[Zander]

I'm curious as to your reception of President Bush's address. What do you think of it? Are you encouraged by it?

Was anything he said a call to personal action on your part? Did it change any of your opinions?

Let the examination begin...

[Don Gwinn]

Much better than I expected. I expect him to be reamed a few sizes larger tomorrow over the comment about Al Quaida leaders who were not arrested ("Let's just say, that those people are no longer a problem for America or our allies.") but I liked it.

He sold the tax cut well.

To be honest, I'm edging closer to his position on Iraq.

I'm not in love with the feds subsidizing everything in sight, but if they're going to do it, I think fuel cell technology is the logical place to put the money.

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Great speech. He mispoke seldom and the delivery was strong and focused. He made a good case for war, and unfortunately I think we will have to end up choosing this course. Better say your prayers for the members of the armed forces- we may soon be attacking a foe that is pefectly willing to use chemical and biological agents so they're going to need them. I will be waiting to see what Powell has to say on Feb. 5.

[WSH]

I agree. I thought he did a good job. Probably didn't do anything for Hillary and Ted and that crowd but nothing he could have said would have helped there. I was encouraged by most of what he had to say.

[DeltaElite]

Twelve years without compliance. :fire:
We need to force compliance, sadly it will result in the deaths of some of our brave soldiers. :(

I liked the speech, I am not a huge Bush fan, but we need to stomp on Iraq and soon.

I really like the hydrogen car stuff. Just like the sci-fi of my misguided youth. :D

[Sean Smith]

A bit of a preface: I'm not a long-time Bush fan, and I never thought he really spoke well in general. Except for that one time at the WTC site, that is.

The address started pretty weak and generic, to be honest. It picked up some speed at the end of the domestic agenda, and the bit about $15 billion for AIDS in Africa. That had me thinking he was going to do an above-average job.

When he started talking about Iraq, though... wow. :eek:

IMHO he completely kicked butt on the issue of war with Iraq. He really does belive that war with Iraq is absolutely necessary to protect America, and did a MUCH better job of selling his point of view than any previous attempt by the administration to do so. Interestingly enough, he mentioned that Powell is going to give the UN a big evidence dump on February 5th. There is a real possibility that Bush intentionally held back on giving the evidence for his hard-line stance to give his domestic and international critics enough rope to hang themselves.

As a side note, for the entire speech (even the weaker bits at the start), the "technical" quality of his speaking was way better than it had been in the past... aside from pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular" he didn't really have any gaffes or verbal trip-ups to speak of.

[Soap]

I had guests over so I didn't catch the whole thing. I just have a small question: why was he talking about Iran then North Korea? Did he mess up and mean to mention Iraq instead?

[Sean Smith]

No, he didn't mess up. He talked about Iran, North Korea, then a long time about Iraq.

[Skunkabilly]

No mention of the "assault" ban sunset?

[thumbtack]

I thought the address was great.

I am glad that he is spending money on hydrogen fuel research.

He fortified my position on Iraq.

I am glad that he pushing his tax cut now.

I want to be able to manage my social security.

If anyone has a link to a transcript I would appreciate it if you would post it.

[Coronach]

Thumbs up.

I'm leery of attempts to tie Iraq to Al Queda and the War on Terror as it has been fought thus far, but I buy the logical argument that he is a credible threat, and could easily funnel his armaments to terrorists. The problem is that this creates calls for a smoking gun, and that is not to be found. At all. Period. Move on.

I think he's better off when he sticks to the simple facts of the matter: Saddam is a nutjob. He has toys he's not supposed to have, and has agreed not to possess. He's not playing along with the inspectors. We've dithered with him long enough. Its time to pop the pimple.

All in all, a very good job.

Mike

[Prodigalshooter]

No, he was making a point that there are people in these countries that wish to live without the yoke of dictaorship and he was saying that he supported those people.
Itwas a great speech. I have come to respect Bush quite a bit, I think he really means what he says and is prepared to be unpopular in following through, something Clinton would never do.

[10-Ring]

I wasn't able to hear it all, but from what I did hear of it, I'm inspired and optimistic for our future, both short & long term.

[ahenry]

Did anybody notice the masterful political end-run he made on the democrats? When he made mention of the tax cuts that “congress has already passed”? He did a great job of taking all the wind out of the democrats sails by taking the initiative and saying the cuts have already been passed. And if congress thinks its good down the road, then it is good now. The man is sly like a fox.

[rock jock]

I was kinda hoping he would surprise everyone by pulling out from under the podium the decapitated head of Saddam Hussein and shaking it at Hillary. What a statement that would have made. Oh well, an opportunity lost.

[clange]

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs; its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
:fire:

Here comes the intel for the doubters in the world.

[ahenry]

Coronach,

I understand your point, but are you sure that we don’t have what we need to tie active terrorists and Iraq/Saddam together? If you take a step back from the whole thing and look at the sequence of events from beginning to end, every single step Bush has taken and every single claim he has made has paid off when he needs it to somewhere down the road. I agree with you that we don’t need to have a “court worthy” link between Saddam and al Queda, but I think its there. Moreover, I think when the time is right it’ll come out. I don’t think Bush is making unverifiable claims. I think he has just been unwilling to tip his hat until he’s ready. Time will tell.

[BenW]

I was kinda hoping he would surprise everyone by pulling out from under the podium the decapitated head of Saddam Hussein and shaking it at Hillary.
Or vice-versa. :evil:

[Sean Smith]

There is actually considerable evidence already in the public sector supporting claims of Hussein's connection to Al-Qaeda, and even foreknowledge (if not direct involvement) in 9/11. Small example: he disappeared from public view soon before 9/11.

[Airwolf]

Transcript of the State of the Union Address:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/sotu_transcript020129.html

[Atticus]

It was so good that it put Ted Kennedy to sleep. I wonder if he ever woke up? Or did the courage and logic expressed rupture a blood vessel in his brain. I was watching it on CNN.

[Zander]

Here comes the intel for the doubters in the world.It won't matter...the doubters aren't concerned with facts, only feelings and political posturing.

I do hope that Secretary Powell is circumspect in what he reveals to a body which cares nothing about the US position other than the likelihood that we will continue to bankroll their vicious, anti-American diatribes.

A pox on the UN and the bigots such as Kofi Annan who have no greater interest than maintaining their ability to step up to podia in their $2000 suits.

[JPM70535]

Contrary to what the Demorats and their liberal media mouthpieces, Bush is not a BUBBA. He speaks in plain English and he means just what he says. His command of the language is far better than he lets on. Never be conned into thinking he is not as sharp as a tack, his demeaner is all an act. He didn't get where he is by being dumb.

Excellent speech

[Gary H]

I was watching the Democrats throughout the speech. I thought that they were in a tough position.

It was a very good speech. The AIDS initiative in Africa was a great thing, but I wonder what it will entail. I fear that the help will not reach those in need.

Iraq was solid, but Powell will need to present some solid evidence.

Fuel cell .. well .. Clinton pulled that one and claimed that it would come to market in five years. .. We will see..

Where is all the money coming from???? ..ahh err..oh ya..
:confused:

[Soap]

Sean Smith- Thanks. I was wondering what was going on. I'll have to read the transcript.

[TearsOfRage]

Er, Airwolf, your link is to last year's address.

Today's is at :

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2003

[citizen]

Thanks, Airwolf.
Couldn't watch it.

[Blackhawk]

Saw it all. Loved it :neener:

I especially liked his telling (by implication) Germany and France to suck an egg regarding Iraq by saying (paraphrased) "I've got a job to do to protect the American people and we're going to do it."

He had several great sound bites too.

Very strong speech, and very well done!

[Seminole]

It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution--specifically the 10th Ammendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means, among other things: no prescription drug "benefit," no money for AIDS drugs for Africa (or anywhere else), no "patients' Bill of Rights to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage,", no "direct assistance for health care coverage," no expenditures on "education," no more unemployment benefits, no "Social [In]Security," no AmeriCorps, no "USA Freedom Corps," no government-funded "mentors to love children," no federal funding of police and fire departments, no "combating of "illegal" drugs, no government "encouragement" of conservation, or "promotion" of technology, or building of "infrastructure" (whatever that means!).

Was the speech politically effective? Did he stick it to the Democrats? I don't care. All I care about is the fact that the Constitutional Republic is dead.

