So what did you think of GW tonite???

Tour2ma

Delivery:
9/10 - a little falter in his long Iraq segment and a stumble at the end, but very polished overall... coool, blue suit.

Content:
Domestic:
7/10 - hit all the points, Env, Edu, Health Care, etc., but how are we going to pay for it all? A little inflation scary...

International:
10/10 - Aid to Africa and want to work with y'all against these terrorists, balanced by a little with or without you message.

Overall high marks and a bonus for no gratuitous audience introductions from an independant.

F1nut

Yep, I don't think George has ever sounded better.

geekmedic

Originally posted by ATCVenom
It felt empty, the same rhetoric that is repeated by your typical citizen.......

99% of the time a politician's lips are moving, he/she is muttering nothing but rhetoric.

The State of the Union addresses have always been typical rhetoric -- from Democrats and Republicans. (Maybe an independent or alternate party president might change this? Doubt it.)

F1nut

Originally posted by ATCVenom
the same rhetoric that is repeated by your typical citizen.......

I quess that means we're all good Americans and have the right man in office.

joe logston

on the back of my t-shirt, it says,

i work & pay for the USAs weapons of mass distructions

pensacola

I didn't hear any rhetoric.
The difference between GWB and some past presidents, is that
GW will back up his words with action. Words mean things for
a change.
You want rhetoric? Listen to the Democrats' response to the
speech. It's the same old song. If they had their way, we would
once again put off dealing with known terrorists to the
next administration.

Tour2ma

Originally posted by pensacola
If (the Democrats') had their way, we would
once again put off dealing with known terrorists to the
next administration.

Pensi,
First, let me say I love your new sig quote.

Now as to the above --- Weren't we over there several years ago and another president named George, who as I recall was a Republican, stopped a wee bit short of what we appear to be ready to do now? Why? Same reason we still haven't... no coalition to do so.

And I won't even go into the Bosnia example.

I don't think our President's use of "with or without you" extends as far as "without any of you", at least I hope it doesn't, and "without any" is where we've been since the end of Desert Storm.

Let's see what the promised Febrauary revelation brings, in terms of proof and coalition support.

Systems

I hope that the tax cut-based economic stimulus allows companies to invest in new plants & equipment . . . in Mexico, Thailand, etc. This will help us all, because when the stock prices rise, the wealthy will buy more fancy coffee & the clerks at espresso shops will benefit from the stimulus.

The carefully targeted laundry list of items designed to show that he's a "compassionate conservative" sounded great, but where the money comes from is anyone's guess. Apparently tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy enuff to pay for it all. See first paragraph for how believable I find that to be.

One way to defeat known terrorists (or "bad" regimes) is not to assist them in the first place-- for example, not shipping the kind of stuff to Iraq that we did in the 80's. No one likes Saddam. Disagreeing with the President is not the same thing as "supporting terrorism". Maybe we should invade--I don't have access to all the reports, photos, etc, so I'm not going to get into a debate over "proof". However, what is the plan after Saddam? I am getting so cynical (and not just about one president or one party) that it seems to me that the most profound political observation I've heard after 9/11 was from David Letterman, who said something along the lines of "Our new friends the Pakistanis, you know, the ones we'll be fighting next."

LiquidSound

The first George didn't snipe saddam because it wasn't in the mission. It overstepped his boundaries.
Talk about missed chances..Osama was offered to the clinton administration about four or five times. And I mean offered..silver platter and all. They just turned their nose up and hurridly got back to scaring the hell out of senior citizens.

I'm proud of GWB. After 9-11, we saw an instant maturation and a foundation of proirities built. The dems can say anything they want (and will in excess regardless of factual basis) but there's one thing that seperates their viewpoints from the current administration's. Action. Dubya's words mean something. Actions will follow.

Strong Bad

The Democrats will disagree with Bush just to disagree with him. Same with the Republicans.

If he stood on the podium and said.."2 + 2 = 4!" then the Democrats would say "OH NO, he's wrong! It equals 5!!!"

The Dems are spineless idiots! Lard **** Ted Kennedy needs to retire!!!


John

joe logston

tour2ma, dont forget the economy going the same way with both bushs.
meeteacleef, they are going to cut taxs for the rich, the working man haves to pay for it every time. me and you

shack

the working man haves to pay for it every time. me and you

Sorry Joe, That's B*** S*** . Between income taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes and property taxes I pay 40¢ on every dollar I earn. That does not include the taxes on gas, entertainment etc... I've seen the numbers. One person making $300,000 a year will pay on average 4 times as much in federal income tax than 10 people making $30,000 each per year. I saw a tax return the other day where a man paid $433,000 in tax for one year alone. Are there some that can avoid paying taxes...sure...both high and low income earners can. I'm tired of the argument that high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes. I just isn't true!

