Out of a 53 minute speech, a full 26 minutes of it was dedicated to issues *out* of our Union. Then the last half had all of his ideas/incentives/etc stuffed into it.

!! - Renew the Patriot Act
$$ - Double the budget of the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy
$$ - New 'Jobs for the 21st Century' program
--- for middle and high school students
--- larger Pell grants for high achievers who take demanding classes
--- more $$ for community colleges
:okthumb: - Renew these tax cuts (they are expiring soon or fading out) and make them permanent:
--- keep reducing marriage penalty tax
--- renew $1k/child child tax credit
--- renew small business tax cuts
--- death tax cuts
:okthumb: - Cut federal regulations for small businesses
?? - Modernize electricity system and reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase conservation
:okthumb: - Boost personal retirement accounts
?? - Says his new budget will cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years
!! - Enact the Temporary Worker Program for illegal aliens (yet says he's against amnesty)
:okthumb: - Create Association Health Plans (group health care for small businesses and co-ops)
:okthumb: - Refundable tax credit for health costs
!! - Computerize all health records
:okthumb: - Make Health Savings Accounts where premiums are 100% tax-free
$$ - New funding to fight drugs
$$ - $23 million for schools to do drug testing
?? - Told sports teams, coaches and players to get rid of steroids
$$ - Double the funding for abstinence programs to fight STDs
?? - Enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) to "defend the sanctity of marriage"
$$ - Codify into law an Executive Order Bush signed giving "Billions of $$" to encourage competition for churches and faith-based organizations (??)
$$ - $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative
--- gives prisoners getting out free job training, free job placement, free housing, and free mentoring

All in all I'm very disappointed. The call for renewing the tax cuts are good, that's about it. Spending the entire first half of the state of the union address talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Libya just pissed me off. Sure, rah rah cheer cheer - but this is the State of the Union address... not a speech from the deck of a carrier called the State of the War address.

So Bush is promising to cut by half his deficit spending?

Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.

I kept hearing "child" and "children" so much I was tempted to grab my wallet and my copy of the Constitution and Dec. of Independence and lock myself in the bathroom.

All of these "freebies" for prisoners pisses me off. They're supposed to be the ones paying their debt to society, yet society is going into debt giving these criminals things that law-abiding citizens have to pay for. And there are no "freebies", someone has to pay for it - that "someone" is us.
The law-abiding citizens that the prisoners committed crimes against.

The "double the funding" talk amused me. Double the funding of the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy... double the funding for abstinence programs... what exactly are the payouts for these programs now so we can figure out what "double" means? What exactly do these programs do? Is there any proof that the abstinence program in existence already is working whatsoever?

The 'Jobs for the 21st Century' literally made me laugh out loud. We're going to give high-tech job training to MIDDLE school students? Why? They can't work. And to high school students? How about teaching them how to READ and WRITE first? The results of the Virginia SOLs (standards of learning tests) just came out here and it's fucking appalling. Up to 3rd grade, kids are doing good with language arts (basic reading and writing). Past that, forget it. By the time they get in high school, you're lucky if a whopping 10% of the students taking the test score a passing grade in language arts. Most of them were 3-5%.
And then we're going to take these failures who can't even read and we're going to give them MORE "free" money to attend college... and we're going to give the colleges MORE "free" money to take them and teach them. Wonderful. They'll waste the entire first year on remedial english and math that they should've learned in lower school.
Of course, "free" is false - we're paying for it.

And it just keeps going. Ugh.

Just my humble opinion, but I think as soon as we act upon saying "I don't think anyone that calls for support of x has any place in government" then we won't have anyone in government. How many politicians discriminate against the upper class (or the poor)? Much larger categories of people than "gay".

This whole democracy thing is great. In my own life, I support the majority in those cases where it is advantageous to me and the minority in those cases where it is advantageous to me. If you're going to go minority, go with a powerful minority. No sense backing the downtrodden. The meek shall never inherit the earth. The geeks are doing pretty well though.

I would worry much more about those who discriminate against 90% or so of the population than 10%. Then again, I'm not gay. And there, right on time, is the nutshell.

you are saying that sexuality should play a role in government and religion should not?

if gays are 10% of the vote, what % do Christians, Jews and others represent? why is their voice less important than yours?

you are saying that sexuality should play a role in government and religion should not?

if gays are 10% of the vote, what % do Christians, Jews and others represent? why is their voice less important than yours?[/b][/quote]
Gays, straights, should make no difference when it comes to rights, that's all.

