State of the Union

Older Comments on State of the Union

• Posted 06/26/11 by Tracen
  I am totally wowed and praerepd to take the next step now.
• Posted 05/18/11 by Dave
  Let's get it over with. Split the country in half. All liberals to one side and conservatives to the other. The libs can have their hope and change and we (conserv.) will keep our God and guns. Once the libs destroy themselves, the conservatives can take over and set things right. I just hate to see how half the country would get trashed, like the DC Mall after Obama's coronation.
• Posted 08/09/10 by nickygavin
  I refuse to validate the premise of this show one way or the other; however here is something to chew on from my man H.L. Mencken; "The average man does not get pleasure out of an idea because he thinks it is true; he thinks it is true because he gets pleasure out of it"
• Posted 08/09/10 by nickygavin
  Regardless of the merits of this discussion, WHO ON EARTH EDITED IN THE ADS IN MID-SENTENCE?? This was so distracting I could barely pay attention as I was anticipating the next commercial interruption.
• Posted 07/03/10 by Billy
  Reverend Patrick Mahoney on the subject of Internet:"It's like going from the Stone Age to jets or rockets.." The period from 2.7‐2.58 million years ago encompasses the first use of stone tools in Gona, Ethiopia and its spread and widespread use elsewhere soon thereafter. In other words, Stone Age started roughly 2.6 million years before the birth of Adam and Eve. Furthermore:"Now you can have some guy sitting,you know,in a pair of boxer underware in slippers with cheerios over his hairy chest getting the word out to millions of people." Thanks reverend, but that one's a little too graphic for me. I guess,it's not the first time that a "man of faith" resorts to intolerance while in denial of his own homosexuality. And BTW,"political spectrum" is nothing else but an intelect scale presented horizontally. Cheers!
• Posted 11/21/09 by he7
  it is soooo true i totally agree with this film Please pay attention!
• Posted 02/06/09 by Howard Polley
  This documentary is just another perfect example on just how extremely important education really is. Ignorance is a byproduct of our failing education system. When 2 people disagree it means someone is wrong, maybe both, but most definitely one person is wrong. No one is ignorant based solely on his or her beliefs. Ignorance comes from a person’s inability to understand the facts, evidence and witnesses to a particular problem. That’s what courts and trials do, they search for the truth by way of examining all the evidence, data and testimony. This is what Americans are forgetting to do. We need more open discussions so that everyone can make logical decisions based on all the known facts, evidence, data and witnesses, without using personal and selfish beliefs as a reason to understand. Please, let the power of God and not the power of our own ignorance be the reason for our demise. We all share the same values. The problem is that some people define their values based on religious beliefs, this is wrong because values and religious beliefs are two separate things. We must define our values as what is right for everyone, what is good for everyone, what is good behavior and what is good conduct.
• Posted 08/04/08 by Simone
  I disagree with the premise of the film completely. I've spent the past 4 years researching and producing a documentary called "American Feud: A History of Conservatives and Liberals" (www.americanfeud.org) that takes a non-partisan look at the history of liberalism and conservatism. More often than not we found most people have views far more nuanced and complex then this simplistic view would profess. We may be poorly served by ideologues, but we are not being torn apart.
• Posted 07/28/08 by Cheyne Omatic
  The advertisements were an unwelcome intrusion during the film.
• Posted 07/22/08 by Bill
  So, according to John D., anyone who uses symbolic terms to characterize the sociopolitical direction this country is taking due to the dividiveness of a two party system focused on obtaining and maintaining power--rather than actual civil service--is an enemy of peace. An attempt to identify problems and understand the circumstances to which we need to respond in order to avoid future difficulties--and we have experienced serious difficulties due to such polarization, best exemplified (in a worst-case scenario)by the Civil War--is counter to a peace objective. Yeah, that's intelligent. Rather, let's ignore the problem because then it won't exist. Let's just continue this way and expect that it'll sort itself out on its own. That approach worked well when the framers of the Constitution put off the resolution of the slavery issue. Good thinking, John. Head in the sand while waving a flag in the air, that;s the best way to live, and maintain a democracy. Jacka$$.
• Posted 07/22/08 by Raul A Zaritsky PhD
  Using the simple conventions of journalism in which a complex idea -- the possibility of a divide == is promoted with one assumed scientific study whose validity is not stated by showing its publication in a major peer viewed journal. As is the way with Journalist based documentaries the 'facts' are presented in antidotes, such as clips of groups discussing for 15 minutes complex issues. The film is well produced, of course and pleasant enough to watch but does it really tell us something that we can use in our understanding of America. On all grounds the answer is no. On the scientific level the study conclusion from local voting patterns could very likely be not the main driving force but an artifact of the division in who turns out to vote. Further using judges as an example of a non-peer pressured group falls to even provide face validity as the assumptions are flawed. As to basic group process, the study uses only one slice of our complex new American population. Not looked at is the growing percent of young people, college educated, in comparison to the group sampled. For the group sampled the Church is reported to be the major force. Not so for well educated new citizens. Finally, the focus is on group division on issues in which no one is expert and claims are not supported by data. Instead if you looked at scientific peer review you see a move to the center often as experts are able to persuade with deep knowledge. In sum, this film promotes sloppy thinking about complex issues for America revealing the limitations of Journalism and of the limitations of saying too much with preliminary social science studies. Not worth the time.
• Posted 07/21/08 by Paul
  Amen to that comment.
• Posted 07/20/08 by Jorge Aguirre
  Excelent!!
• Posted 07/18/08 by John D
  This whole film is propaganda made to divide the country. The very notion of red and blue communities disturbs me. This collectivist mentality brings America down. The you versus me, conservative versus liberal or the new marketing term red versus blue notion of different groups is damaging. Anyone that refers to Americans as red or blue is an enemy of individualism and rips apart the very fabric of our society and should be treated as an enemy of peace and acceptance.