Oh, the painful, State of the Union address. To some, this annual speech is just a way to feed their critical, argumentative nature. To others, it’s threatening their future with its proposal for more taxes or less government funding. Needless to say, the State of the Union (or any Obama speech) usually generates uproar.
Let’s time travel for a moment. Does President Obama’s healthcare speech bring back any memories? Perhaps of a certain representative yelling “You lie!” during the speech?
What about Judge Samuel Alito, who mouthed “not true” during Obama’s criticism on one Supreme Court case last year during the State of the Union address? Too bad this year Judge Alito spent the evening in Hawaii during the infamous address. He was so disappointed, I’m sure.
President Obama’s speeches always evoke something interesting such as fits of rage or unceremonious booing. However, this State of the Union address was unlike its predecessors.
The speech’s main theme was “Winning the Future.” Or as I like to call it “WTF” as in “What the flibbertigibbet!” Plenty of people were thinking it too. To be honest though, who was surprised at President Obama’s list of ambitious goals and vague outlook on the future?
First of all, what does “win the future” even mean? I mean, winning is completely subjective. Yet, his logic also confuses me. Does socialism ever include winning? In a socialist society, shouldn’t everyone be happy with their free healthcare, outrageous taxes and no immigration laws? Personally, I think his slogan should have been “We’ll spread the wealth like you spread the flu.”
Shouldn’t State of the Union addresses reflect the past year’s work or failures and reiterate what should be done? This one definitely just skipped the past year and moved straight on to the future.
It’s almost like his speech was merely a way to blame Congress’ bipartisan split for his failures. I don’t know how many times he referred to the “great compromise” that would enhance America’s future.
High-speed rail to create jobs? As long as the reenactment of the Pennsylvanian Railroad Strike of 1877 doesn’t rise from the dead.
Going green? I have a better idea. Let’s recycle him.
And my favorite one: “Race to the Top.”
The government is out of ideas for a new education plan. Too bad we really need one. So, instead of the government taking responsibility, the states are going to have a competition. (What is this, high school?) The first state to come up with the best education plan wins money from the government! Oh, just kidding. Money from our tax-paying pockets!
So when the brilliant state that comes up with the best plan (it’ll be Montana) only some states get the funding. Basically, we’re only going to fix half the country’s education.
The president has certainly won over the future. I mean, we’ll be unstoppable with a half-educated country, defense strategy involving high-speed trains (because high-speed trains are so important when it comes to nuclear matters), clean energy, and debt still accumulating.
At least Joe Biden stayed awake for this promising speech.
Woah. How about you try being a little balanced. Even though this is clearly an opinion piece, your tone is argumentative and rude. You aren’t backing up your opinions with facts, but merely basing your conclusion on your observations and personal opinions.
Your line “Going green? I have a better idea. Let’s recycle him” is uncalled for and is extremely disrespectful. Whether you agree with his politics or not, he is the President, and he deserves our respect as US citizens, and more importantly, as Christians.
@Greg 9 February 2011 –
The writer has no obligation to provide whatever facts you think are necessary to the piece, because it is in fact (pun intended)very much an opinion piece.
Oh, and where is it written in the Constitution that the President deserves respect from all citizens? Where is it written in the Bible that Christians must defer to the President? Where are those facts you so desperately wanted?
Hm. Interesting viewpoint.
I never disagreed with the fact that it was an opinion piece. The author can write whatever she wants, and include whatever facts or statements that she desires.
Still, the content of the article is argued poorly. Whether the purpose of the article was to persuade people of her opinion, or simply to inform others of it, the author would be well-advised to think through her arguments and how to present them. There are more effective ways to write an opinion article. The author may want to consider the views that oppose her own in her piece. That shows that there has been careful consideration of multiple viewpoints and strengthens her own arguments. Using facts and premises to support a conclusion is a much better way to write an opinion article. This is taught in a class called Persuasive Theory, which your college offers.
I was disappointed that the author couldn’t find one positive thing to say about the speech. Of course, this is her opinion, and if she really did find it that “painful,” that’s her right. He wore a nice suit and tie…is that something positive we can all agree on?
My main objection to the piece is the tone that it carries. Though I am a staunch supporter of freedom of speech (and the press), I think that one needs to consider both their immediate and potential audience. Yes, it is a student-run newspaper. However, it is a newspaper published by a group of Christians, and whether desired or not, it will reflect upon Corban and Christians.
Perhaps you should check out 1 Peter 2 if you’re wondering how Christians should respond to governmental authority.
Perhaps I may interject as the writer…
First of all, my positive note was Joe Biden was awake. Is it not discouraging when the country’s Vice President falls asleep during the President’s State of the Union address? Like I said, he was awake. That’s a positive thing.
Second, my point in this article was how vague he was in certain plans. It was painful for me to hear. Money is being taken from big business…good for him. But put into something we may not need at this moment…like high-speed trains?
Perhaps I was wrong in thinking less government spending might decrease our deficit.
Third, the tone may be negative towards his ideas, but in no way do I suggest that we disobey or anything. I merely state he might want to consider rethinking what his plans are and how they will benefit the American society. Obviously God is sovereign and He did chose the president.
While this is a student-run paper, our advisors allowed me to run this article.