I'm surprised no one else has started this thread yet. Disclaimer - I did not watch the President's address, only read articles discussing it.
Having said that, how can he possibly be suggesting that we need to INCREASE spending? And if it's not going to increase the deficit, that must mean increasing taxes - again!
Then you have no business discussing it.
Whatever Do you anything worthwhile to add to the thread? If not, then you have no business posting to the thread.
The sequester will jeopardize our military readiness and devastate other priorities, yet this issue has been allowed to drag along since 2011
More “fair share” rhetoric, yet 47% are still allowed to not pay any federal income tax and we’ll “ask more from the wealthiest seniors”
“Cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next”…. like gun control proposals that largely address a manufactured crisis yet ignore the bigger problem of out-of-control gun violence in our inner cities.
“Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote.The families of Aurora deserve a vote.” What about the families of Chicago and Detroit and Atlanta?
I didn't watch the speech either. Frankly, I have reached a point where I cannot stand watching or listening to him. The only thing I am wondering is how the Dems will be able to claim that they are not the party of tax and spend after 8 years of this idiot.
Does it matter what any of the Deathocrats or Republicants say? They do the same things over and over again, and people keep voting for them. Serously, the State of the Union, like the Presidential Debates is more about drama and entertainment than statesmanship. Why watch at all?
Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
I didn't watch it either. Everyday when I go out, I can see exactly what the state of our union is without needing anyone to tell me. Calling a donkey a thoroughbred doesn't make it a racehorse. I have heard the same lies out of different mouths for the last 50 years and I can't do anything about how they waste my money, but I don't have to let them waste my time.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like,
and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. ~ B Baggins
The WSJ runs a regular little cartoon near the end of the paper on most days. Just saw Friday's after being out due to the storm and thought it appropriate for this thread.
Guy talking to his accountant says, "Can I claim last year's taxes as a bad investment?"
Democrats or Republicans-- it's always the same circus, just different clowns.
I'm watched the Westminster Dog Show.
Hey, you even stated that you didn't watch the speech. If you were giving a movie review without even watching it, do you believe we should listen to you? So, my opinion is more worthwhile than yours, because at least, I read your post. You, on the other hand, have regurgitated someone else's opinion.
My advice? Come back after you've watched the speech, then give your opinion.
I watched both The State of the Union speech, as I have done for every president in my lifetime, whether I agreed with his politics or not. I also watched Marco Rubio's response.
You guys who don't bother to watch because you've already made up your minds that, in this particular case, you don't agree with anything Obama has to say, but prefer to discuss the speech from second-hand, usually skewed reports, are one of the main causes of whatever is wrong with our great country.
You haven't bothered to listen to the State of the Union? Then shut up about it
I've read the transcript, I didn't feel the need to waste time watching it as well. So, other than saying you were tuned to the channel, what do you have to add to the discussion? Did you like what he said? Did you wish he had focused on other areas? Something other than a generic criticism that people who didn't watch are what's wrong with this country?
As I noted in replying to Scapino, I read the transcript. BTW, you gave no opinion of the address, but rather simply criticized my post because I culled the facts I thought most relevant and commented on them.
I woke up in the middle of the night and it happened to be on. Part of it that I heard, he said that police chiefs have been asking him to do something to get larger magazines off the streets.
My question is; if this is true, what do police chiefs know that other people (who would argue that larger magazines are not an issue) don't?
"If it was raining soup, the Irish would go out with forks."
Not to seem completely against everything Obama had to say, I did like what he had to say about reforming immigration. That, IMO, is LONG overdue.