Perhaps I've been watching too much television, but is this really a good idea?But it serves an important purpose. Its the only time when the entire federal government all of Congress, most of the Supreme Court, and the cabinet, representing the three branches gathers in one room. It says to the nation, this is your political leadership. They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say.
You don't remember Pelosi standing guard keeping W out?Maelstrom said:False equivalence.Mr. Pickles said:Both sides do it, so..
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
Is there a downside?bigbottom said:From the article:
Perhaps I've been watching too much television, but is this really a good idea?But it serves an important purpose. Its the only time when the entire federal government all of Congress, most of the Supreme Court, and the cabinet, representing the three branches gathers in one room. It says to the nation, this is your political leadership. They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say.
And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
Only if they are allowed to bring in weapons.bigbottom said:From the article:
Perhaps I've been watching too much television, but is this really a good idea?But it serves an important purpose. Its the only time when the entire federal government all of Congress, most of the Supreme Court, and the cabinet, representing the three branches gathers in one room. It says to the nation, this is your political leadership. They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say.
US military deaths are down by about 60% since Obama took office. Sounds like he used all his extra time to figure out how to get fewer Americans killed.He can use the extra time to figure out how to get more Americans killed. One thousand,six hundred, fifty seven (1657), in Afghanistan alone since Dear Leader took office.
Wont have to sit there and watch him say how he is listening to the 66% of the Americans that DID NOT vote, we don't have to watch him stand there and chastise the Supreme Court.And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
Not in Afghanistan. Why we even there?US military deaths are down by about 60% since Obama took office. Sounds like he used all his extra time to figure out how to get fewer Americans killed.He can use the extra time to figure out how to get more Americans killed. One thousand,six hundred, fifty seven (1657), in Afghanistan alone since Dear Leader took office.
Obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, so I'll ask it again: How would such a move benefit the Republican party?Wont have to sit there and watch him say how he is listening to the 66% of the Americans that DID NOT vote, we don't have to watch him stand there and chastise the Supreme Court.And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
Chasing Al Qaeda, but doing it in a way that results in fewer Americans dying than during the Bush years.Not in Afghanistan. Why we even there?US military deaths are down by about 60% since Obama took office. Sounds like he used all his extra time to figure out how to get fewer Americans killed.He can use the extra time to figure out how to get more Americans killed. One thousand,six hundred, fifty seven (1657), in Afghanistan alone since Dear Leader took office.
Benefits the American people, don't have to listen to all his lies,deflections and distortions. I strongly approve.Obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, so I'll ask it again: How would such a move benefit the Republican party?Wont have to sit there and watch him say how he is listening to the 66% of the Americans that DID NOT vote, we don't have to watch him stand there and chastise the Supreme Court.And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
Um...you do realize that Obama doesn't have to be "invited" to make a State Of The Union speech.......don't you?Benefits the American people, don't have to listen to all his lies,deflections and distortions. I strongly approve.Obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, so I'll ask it again: How would such a move benefit the Republican party?Wont have to sit there and watch him say how he is listening to the 66% of the Americans that DID NOT vote, we don't have to watch him stand there and chastise the Supreme Court.And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
So we have lost over 1600 lives chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Absolutely amazing that.Chasing Al Qaeda, but doing it in a way that results in fewer Americans dying than during the Bush yearsNot in Afghanistan. Why we even there?US military deaths are down by about 60% since Obama took office. Sounds like he used all his extra time to figure out how to get fewer Americans killed.He can use the extra time to figure out how to get more Americans killed. One thousand,six hundred, fifty seven (1657), in Afghanistan alone since Dear Leader took office.
It's the same B.S. that was used to justify over 4000 American deaths in Iraq under Bush. But I guess some people would rather have more dead Americans as long as it meant that their party was in the White House.So we have lost over 1600 lives chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Absolutely amazing that.Chasing Al Qaeda, but doing it in a way that results in fewer Americans dying than during the Bush yearsNot in Afghanistan. Why we even there?US military deaths are down by about 60% since Obama took office. Sounds like he used all his extra time to figure out how to get fewer Americans killed.He can use the extra time to figure out how to get more Americans killed. One thousand,six hundred, fifty seven (1657), in Afghanistan alone since Dear Leader took office.
