I live in the state of the union. Why do I need addressed about it? It's archaic in this era of media. Maybe back when the family was gathered around the victorola radio it was necessary. Now it's just political angling.

 

Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to Congress informing them of the state of the union. We should go back to that.

Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to Congress informing them of the state of the union. We should go back to that.

 

It would be much better for television programming.

I've heard the President might address income inequality in his speech tonight, taking a page out of the playbook of Pope Francis. I also want to see the President discuss the need for full funding of early-childhood education.

I want to know how he feels about Richie Farmer.

Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to Congress informing them of the state of the union. We should go back to that.

 

Not a bad idea. Put it on YouTube, tweet a few things, mass email, facsimile, etc.

Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to Congress informing them of the state of the union. We should go back to that.

 

How many votes do you believe a candidate would secure if part of their campaigning centered along abolishing the STOTU address because it is archaic and silly? I bet he/she would pick up 1,000,000 votes by it.

Yes, the event is a bit archaic and at times even silly, but it is the closest thing Americans have to grand political theater, of which the British do so well. I would like to see the State of the Union address continue to be broadcast live by all the major TV networks, since the event offers our school children an inside peek into the workings of our three branches of government -- especially when right-wing legislators yell, "You lie!"

I've heard the President might address income inequality in his speech tonight, taking a page out of the playbook of Pope Francis. I also want to see the President discuss the need for full funding of early-childhood education.

 

That will be an interesting discussion since he is a millionaire several times over.

 

I agree with the early childhood education, but that's not good enough if the "at-risk" kids go right back to an environment that places no value on education and work. At SOME point we have to stop holding schools and teachers wholly responsible for children's education and put the emphasis on parenting.

Yes, the event is a bit archaic and at times even silly, but it is the closest thing Americans have to grand political theater, of which the British do so well. I would like to see the State of the Union address continue to be broadcast live by all the major TV networks, since the event offers our school children an inside peek into the workings of our three branches of government -- especially when right-wing legislators yell, "You lie!"

 

TRANSLATION: I have no reply to the direct question I was asked so I'll try to change the subject again and maybe they'll let it slide.

 

I'll ask it again. If the conservative Justices not attending TSOTU address sends a bad message to our youth as you stated then what message did the Indiana democratic legislators send to them when they walked out?

Yes, the event is a bit archaic and at times even silly, but it is the closest thing Americans have to grand political theater

 

In this respect, I absolutely agree. I think ritual is important to any group of people. The problem is that our politics are -- and long have been -- very polarized. We need things that both emphasize the political nature of a democracy while somehow embracing that organized ritual that binds people together. I don't really know what that might look like.

TRANSLATION: I have no reply to the direct question I was asked so I'll try to change the subject again and maybe they'll let it slide.

 

I'll ask it again. If the conservative Justices not attending TSOTU address sends a bad message to our youth as you stated then what message did the Indiana democratic legislators send to them when they walked out?

The Indiana walkout was in essence a filibuster -- which is different than a boycott. The former is common in American politics, the latter unusual.

In this respect, I absolutely agree. I think ritual is important to any group of people. The problem is that our politics are -- and long have been -- very polarized. We need things that both emphasize the political nature of a democracy while somehow embracing that organized ritual that binds people together. I don't really know what that might look like.

It would look like this:

^ If going to the pub to drink beer and talk about sports is the mark of the true American, then throw me up on Mount Rushmore between Roosevelt and Lincoln.

What does?

 

It is a peaceful demonstration. Do we want them to riot? :eek::lol2:

^ If going to the pub to drink beer and talk about sports is the mark of the true American, then throw me up on Mount Rushmore between Roosevelt and Lincoln.

 

:clap:

 

But we're gonna need a bigger mountain then.