[ahenry]

Was the speech politically effective? Did he stick it to the Democrats? I don't care. All I care about is the fact that the Constitutional Republic is dead. And you thought we had one at any time after 1865?

[Bob Locke]

Am I the only one who was bothered by the plethora (see: multiple BILLIONS of dollars) of new spending on social programs? I thought the Republicans are/were the party of small government. :rolleyes:

We're going to be fighting a shooting war with Iraq very shortly. I'm not sold on it, but I realize that it's going to happen. I hope it isn't as costly as the last one, but I fear it's gonna be worse. And then we'll have troops stationed in THAT region of the world indefinitely.

So much for the campaign promise to review troop deployments and start bringing our people home.

Tax cuts are great. I hope he gets the Republicans in the Congress to play ball, and some of the Democrats, too.

Count me in the "continuing skeptic" column.

[Gary H]

Seminole:

You are right, of course, but that bridge was crossed a long time ago and short of a second revolution..it isn't going to revert... the people want their goodies.


BTW: If cutting taxes is good for the economy. I volunteer to help the economy. Get rid of all my taxes and I promise to spend every cent not taken by the government.:uhoh:

[NewShooter78]

I don't really agree with him sending billions of dollars in AIDS help to Africa when there are people here who can't afford the treatments. The same goes for food aid to other countries.

He did actually do a good job of dancing around the fact that Clinton sent those nuclear reactors to N. Korea, and now they are using them to produce weapons grade plutonium.

My tax money for "mentors" for at risk children...nope, not good in my opinion.

Pushing Congress to put into play tax cuts that they have already aproved for four years down the line, the dividend tax being removed, the marriage penalty removed...all good in my opinion.

Still skeptical on Iraq unless Powell has some very convincing evidence otherwise.

How can the economy be recovering if unemployment is up? Wonder where he took his econ classes.

But all in all...it was a lot better than I expected to be. Not as good as his 9/11 speach, but an ok speach. He's still not quite that dynamic of a public speaker.

[Seminole]

ahenry and GaryH:

You are right, of course. It's not that I had a sudden revelation about the true nature of the political system in the U.S. tonight. But since Zander asked about our opinions, regarding the Address, I responded. No matter how well delivered, I can't cheer the presentation of an agenda that is fundamentally illegitimate. Just a reality check from my particular corner of reality. . . .

[Jim March]

I want to see the evidence.

[Zander]

All I care about is the fact that the Constitutional Republic is dead.Gotcha...now why, exactly, is it that your are complaining? Do you suppose that you are the lone voice in the wilderness and no one else has your insight?

Put yourself in the shoes of the most powerful man in the world and tell us how you propose we "fix" it.

We're all bored to tears with the recitation of how our Rights have been infringed. It gives us heartburn every morning.

What, specifically, is your suggestion for a solution?

To be intentionally redundant...what is your suggestion for a solution? Please be specific...

[rock jock]

I don't agree on sending one dime on AIDS programs except for children who contracted it involuntarily from their mothers. The rest got it from illicit drug use or sexually promiscuous lifestyles. Better to spend the money on diseases that people contracted through no fault of their own. Other than that, a good speech.

[PenHolder]

Overall, the speech was stronger than I expected. I'm always leery when I hear pols spouting off about all of the new ways they've thought up to spend our money; those zeros really stack up after a while. It's mind-blowing, and the social programs in general give me the boo-boo-jeebies.

Then there were the nebulous references to the Citizen Service Act and the USA Freedom Corps. I admit that I haven't looked at them in any real depth, but it sounded like he wanted to form (and fund!) a "Department of Goodwill Toward Men". :rolleyes:

His treatment of Iraq was good. You could definitely hear the war drums pounding, as he built his case. Leaving that issue for the end really brought an air of suspense to the speech. While he didn't make a case for dropping bombs tomorrow, he certainly didn't leave much doubt as to what his aims are, and what his course will be.

I'll be waiting for Feb 5th with bated breath to see what Powell has to report.

As always, I was hoping for at least some RKBA-related crumb to fall from the table, but I'm not surprised that we didn't hear anything about that. I guess that most folks just don't care enough about it now for it to be worth his time. Ah well, even silence beats a speech about "America's love affair with the gun..."

(Then, when Feinstein came on-screen without warning, I could just _hear_ my guns spontaneously rusting shut. Now I'm going to have to coax them out of hiding with the smell of CLP. :) And was it just me, or was USAF Gen. Myers slouching?)

-Pen

[MJRW]

I'm tired of hearing about the evidence and not seeing anything. Even when presented, that is going to bother me.

[Zander]

...there are people here who can't afford the treatments. --NS78Oh, please...you can't be serious. There is nowhere in the world where those diagnosed HIV+ or with full-blown AIDS are supported to the extent that we afford with our extorted tax dollars...despite the fact that there are much more deadly health threats which deserve to be addressed first.

Those with a deadly transmittable disease deserve to be quarantined and treated until they are no longer threats to the general populace. If it's a valid policy for TB or smallpox carriers, it should be valid for AIDS-carriers.

Who needs any more "gift-givers"?

[QKRTHNU]

It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution--specifically the 10th Ammendment, which states:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree. All of the programs the President touted are needed and definitely would be a good gesture (most social programs are) and would do a lot for a lot of people. But.........

The fact of the matter though is that it's not the Federal Governments job to take care of that kind of stuff. Not only is it not the Feds job, its prohibited by the Constitution.

Those things should be left to the private charity / non-profit sector. If taxpayers want to support a particular program they can donate their money themselves.

On the Iraq issue the President definitely made a stronger case for Military action.

I had been kind of disturbed by the attitude expressed by Colin Powell when he said something to the effect of "It's not a matter of how much more time the inspectors need, it's a matter of how much more time we will give Iraq to confess."

I was disturbed by that statement by Powell because it left zero room for the possibility that Iraq although desiring weapons of mass destruction might not actually have anything to show for that desire and therefore nothing to "confess". A bit like a City official stating that a citizen possessed illegal firearms and if he didn't "confess" he was going to be thrown in jail even though there were none of the claimed firearms found in his house.

Tonight’s speech cleared up some of the actions on Iraq’s part that go well beyond being un-cooperative. Especially the parts about Iraqi officers posing as Scientists etc

While that type of action is unacceptable I don't know that it makes a case for war. It will be very interesting to see what kind of evidence is presented. I hope it's more than some empty warheads and some unaccounted for missiles with a maximum range of only a few miles.

[NewShooter78]

Oh, please...you can't be serious. There is nowhere in the world where those diagnosed HIV+ or with full-blown AIDS are supported to the extent that we afford with our extorted tax dollars...despite the fact that there are much more deadly health threats which deserve to be addressed first.

That's not always true. There are people whose insurance won't cover it. I don't think that tax dollars should be spent on it, I think private insurance should, but if the tax dollars are going to be spent in the billions to send aid to Africa, I would rather have them stay here. There are people who still die from neumonia in this country because they don't get it treated. There are children who go hungry, but our gov't still sends billions of dollars in aid to all sorts of foriegn countries without solving the problem here. My main point is if I am going to be taxed, then I think that it should stay within our borders. I would much rather that my taxes weren't being used for socialist programs period. Unless that program buys me a gun and ammo for it of course. :evil:

[thumbtack]

Atticus,

My wife made the comment early in the address that Ted looked drunk, then when he had his slumped down she said "look the drunk passed out". :D

[Thumper]

Was I mistaken, or did the following draw the most cheers of the entire speech:
All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others.
I'm a big fan of anything that throws mud in the eye of the UN.

[voilsb]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/sotu_address030128.html is abc's copy of this year's address.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76919,00.html is foxnews.com's copy of it.

I'm glad this thread got posted. I don't have cable, and don't get squad over-the-air on my TV, so I was out of luck and missed this one. But I'll print off and read the address tomorrow.

[dave]

The most telling sight for me was the look on the faces of the democrats as he spoke about tax cuts. As he spoke of allowing the people to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY, the liberals looked as if he were hammering a stake thru their hearts. The look on Hillary's face was priceless.

Of course, they always get upset when we start to think we're something more than "money trees" for their pet projects.

[NoBite]

Dave, the look on Hillarat's face was priceless! She looked suddenly 10 or 15 years older.

It seems to me the Demorats believe that unless the inspectors find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that there is no danger. What the President pointed out (among other things) is that NOT finding them is the real issue! The weapons were catalogued after the last war. If they are not in evidence now and there is no evidence of them being dismantled/destroyed, then it is fair to conclude that the weapons are in hiding! Why can't that be obvious to everyone?

