Governors are not taking is earmarked for specific things, namely democratic interests. For a bill that Obama swore to the public during the SOTU address had no earmarks or pork, it sure reads exactly the opposite. He might have changed the wording, but this stimulus package is nothing but a big bill full of monetary incentives for supporters and friends.

And explain this to me; with Louisiana and other states refusing to take the money it would seem like during this period of economic hardship that the unclaimed money would just be deducted from the final amount and left alone instead of making our debt larger, this however is not the case. Instead of not using that money and keeping our total debt amount down, that money will still be spent. Why, you might ask. Because people (not common citizens, but people with their hand in the democratic political machine) were promised that money, and Barak and the democrats are too far in to deny it to them now. It just blows my mind that the same people who screamed and cried that Bush and the republicans did the same thing with Halliburton and similar companies, just turn a blind eye now that it's the messiah Obama and crew doing it.

Jindal said point blank, that if the stimulus money could be used on projects decided by the individual states then he would have no problem accepting the money. But then, some of the special interests that were promised the money might not get it, and that would be very unfortunate, wouldn't it?

puremagic

So, Jindal has no problem spending $3.8 billion dollars as outlined by Stimulus Package, but accepting that additional $200 million to extend unemployment benefits, to hell with that, its to wasteful, its an earmark for special interest, get real.

yoke

now my understanding of why these Rep Governors(and last I heard 1 Dem) are rejecting this money is because this money will expand the unemployment program and leave the taxpayers on the hook for this money once the fund runs out in 2/3 years..

So basically, some are saying it will cost more and that it causes more problems than it fixes.

puremagic

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

Solat13

puremagic wrote:

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

But his state, Idaho, Alaska and about 4 or 5 other states still have a budget surplus. His point is why take the money and set up programs that will put his state in a deficit in a few years?

And not all of the governors who are against are looking for political gain. As far as I know, no one on the national scale knows who's Idaho's governor. I didn't until I just googled it. When they mention the governors who don't want the money, they mention Jindal, Palin, Sanford, the governor from Idaho. So it could be that they are trying to be fiscally responsible.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

KDH12

Solat13 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

But his state, Idaho, Alaska and about 4 or 5 other states still have a budget surplus. His point is why take the money and set up programs that will put his state in a deficit in a few years?

And not all of the governors who are against are looking for political gain. As far as I know, no one on the national scale knows who's Idaho's governor. I didn't until I just googled it. When they mention the governors who don't want the money, they mention Jindal, Palin, Sanford, the governor from Idaho. So it could be that they are trying to be fiscally responsible.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Alaska might have a surplus but I would not use that state as a model for all other states, same with Idaho..... hardly representative of the other 48 states.

But I agree with what was said above, the Jindal puts it he will not take the money for unemployment but will take the rest...... :?

His argument is that it will cost his state more in the long run, so he is okay with the rest of the money because it will cost someone else and not his constituents :?

Whatever the reasons behind it, it does not make sense, and it ends up sounding the the typical Rep. sound bite... "it will lead to higher taxes and bigger government" :roll:

Commy

pretending to be conservative when the real conservative party is apparently the democrats. Republicans can't all of a sudden be conservative and pretend they were all along. it shows their hypocrisy.

Clinton gave Bush 2 a $300 billion surplus. Bush 2 turned that around and gave Obama a $1 trillion deficit. and Obama has announced he's going to balance the budget in 4 years.


neoliberalism has taken over the republican party...instead of typical liberalism, they're spending on those who have more, on the corporations they decide are worthy. and hundreds of billions of dollars spending, not insignificant. its been republican policy for over 30 years. they have no right to call themselves conservative.

WaveCameCrashin

Commy wrote:

pretending to be conservative when the real conservative party is apparently the democrats. Republicans can't all of a sudden be conservative and pretend they were all along. it shows their hypocrisy.

Clinton gave Bush 2 a $300 billion surplus. Bush 2 turned that around and gave Obama a $1 trillion deficit. and Obama has announced he's going to balance the budget in 4 years.


neoliberalism has taken over the republican party...instead of typical liberalism, they're spending on those who have more, on the corporations they decide are worthy. and hundreds of billions of dollars spending, not insignificant. its been republican policy for over 30 years. they have no right to call themselves conservative.

The real conservative party is apparetly the the democrats? :roll: Holy shit balls commy wtf are you smokin? :shock: