Sotu '06
 

Any comments on Bush's The State of the Union address?

Anyone watch it?

I did not have the chance due to a prior commitment. I am planning on reading the transcript later this morning should I find enough time to do so.

It's hard to get a feel of the address by reading the transcript. You should try and watch a video of it. You get the full sense of it when you hear the applause and see who is and who isn't applauding. Also there are many shots of the crowd as well. You can even see a German Shepard in the audience if you look closely.
:)
(That's honest and for true.)

I saw Hiilary in the gallery during post speech news coverage (ba-dum bum).:)

Watch it???? I won the office pool. We each chose how long we thought it would be into the speech before 9/11 came up. I had 2 minutes!!!

Yay me!

Hillary's German? ;)

Congrats!

I was floored when he used good 'ol "weapons of mass destruction" bit.
Oy.
:rolleyes:

Sorry, you lost me. Why would you be surprised?

Well, I thought, even he couldn't be that obtuse. I was wrong.
:D

Several thoughts on Bush's address:

1. Even though I can not stand our president, I think it's important to watch this address. I do it to see what his agenda is and see where the partisan lines are drawn (by watching the applause etc.).

2. S McS already brought up my first zing on Bush: his mentioning 9/11. Enough already.

3. There was a really great moment when Bush said something like 'Congress did not vote for my Social Security bill-' and was cut off when the Democrats all applauded. They were applauding basically themselves for not voting for it. I thought that was funny. After that point, Bush seemed a little peeved.

4. Bush seemed to be very conscious of trying to get back the black vote after Katrina. He mentioned Coretta Scott King at the beginning and then we got to see the first lady sitting next to an African American and then watch Bush shake hands with Barak Obama. It seemed contrived to me. Bleh.

5. When Bush paid tribute to the family members of a soldier killed in combat, my eyebrow was raised. It was supposed to be a really tender moment, but I couldn't help but feel it was weird. I dunno, call me cynical, but the mother and daughter covering their heart with their hands at the same time made me think it was staged for our eyes. I also kept thinking about the families of the other 2500 soliders dead for no reason...

All in all, pretty much what I expected. More blah blah blah...

A lot of no wins situations for Bush critic. If he doesn't acknowledge the death of Coretta Scott King, then the rhetoric is that he doesn't care. He does, so it's contrived.

Mentioning 9/11 doesn't bother me a bit. Part of his focus domestically and internationally, and a lot of his rhetoric with dems, is (claiming) that dems want to live in a pre 9/11 world.

I could go into what i liked about the speech, but instead I will talk about the two things I really didn't like.

First, he doesn't get the border issue. He doesn't get the illegal immigrant issue (in fact, at one point in the speech, he said that there are some who thinks immigration is harmful to the economy. I don't know many who say that, but I know a whole bunch who say illegal immgration is.). He doesn't get border security. I wish he did, but he doesn't.

Secondly, while I do appreciate the comments on being addicted to foreign oil, I think he missed an opportunity (I am pretty sure I am the only one here that wants this to happen). Alternative fuels and evergy sources are important. But right now they don't cut it. We need oil. With unrest in Iran, we have to get back to offshore drilling, ANWR, and develop a cost efficient way to extract the LIMITLESS supply of shale oil in the Rocky Mountain region. He missed that as well.

So - those were the things I didn't like.

Yeah. I watched it. Twice. I'm at work now, so I don't have time to really get into my thoughts, except to say that I've never been a huge fan of GWB (actually, I love the George Washington Bridge - I don't like George Bush) and the SOTU didn't help. I disagree with so many parts of his agenda that I just sat there and waited for the code words that make his supporters happy. And then I cried.

Here's one funny part:
Gay marriage, hurricanes, polio...

I can't stand to watch because of all the gratuitous clapping. I'll check out the transcript today.

Oh and scaeagles, drill in ANWR? Stupid idea. I would vote against someone based on this one decision alone.

I don't understand why. There is a wide disparity of opinion as to how much oil is there. Some artificially low, some artificially high.

When the Alaskan oil pipeline was built, there were environmental outcries about risks, damage, etc. None of that has developed. In fact, the warmth generated by the pipeline has led to dramatic increases in caribou populations.

600 acres of development in a 2 million acre preserve. Not unreasonable.

Ack? Did our President just equate supporting people's right to express their love to bilking Indians out of billions of dollars in an effort to undermine our political structure?

Yikes.

Personally, I'm discourage by activist courts that feel the need to define marriage at all.

I have never understood why marriage is an issue of the state at all.....OK, I do. Taxes. The marriage tax penalty. I believe we would all be better of if the government was out of the marriage business all together and implented a tax structure in line with that.

The President of the United States of America, September 12 1962:
The President of the United States of America, January 31, 1962:
What a friggin visionary.

Eh, the moon landing was fake anyway.

Eh....historical perspective. In 1962, Sputnik and the cold war and the space race WERE the issues of the day related to international relations.

Today, unrest in the middle east and the flow of oil and a huge risk in Iran and Venezuela (as far as losing oil flow) are major international issues.

I would also say that Kennedy had no real domestic opposition in that goal. Getting off of foreign oil by developing our own sources of alternative energy or producing more of our own has many, many domestic opponents (or 100 senators with vastly differing ideas and opinions).

I forgot to mention my favorite quote of the night:

What the...? What's he talking about? Five-assed monkeys from 'South Park'?

I know it's good science, but I'll bet this old photo gives Georgie nightmares:

I can't believe I missed such an obvious straight line:

Why does Bush hate Mickey, Goofy, Minnie and a lab mouse with really good hearing?
:D

I would tend to believe the 506 scientists who signed a letter to the president opposing the drilling. It's not about the amount of land, it's about which land is being drilled. Animals are disturbed by the presence of the pipeline and drilling equipment. Female caribou stay away from the current pipeline, particularly when they are calving. Disruptions in the size and movement of herds could lead to reductions in populations. The Porcupine caribou population has been declining since 1989.

Some species of birds do not nest near structures like oil wells. If these are placed near to traditional nesting grounds, populations will suffer. It doesn't matter that it's only a small percentage of the total area.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/an...on-update.html

The thought of patenting human embryos gave me a chuckle. That's how many years of prior art?

(Yes, I know there's probably lots of wonderful science behind this that would make it completely rational, but let me have my momentary chuckle, okay?)

And Anwar drilling all for enough oil to power Los Angeles for three weeks! Wow!

Did anyone miss the incremental health care bandaid proposals that will make patient worse? Health savings accounts with tax deductions that only make sense for a wealthy taxpayer and deductables ($5K for individuals, $10K for a family of 4) that only wealthy taxpayers can afford ... resulting in separate insurance pools for rich and poor, with premiums skyrocketing for all us poor shmoes stuck in the poor pool.


But enough of the healthcare crisis. Did I miss anything about the energy crisis other than the 20 year timetable for complete inaction by an administration that's a virtual arm of the oil industry? Did I miss anything about the entitlement crisis other than chiding the Congress for not swallowing whole the bogus private account system that was laughed off by 100% of everyone?

Did I miss anything about the environmental crisis or the poverty crisis or the liberty crisis? I didn't watch the whole speech. I sure caught the important parts about animal-human Dr. Moreau hybrids and gay marriage by judicial fiat. But did Bush actually take time in his S.o.t.U. to claim that warrantless searches were ok for friends of terrorists because he couldn't be bothered to make the phone call that would get him unquestioned warrants?

(I can't believe that most people seem to be buying Bush's line that the warrantless eavesdropping is necessary, when warrantful eavesdropping would have the same results. If the American people are this dumb, they have just the government they deserve. Ladies and Gentlemen, the state of the union is Hopeless.)

Everyone has their issues, I suppose.

Environmental crisis? Are we talking about global warming? Even Kyoto is only supposed to have extremely minimal effects on warming. Climate change happens. Always has. I don't think man caused the ice age or the thaw thereafter. Polution? Problems with the air over big cities, certainly, but I wouldn't call it a crisis. In China, yeah polution is a crisis.

