Rubio’s an idiot. He and Ted Cruz should thank their lucky stars that the Republican party has a hard-on for ANY Hispanic Republican right now.
Link to the soon-to-be-infamous Rubio gulp.
Maybe he thought they were cutting to a clip right then.
It just goes to show that you can’t will flop sweat to run into your mouth on cue.
So, Rubio did go into dismissing Obamacare. And he is from a “working class neighborhood”, I don’t think he knows who are the people in his neighborhood.
As a Hispanic I’m not impressed at all, heck, even in Florida many Hispanics understood what it means to not have access to health care, as most Hispanics have no or inadequate health care.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/28/155941682/the-reaction-in-florida-from-protesting-to-partying
No wonder they lost Florida, and it did matter to many Hispanics that Rubio was there telling all to elect people that would dismiss something that would help a lot to the working Hispanic community.
BTW, I noticed at this SOTU address that the SCOTUS justices did not join in any of the standing ovations.
Do they ever?
Well, there was, and Rand Paul gave it.
Oh, really?
“Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.”
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate … Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate.”
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
“The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of anybody but themselves.”
– Adam Smith
It was rather awkward, but I didn’t see it as any huge thing. But in extreme slow-motion, it’s actually pretty damn hilarious.
He’s as utterly out of touch as Mitt Romney.
Apparently Marco Rubio’s idea of a “working class” neighborhood is one where houses sell for $675,000:
I assume he means the neighborhood he grew up in. I don’t think that that is his childhood house he’s selling.
No they do not. Intentionally. The justices are supposed to be impartial, and by tradition they never cheer one side, ever, during a SOTU speech or any other event (I’m not clear if there is another example besides SOTU).
Yes, they are supposed to sit and appear impartial, but I think the 3 conservative justices skipped the SOTU address last night. I did not see all of them there.
This is true, with the notable exception of one of Obama’s SOTU speeches where he was directly challenging them and calling them out. One of the justices mouthed the words “not true” which while correct, caused a bit of a stir.
The court works so hard at pretending to be above politics and impartial. I really don’t know why they bother with the charade.
So I heard Obama make three recommendations regarding gun control. All were deliberately misleading and unclear.
He said he wanted background checks. We already have those for all sales by gun dealers. Was he talking about adding them to private transactions? If I give my nephew a deer rifle am I up for years of federal prison time for not running a background check on him? Is he talking about banning sales at gun shows that lack background checks? What did this mean?
He said he wanted to ban large capacity guns. Again, no details. How many is enough? Does he support the NY law of seven?
He said he wanted to ban “weapons of war” which was blatantly an attempt to avoid using the language “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” and is just completely meaningless. It panders to the liberals who don’t know that RPGs and fully automatic machine guns are already banned but other than that has no value.
Predictably, the left half of the chamber erupted into applause. They want a vote? Good. The republicans can use the extra seats in the mid-terms.
From the transcript of Rubio’s speech:
I would agree that a $675k house is very much on the high side of “working class”.
Pretty sure it meant closing the gun-show loophole. Trust you have no objection to that.
It doesn’t exist. Gun sales at gun shows are not treated any differently than gun sales anywhere else.
If he does want to ban gun shows, or ban private sales at gun shows he certainly was clear as mud about it.
He probably didn’t go so far as to include gifts of hunting weapons to family members. It’s a little much to ask for specific details. To me, these addresses are like saying “we need to build a 3 bedroom house” and not “there will be Phillips screws mounting the door hinges”. Yes, there are magazines for sale that have more rounds than there is legitimate use for. No, we don’t have a specific number in mind. Yes, there are weapons whose capabilities have no legitimate civilian use. No, we don’t have a specific list.
Polls show solid majorities behind Obama’s gun agenda. If you think this will magically translate to votes for Republicans, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
I get that this speech is going to be high level. Your analogy would work for many topics that Obama covered, and I’m glad he kept it relatively short.
But this just isn’t true regarding gun rights. What he said was closer to saying “we need to build a home with rooms for all” when there is a fierce debate raging on how many bedrooms it should have. His gun comments were designed to mislead.
I mean “weapons of war”? Can you really defend that?
Says who? Who defines “legitimate use”? It is completely reasonable to give a number. It’s not a minute detail like how many screws in a door on a house. It’s just a number. Why can’t he say it?
Well, there actually is a list you know.
But again, who are you to claim something has no “legitimate civilian use”? Being black and scary looking doesn’t affect performance or capability.
By calling them “weapons of war” Obama was blatantly pandering to the ignorant. It’s deliberately misleading and was done one purpose.
Yes, gun control has proven to be such a winning issue for Democrats in the past.
Checking the transcript I see that Obama’s second point on guns was “on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals.”
This is already covered. It’s five years federal time for anyone doing a straw purchase. You do 80% of it mandatory because it’s federal and not state prison time.
If you buy five guns and then resell them to criminals you are breaking the law twice for each gun. So that’s getting you a minimum of 45 years in federal prison, even if you get out early on good behavior.
We need to be more draconian than this? Really?
Pandering. Pure and simple.
I’d prefer that the specifics be worked out by an impartial committee composed of Gabby Giffords, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg, and Michael Moore.
As far as the electoral impact goes, times change. There was a time when Republicans could rally their base by putting anti-SSM referenda on the ballots. That time is over. There was a time that the only motivated voters in the gun debate were from the pro-gun side. That time is over.
The idea that background checks and other regulatory efforts already exist is frankly bullshit. Not only are background checks not universal, but the NRA has done everything it can to undermine the ability to carry out any other similar regulations.
Jon Stewart covered this deftly just a few weeks ago. It was actually pretty eye opening, even for me.