[Khornet]

KNOCKS IT INTO THE STANDS
CUTS LEGS FROM UNDER LIBERALS

All points made about spending and expansion of government are valid, but not central to the speech.

The essence of this speech is this: a President just got up before the people and flatly said what he beleives and what he intends to do. There were no weasel words, there was no waffling, and there were no apologies for his stand. This speech was dripping with CHARACTER and RESOLITION, and I for one am very proud of our President.

I agree that there was plenty of pork in there, and I don't like it any more than the next guy. Where Bush got specific about programs, e.g. AIDS spending, education, taxes , etc. he can be defeated in detail if necessary. But there was no getting around the overall vision for this country he expressed: and I beleive his vision is right, and even if I didn't, it's wonderful to see a man who doesn't tap dance on issues.

BRAVO ZULU MR PRESIDENT!

[Tamara]

Gotcha...now why, exactly, is it that your are complaining? Do you suppose that you are the lone voice in the wilderness and no one else has your insight?
Out of curiosity, did you learn these manners at finishing school?

Put yourself in the shoes of the most powerful man in the world and tell us how you propose we "fix" it.

None of us have sought that job. That doesn't prevent us from having the vague feeling that shipping off $15 billion dollars of money stolen from Americans to give to people on another continent might not be the best way to "fix" anything.

We're all bored to tears with the recitation of how our Rights have been infringed. It gives us heartburn every morning.

Really? I've heard quite a few of these recitations from you, also.

What, specifically, is your suggestion for a solution?

To be intentionally redundant...what is your suggestion for a solution? Please be specific...

You asked for someone's opinion on the speech. He gave it to you. Now you're mad? Why? 'Cause he didn't wave a pompom?

:scrutiny:

[Citadel99]

You gotta admit that Bush sure has come around in the speech making department. He actually looks comfortable up there now. Very few verbal gaffes.

I thought he did a great job. The real interesting speech will be delivered next week by the Secretary of State, though.

Mark

[Viking6]

"The look on Hillary's face was priceless. "

Do you remember Richard Boone's line in "Big Jake". Something like "Mister, I saw something in your eyes....yada,yada...."

Well, I saw something that scared the Bajeezus out of me, it was like a fast forward to the future. I saw a future POTUS. She had a look of smugness mostly. How did she and Joe get such primo seats behind the Joint Chiefs? And why was she sitting beside Joe? Questions to ponder!

[Master Blaster]

Here is a link between Iraq and Al Queda, that appeared in the news back in August, when the US decided not to attack northern Iraq so as not to cause problems for weapon inspections.
The original story about Ansar Al Islam and ties to Alqueda was on the washington post site but they want a password I dont have to see it. This group was experimenting with farm animals and even killed one Iraqi man.

Ricin suspects linked to Iraqi terror group

13:05 - 16 January 2003

The US has indications the men arrested in Britain with traces of the poison ricin are linked to a terrorist group in northern Iraq.

But an official has refused to elaborate on evidence linking the men to Ansar al-Islam, a group which other officials have said is linked both to al-Qaida and possibly to Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

The United States says the threat of Saddam delivering chemical or biological weapons to terrorists is the main reason for threatening war against Iraq if Saddam refused to give up weapons of mass destruction.

The official was travelling in Europe with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who has discussed with Nato how the alliance could contribute in any possible war with Iraq.

The administration official said the United States would like Nato to use naval forces to guard sea approaches to the eastern Mediterranean, as well as to use Awacs aerial surveillance aircraft to help co-ordinate a defence of Turkey, a Nato member.

The official also said the US would like Nato to provide Patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and to provide troops to defend US military installations, both in Europe and in the Persian Gulf.

Speaking in Stuttgart, he said several Nato counties have already agreed to individually provide such assistance, but a show of solidarity by the alliance itself could help convince Saddam to disarm peacefully.

The United States has given information to United Nations weapons inspectors about individual Iraqi scientists to question, as well as specific Iraqi activities and locations to inspect, the official said.

The official said the United States would make public more information about Iraq's weapons programs if President George Bush decides the UN inspections are not succeeding.


UN - fortunately there are folks who want to wait for a catastrophic attack on the United States before we ACT. I heard Nancy Pelosi and Turddy K. say last night that the evidence was not sufficient.
What do they expect?? and admission from Saddam?, a trip to Iraq to see the weapons that Saddam is hidding first hand, perhaps we should name our spies and explain exactly how we are getting our intelligence.

If July of 2001 Clinton had said that there was evidence that an attack was imminent in September and we need to invade afghanistan how many folks in congress would have supported him?????

It comes down to wether you Trust George W. or Saddam.

Well who do you trust more.??????

:fire:

[Joe Demko]

You asked for someone's opinion on the speech. He gave it to you. Now you're mad? Why? 'Cause he didn't wave a pompom?

Tamara is far too erudite to have made this error other than intentionally for humorous effect. The paper-strip thingie cheerleaders wave is a pompon. A pompom is the 37mm, water-cooled, belt-fed Maxim-Nordenfeldt (among others, with variants produced as Vickers-Maxim and Hotchkiss-Maxim). It featured a firing rate of 60 rounds per minute, utilising a belt of 25 one-pound shells, each shell with a maximum range of up to 3,000 yards. The nickname pompom (also spelled pom-pom) came from its distinctive sound when fired.
Since this is a gun board, and Tamara is Tamara, she obviously meant Zander is acting peevish because Seminole wasn't waving a small artillery piece in support of Bush Mk2.
However politically effective the speech might have been, Seminole has made an excellent point. For my part, I find it difficult to wave a pompon, or pompom, just because one group of stastist control freaks has scored a couple political points against the other group of statist control freaks.

[mjustice]

I was suprised to see the call for Partial-Birth abortion and the 15 billion for AIDS treatments in Africa.

He certainly set the tone for a showdown with Iraq. I look forward to hearing Powell present the evidence to the UN next week.

MJ

[pdh]

He was Brilliant.Makes me proud to be an American.

[Ebbtide]

don't really agree with him sending billions of dollars in AIDS help to Africa when there are people here who can't afford the treatments. The same goes for food aid to other countries.

Hopefully, this new govt envolvement will lower the cost of these drugs at home, and save millions of lives here and abroad (look at what we were able to do with small pox). I don't recall the last time I heard of an American starving to death.

My tax money for "mentors" for at risk children...nope, not good in my opinion

Catch them young and they will need fewer services later. It will save money in the long haul. Of course, we can continue to spend the medicaid and other Federal dollars now since it seems to work so well:confused: And trust me, that money you save on your taxes these coming years is not from the defence budget, I'm certain Human Services will take deep cuts, and the mentor program is the band-aid.

I say give it a try. It is not as if I'm being taxed more, they are just spending it different. I agree with this plan.

From a broader perspective the U.S. does need to expand its reach throughout the world. The stronger the U.S. gets, the more enemies it will have (look at history), the more enemies we have the more allies we need. As the Earth continues to move towards a world economy the Earth needs a leader, who better than us, right?

[ReadyontheRight]

He made a good point about the weapons inspectors. Their job isn't to go on a scavenger hunt looking for weapons, their job is to ensure that the weapons we know they have are destroyed.

As far as government investment in hydrogen fuel goes, when has the government ever invented anything worthwhile? All I can think of is the atomic bomb and the ability to send men to the moon. These two balance each other out nicely.

Thank you government, now stop wasting my money on pipe dreams and get out of the way to let free enterprise invent stuff. Hopefully he was talking about tax incentives to encourage actual production and not just research. The thing is...if anyone could make hydrogen power work economically, he or she would be rich with or without the government's "help".

[Ian]

I watched about 20 minutes of it. Blech. Count me with Seminole - who cares if it was politically effective? It was a sad commentary on the state of the Federal government. It has occured to me that if the inevitable (and virtually already existing) war against Iraq goes sour, I'm the exact right age to get drafted. Ain't no [insert expletive here] way Bush and Co are going to drag me off to Iraq to get shot.

[wingman]

"I was suprised to see the call for Partial-Birth abortion and the 15 billion for AIDS treatments in Africa."


Just (PC) cover all bases. Nothing new
in the world of politics. Words mean nothing, action is what we need.:banghead:

[Viking6]

"Ain't no [insert expletive here] way Bush and Co are going to drag me off to Iraq to get shot."

Don't worry, they won't introduce a draft. If it comes to it, our military will get the job done. That's what they train for, it's what they do.

[Ebbtide]

Ain't no [insert expletive here] way Bush and Co are going to drag me off to Iraq to get shot.

That's fine. My daughter and I will go and fight for your freedom in your absence. Just keep things in order here for us till we get back. Thanks.

[Tamara]

I don't think you need to worry about being drafted; even in its current, downsized state, our military is more than capable of handing Iraq a stompin' with one hand tied behind its back.

Should we? A couple months back, I was in the "Hell, no!" camp, now I'm in the "Well, maybe..." camp. Regardless, it's pretty much a fait accompli now...

[ReadyontheRight]

"Howard J. Turkster: I joined the army 'cause my father and brother were in the army. I though I'd better join before I got drafted.

Sgt. Hulka: Son, uh, there ain't no draft no more.

Howard J. Turkster: There was one? ".:D

I mean no offense Ian, but those who will invade Iraq joined the armed forces by their own choice. There better be a lot more than this going on to reinstate the draft.

[Coronach]

Ahenry:

I'm not saying that its impossible for a smoking gun to exist, I'm just doubtful that it does. Basically what our homies at the UN want to see is a cannister full of nerve gas, with Saddam Hussein's fingerprints (and probably DNA) on it, postage paid in Iraqi currency, addressed to "Empire State Building, New York, New York, USA" with a return address of "O. Bin Laden, 123 Main Street, Anytown, Afghanistan."

And even then, France would probably still say we faked it.

This farce has reached the point of high comedy. Blix is willfully blind, the UN has decided that they'd reaaaaallly rather not address this issue, and Saddam sees light at the end of the tunnel by just...dragging.... this.... out.... as.... long... as.... he.... .... .... possibly.... .... .... .... .... ... can. Becuase the UN will eventaully get tired and go away. Again.

I think Bush II is better off sticking to the simple facts of the matter and not trying to find a smoking gun...because even if it is found, people will say "thats not a gun...and its not smoking."

Mike

[wingman]

"There better be a lot more than this going on to reinstate the draft."


I'm sure it would take more however
on the bright side we could downsize
our population because if i am correct
when reading this board they would
go to Canada.:rolleyes:

[Viking6]

"That's fine. My daughter and I will go and fight for your freedom in your absence. Just keep things in order here for us till we get back. Thanks." No, ehenz! Thank YOU!

[Ian]

Yeah, I know we can handle Iraq with the forces at hand. By 'goes sour', I'm considering possibilities like follow-up invasions or Iran and/or North Korea. Very low probability of it happening, but the risk involved (my life) is serious enough to catch my attention.

ehenz - My freedom is in way, waaay more danger from politicians here than from some dictator in Iraq, even if he does have some neat toys Bush doesn't like. If you and your daughter would like to participate in some war over there, that's peachy. But don't make the assumption that your doing so somehow makes me freer; it doesn't.

[ahenry]

I'm the exact right age to get drafted. Ain't no [insert expletive here] way Bush and Co are going to drag me off to Iraq to get shot. don’t worry your precious mind a bit. There are enough other people with a sense of responsibility that you wont have to risk anything for your freedom. Where is that barf smilie...



I think Bush II is better off sticking to the simple facts of the matter and not trying to find a smoking gun...because even if it is found, people will say "thats not a gun...and its not smoking." Fair enough. I think many “on the edge” people will be surprised at what we actually know, but like you I don’t think a thing more than what has already been said, needs to be said. Time will tell...

[Ebbtide]

But don't make the assumption that your doing so somehow makes me freer; it doesn't.

Ian,

That's fine too, but then don't do the same and assume it won't. (I'm not trying to "flame")

You are free not to serve and I have no ill will towards your decision, and provided there is a draft you can go to Canada, prison, or whatever option is available. Still no ill will.

In situations such as these, it is sometimes best to keep quite until one knows the facts before you start minimizing another's "peachy" ideals, ...and perhaps on Feb 5th we will know a lot more than we would like.

Yet for now, Saddam is a tyrant, a constant threat to your freedoms, and he needs to go regardless if we are called up to serve.

It is hard to exercize your freedoms with coninued theats from terrorism, when you are in bed waiting to die from anthrax or smallpox, radiation poisoning, or the countless other means for inturupting our free way of life.

Do you really think the war over Saddams "toys" is that unimportant to our American way of life?

[Joe Demko]

It is hard to exercize your freedoms with coninued theats from terrorism, when you are in bed waiting to die from anthrax or smallpox, radiation poisoning, or the countless other means for inturupting our free way of life.

Were we not free, then, during the Cold War when the Sovs demonstrably had enormous numbers of nukes and other weapons of mass destruction aimed at us? Are we not free because the Chinese still do? Are we not free because the North Koreans are joining the nuclear club?

Sorry. You'll be fighting for the national interest, or at least Bush Mk2's idea of the national interest, not freedom for the American people. Thank you for volunteering to do so.

[F=ma]

....is the only thing I wish the President would have added, after reciting the list of violations/issues, and looking towards the right at all the hand-wringers crying that no one could connect the dots a year after 9/11.

[Ebbtide]

Were we not free, then, during the Cold War when the Sovs demonstrably had enormous numbers of nukes and other weapons of mass destruction aimed at us? Are we not free because the Chinese still do? Are we not free because the North Koreans are joining the nuclear club?

Lets try some apples to apples comparisons please. There is not a one answer fits all in foriegn policy. All the above mentioned nations have demonstrated the ability to exersize restraint with these weapons, Saddam has not, nor has N. Korea.

Our national interest is the protection of our freedom, isn't it?

I quess we should wait until we are attack by our enemies. Then we will have the smoking gun so many are looking for, again :rolleyes:

Better yet, maybe if we do nothing the problem will go away on its own.

[Citadel99]

Ain't no [insert expletive here] way Bush and Co are going to drag me off to Iraq to get shot.

This makes me sick. First off, as mentioned, there won't be a draft over Iraq. Nobody in the military is for a draft--it's a last resort option. More importantly, though, if you wouldn't stand up for your country if called upon why don't you just get to steppin' and move to Canada or, maybe better yet, France. I'm sure they'd love both you and your attitude over there.

Mark

[Ian]

ehenz - Sorry if I conveyed the wrong impression - I don't mean 'peachy' in a condesceding way. My attitude is that someone else deciding to go fight is entirely their prerogative, and none of my business.

..Saddam is a tyrant, a constant threat to your freedoms...Yeah, he's certainly a tyrant, but I don't see him doing anything to me (I'm not a Kurdish villager). I'm far more concerned about tyrants right here at home - they are doing things every day which directly erode my personal freedom. When the Iraqi Army airdrops into Indiana to enforce the law, then perhaps I'll change my mind about Saddam.

Do you really think the war over Saddams "toys" is that unimportant to our American way of life?Absolutely.

Ahenry - I'll risk my life and welfare for my freedom right here at home, thank you.

[Khornet]

This week's Khornet editorial for America's Voices:

PRESIDENT HITS HOME RUN

George W. Bush stepped up to the plate last night and, with poise and confidence, knocked the ball out of the park.

It's irrelevant whether you agree with his policies or not, although the State of the Union speech was certainly more satisfying for those of us who agree. But the sweetest part of the speech was not the text or the policy details. No, its glory was elsewhere: it was in the solid character which it radiated.

This is a president whom the Wise Ones have pronounced stupid and inarticulate, warlike and simple minded, weak and a puppet of older and smarter advisers, and the tool of wealthy industrialists. But last night he showed us that what drives his decision-making is anything but what people think of him. Last night he told us flatly what he believes must be done, and he told us just as flatly that he intends to do it.

There were no weasel words and almost no euphemisms, except perhaps when he remarked that certain terrorists "are no longer a problem." He made no attempt to disguise the character of his policies. His position on taxes was not a policy wonk list of cleverly targeted rule changes, but a forthright declaration that high taxes cripple our economy and hurt everyone. No attempt to defend himself against charges of favoring the "rich"; high taxes are bad and must be ended.

Likewise with tort reform, abortion, and, especially, Iraq and North Korea. He completely ignored the many criticisms of his policies, and without even a nod to his opponents he charged ahead. When was the last time we had a president like this? And there were no poster children last night. Special guests there were, but no part of the speech was devoted to encomiums for any individual who was singled out, and there was none of that putting on of someone else's glory that we have seen in so many recent State of the Union addresses.