Nobody has to listen if they don't want to, Gramps. There is this invention you may have heard of, it is called the remote.Benefits the American people, don't have to listen to all his lies,deflections and distortions. I strongly approve.Obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, so I'll ask it again: How would such a move benefit the Republican party?
Are you kidding? It was usually an interminable list of micro-targeted items; school uniforms, v-chips, blah, blah, blah.We should just have President Clinton give the state of the union until he dies. At least we'd be guaranteed a good speech.
They continue to keep dying and ISIS has taken the country because Obama pulled us out.The question that GrandpaRox won't answer is why we were not giving Afghanistan our full attention after 9/11. And instead under President Bush we went to Iraq and got how many Americans and Iraqis that were killed, and continue to be killed because we destabilized the area. But hey keep blaming Obama for your problems and not accepting personal responsibility.
Because going all-in on Afghanistan turned out so well for Obama.The question that GrandpaRox won't answer is why we were not giving Afghanistan our full attention after 9/11. And instead under President Bush we went to Iraq and got how many Americans and Iraqis that were killed, and continue to be killed because we destabilized the area. But hey keep blaming Obama for your problems and not accepting personal responsibility.
Wait, now you're going to somehow keep him from addressing the American people, in addition to not inviting him to the building? This idea sounds complicatedBenefits the American people, don't have to listen to all his lies,deflections and distortions. I strongly approve.Obviously you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, so I'll ask it again: How would such a move benefit the Republican party?Wont have to sit there and watch him say how he is listening to the 66% of the Americans that DID NOT vote, we don't have to watch him stand there and chastise the Supreme Court.And how would such a move benefit the Republican party?They just don't request that he does not get one.
It is not his right. All he does is turn it political. It is no State of the Union anymore. Obama turned it into a political agenda speech. I absolutely would not invite him to give the opportunity.Todd Andrews said:
That guy can talk about anything and make a wonderful speech about it.Are you kidding? It was usually an interminable list of micro-targeted items; school uniforms, v-chips, blah, blah, blah.We should just have President Clinton give the state of the union until he dies. At least we'd be guaranteed a good speech.
His SOU's were terrible.
Yeah, genius. Sternboy.From the comments: "Repubelickans"
gonna have to remember that one.
hey rockaction, go get some #### action.Yeah, genius. Sternboy.From the comments: "Repubelickans"
gonna have to remember that one.
Yeah, Stern, bring on your best Lange jokes.hey rockaction, go get some #### action.Yeah, genius. Sternboy.From the comments: "Repubelickans"
gonna have to remember that one.
The whole standing ovation crap after every thematic point is complete and total BS intended to influence the blind faith followers...of both parties.I long for the day a president voluntarily submits it in writing again and we get away from the "Caesar" trappings it has become.
It's a dog and pony show for the sheeple.bigbottom said:From the article:
Perhaps I've been watching too much television, but is this really a good idea?But it serves an important purpose. Its the only time when the entire federal government all of Congress, most of the Supreme Court, and the cabinet, representing the three branches gathers in one room. It says to the nation, this is your political leadership. They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say.
There is usually a thread on it here, with most of the participants conservatives, who try to sound really witty, but instead come across as a lame attempt at a political version of Mystery Science 3000.You guys seriously watch the state of the union? Its the golden age of television and you're watching that.
So who on this board would play the 3 Mystery Science 3000 participants. Btw, that show is awesome to watch stoned. I could watch that and Bob Ross all day long.There is usually a thread on it here, with most of the participants conservatives, who attempt to sound really witty, but instead come across as a lame attempt at a political version of Mystery Science 3000.You guys seriously watch the state of the union? Its the golden age of television and you're watching that.
I dunno, there are several promising candidates...So who on this board would play the 3 Mystery Science 3000 participants. Btw, that show is awesome to watch stoned. I could watch that and Bob Ross all day long.There is usually a thread on it here, with most of the participants conservatives, who attempt to sound really witty, but instead come across as a lame attempt at a political version of Mystery Science 3000.You guys seriously watch the state of the union? Its the golden age of television and you're watching that.