Jump to content

State of the Union


Recommended Posts

  • 11 months later...
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I love his rant about how he wants to start a space campaign on a budget of $1 billion dollars.

Thats like telling the navy that they can only spend 5 bucks on a state of the art upgrade for the new retrofitted SSGN Ohio Classes.

This was an even bigger joke than last year. Perhaps I'm blind, but the economy doesn't really seem to be getting better, your tax cuts didn't work Mr. Bush, because you spent more money than you recieved.

And then the stuff about extending the Patriot Act. He didn't once mention about how the FBI, while using it to catch terrorists, is also using it against the common criminal.

Heh, I've got math homework because I wasted my time watching this latest campaign speech, so I'm gonna go do it now, if I can stop laughing that is. (The $1 Billion budget for NASA tickles me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just kinda sticking my nose into this because I'm curious about something. I hear many of you saying that Bush's speech was lackluster, his plans laughable, yada, yada, yada. I'm not hearing any better suggestions though. What do you, those who believe Bush is failing, propose the US do exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find so amusing is that during the state of the Union, the ruling party always blows it's own horn, ALWAYS.

Clinton used to talk about the tax hikes and how the rich were paying their fair share and all that garbage, but when Bush does it, you guys get all upset and call it a campaign speech.

Well, the fact of the matter is, that Bush has actually done a pretty good job, and deserves all the Kudos he can get, and it is election year, he had the attention of the national media, and he used it to his best political advantage.

These guys are politicians guys, it's what they do, if it makes you angry, well, the Dem's do it just as much when they are in power.

This is NOTHING new, and nothing to get upset about, unless you are in the minority party of course...... LOL

Which I am not!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there was nothing new that we haven't seen from either party. More or less just the standard fare. What I am laughing at is NY Democratic Senator Chuck Schummer's response to Bush's economy statement. According to Chuck NY State has 200,000 unemployed sort of implying if Bush's economy is as good as he say's it is why are there 200,000 unemployed in NY and insinuating it's Bush's fault. Boulderdash, is all I say. First off try blaming companies that have gone belly up due to one reason or another. Secondly taxes, buisness or otherwise, are so high here in NY that most companies would rather pack up and go over to New Jersey than to try and run a large or medium size buisness here in NY State. This Ny state unemployment issue is more a State policy failure than it is a Bush policy failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Yeah, there was nothing new that we haven't seen from either party. More or less just the standard fare. What I am laughing at is NY Democratic Senator Chuck Schummer's response to Bush's economy statement. According to Chuck NY State has 200,000 unemployed sort of implying if Bush's economy is as good as he say's it is why are there 200,000 unemployed in NY and insinuating it's Bush's fault. Boulderdash, is all I say. First off try blaming companies that have gone belly up due to one reason or another. Secondly taxes, buisness or otherwise, are so high here in NY that most companies would rather pack up and go over to New Jersey than to try and run a large or medium size buisness here in NY State. This Ny state unemployment issue is more a State policy failure than it is a Bush policy failure.

You got it exactly right LIS!!

New York wants it's cake and eat it too.

But then again, so does California, Oregon, and a number of other states.

They tax and regulate business's to a point of lunacy, in order to fund their Utopian socialist dream states, and then expect those business's to stick around and take it, when they can shut down and either retire, or move across the border and stay in business profitably.

Then the states ***** and complain that those business's wouldn't stick around, oh and of course they blame the federal government and the opposition for the problems that they themselves created.

I find it hilarious actually, the problem is that the taxes and regulations are spreading like wildfire, pretty soon ANY business in ANY state will not be able to stay in business profitably anywhere in the US, then they run to China, Mexico, etc.

Again, the problem with that is that those countries will soon tax and regulate them to death, and then what happens.

ATLAS SHRUGS baby, and the whole house of cards come tumbling down.

I love economics and history, too bad politicians are clueless about it. LOL

And I am an optimist!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

What I find so amusing is that during the state of the Union, the ruling party always blows it's own horn, ALWAYS.

Well Duh. That's a given.

What I find hilarious is the social programs Bush wants to start. Sounds like a DEMOCRAT to me.

Of course Bush wants to get us back into space in a big way. China is getting there and we have to assure we are there in a bigger way militarily.

Of course Bush wants to start a program to train workers in health services or bio technology. That's where the "new jobs" are. Hmmmmmmm wait a friggin minute. The US is sueing the UK over genetically modified foods. Oh let's see, we can feed our cows their own brains and cause mad cow disease. We can create genetically modified crops that are resistant to herbicides. Yet Bush and Company are against Stem Cell Research. So we can do all we want to genetically modify something so long as it for sale but we can't do what we want to cure diseases. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Will be interesting to watch the rest of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just once I would like to see SOMEONE display some leadership imstead of kowtowing to thier own special interests and insuring thier reelection.

I watched that speech HOPING to be stirred, wishing I've been wrong about Bush and all I got is more of the same. No ability to build coalitions, no sense that he and his ilk are even interested in mending the tremendous politcal, social and economic rifts that divides us.