If a gay or lesbian wants their lover to be able to live in the US who is an immigrant then they should have the same right as a heterosexual couple does.

I don't have a god and I'm bisexual. Should I have any less rights then someone who is superstitious and/or only chooses the opposite sex for companionship?

:okthumb:

That was the single most pathetic sermon about the, er, state of the union address I have ever heard, bar none, and I've been watching/listening to them since (as a kid) at least JFK's last one. I fully expected to be pissed off, and there were moments - but WHAT IN THE FUCK WAS HE TALKING ABOUT? Clinton's pathetic pandering to the focus group du jour (no, I was not a big fan of WJC) seem almost elequoently statesman-like by comparisson.

Daniel Schorr on NPR listened to all the talk of money for drug testing school students and abstinence programs for school students and handing over money to the church ladies to save the prisoners, and compared it to "LBJ meets Pat Robertson."

And Cleo ... he's going to be nice when he fucks you, at least - can't you give him credit for that? After all, isn't "even sinful faggots who will burn in hell have dignity" supposed to be an improvement? After last week's judicial appointment, look for pardons for the killers of Matthew Shepard on the eve of Stonehill.

I'll bet you liked that judicial appointment, didn'tcha, Colin?

an irony about democracy is that it lets that minority which may be "descriminated" against know how little the majority cares about their problems.



Last edited by JR at Jan 21 2004, 06:09 AM

He is in danger of losing his job and will promise anything to everyone to keep it.

Does anyone believe him is the question.

Unfortunately yes.

yeah... with 60% approval ratings and Dean the Hysterical Clown to compete with.. i doubt he is worried :)

Depends on my mood and to what degree currently I care about anyone besides myself.

yeah... with 60% approval ratings and Dean the Hysterical Clown to compete with.. i doubt he is worried :)[/b][/quote]
I hope he's not worried.

And I REALLY hope he keeps giving speeches like that one.

The Democrats could take any quote from the speech last night and bash it all they want, all the Republicans have to do is smile and play Dean's "HLAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!" outburst.
It'll sound like sanity versus insanity every time.

I'll be amazed if the Repubs don't make that HLAHH clip into part of a commercial. "Do you want THIS man running your country?"

Bush will be lucky if he gets to face Dean, but I think Dean just ensured that won't happen.

Difference is, Dean is one candidate. Granted, he is the one giving Republicans wet dreams, but there's a lot of ground to cover before you hand him the nomination.

Rev. Bush is THE candidate. And it wouldn't take a terribly creative ad flunky to make an effective spot pointing out, for example, the 2,000,000 jobs lost in the last 4 years while the president worries about professional athletes taking steroids.

PD, in the past I think you favored Gephart...

who do you like now to get the Dem nomination?

I couldn't believe that whole thing about sports teams and steroids. He's supposed to be addressing Congress, not the Red Sox.
Unless he's somehow inferring that the fed. gov't should take an active role in sticking its hands into sports teams' affairs, that never should've been mentioned.

Who do I like?

Uh ... well ... gee ...

Harry Truman? Oh, wait ... he's kinda dead. Granted, even dead IMHO he would be more focused than the incumbent, but there are probably Constitutional issues involved.

Kerry or Edwards would be my preference, I suppose; maybe Clark, but as an ex-enlisted man I have a general distrust for officers in general, and flag officers in particular.

Dean would provide too many opportunities to the brain-dead sort of folks who would use liberal as a pejorative. Of course, anyone who is not a Republican will be targets for those kinda folks.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jan 21 2004, 10:47 AM

Doesn't appeal to you nearly as much as the whole rant about activist judges, does it?

I'm sure there's an audience for it out there someplace; that's what you put in campaign speeches, which is what last night was.

The activist judges, IMO, should be dethroned. Yes, I said dethroned and not derobed... they're acting like Kings, simply writing laws that they see fit with no legislative process and with no bearing on what the voters want.
Doesn't matter to me if they're writing laws about gay marriages or peas in chicken pot pie... they're not there to make laws. They're there to interpret and help enforce those laws.

uh... gee. it was just a simple question. ;-))) save the ramblings for Torone.

i don't have a dog in this hunt. ;-))

:okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb:

In other words, you disagree with the way they interpreted the law. Fine. He found one of your hot buttons. That was his purpose. Your response proves that when Pavlov-Bush rings the bell, the bobble-heads will salivate.

