∞∞∞ wrote:I actually enjoy watching the State of the Union address. Love him or not, President Obama is a great reader of a teleprompter and his State of the Unions have been 1000x better than President Bush's who couldn't get a proper sentence off half the time. Otherwise, I realize that it's all politics but if you take it for what it's worth, it's an interesting watch.
ps. One thing that really annoys me though is all the cheering (and rare booing) after every little thing. Not only does it kill the flow, I think it's completely disrespectful to our nation. Congress is a sacred institution and it's members should project it as such, especially when the President is speaking. It really puts me off when grown adults that are in-charge of a governmental branch are all howling like little children in there. Both sides need to all sit down, shut the **** up, and listen.
FIFY
If he is going to FLAT OUT LIE then he needs to be called on it, and they shouldn't just sit there listening to him spout his BS.
There was also when he broke a long standing tradition and crticized a recent SCOTUS decison:
"U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."
Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.
Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.
"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."
Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
"With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words "not true" as Obama continued...."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... troubling/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And what do the libtards in the lamestream media do? Criticize Obama like they should have? No, they criticized Alito.
Here's a novel idea for Obama- don't sit up there and repeat one lie after another. Don't turn it into a GD campaign rally (I know for Obama this will be an impossibility).
So, no, I am not going to watch Obama's pep rally tonight.
