is it really necessary?
 

yep...won't be watching this one either...great guests

"President Obama’s list this year includes a doctor working to stop the spread of Ebola, union workers benefiting from a stronger economy, a victim of gun violence, a government worker freed in a prisoner exchange as part of the outreach to Cuba, and an illegal immigrant who has remained in the country under Mr. Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty."

“Their grit and dedication represent what’s best about this country,” first lady Michelle Obama said in a statement inviting the rest of the country to tune in to watch along with her guests.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...egal-immigran/

I would expect a very low Nielsen rating lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the hate never ends.

Why is it OK for you to spew your vitriol at those with whom you disagree, but when we do it, it's hate-mongering? Just curious...

And I happily plead guilty to hating Obama. Not because he's liberal, I love more than a few liberals. But it's the intellectual dishonesty and political sleaziness that I just can't tolerate anymore. For example, "Republicans gotta stop just hating all the time"...yes, Mr President, all we do is hate. we don't serve in the military, we don't go to church, we don't volunteer in our communities and don't donate to charities, we don't literally put your side to considerable shame in terms of compassion for the unborn. Nope, guys like John McCain and George Bush, all they do is "hate". All the time. George Bush, who is credited with saving more than one million lives on the continent of Africa with his Aids initiative, all he does is "hate".

And in terms of stacking the audience with beneficiaries of his programs, they all do that. Bush had some Iraqi citizens with the purple ink on their fingers from their spectacularly successful and free elections. Seems like a long, LONG, time ago.

i have no problem with Obama putting an ilegal alien in the crowd to humanize the issue, it's important to remember that we are talking about human beings. Similarly, I would love a Republican president to have an abortion survivor in the State of the Union audience to humanize that issue. But union members? "hey, I gave money to that guy, and he therefore thinks I'm swell! Keep voting for liberals, and we can give everybody a fat check, because there's no downside to that, right? All we need to do is raise taxes on the billionaires by 0.000001%, and we'll all be wiping our noses with $100 bills, but the Tea Party won't allow it because I'm black. Or is it because of global warming? Or white male priviledge? Or because of racisthatecrimeintolerant?"

Didn't read the rest of your thread bc obvisously it will be filled with the hate you usually throw out here.

Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS -

"I usually "spew my vitriol" at your hate filled, petty bombastic posts"

And in my opinion, when I make a post that you would describe as hate-filled, it's in a direct response to someone saying hateful things about people like me. Like when Obama flat-out said that all Republicans do, is hate. If he says that, and he did, then I feel quite justified in responding in an adversarial way.

So I'll ask yet again...when you respond adversarially to a post that you find offensive, that's OK. But when I do it, it's not. Still wondering why that is. I'm responding to Obama in the same fashion in which you respond to me. But it's OK when you do it, and hate-mongering when I do it. I have asked you many, many times why that is.

Sorry PaulS, what's good for the goose... You have referred to Tea Partiers as racists, so you might reconsider the holier-than-thou attitude.

I agree with much of what you say, you might be suprised how often. But you are a real hypocrite on this issue.

Interpretation...rather than admit that I am 100% correct when I say that Obama is an d*ck for saying that Republicans hate all the time, you ignore my conclusion and call me a hate-monger. Got it.

Try making that wrong.

And I agree with some of what you say, just not how you say it.

is it really necessary?

No, it's not necessary. The Constitution directs the President to give THE CONGRESS from TIME TO TIME information on the state of the union, "and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". It was not meant to be a yearly occasion for a public display of propaganda meant to intimidate the Congress or the opposition party into acquiescing to his or his party's agenda. It was obviously meant for the executive to give its opinion to CONGRESS, when times and circumstances called for it, on how things were going with the intention or hope that its views would be helpful. It was meant to facilitate cooperation between the executive and legislative branches within the limits to which they were constitutionally bound. It was certainly not meant to be a brick-bat for the executive to beat about the head of Congress in order to pound them into submission. It was a polite and respectful way to maintain separation of powers yet have input, when helpful, into the legislative process without actually usurping it.

The Founders would be puking in their graves at the yearly public side-show called the State of the Union Address, and would probably regret ever inserting it into the Constitution. But, then, that would pale to them in comparison to the rest of the shredding that has occurred to their well-wrought document. That it has been inverted from a protection of hard and bloody won freedom into an excuse for an even more powerful tyranny than that against which they fought would probably give them comfort to be in their graves rather than a part of what has transpired.

:thanks: Best statement on the internet ever. Well done.

GREAT ARTICLE

"For once, Barack Obama pays attention tonight to the Constitution, which requires that a president "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

Fortunately, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires anyone to pay attention to No. 44's State of the Union tonight. Not a single clause, article or word."


http://news.investors.com/politics-a...nt-session.htm

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND OR "INTERPRET" THIS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE AND NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY...UNDERSTAND THAT FOR MANY, FOLKS LIKE O ARE IDOLS....LOVED, ADORED AND WORSHIPED(FOR REASONS I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND)...IF YOU CRITICIZE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT IS LOVED, ADORED AND WORSHIPED, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE...WHICH IS NATURALLY, "HATE"...WHICH IS WHY THE TERM IS SO GENEROUSLY LADLED OUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE MEANING, USUALLY IN A DEFENSIVE MANNER INTENDED TO DEFLECT/DISMISS RATHER THAN PROVIDE REASONABLE OR RATIONAL ARGUMENT :uhuh: WHEN YOU CAN'T RATIONALIZE WHY YOUR "IDOL" HAS SO MISLED AND FAILED TO MEET YOUR HIGH EXPECTATIONS IT'S EASIER TO BLAME OTHER'S FOR HIS FAILINGS RATHER THAN BLAME THE ONE YOU LOVE....WE SEE THIS A LOT....

recall that Clinton's style of politics was referred to as "blood-sport", a label that they embraced and seemed proud of...and that was fine as long as his side was drawing the blood, criticism resulted in the label Clinton "hater"......with this administration it's very much the same...more like "Chicago thug politics"...sorry..."Chicago-bully"...funny that it was Clinton who first labeled Obama a "Chicago-Thug" from what I can recall....

bingo

Viewership of the State of the Union address continues to wane, with early numbers suggesting perhaps the lowest tune-in for the annual event in 15 years.

Nielsen won’t issue numbers until later Wednesday or Thursday, but Fox News (3.471 million), CNN (2.557 million) and MSNBC (1.995 million) combined to draw a little over 8 million viewers from 9 to 10:15 p.m. ET, according to preliminary estimates. This is down from 9.1 million last year and 10.35 million in 2013.

about 8 million adoring fans and...309 million hate...hate ...haters

lowest in 15 years which was when...was that a Clinton year??

I'm into reality TV....I didn't want to watch this fictional show....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in a country with with 47 million Americans on Foodstamps
Record 92,898,000 Americans Not In The Workforce
and something like 12-20 million illegal aliens

you'd think more would tune in to hear what O is going to give them this time around to improve their lives...:rotf2: