State of the Union tonight...place your bets - Page 4

Your love for Hillary is very funny. I'm not sure what she does other than spout party line. Oh wait lemme guess. Shes for children.

Is there a time when you're NOT trolling for a response, Scott?

When you point the finger at someone else you have three pointing back at yourself.

[quote] Oh wait lemme guess. She?s for children. <hr></blockquote>

and bush is for killing children, at least arab ones..oh well, they (politicians) all sprout party line...even your little bushy.....he reads what he is told to read....probably still calls cheney sir....g

Pro choice
Pro civil rights
Pro health care reform
Pro education
Pro balanced budget
Intelligent, educated (Bush can't touch that one)
Successful track record in business (Bush can't touch that one)
Great advisor backing her up
Great precedent as a woman

Hilary probably does look like a good canidate from Hong Kong.....

President Bush is a true leader. The speech was world class.

Fellowship

Yeah, but I'm a US citizen and I'm going to vote. That's what matters.

And if she does mostly follow the party line, that's okay with me. I happen to agree with the party line. Do people not understand this logic?

And Lieberman's censorship efforts are not that objectionable. I agree with him that sexual materal is too easy for minors to obtain. And the result won't necessarily be any more restrictive than now. I mean look at Tipper Gore. All that effort to get labels on CDs, and now what? Before Tipper could Eminem have said "Fyck you" directly to his mom and still be nominated for/win numerous industry awards? Music lyrics are much more dirty than ever.

If Joe implements ratings chips in televisions, etc, can I (as an adult) still watch porn? Sure. Can I download porn from a ".sex" internet site? Sure, if my country doesn't block it, but we're talking about the US here. I don't really see what the fuss is about. Do any of us object to CD warning labels now?

[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>President Bush is a true leader. The speech was world class.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, Fellowship, I hate to break it to you, but actions speak louder than words.

Let's look back at 2002, shall we?

The hype: Fight Terror, axis of evil
Bush's results: American's are more scared now than a year ago, a surface to air missile was fired at an Israeli passenger jet, North Korea resumes their nuclear research, Saddam has become belligerent. Grade: D

The hype: "One word: JOBS"
Bush's results: Check the unemployment rate lately? Grade: F

The hype: Work toward party cooperation
Bush's results: Bipartisanship flourishes as never before. Grade: C

The hype: "Embracing a new ethic"
Bush's results: The USA Freedom Corps website <a href="http://www.freedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/whats_new/progress_reports.asp" target="_blank">progress report</a> has not been updated since December 1. The report declares "Federally-supported public service and volunteer opportunities at the Peace Corps, Corporation for National and Community Service and Citizen Corps have experienced major increases in volunteer interest since the President's 'Call to Service.'" Closer inspection of the report shows several referances to "potential volunteers", "expressed interest", etcetera. Nowhere is there any indication that actual number of volunteers has grown. This particular statistic seems to have been avoided.

Searching further, a pro-Bush <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021231-81846456.htm" target="_blank">AP article</a> lauds "On average, Americans put in about 52 hours of volunteer work during the year, according to the estimate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The numbers were based on a survey of 60,000 households in September." Well, based on Bush's goal of an average of 4000 hours in a person's lifetime, people will only have to live to 200 to reach his goal. Meanwhile, how much volunteer time has Geedub himself put in? Grade: C

Hype: Protecting pensions
Bush's results: WorldCom. Conseco. Global Crossing. Billions in pensions lost. Any federal legislation? No. Any proposed federal legislation? Sure. <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/government/letters/020409hr3762.htm" target="_blank">HR 3762</a>. In a nutshell, among other objectionable angles, the legislation encouraged businesses to drastically reduce pension benefits for the average worker. Had it been passed, it would not have helped any of the large bankruptcies of 2002. HR 3762 was passed by the House, killed in the Senate. The Bush Administration and the Republican party have since forgotten about the subject, and have not proposed any other comprehensive plan. Grade: D-

All in all, last year's State of the Union was lacklustre to begin with, and complete crap when it came to execution. Oh, but it was a "good speech".

[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>

and bush is for killing children, at least arab ones..</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea and then he mixes their blood into his holiday pastries. Right?

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>Nice, fair analysis. I'm sick of these damn blind party line supporters on either side of the aisle.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I found it to be bias and almost complete bullshit.

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>

That surprises no one since you are biased and often full of shit. I am neither democrat nor republican. Frankly I despise both parties so I am not biased by these stupid political bullshit spin games. It was indeed a fair analysis. You are just a blind pseudo-patriot that thinks that parties actually mean something.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Whatever. History will prove how stupid you are.

This thread started out interesting, and then it became a free for all in attacking people. Sheesh, some things never change.

BTW, I missed the speech, anyone got the link so I can read it. From what I have read so far in the news and some of what I read here it sounded pretty good.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


Whatever. History will prove how stupid you are.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I woudn't say that too loud. You may want to reflect on it later.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
BTW, I missed the speech, anyone got the link so I can read it. From what I have read so far in the news and some of what I read here it sounded pretty good.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Bush_Ad min" target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Bush_Ad min</a>

here you <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1790537.stm" target="_blank">go</a>

i thought it was a pretty good speech for him, (he's actually become a fairly competent orator) he threw a lot of bones to left, but still has some explaining to do before we invade.
i still wouldn't vote for him, but i'm not as embarrassed as i was a year ago

I thought the democratic response was WEAK. Come on, don't they have their own opinion? Or are they just "Republicans lite?" I tend to be quite liberal, and I kinda wish there was a major party that reflected my views.