As a liberal I am not enamored by much of what the Democrats have to say either. The only one with the balls to speak of his convictions is too much of a space cadet to pose a threat to Bush and the others (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman) are all Bush lite ie. centrists who offer little different than appearance and temparment. Only Clark and Edwards even spark a bit of interest. Has our country come to the point that the best we can do in the way of Presidential timber is Bush and these jokers? If it is we are truly f**ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Just once I would like to see SOMEONE display some leadership imstead of kowtowing to thier own special interests and insuring thier reelection.

I watched that speech HOPING to be stirred, wishing I've been wrong about Bush and all I got is more of the same. No ability to build coalitions, no sense that he and his ilk are even interested in mending the tremendous politcal, social and economic rifts that divides us.

As a liberal I am not enamored by much of what the Democrats have to say either. The only one with the balls to speak of his convictions is too much of a space cadet to pose a threat to Bush and the others (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman) are all Bush lite ie. centrists who offer little different than appearance and temparment. Only Clark and Edwards even spark a bit of interest. Has our country come to the point that the best we can do in the way of Presidential timber is Bush and these jokers? If it is we are truly f**ked.

As a conservative, we have opposite views on most if not all of the issues, but that last note we both agree on.

Nice to actually agree on something political with you Race, too bad it's that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

Oh let's see, we can feed our cows their own brains and cause mad cow disease. We can create genetically modified crops that are resistant to herbicides. Yet Bush and Company are against Stem Cell Research.

Though I don't trust "official" statements, it's very likely the cattle with mad cow disease (BSE) did, indeed, come from Canada. How they got to Canada, I don't know. Supposedly, feed containing brain and spinal tissue is banned in the States. (Nonetheless, it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to ban Canadian cattle and, at the same time, complain about U.S. beef being banned elsewhere.)

Genetically engineered food has been the stuff of science fiction since Verne wrote about Captain Nemo. The idea has always been to find ways of creating enough food to save the world. If the science is flawed, so be it. But it's a dream that's hard to abandon.

As for stem cell research, the issue isn't with the science ... it's with the moral implications of using embryonic (ES and EG) cells. Mankind being what it is, the administration wonders how long it will take before "situation ethics" demands the use of all aborted fetal tissue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Supposedly
, feed containing brain and spinal tissue is banned in the States.

The one reference I looked at said 1997 but a loophole still allows blood.

quote:

(Nonetheless, it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to ban Canadian cattle and, at the same time, complain about U.S. beef being banned elsewhere.)

I think that is already happening somewhat. Maybe not with Canada but some other countries have banned our beef and sent cattle ranchers into a tizzy.

quote:

Genetically engineered food has been the stuff of science fiction since Verne wrote about Captain Nemo.

If you want to be anal about it (and I'm not saying you are ) technically we have been "genetically modifying" food and animals for centuries. But that's with selective breeding and more natural.

The story I read was in the oddly enough section of the yahoo news. It was aobut a company suing a farmer for having to much roundup┬® ready wheat on his farm. He claimed it crossbred naturally but they claimed he had to much for that to happen. As I was reading I went "wait a minute. Roundup ready wheat?" This roundup ready wheat allows them to spray the entire field to kill weeds. So now what? Are we eating herbicides?

I certainly wouldn't want to experiment on fetuses. Embryos I'm kinda iffy on but would give that up. I have no problem whatsoever harvesting stem cells from the umbilical cord. I just find it slightly hypocritical to genetically modify by splicing, dicing, and julienne fry the genes of stuff that we ingest while being against taking naturally occuring stem cells and coaxing them into a useful organ. I don't think they are there yet but it's interesting.

Imagine if a couple harvested the stem cells of their child and they were able to save them by freezing. Now that child is in his 50's and needs a new heart. They thaw his stem cells and coax them into a new heart to replace the diseased one. Yes it's science fiction but it would be wonderful if it could happen. And it won't happen without research.

We've gone off topic but I won't tell if you don't. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully I didn't sound shrill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has to be considered with this State Of The Union address is that we've already been subjected to at least a dozen Democrat debates with no less than nine candidates running. Throughout all of that, including calling Bush a gang-leader and worse than Hitler, Bush stayed silent. The State Of The Union address was his rebuttal. Because this is an election year, he reiterated his record against what all the Democrat candidates said they would have done, or would do in the future.

Furthermore, it was interesting to see the media, such as Judy Woodruff, complain that Bush timed the State of the Union address to steal the thunder from the Democrats in Iowa! Give Me A Break!! The SOTU has been at this time (give or take a few days) forEVER! They're just mad that, as President, he has the bully pulpit available to him. If he put it off a week, they'd complain that he stole the thunder from New Hampshire. Actually, I bet the media wants Bush to treat the SOTU the way that Washington and Jefferson did, in writing. They want Bush contained like Hussein. They don't want him to use the trappings of office against them and the Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please Steve lets end this myth of the "liberal Media" crap it is a lie and its getting old. I think I have a better idea of what liberalism than you do and I cant find any on mainstream media. There is no major media outlet that is as openly Leftist as Fox is vociferously right wing.