Not since the days of Ronald Reagan have we had a president who stuck to his guns like this. As the speech went on, I began to squirm because soon that dreaded word would come up: "nucular". And sure enough, it did, not just once, but over and over. The president made no attempt to correct his pronunciation. Can you imagine how either of the last two presidents would have handled a weakness like this? Their speechwriters would have worked overtime finding ways to make the point without using the problem word. Mr. Bush, in effect, told the world that he doesn't give a hoot whether we are bothered by the way he pronounces " nuclear"; those who define his presidency by his pronunciation are so far beneath his notice that he went ahead and mispronounced that word again and again.

And here is a President who isn't afraid to stay out loud that he believes in God.

The cynics and doubters will carefully parse every word and gesture as a political ploy, thus proving that they can't see the forest for the trees. What happened last night was completely obvious: Mr. Bush said what he said because of what he believes, and his opponents will now have to attack him on principles and not on slogans and minutiae. In this they will lose, because slogans and minutiae are the only weapons they have.

In the past I have endlessly corrected my children on the pronunciation of the "n-word". After last night, I don't think I'll bother anymore. I could not be more proud to have this man as president.

That wasn't just powerful speech.. It was downright nucular.



Michael R. Bowen M.D.

[Joe Demko]

Our national interest is the protection of our freedom, isn't it?

It can be, but isn't necessarily. Protecting access to a particular resource, whether it is oil, rubber, bananas, guano, titanium or whatever, may be in the national interest for economic or military reasons, but that doesn't make it a freedom issue. For just one example, consider our ongoing involvement in the Middle East tribal wars. We've expended huge amounts of treasure and some blood supporting Israel. You could make a case, I suppose, that supporting Israel is somehow in our national interest. The continued existence of Israel is not, however, a linchpin of American freedom.

[Marshall]

Coronach pretty much nailed it!

You see, there already is a smoking gun to most people, it is obvious. But, to ask for it, the liberals know they can always try to dispell it anyway. After all, if you can truly say Iraq is in the clear, should be trusted and is no threat, you could say about anything to whatever is found. Of couse, that would not be logical but, thinking Saddam is not a threat that needs to snuffed is not logical either.

The Pres did good!

[QKRTHNU]

I think some here are confusing Freedom with Security.

[Zander]

There are people whose insurance won't cover it. -- NS78I'm going to make you a bet that any person who is HIV+ or has AIDS can get help no matter what his personal circumstance.

[P12]

I think the "nucular" is a Texan slang thingy.

Hell, that's how I've always said it. Never tak'n notice for it be'n wrong 'till read'n this hare thread.

It's just not to high on my list of priorities.

[Ebbtide]

Ian,

I think we can agree that there are problems both here and abroad. Splitting hairs over the priorities does not do us much good.

QKRTHNU,

I don't think I'm confused at all. Security and freedom in this instance are directly related. Unless we are reasonably secure from attacks it will become increasingly difficut to sustain our free way of life. Example: You are not very free to travel via the airlines anymore. Yes, the airlines may be more secure, but at the cost of our freedoms.

This not not to say that all of our nations interests are link as close to freedom. But on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, a demonstated inability to use them in morally responsible fashion limits resources of neighbors near and far.

I don't like the idea of having to spend trillions of dollars over the next several decade to defend the country against terror. We have the means to stop it now, and we should not leave this problem to future generations of Americans.

[QKRTHNU]

Unless we are reasonably secure from attacks it will become increasingly difficut to sustain our free way of life.
Only because so many are quick to give up freedoms when they are scared.

Example: You are not very free to travel via the airlines anymore. Yes, the airlines may be more secure, but at the cost of our freedoms.
Exactly, and I would argue that the cost is not worth it. Awareness is all that is needed. And everyone is now aware of threats while flying.

I don't like the idea of having to spend trillions of dollars over the next several decade to defend the country against terror. We have the means to stop it now, and we should not leave this problem to future generations of Americans.
While removing Saddam from power will eliminate any threats from him it will not come close to ending the War on Terror. And we will not be any more Free than we are today. Only very slightly more secure.

[Felonious Monk]

Tamara,
Golgo-13 said: "Tamara is far too erudite to have made this error other than intentionally for humorous effect. The paper-strip thingie cheerleaders wave is a pompon. A pompom is the 37mm, water-cooled, belt-fed Maxim-Nordenfeldt (among others, with variants produced as Vickers-Maxim and Hotchkiss-Maxim). It featured a firing rate of 60 rounds per minute, utilising a belt of 25 one-pound shells, each shell with a maximum range of up to 3,000 yards. The nickname pompom (also spelled pom-pom) came from its distinctive sound when fired.
Since this is a gun board, and Tamara is Tamara, she obviously meant Zander is acting peevish because Seminole wasn't waving a small artillery piece in support of Bush Mk2."

Wow! I didn't realize you had such a devoted fan club! :p :D

[Zander]

Out of curiosity, did you learn these manners at finishing school? -- TamaraThe only finishing school I attended was basic training...but thanks for asking. :cool:

That doesn't prevent us from having the vague feeling that shipping off $15 billion dollars of money stolen from Americans to give to people on another continent might not be the best way to "fix" anything.I couldn't agree more.

Really? I've heard quite a few of these recitations from you, also.You have never heard me exclaim that our Constitutional Republic is dead...because it isn't. I'm in agreement with Seminole's "analysis", but it's incomplete. He left out remarks that didn't make his point.

You asked for someone's opinion on the speech. He gave it to you. Now you're mad? Why? 'Cause he didn't wave a pompom?Whatever on earth gave you the idea that I'm "mad"? He didn't give us opinion on the speech; he claimed that nothing Bush said mattered because the Republic is "dead". More useless woe-is-me hyperbole that contains not a smidgeon of original thought...and not a hint of possible redress for what ails us.

At least Bush offered some solutions...

[schild]

300 million people with AIDS in Africa, $300/person/month to supply drugs, forever. Then you have to feed them or they are going to die of starvation, once you feed them then they will reproduce, producing another generation with AIDS. How many MILLIONS of dollars of this aid will never get to starving AIDS infected masses? How many dictatorships in Africa will use U.S.aid as a political tool?
IMHO the best way to solve the problem of disease and hunger in Africa is to allow nature to take its' course.
15 billion dollars of our tax money could be better spent on healthcare in the U.S. instead of Africa

:cuss:

[Seminole]

Zander wrote:
What, specifically, is your suggestion for a solution?

Well, as Tamara pointed out, I haven't sought the job and (based on what my platform would be if I did seek it), I wouldn't get elected. But you asked, so here goes:

I would honor my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That means that among other things, I would veto every bill reaching my desk that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution. (I would probably veto a lot of the others too, but that would be on the grounds of politics or ideology--not Constitutional ones).

I would instruct all members of the Executive Branch not to enforce any current law that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution. The Executive Branch is a co-equal one and part of the "balance of powers" is that it should not execute unconstitutional laws.

I would ask for the resignations of most of the members of the Federal Bench and the Supreme Court for malfeasance and failure to uphold their oath of office. If they did not resign, I would seek their impeachment.

How is that for a start?

[Seminole]

Zander is acting peevish because Seminole wasn't waving a small artillery piece in support of Bush Mk2.

I'll pass on that suggestion. I'msure that waving an artillery piece with any sort of relationship at all to the President would get me some unwanted Secret Service attention. . ! ;)

[Seminole]

Zander wrote:
He didn't give us opinion on the speech;

Nonsense! Of course I gave you my opinion on the speech.
The long version confused you, so here is the abbreviated version of my opinion, taken from the first two statements of my original post.

It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution

That is my opinon of the speech.

[KP95DAO]

I think the President referred to AIDS as a "disease of nature." As is every other disease. How we respond to a disease determines what becomes of us. The people in Africa do not respond in the proper fashion to avoid this affliction. That is a personal choice on their part. As to the children: They pay for the sins of their parents. As all children do.

If I thought he was being serious I might drop him a line concerning the matter. He was tossing a bone to the Afro-centric portion of our society. Of course those same people aren't jumping up and down about the fact that the tribes over there are eating, raping, torturing, and killing each other every day.

The bottom line is that, short of putting them all out of their misery, there is nothing that we can do to change things.

