Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-20-2015, 04:54 AM   #1
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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/
scottw is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 07:12 AM   #2
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
I would expect a very low Nielsen rating lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 08:37 AM   #3
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I would expect a very low Nielsen rating lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, the hate never ends.
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 08:47 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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".

Last edited by Jim in CT; 01-20-2015 at 09:03 AM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 08:58 AM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
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?"
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 09:25 AM   #6
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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...I usually "spew my vitriol" at your hate filled, petty bombastic posts. Show me any threads that I start with the kind of miserable hate you show in the VAST majority of your posts. Maybe we need to have a thread about the Pres' 2 daughters looking bored at the stupid Turkey pardoning event or if their skirts are too short.

And I happily plead guilty to hating Obama. All that hate is going to kill you.
Didn't read the rest of your thread bc obvisously it will be filled with the hate you usually throw out here.
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 09:27 AM   #7
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 10:49 AM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 10:51 AM   #9
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Didn't read the rest of your thread bc obvisously it will be filled with the hate you usually throw out here.
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 11:48 AM   #10
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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.HUH - you start all your hate filled threads, they are not in response to anyone else here. Take a look at the amount of posts you start. They aren't in response to anyone else's posts. You can't help yourself. You even mentioned something about Al Gore's weight in a post - who the hell does that? I bet when you get your biometric screenings done, the doc. prob. tells you that you need to lower your BMI.

So I'll ask yet again...when you respond adversarially to a post that you find offensiveusually yours bc I enjoy your responses. , 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 I think I usually call them Tea Baggers. Haven't we beaten that horse to death by showing the high % of Tea Baggers who think the Pres. is Mulim and wasn't born in this country. I still don't know why the Pres. released his birth cert. , 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.
And I agree with some of what you say, just not how you say it.
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 12:04 PM   #11
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
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.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-20-2015, 12:22 PM   #12
tysdad115
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
tysdad115's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pembroke
Posts: 3,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
is it really necessary?

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.
Best statement on the internet ever. Well done.

Does your incessant whining make you feel better? How about you just shut the hell up and suck it up? It's a fishing forum , so please just stop.
tysdad115 is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:06 AM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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
scottw is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:13 AM   #14
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Interpretation... call me a hate-monger. Got it. Try making that wrong.
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 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....

Last edited by scottw; 01-21-2015 at 07:30 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:20 PM   #15
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I would expect a very low Nielsen rating lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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??
scottw is offline  
Old 01-21-2015, 07:30 PM   #16
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
I'm into reality TV....I didn't want to watch this fictional show....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Piscator is offline  
Old 01-22-2015, 05:13 AM   #17
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
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...
scottw is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com