In your own words, their job is to interpret. They did, and you don't like the interpretation. Too-bad-so-sad.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jan 21 2004, 11:01 AM

Short answer is Kerry or Edwards. I'm positively UNDERwhelmed by the whole field.

:okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb:

If I felt that they interpreted the law, I'd have no problem with it.
But I don't think that they interpreted it. I think they simply decreed. <_<

Short answer is Kerry or Edwards. I'm positively UNDERwhelmed by the whole field.[/b][/quote]
I concur... I am positively UNDERwhelmed by all politicians. ;-))

I seriously do not know why ppl take it all so seriously... especially some of the single-topics that drive ppl to be so vocal.

like gay marriage for instance! :groucho:

As I see it they said that everyone should have equal rights. Why is it that so many seem to have a problem with this?

We take it seriously because these are the people who determine what laws we and our children will be living under. How many taxes will be taken out of every dollar we make. Whether or not we'll be "allowed" to do what we want to do.

Why *wouldn't* you take it seriously?

Cleo, i do not have a problem with equal rights. It is at the core of my beliefs.

Because I can have more of an impact in my life than they can.

Because by definition a marriage is a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
The laws they were interpreting weren't discussing common-law unions, they were discussing marriage.
There's no religion involved there, no morality involved there. Just a simple textbook definition that the judges completely ignored.

I think the gays who want to be married are going down the wrong road. All they have to do is take the word "marriage" out of it and they'd pull all the wind out of the sails of their opposition.
Yes, it's just semantics, but it's effective. Marriage has long, deep roots as an established institution of a union between a man and a woman. So quit trying to break into that. Don't play by their rules... make up a new game.

That is not their objective. In fact, it is just the opposite.

It is not really about equality, it is about making a statement. It is about opposing what they dislike.

HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.

Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.

Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.[/b][/quote]
HAHA Bush tossed out some red meat!!

Us dogs liked it....

Woof woof!

:D

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.

What's all this about equal rights?

What about equal lefts?


NIXON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004

He's Tanned, Rested and Dead - perfect for the job

Really? So a 4 year old should be able to drive? Outstanding!

Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense

HAHA Bush tossed out some red meat!!

Us dogs liked it....

Woof woof!

:D[/b][/quote]
Uhhhh ... red meat or red herring?

I'm sure you did love it, Mike. Long on rhetoric, short on substance, not too many big words, pressing all the hot buttons ... ideal stump speech full of patriotism by rote designed to appeal to a great many people who call themselves conservatives.

I really do want him to make a lot more like that.

I have to admit though, Mike - you did make me smile.

Kinda like Tiny Tim's greatest hits.

Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense[/b][/quote]
Why, Mine, of course.

Why, Mine, of course.[/b][/quote]
The God. The creator of the Universe.

The God who tells me that anyone to the left of McCarthy should be shot.

A+

The God. The creator of the Universe.

The God who tells me that anyone to the left of McCarthy should be shot.[/b][/quote]
Buffama bin Laden?

Buffama bin Laden?[/b][/quote]
:)

Anyway, back to a more serious note:

PD, are you honestly saying that all those judges are merely interpreting the constitution? By your definition, is there any possible ruling a judge could make which could not be defined under your semantics as interpretation but rather could be defined as "legislating from the bench?"



Last edited by Buff at Jan 21 2004, 11:39 AM

I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.

Uhhhh ... red meat or red herring?

I'm sure you did love it, Mike. Long on rhetoric, short on substance, not too many big words, pressing all the hot buttons ... ideal stump speech full of patriotism by rote designed to appeal to a great many people who call themselves conservatives.

I really do want him to make a lot more like that.

I have to admit though, Mike - you did make me smile.

Kinda like Tiny Tim's greatest hits.[/b][/quote]


Of course it was long on rhetoric and short on detials PD it was a State of the Union address. It is a big pep rally - nothing more, nothing less.

I think you might have missed a spot.... I can tell you were getting a little frothy around your mouth! hahaha