[Joe Demko]

Wow! I didn't realize you had such a devoted fan club!

I'm in nobody's fan club as a quick look at my posts her and at TFL show. Tamara is very learned in weapons lore, her posts are well-written and often very amusing, and her political beliefs intersect with mine. Yet I am no Tamara fanboi. I daresay Tamara would find it less than a cause for celebration if I were.

[Peetmoss]

Iraq and Saddam, The only reason we are gunning for him is for oil and he wants to finish his fathers job. I don't have a problem with this. I just wish he would he would be honest about it. I know good luck a politition honest:neener:

I also don't see how he plans to cut taxes and finace our rebuild of Afganistan and a war in Iraq. It costs alot of money to have our boys out there doing these things. How are we supposed to force people into our way of life and our beliefs on a shoestring budget? After all destroying reqiemes and building our own costs alot of money.

Also if they deciede to start a war with Iraq don't do it halfway. Our boys are going to die plain and simple. It sucks but it's a fact of war. Don't waste there lifes. If you take an area keep it. Don't give it up only to take it 3 weeks later. Also there are no civilians in a war it's all far game. I am not saying go over there and kill everyone you see but if they put a target near a hospital or a school well tough for them, level the target and if the school or the hospital gets hit too OH WELL.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I too am of draft age, and the idea that my freedoms are in danger because of Saddam Hussein is patently absurd.

So far, the current administration has:

-Infringed on my 1st amendment right to contribute my money to political candidates and organizations as I see fit.

-Given federal agencies far more license to spy on my personal activities.

-Signed the PATRIOT act, a piece of blatantly anti-freedom legislation.

-Infringed on Constitutional protections of trial by jury and right to council.

-Increased funding of many federal programs and created entirely new ones.

-Started an unwinnable, possibly unending, congressionally undeclared war, with few if any definitions on who we are fighting, or where the bounds of executive power are.

-Has raised import duties, restricting free trade and causing American to have to pay more for several commodities.

-Supports raising the age for possession of an "assault weapon" to 21 (I guess meaning that I will have to turn in many of my personal firearms)

-Supports banning imported "high capacity" magazines.

-Has an attorney general and Justice (?) Department which has prosecuted cases against people exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, while hypocritically stating that they do indeed have such a right.

-Has continued, and increased efforts in the War on Drugs, including active efforts to defeat marijuana legalization efforts across the nation.


Now, Saddam Hussein has restricted my freedom by doing:

????????

[Waitone]

I opted not to listen to the President's speech. My reasons are simple. He would no doubt do a tub thumper on Iraq but not reveal any smoking gun (whatever that is). The domestic side of his speech would consist of pretty much democrat positions lite. Virtually all initiatives would have no constitutional support. He would come out against some highly controversial ethical practices.

No, this time I opted to watch the speech, but not listen. Its a trick I learned flying coast to coast.

I saw two distinct speeches last night. I saw a speech where his body language, head movement, and eyes lead me to believe he was distracted and not really convinced of what he was saying. He appeared to be discussing topics because it was expected of him, not because he wanted to discuss them.

The other speech was the second half. Different speaker. He was physically unmoveable, his face lost all emotion, his eyes were fixed, his head movements were minimal and not as wide as in the first speech. He was deadly serious in the second speech. He believed what he was saying. In his own mind what he comtemplated happening had already occured, time had not caught up with events.

The first speech was politics, the second speech was life and death.

[Zander]

You said:

"I would honor my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Admirable! What do you think are the chances that a sitting president could enforce his "interpretation" of what is Constitutional without being charged with being a totalitarian by the true statists who inhabit The Swamp?

"That means that among other things, I would veto every bill reaching my desk that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution."

Give us an idea of where you would start. Is there some proposed legislation that you find more egregious than any other? Where's the most important flash-point?

"(I would probably veto a lot of the others too, but that would be on the grounds of politics or ideology--not Constitutional ones)."

Then you'd have no problem doing what you condemn others for doing?!?

"I would instruct all members of the Executive Branch not to enforce any current law that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution."

I'm in agreement...but given the weight of decades [centuries?] of governmental abuse, how would you go about countering the appropriations that maintain blatantly unConstitutional practices by the fed.gov? I'm encouraged that you think that one man could accomplish such a thing; but where, exactly, would you start? It would seem obvious that Bush would have to choose his battles, wouldn't it?

"I would ask for the resignations of most of the members of the Federal Bench and the Supreme Court for malfeasance and failure to uphold their oath of office. If they did not resign, I would seek their impeachment."

Requiring the agreement of the other branches of gov't bent on maintaining the status quo. If we can't accomplish the impeachment conviction of the dirtiest president this nation has ever known, how are we going to make wholesale substitutions and get replacements confirmed?

"How is that for a start?"

It's excellent theory, but I'm more interested in the mechanics. How does Bush go about this in a manner that has a high likelihood of success?

[Zander]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is my opinon of the speech."

Is there anything that Bush had to say that you found supportive of our Constitution? If so, would you, grudgingly or otherwise, admit it and give him credit for it?

Further, would you review my questions used to start this thread and make a simple distinction between opinion and analysis?

Believe it or not, we're in agreement on most everything re: our current state of affairs...but what's our strategy to reverse the trend?

As elegant and simple as your solution is, how practicable is it?

[Khornet]

good observation on the body language. His heart was clearly more in the second half of the speech.

[Coronach]

I would direct Mr. Zander to the case of Marbury vs. Madison, and note that the correct way to state his objection is that everything in the speech violates his interpretation of the constitution. What matters is how the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not how we do as individuals (though it certainly will affect my voting).

Mike

[Gary H]

Vladimir Berkov:

I agree with many of your points and disagree with a few.

I would like to suggest that one of the issues that we as a country are wrestling with is the new policy of preemptive strikes. Traditionally, we have responded to other countries initial military moves. We are now changing our approach after over two-hundred years. I remember all of the folks that were screaming after 9-11 that we should have known and our government failed to stop the attack. Now, we have taken a stance of preemption and others are screaming that Iraq hasn't yet attacked us. The truth is that we can't have it both ways. We can no longer wait for others to launch a strike against us because the weapons generally available have spiraled upwards in destructive capability. I would suggest that short of having the same intel as is available to Bush, we are unable to fully evaluate this situation. Also, hitting Iraq will send a strong message to others. We can make a case against Iraq. Also, our actions will have major consequences with regards to our war on terror. A democratic Iraq and a strong U.S. presence will change the Middle East. I believe that our approach to Iraq is motivated by our long term objectives with regards to the Muslim fundamentalist faction in the Middle East.
.

[Gordon]

I just don't get it , no prescription drugs for seniors yet and $300 a year for drugs for 50,000,000 African's? This from the man who want's to give my social security money I got robbed for to Mexican aliens?Screw him and both parties too for this tripe. Good speach otherwise though.How about decriminalizing drugs and go to treatment only? that can give him $ to "save Africa".:fire:

[Zander]

What matters is how the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not how we do as individuals (though it certainly will affect my voting).We've arrived at the same point from slightly different paths.

President Bush can't stand up and announce what Seminole wants because the correct interpretation of the Constitution has indeed been changed, almost solely by judicial fiat.

There were a number of things he said that gave me encouragement and irked the liberals/leftists/statists no end because they view the Constitution as an impediment:

"The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth -- and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C."

"This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately."

"To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends."

" No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit ..."

Lots of other gems, including one which referenced the "weakest" among us, but this should encourage others to post what they didn't like in the president's remarks. I fully expect to agree with many of the complaints.

At any rate, perhaps you'll find this worth reading:

"This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony."

Who said it and when? :cool:

[Tamara]

"The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth -- and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C."

Out of curiosity, has there been a State of the Union address in the last fifty years that has not included those words, or a variation thereof?

This newfound fiscal responsibility, does that include that $15-billion package which will wind up helping fat black guys in train conductor outfits buy leopardskin seat covers for the presidential Rolls and gold-plate for the palace guards AKs?

What irks me so much is not that the Repubs have morphed into Democrat Lite over the years, but the fact that folks cheer for 'em no matter what like they're some kind of freakin' football team...

Anyone who doesn't think that the lynch mob would be forming here in L&P right now if Slick Willie or Algore proposed the same fluff and waste that Bush did is proving that de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. ;)

[Russ]

I for one think G.W. did and excellent job. Particularly with the foreign policy stuff. However, I liked the Hydrogen car idea and getting more involved in Africa to stop AIDS.