Poverty crisis? I'm sorry, but most in America have no clue as to what true poverty is, and very few suffer from true poverty.

Liberty crisis? Again, I see it differently. I find it funny that Harry Belafonte goes to Venezuela to call Bush a terrorist and compare him to Nazis, when the same language in Venezuela about Chevez would cause him to be thrown into prison.

Perhaps I am just one of the mindless sheep who sees no liberty crisis. I don't see it. But I guess we all have blind spots. I guess I'm missing the whole thing with privatization of social security. I think I could do better than the approximately 2% I can expect on my social security. So...I'm not one of the almost 100% that laughed it off. I like the idea. But I probably just don't get it. I see differing reports on the amount of oil in ANWR, so I probably just don't get that either.

I guess I'll just be included with the dumb Americans and will get what I deserve.

Guess so. It's funny how most of the people who aren't living below the poverty line in this country don't see the poverty crisis, and those unaffected by the draconian laws such as the Patriot Act don't see the liberty crisis. I notice you didn't insist there was no health care crisis, since you are experiencing such fun with your insurance company. Funny how we only see what's right in front of our eyes, but it's a disservice to the rest of the world to deny the existence of that which we cannot see directly.

As long as there are dictatorships in the world, it's okay to chip away at the civil liberties of US citizens?

Would you mind explaining, scaeagles, why you believe warrantless wiretapping is more effective than the 72 hours that FISA allows for obtaining retroactive wiretap warrants?

I ask because I've yet to hear any justification from the Bush administration. Oh, I've heard the usual spin, obfuscation and macho posturing coming from those cats, but not any, ya know, facts that support their position.

Go to Africa or central America or Haiti or....well, you get the idea....and then tell me about poverty. Most Americans below the poverty line have microwaves, shelter, a TV, access to transportation, etc.

I'm not saying I would wish to live below the "poverty line". I'm just saying Americans, for the most part, have no idea what true poverty is. True poverty exists all over. Just not a lot of it in America.

Interestingly, I do not think there is a health care crisis. I didn't address everything in your post. I've noticed not one doctor has recommended that I should go to Cuba for surgery. I notice that people from all over the world come to Mayo here just 15 miles from my home for treatment of the same disease I have. I am beyond thankful that I don't live in Canada. Medical tests such as I have had numerous times can take months to get there (one of the GI docs I've seen used to practice in Canada).

Now, granted, I have health insurance. I am dotting my I's and crossing my T's, as they have rules. They are a for profit business. They haven't made much money on my family, I'll tell you. It is not easy to pay for health insurance, and there are sacrifices involved, but I am thankful that I am able to do so and have it. However, I do not believe that should I not have health insurance that I would expect this to be any one elses problem.

I also have a pseudo MSA through my wife's employment. Slightly differing rules. We can basically pay for medical costs with pretax dollars. We commit to putting so much in this fund annually, automatically deducted from each paycheck, and then submit claims to get the money reimbursed. We forfeit any money in the account not used during that fiscal year. Great idea. I don't know the restrictions on it, but everyone should have one.

Honestly, I have no answer, I really don't know. I do have a thought.

Echelon is a system that basically monitors (or monitored - I really don't know if it is still in use) massive amounts of communications, recording conversations, and looking for keywords and/or phrases, and flagging those that the software decided needed human analysis. It could take days or weeks for those flagged calls to come under analysis

Again, I don't know the specfic rules of retroactive wiretapping. If it takes days for those flagged intercepts to be analyzed, it is certainly possible that it is outside the allowed 72 hours from when the message was recorded.

I recall during the 04 debates when Kerry was critical of Bush for around 100,000 hours of unanalyzed electronic communications. Were all those hours that had yet to be anaylzed approved with wiretaps? I sincerely doubt it.

Again, a theory. I have no solid answer for you Sac.

Again, "It's worse elsewhere" means it's okay to ignore problems at home?