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

I think bush is an effin moron. I dont care if he makes two sense worth of change, he dont write the speach. He just speaking it. Hes a 90% moron, im not sure about the other 10% but hes a big moron. But this is my 2 cents.

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

Originally posted by LiquidSound
I'm proud of GWB. After 9-11, we saw an instant maturation and a foundation of proirities built. The dems can say anything they want (and will in excess regardless of factual basis) but there's one thing that seperates their viewpoints from the current administration's. Action. Dubya's words mean something. Actions will follow.

I'll tell ya what i saw, I saw moron insurance companies paying thousands of dollars to families. to conclude on that insurance companies dont cover war. and 9-11 was by far war. Also, they didnt have to bomb all of afghanistan, just think how much of millions and millions of dollars bush wasted on wasted bombs in places that didnt even need to be bombed. I mean cmon! Its called locate, drop, and move on!

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

i hope his speech was interesting, we gotta write a report on it SS class. Woo hoo....yeah....sure....it printed out to be....20 pages long???/

geekmedic

Originally posted by john d. strong
If he stood on the podium and said.."2 + 2 = 4!" then the Democrats would say "OH NO, he's wrong! It equals 5!!!"

As a Democrat, I can assure you that if Bush were able to compute 2+2 = 4, then I would check the forecast in Hell. Satan is sure to be in need of a snowplow.

F1nut

Sean,

I think you've got a good handle on the situation. The world is a very delicate place and I truly believe it's a effin miracle that we haven't blown each other to kingdom come yet. These world power struggles have been going on from just about day one and will probably never end. Just look at all the pissing that goes on here and we are, for the most part, just talking about audio/video equipment! Not to long ago the major conflict was between democracy and communism, now it's mostly between democracy and muslim fanatics. This **** really worries me and I've no idea what's going to happen, but in the meantime I thank God that I live here and not in some fanatics sand box.

Jesse

pensacola

1.
We are the sovereign United States of America, not an arm of the U.N.
At some point, we must conduct ourselves according to what is
best for us and all freedom-loving nations, not according to what
some body of nations thinks is best for this world.
GWB summed it up:
"Free people will set the course of history."

2.
Tax cuts work every time they're tried.
Tax revenues increased 58% in the 80's. Was it because Reagan
increased our taxes? No. He cut the income tax rate on "the rich"
from 70% to 50% in '83, and finally to 28% in '86, for one thing.
Clinton then raised it to 31%, and didn't produce the increases in
revenue he had forecast.
The point is, that lower taxes for "the rich" is a good thing, and
does not shift the tax burden to "the poor." The number of
people earning less than $10,000/yr in the early 80's decreased
by 5% by the end of the 80's, while the number of people
earning over $50,000/yr increased by 60%.
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.
The poorest 20% of Americans saw their income increase by
+6% during the 80's, compared to the decline of -3% they saw
in the 90's.
Again, the point is that tax cuts for "the rich" are not on the
backs of the poor.
I would be all for tax cuts for everyone, but the fact is that
the top 5% of wage earners in this country pay over 55% of
the taxes. The bottom 50% (those making under $26,000) pay
less than 4% of all income taxes.

Venom:
The "good guys" are those that are freedom-loving and
peace-loving. The "bad guys" are all the rest.
Our forefathers had the wisdom to know that freedom was
God-given; man only takes it away, to one degree or another.
They also had the wisdom to craft a Constitution, the sole
purpose of which is to place limits on our government--lest the
government ever forget that our freedom was granted at
birth, and not by them. Dictators operate on the notion that
their subjects are born without any freedoms, and any freedoms
bestowed upon them will be given--or revoked--by the dictator.
We only hope to spread this freedom we know--which is the right
of every human being.
The good guys believe that freedom is the natural state of
things, and the bad guys believe that bondage is the natural state.

Jstas

Originally posted by ATCVenom
Gentlemen,

Will post some random thoughts that most likely will not be coherent with any particular subject matter being discussed at the moment.

The Russians have just leased off (Or was it sold) India a number of Tu-22's and Akula class submarines. This is a growing concern of mine as this cannot possibly help the tensions between both countries which carry WMD capabilities. It is rather suprising how little media coverage has been given to this new event. In regards to nuclear concerns, this may take presedence over Iraq or N.Korea - possibly even current standings with terrorism.