My father was a chemical engineer. He used to say if we could create a car that would be able to break off the Hydrgen atom from water (H2O), and do it cheaply enough, then all of our auto energy problems would be over forever. Imagine filling your car up with water. The engine would liberate the Hydrogen atom and use it to run the car. The exhaust from a vehicle like this would be water. The Hydrogen atom would combine with the Oxygen in the air and create H2O. Streets would be constantly wet but who cares.

Better yet would be nuclear Fusion. I said Fusion, not Fission. The person who can invent cold Fusion would go down as the greatest scientist of all time and we would have an unlimited supply of energy. The next best thing to a perpetual motion machine!

The problem with both of these economically is how to let the oil and car companies make money off it. They are too big not to want a huge piece. It would devastate the economy if they didn'tin the short run.

As far as Bush's comments on Iraq went, we should already be there. All these terrorists want is to do is to destroy us. Let's do it to them first. Many DemocRATS say if we attack Irag, Alqaeda would attack us. That is the stupidist thing I have heard in years. If they could, they would attack us today. They don't need an excuse. They sure don't need us to go to Iraq for an excuse. Once we are done there, we should liberate Syria and Iran too.

The liberal DemocRAT morons are out in force against Bush. Their logic fails. Get more U.N. approval they say. I say we get out of the UN. They are more than irrelevent and downright evil. Look what they allowed to happen in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

I think Bush is a good, honest man. I trust him. He is not to be underestimated. I don't like the way he has allowed alot of the DemocRAT agenda to go through over the last couple of years but I gotta beleive he has a plan to nail them in the end.

What was the alternative? The Libertarians? That will never happen as long as Harry Browne is the head. Even if he weren't, I don't think they will ever gain a foothold, certainly not in my lifetime. Maybe a hundred years from now. I could be wrong. The Republicans were a 3rd party once too.

That's my 2 cents and if it's worth that I would be surprised!

[Marko Kloos]

My father was a chemical engineer. He used to say is we could create a car that would be able to break off the Hydrgen atom from water H2O, and do it cheaply enough, then all of our auto energy problems would be over. Imagine filling your car up with water. The engine liberates the Hydrogen and uses it for energy. The exhaust from a vehicle like this would be Water. In other words, the Hydrogen would again combine with the Oxygen in the air and create H2O.

If your father was a chemical engineer, he probably told you why hydrogen is not currently a feasible fuel for cars, and the reasons for that.

Hydrogen is a low-density energy source. It requires energy to store hydrogen in a form efficient enough to allow more than a few miles range on the family car....more energy than you can get from the hydrogen to begin with. Even if it was feasible from an energy standpoint to fill up the car with compressed enough hydrogen, say in frozen form, you'd have a safety risk. Rear-ending a hydrogen-powered car would result in mushroom clouds on the freeway. If you think gasoline is volatile when subjected to fuel tank rupture, you ain't seen nothing yet. (Think of your hydrogen-powered family sedan as the Hindenburg.)

Hydrogen as fuel is a nice pipe dream, but not technically feasible at present. That's why we don't have a Ford Focus powered with hydrogen yet, not because the Evil Big Oil is keeping their thumbs on it. Pledging resources to the development of hydrogen cars is a nice gesture to pacify the eco-fascists and wow the undereducated yokels, but he could have pledged a few billion to the development of arm-flapping powered flight, for all the good it'll do.

I'm sure we'll have alternative-fuel cars at some point, but I am equally sure it won't be because .gov sank a few billion of our taxpayer dollars into it in order to score political points. It'll come out of the private sector.

[Politically Incorrect]

CLAPTRAP :rolleyes:

That's all I got to say about that.

[Zander]

Out of curiosity, has there been a State of the Union address in the last fifty years that has not included those words, or a variation thereof? -- TamaraI don't know; maybe you could do the research and let us know. I bet you'd uncover some real surprises...

This newfound fiscal responsibility, does that include that $15-billion package which will wind up helping fat black guys in train conductor outfits buy leopardskin seat covers for the presidential Rolls and gold-plate for the palace guards AKs?LOL! Exactly...no, that was a very unpleasant surprise. Can you imagine trying to administer such a program on the continent of Africa? I'm not volunteering.

What irks me so much is not that the Repubs have morphed into Democrat Lite over the years, but the fact that folks cheer for 'em no matter what like they're some kind of freakin' football team...What irks me is that some folks can't find any good in any proposal whatsoever unless it is outlined by other than the Big Two.

Anyone who doesn't think that the lynch mob would be forming here in L&P right now if Slick Willie or Algore proposed the same fluff and waste that Bush did is proving that de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. This seems to presume that there aren't objections to anything Bush proposed. That isn't what you mean, is it?

Other than the proposal to throw $15 billion taxpayer dollars into a cesspool, what else aggravated you?

[Zander]

Pledging resources to the development of hydrogen cars is a nice gesture to pacify the eco-fascists and wow the undereducated yokels, ... -- lendringserPrecisely. :mad:

[Ian]

FWIW, when using hydrogen as a fuel, water is not a practical source of it. The energy gotten from two atoms of hydrogen is less than the energy required to separate them from an oxygen atom.

[Russ]

lendringser,

If he was a chemical engineer? Do you think I lie?

My father was indeed a Chemical Engineer but unfortunately, he has been dead for 13 years (almost half your lifetime). He came up before super computers and all the gadgets we have now. He preferred a slide rule to a calculator. He built the first ethelyene oxide plant in California and as far as I know, the U.S. There are still people in the field who know who he was.

He did tell me why Hydrogen was not feasible at that time (20 years ago) and why it may never actually be feasible to develop as a reliable fuel source for cars. He noted the storage problems and suggested someday some type of plasma field might be be invented to contain it since the Hydrogen atom is so small. He did not think that a large storage tank would or should be used due to the problems you noted due to the volatility of the gas. The idea was to break off the Hydrogen atom and use it almost immediately without having to store a great quantity of the gas. He did not know how this could be accomplished but figured some bright person would figure it out someday. In his day and even now, it is not economically feasible. At the time, he said it would take more energy to liberate the Hydrogen from water than the fuel it'self would produce.

Unfortuneatly, he didn't solve the problem before his death nor did he really try to. It was all theory and dreams just as Fusion is at this time. Had he come up it, I would have more $$ than Bill Gates.

He also worked on the Manhatten project during WW II. If I could find you his resume, I'd be glad to send you a copy.Might be tough to come up with now since he's been gone so long.

Just because this stuff isn't happening now, doesn't mean it can't or won't.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Gary, we are not changing to a policy of pre-emptive strikes. A pre-emptive strike is one done to gain atvantage in the threat of an imminent enemy attack.

The "Bush Doctrine" is not one of pre-emption, but one of attacking nations because of their POSSIBILITY of doing harm.

Nowhere has anyone brought forth evidence of any imminent Iraqi attack against us, or even of plans for an attack.

The case for war is based on possibilities. IE, it is possible that Iraq could get nukes. If Iraq gets nukes, it is possible that they could use it against us, or it is possible that they could give it to terrorists.

Nor do I believe that attacking Iraq would make us any safer. Getting rid of Saddam means a huge power vacuum, in an area where there are many distasteful regimes willing to fill it (or at least try.) Plus, we will end up needing to station troops there and defend our new territory with American dollars and lives. We will end up paying more and more in defense spending while other nations will be paying less, getting a free ride from our protection. This will hurt our economy in the long run.

Nor do I think that establishing "democratic" government is even a good idea. To think that we know what is good for citizens of another country better than they do, is egotistical, and has been proven false in a multitude of examples around the globe.

Any regime we establish will be made at the point of our sword, meaning we will have to protect it, and this will likely only increase anti-American sentiments in the region.

[ReadyontheRight]

We use gasoline as a fuel for internal combustion engines because it is efficient, cheap and relatively clean. IF we ever run out of oil or prices really go up, some enterprising individual -- probably an American -- will come up with something better.
You can't legislate creativity.

As far as nuclear fusion goes, how many million of the "No Nukes" crowd will we have to unchain from the first facility before it goes online?

If we're going to throw away money on futuristic transportation, I say a jet pack in every garage! Better yet let me keep my $$$ to buy a new car and give an autoworker a job.

[Zander]

Nor do I think that establishing "democratic" government is even a good idea. To think that we know what is good for citizens of another country better than they do, is egotistical, and has been proven false in a multitude of examples around the globe. I am [temporarily] speechless...