God the arrogance of the Bush administration is just unbelievable. Freedom of speech and expression? Nope. A little common courtesy? Nope. Knee-jerk reactions and bullshoot platitudes afterwords? Oh yeah.

So the "official" explanation is: Yes, we of the capitol police force are a bunch of trigger happy yahoo's who just enforce the law, although we don't have a clue what the law is.

Sad as that is, I guess it does at least feel better than the truth of the Bush administrations actions: If you don't think like us, you are treasonous and deserve no rights or respect.

To be fair, they did the same thing to the wife of a Republican congressman who was wearing "Support the Troops" shirt.

They have to apply for the warrants within 72 hours of already having started the surveillance. The Administration does not have to delay for so much as 10 seconds a surveillance upon some American citizen receiving a celly from Mr. Ali al Queda overseas. As long as they start the process of seeking the rubber stamp warrant within 3 days, they can tap the phone without so much as a by-your-leave. All good and legal.

Forget that they've provided no facts for their treacherous course of action in defying FISA, but I can see no freaking purpose in it other than the acquisition of dictatorial power for its own sake.

* * * * *
On the poverty front ...
Ah, if I could only say in a paragraph what GD can say in one line.

Without stooping to the canard that poverty in Detroit is so much better than poverty in Haiti ... tell me, scaeageles, would you like to live below the poverty line in the U.S.? C'mon, you'd have your microwave oven. Would the brand of posh poverty we have here in America be alright for you and your family?

Or how would you like to be YOU right now, and also be one of the 45 million Americans without health insurance? Would that be ok, as long as you didn't live in Canada?


How many people have to be below the poverty line in this country for it to be a crisis? How many must be without health insurance for it to be a crisis? When do budget deficits reach crisis levels, and just how eroded must civil liberties become to meet your definition of crisis?


Or is it even a matter of how much or how many? Is it rather just a matter of who?

Um, to be perfectly fair ... she was removed from the chamber, but not arrested.

Cindy Sheehan was arrested for her T-Shirt.

Yank, grab, force, cuff, arrest, detain = Would you please step out? :confused: :confused:

I say it's just more proof they knew exactly what they were doing.



<< Edited to add: Damn, looks like ISM is not only better looking, but he types faster than me also... >>

Get this piece of news I saw this morning:

Source

So, he said it, but didn't mean it. Did daddy's friends in Saudi Arabia give him a call after his speech? Is this how he deals with an 'addiction'?

:rolleyes:

Well, that's a nice implication, isn't it? Last I checked there aren't a whole lot of white people in Africa or Haiti living in poverty that I described as true poverty. So, no, ISM, it isn't who. I would accuse you of not caring about non-Americans, but that would be ridiculous.

I think I also said that I wouldn't want to live below the poverty line here in the US.

I also don't think I said any problem ion the US should be ignored. I just find it amazing that some Americans think poverty is bad here when the concept of true poverty is so unknown here.

My perspective is certainly limited in some areas. No doubt.

If you think I'm stupid for thinking we have a liberty crisis, well, OK then. I don't see it.

Health care - or rather insurance issues - could be better. Always could be. But I see no crisis. I see increasing life expectancies every time such statistics are taken. I don't see widespread disease.

Well, that is disturbing. I realize I share differing opinions on how to solve the problem than most here, but basically retracting isn't one of them.

Strategically, though, I'd talk about getting off mideast oil all the time. We are the bread and butter of OPEC, and without us buying from them, prices go way down, and they get much less money. I think such rhetoric forces OPEC into keeping production up.

I'm a big fan of Thomas Sowell (economist, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Hoover Institute). A column on poverty from a few weeks ago.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/181665.html

And another well known economist (former professor at George Mason University), Walter Williams -

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...04/180969.html

sotu 06 was the most uninspiring hour of blah-blah-blah i have heard in a sotu.

"the state of the union is strong" - i don't think even he believed it when he said it.

not impressed at all.:rolleyes:

We have nothing to worry about.

http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/