Turned on a radio lately? If so you'll notice the complete lack of anything remotely centrist let alone liberal. This administration has had a free pass with the media despite some huge gaffs.

I gues if you dont agree the emperor has lovely new clothes you are a liberal. No Steve that's just calling a spade a spade. I WISH some of these so called liberal mdeia outlets would come out swinging, but every since Reagan, it has become increasingly rare that they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Media Research Center:

quote:

CNNÔÇÖs Woodruff Frets About Bush Speech Overshadowing Democrats

CNNÔÇÖs Judy Woodruff on Monday afternoon expressed exasperation that President Bush scheduled his State of the Union address for the day after the Iowa Caucuses in order to distract news coverage away from the Democratic presidential candidates. She complained to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: ÔÇ£The rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØ Not satisfied with FristÔÇÖs answer, she followed up three times.

Woodruff pressed her agenda, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd noticed, during a January 19 Inside Politics segment with Frist who was in Iowa as part of a surrogate speaking effort to back Bush.

Frist told Woodruff, who was also in Iowa: ÔÇ£I'm here today to say that the nightmare is going to be over shortly, to my Republican base. Right now, President Bush with his vision, with his commander-in-chief aura, has been at a real disadvantage here because of all the Democratic activity. So today, I'm meeting with Republicans all over the state, to energize that base, to begin that organization for the next ten months. And that's the sole purpose that we're here today.ÔÇØ

Woodruff countered: ÔÇ£But, the rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØ

Frist replied: ÔÇ£You know, they do. But imagine right now of having to watch for the last several months, if you are a Republican, with those conservative principles, who admire President Bush, what you've had to suffer every day on the air. And that is, a Democrat saying that the President is not leading, or he's using the wrong principles to lead....ÔÇØ

After quizzing Frist about the challenge of not knowing who BushÔÇÖs opponent will be, Woodruff returned to the timing of BushÔÇÖs address: ÔÇ£A Republican close to the White House quoted in the New York Times this morning is saying the State of the Union was timed to come after the night of the Iowa caucuses to take attention off of the Democrats. I mean, you are the one who's involved in setting the time of the President's State of the Union. What about that? Why do that?ÔÇØ

Frist answered: ÔÇ£Well, I think it makes for sort of good talk and good conversation. The President's speech really isn't a political speech. It's political in the sense that he is commander-in-chief.ÔÇØ

Undeterred, Woodruff demanded: ÔÇ£But I'm talking about the timing of it?ÔÇØ

Frist: ÔÇ£No, I know. But the timing really doesn't matter. We always do it sometime between a couple of days ago and say five or six days from now. The specific timing, if it were a political speech, I think would make sense. You can say that's the strategy itself. But this is not a political speech. It's a policy speech. In fact, I think the President will go to great effort not to throw politics into this speech at all.ÔÇØ

Woodruff came at him once more: ÔÇ£But again, it's a sign the Republicans worried the Democrats getting too much air time, is that what we're talking about here?ÔÇØ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Please Steve lets end this myth of the "liberal Media" crap it is a lie and its getting old. I think I have a better idea of what liberalism than you do and I cant find any on mainstream media. There is no major media outlet that is as openly Leftist as Fox is vociferously right wing.

Turned on a radio lately? If so you'll notice the complete lack of anything remotely centrist let alone liberal. This administration has had a free pass with the media despite some huge gaffs.

I gues if you dont agree the emperor has lovely new clothes you are a liberal. No Steve that's just calling a spade a spade. I WISH some of these so called liberal mdeia outlets would come out swinging, but every since Reagan, it has become increasingly rare that they do.

Please Race, can we get real here?

The media isn't biased? Come on......

I read the Newspapers and it just gets worse and worse, watch TV news, Oh PUHLEASE, not liberal? CNN, as bad if not worse then NPR.

There is so much left leaning bias in the media that it is insane, why do you think FOX news is now the #1 news cable channel out there?

Fox isn't as conservative as I wish it were, I would call it right of center, if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the column:

quote:

"...Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØ

You don't find it odd that a premier journalist is advocating that one political party be given unopposed news coverage during a key national event? When did we hear Woodruff ask a Democrat "...but doesn't President Bush deserve a few days in the sunshine for capturing Saddam Hussein?"

Did you hear all the fuss about the Democrats planning to give their own State of the Union address prior to President Bush's? Why didn't anyone ask the Democrats if the timing was intended to steal Bush's "sunshine? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last point: the reason the liberal media bias is hard to see is that it is a bias of ommision, not commission. It is not in what they report, it is in what they choose not to report.

It is interesting that they completely spiked the leaked Senate Democrat memo stories (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees) while playing up the Wilson/Plame CIA memo stories, then, when the critical mass of the Senate memos became too big to spike, the chose to focus on how the memos got leaked, not on the contents of the memos.

That is how the media bias works, but you have to watch all the stories (from various media) in order to know which ones the elite media aren't telling you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...