Please do give us some examples; they may or may not dispel what I see as pure sophistry.

[Russ]

Ian,

Just because it takes more energy to liberate Hydrogen from water now doesn't mean this will always be the case. Who knows, maybe a scientist with an imagination will come along and make it work.

By your reasoning, if man were meant to fly he would have wings.

No one said this will happen overnight but my guess it that it's alot closer than you think.

Russ

[Politically Incorrect]

Just because it takes more energy to liberate Hydrogen from water now doesn't mean this will always be the case.

Do you think it will ever take less energy? The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted to one form or another. There can be more effective means of energy transfer, but it takes the same amount of energy to separate hydrogen from water. Whether it is done with electric, coal, natural gas, nuclear or other means of energy, it will take more energy to liberate hydrogen due to the transfer of energy to other forms, namely heat energy.

I always love how environmentalists want an electric car you can plug in. If they would just trace the cord, they would most likely see a wonderful coal burning plant that is powering their environmentally sound car. :D

Coal burning is much better than living in the dark ages. Environmentalist should live in tents and live off the land. Perhaps they'll become outdoorsmen (and women) and forget their liberal ways. :p

We can only hope!

[Russ]

P.I.,

It really boils down to how COST EFFECTIVE it is to liberate the Hydrogen. And yes, I think someone may well come up with a process that will make it cheaper. Maybe not in our lifetimes, well maybe in yours, but I think it will happen.

I'm not holding my breath. I love the smell of Gasoline. If you infer that I am an environmentalist, you really don't have a clue what a true environmentalist is. A true environmentalist would have surgery without anestesia due to all the "toxic" chemicals involved.:D

[Politically Incorrect]

Russ,

I wouldn't accuse anyone of being an environmentalist. I don't see anyone living without the luxuries of industry and technology. But I could be wrong. Some day we may all live in caves.

If someone did find a way to produce energy that was more cost effective, I would think that it would come out of a free market rather than government funding. Of course, most businesses are on the government dole anyway so they'll claim victory either way.

[Ian]

Russ - In order to reduce the amount of energy required to liberate a hydrogen atom, we would have to find a way to modify or remove the attraction between protons and electrons. This would require an incredible leap in technology, and would completely change technology as we know it probably every field. I think such a discovery is a long way off. In the meantime, I'm sure there are easier ways to get hydrogen than from water - H2O has very strong bonds; other compounds would surely be easier to utilize (which ones specifically, I don't know - I'm not a chemist).

Zander - Well, Germany comes to mind. The Allies' ol' Weimar Republic didn't do so well, did it? And I don't think many of the central American countries we messed around with came out too well for it.

It would be far more effective to simply work at being a paragon of freedom ourselves and set a visible example of the benefits of freedom.

[ReadyontheRight]

Environmentalist should live in tents and live off the land.

That would be about as environmentally damaging as we could get. A bunch of folks scrounging for whever food the wild land affords. I suppose it could support a few hundred tribes until we all started killing each other for more land.

The way we live now is very efficient. Most environmentalists have good, if not excellent intentions. However they rarely see the unintended consequences and their good intentions are coopted by those who would control us all.

[Zander]

If someone did find a way to produce energy that was more cost effective, I would think that it would come out of a free market rather than government funding. Kind of a mixed blessing, I'd suggest.

Nuclear-fired power plants are among the cleanest and safest sources of energy we currently use. And it is proven technology...beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Of course, we'll have to ignore the histrionics of the members of the Chicken Little Society to expand them and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Can you say 'Iraq', 'Venezuela', or 'Mexico'? :cool:

[Monkeyleg]

I was out of town, and had a chance to watch the tape last night.

Just to reply to the initial question (and keep my post count up): it was one of the best speeches Bush has given. I cringed every time he mentioned money. Politically, I understand the constituencies he's courting, but it's my pocketbook that's paying for it.

On the tax cut issue, he definitely put the Democrats on the defensive. Watching Nancy Pelosi squirm and frown might well be worth the money I'll be paying for the programs he proposed.

If I had any doubt about Iraq, GW brought me 100% into his camp. That was the best section of the speech.

Watching the front row of presidential wannabes (Lieberman, Kerry, Hillary and Edwards) was like watching the expression of a chess player as his opponent moves his piece into check position. That was priceless.

GW may not have the same convictions as, say, Teddy Roosevelt, but he certainly has the courage of his convictions.

And, unlike most state of the union speeches since '92, Sarah Brady wasn't in the room. :)

[Sean Smith]

Quoting Ian:
Zander - Well, Germany comes to mind. The Allies' ol' Weimar Republic didn't do so well, did it?

Except that it wasn't the "Allies" Weimar Republic. The Germans did that one to themselves... it was a product of domestic revolution. I'd suggest reading a history book for details. :rolleyes:

http://dmorgan.web.wesleyan.edu/materials/weimar.htm

Meanwhile, the regimes that we DID establish in Japan and (then West) Germany have somehow managed to stick around without descending into barbarism, etc. :D

[CAP]

Overall good, but if he can't learn to correctly say NUCLEAR instead of NUCULER I'm gonna scream!:banghead:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Overall good, but if he can't learn to correctly say NUCLEAR instead of NUCULER I'm gonna scream!At least he doesn't say "Kosovuh."

[labgrade]

Having only read about 1/2 the replies & not seeing this mentioned .....

I'd bet that most of the pork he threw out was just to make Hillary have to stand & clap. Worth the price of admission. ;)

He can propose all he wants, but legislation's gotta be presented by a legislator, go through committe, get to floor/s, back 'n forth. Sly in my book & mostly not a snowball's chance to get through.

Although no huge fan of 43's, he stuffed the Dems a good one.

Works for me.

[Monkeyleg]

I know people who watch the same movie rental two nights in a row, but I don't know anyone who watches a president's SOU speech twice.

I did. (We need a "no life" smilie here).

It was better tonight than it was last night. Bush just did everything right to knock his opponents off-balance. Take a look at John Kerry: he looks like he's beaten from the get-go. And Tom Daschle looked like a really tired junkyard dog.

Polling numbers are coming in showing that the speech increased the support for the war on Iraq by a significant amount.

Look for poll numbers later this week that show that most people think Marty Feldman is more attractive than Hillary Clinton. Then watch for Matt Drudge reporting that Bill is having an affair with Marty Feldman.

[Russ]

P.I. & Ian,

You are both correct and perhaps I am too optimistic in mankind's ability to solve problems. To liberate Hydrogen from water , lwet alone containment would mean dramatic breakthroughs in science from where we are.

There are so many things we "mankind" just doesn't really know at this point. We work off theories until a better one comes along. I don't expect to see any of this stuff while I am alive and it may never happen. Cold fusion would be better but I don't see that happening in the near future despite the claim of some "scitentists" (Ponds, etc.).

I think as time goes by, there will be some amazing discoveries made in pyhsics and chemistry. I look at Newton and Einstien. Their theories and discoveries were revolutionary. Newton to me was the greatest.

Maybe I'm crazy but I have hope that mankind may well solve these problems someday. What's next? travel at greater than the speed of light? Who knows. Some say it can't be done. From Copernicus, to Kepler to Newton to Einstien, we have come a long, long way. Most of their contemporaries thought they were fill of it. I think there is more out there for us to discover and understand.

During my lifetime, I have seen so many theories, that we thought we absolutes, go down the drain. Now we find a Black hole in the center of every galaxy. We didn't know that a couple of years ago.

However, you are correct that the energy stuff will not happen soon and maybe never. I am optimistic it may eventually. I am not a Physisist or a Chemist but my father was, and he did not rule out that someday someone would come up with something that will blow the lid off of this. Something amazing or perhaps Newtonian. He used to say that if cold fusion became a reality someday, that that would be the greatest discovery of all time. Hopefully, it will. If not, I'm not real worried because I will probably be long dead.

I don't have the technical knowledge to go further with this but thanks for the interesting discussion.

Russ

[Zander]

Look for poll numbers later this week that show that most people think Marty Feldman is more attractive than Hillary Clinton.LOL! There goes another keyboard...

[Combat-wombat]

I think it was pretty good, for ol' George that is. He did present a somewhat better case for Iraq. But it was still a little too "Dubya" for me. "...Lets just put it this way...they're no longer a threat to America." Whats up with that?