[quote]I thought the democratic response was WEAK <hr></blockquote>

everything the democrats have done since the last presidential election has been weak, and 9/11 hobbled them further.
i've voted democrat my entire life and i'm still scratching my head as to why bush won. (please no one weigh in with "but he got fewer votes" yada yada, i'm aware,) meaning how can you lose to this guy? it was shameful, and now the same dead horses are trotting out from the barns to iowa and new hampshire.

But I do think it's an important point to remember that he did get fewer votes.

Change your system then so that it can't happen again. It is your system, not the politicians.

[quote]But I do think it's an important point to remember that he did get fewer votes. <hr></blockquote>

but i think it's more important to know that al gore didn't even win his home state (tennessee) which would have made florida moot.
he didn't win his own state!

There seem to be a lot of communists on these boards.

communism is mostly dead, what's left alive is so rancidly corrupt that no one would touch it....

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>communism is mostly dead, what's left alive is so rancidly corrupt that no one would touch it....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Some form of anti American/Government philosophies is present here.

You guys know where the "axis of evil" term came from, right.

Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg" target="_blank">see article here</a>

Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?

BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Macintosh:
<strong>There seem to be a lot of communists on these boards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

In case you are serious: Please elaborate so we can show you what you misunderstood

[quote]Some form of anti American/Government philosophies is present here. <hr></blockquote>

If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent.
Henry Commager

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>You guys know where the "axis of evil" term came from, right.

Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg" target="_blank">see article here</a>

Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you're an expert in this area too? Why not reply with your 10 pages of anti-American diatribe? Or maybe, just maybe youre wrong :eek:

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, scott. I forgot how stupid some of the people that would read this could be. Let me dumb it down for you. He was asked to write a justification for war with Iraq. Now first, should the justification come before the idea to go to war? If the Bush admin had justification at that time, perhaps that justification should be used. Of course, they didn't so it wasn't.

Second, the crucial part of this is the issue with N. Korea. The Axis of Evil designation has really gotten the ball rolling, and including N. Korea in that group was not a result of a deliberate policy. It demonstrates all too well that the Bush Admin is carelessly and dangerously run. The narrow focus on the interests of a few cause MAJOR foul up such as this.

And when did pointing out blatant lies, notably Bush's ficticious IAEA reports, become anti-american? Or is it that any criticism of George Bush and his Administration is anti-american? Did the US cease being a democracy without me noticing?

Deriding an american for publicly critiqing his government is about as anti-american as you can get.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

i agree with your right to dissent giant, but it sounds to me like you're defending saddam hussein.
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.

I thought it was a good speech. He seemed to lay out some compelling reasons why Mr. Hussein shouldn't stick around any longer than he has to.

Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.

I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.

I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.

Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.



Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.

I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.

But that's just me.

Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.

And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.

If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.

It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".

That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again ) that Hussein woke up tomorrow morning, realized what an asshole he's been, realizes the jig is up, gives the inspectors everything they're asking for and either eats a bullet for dinner or simply grabs some cash and splits to an island somewhere and just lives the rest of his life fishing and snorkeling and reading quietly on his porch.



I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...

Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

i agree with pscates, i think the problem when looking from the outside in is why did we let it drag out for ten years until we did something, and to pay for our foot-dragging we're going to have to have some hardcore proof.
and if you look at afghanistan and how their lives have improved in such a short time, it must give iraqis hope that we will take care of him......

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>i agree with your right to dissent giant, but it sounds to me like you're defending saddam hussein.
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm really not sure what part of that statement you think is "defending saddam." Especially considering the focus was on N. Korea and the carelessness of the Bush Admin. Oh well.

Why Iraq? Contracts for US companies and their subsidiaries to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. forward position against Iran. Increased Influence in the Middle East. There are much worse human right issues elsewhere in the world that are completely ignored by the US government. Hell, we have Cheney lobbying to do business in Burma and running a company whose pipeline there was built in part by slave labor! The the folks that make up this Admin hardly have a positive human rights record.

As far as "tallying lies:" Why should the US use any?

BTW: about afghanistan. You realize that life isn't really better there. Random crime has risen dramatically since the Taliban was ousted. My boss' husband has travelled there a few times in the past year and a half (he was one of the first aid workers on the front line during the fighting) and he has pointed out that it has gotten very unsafe. Also go to <a href="http://www.rawa.org" target="_blank">www.rawa.org</a> for a description of the situation (self-immolations on the rise, fierce fighting among warlords). And the reason it's so important to get carriers in the gulf for an Iraq attack is because so many of the AF planes in the region are focused on fighting warloards in afghanistan. It is hardly a stable situation. You are simply buying propaganda (that's not even abundant!) if you believe otherwise.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

[quote]As far as "tallying lies:" Why should the US use any? <hr></blockquote>

oh god! drop the naive pose!
i tottally agreed with you, in that the government of iraq is hardly the most despotic. but when we become the world's policeman (and i think we're going to be, maybe we've already started) are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there. i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>

listen, the bottom line is this, we beat them in a war. they surrendered and when they surrendered they agreed to do certain things and haven't kept their end of the bargain.
saddam would be gone had he not surrendered, ah screw it...

I agree with Fellowship.

You see, it doesn't matter what Bush proposes, because SPJ, tonton and the rest of the liberals will assail it BECAUSE HE IS George W. Bush. There is no other reason. One poster actually CRITICIZED Bush for calling for a clean environment, gasless autos, help for drug addicts and the destitute and tax relief for working families.

His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. The speech was a smashing success. The support for attacking Iraq in polls taken (immediately after the speech) is now in the 70th and 80th percentiles.

I agree with 98% of the domestic agenda. Let me tell you, it didn't look good for the democrats to sit on their hands during his outline of the tax plan.

It doesn't matter what he says. He could announce they we have found a cure for aids and cancer an you'd still criticize him.