Hell, in my eyes there is a much bigger picture than just Iraq (terrorism put aside for a moment). I cannot quite put my finger on it, but things seem to be unraveling a greater story here that is simply escaping my mind.

There also seems to be a growing international question that continues to be asked:

"Are the good guys really good"

The follow up would then be

"who is the good guy"

There is a flow of uncertainty and unsteadyness about our policies and the merits of our mission. There seems to be no unilatteral understanding as quite frankly - it seems as if virtually no one (common citizen) knows what the hell is going on. With the hindsight of pre-emptive war.... struggling diplomatic resolutions.... I must admit, its a tad nerve wracking.

Again - simple ramblings. I am twenty years old, rarely leave the constraints of these walls and often times frequent audio message boards. There is little merit to what I have to say.

Well, you are asking some deeply philosophical questions. I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to cause friction here. Just giving a realistic point of view.

Anyway, your concerns about the unsteadyness of our policies are valid but lacking the merit that you place. they have merit but for the wrong reasons basically. Remember that before 9/11/01, the U.S. was considered untouchable by everyone, even us. Now what do we see? All asian and Middle Eastern immigrants are being questioned because of the deep set paranoia and dissention towards what those who looke like them did. It's not without justification to have those views though. Take a look at the evening news and see what kind of hell they put themselves through in thier home countries. Most leave there for the U.S. because it was so "untouchable". It was the last place in the world where you were virtualy guaranteed that there would be no terroistic, cowardly attacks. That's changed. It's uncertain now. If we don't see our path so clearly anymore and it is littered with uncertainties, how can we nail down a definitive policy and course of action concerning it? If you ask me, there is no right path right now. We need to do teh best we can and I think we are doing that.

There is also the war on terrorism. We are fighting an enemy who hides, pops up and attacks and then hides again. It's guerilla warfare and extremely difficult to employ conventional military tactics effectivly against it. Hence teh carpet bombing of Afghanistan. Sure there is resistance there now still but the place was basically leveled and the U.S. and those countries who supported our actions have instituted a much more congenial government which aspires to be a member of not only the U.N. but NATO. The Taliban and all of thier allies have either been captured or have run to other little holes in the earth. We have very little intelligence on them. We do have piles of intelligence on Iraq and much of that evidence is definace of U.N. sanctioned, not U.S. sanctioned restrictions and there is now evidence from bot the U.S. and Britain that Iraq has been funding and harboring terroists from al-Queada. There needs to be action taken. Think of it as a street fight. The U.S. and Britain are being held back by teh U.N. as Iraq, who is out of arms reach, is taunting the big guys. When the U.N. finally gives up and steps aside, the whiney little punk Iraq is going to get stomped into the ground. But we have to place the nicey nicey game with the U.N. because they outnumber the U.S. and Britain by like 50-2. So natually we are going to be taking goofy steps to keep dancing with the U.N. and to save relationships with countries that we deem to be important to our interests.

So who is the good guy then you ask? Well, depends on your point of view. Look at human nature. We are very competative and we always want to be on top. The U.S. is on top. We are the big dog. The only way someone can pull one over on us is by sucker-punching us when we aren't looking. The European Union countries are not on top. They are in the middle. They need Britain which is the only other country capable of bringing a fight and they are firmly aligned with the U.S. because we are major economical and political allies. The U.S. also has the juggernaut economy that even when it is down, it is blowing away every other country. Naturally, European Union countries don't like us because they are not only envious of our position they also know they can't beat us. They are subject to our terms because like Bush said, those who are free will determine the future. Now the third world countries see us as a great aggressor because we are always stepping in and clearing away what is seen as a blockade to democracy by the rest of teh world butconsidered good by those countries. Mainly because they don't know any better. They haven't seen first hand how well it can all work.

Since the world revolves around money, looking at it from any other point of view doesn't work and the arguments get holes blown in them on both sides. Simple fact is, money is where its at. Who has the most? The U.S. and Britain. A really close third is Japan. Those with the money make the rules. The U.S. economy is so big and so strong that every other economy in the world is affected by it. Sure we muscle around teh greedy arabs when they try and shaft the world on oil prices through OPEC. It affects us. It afftects Europe and other nations too. We stick our noses in in places like Bosnia because that affects us too. War in Europe only benefits us when the rich countries are fight because they buy arms and equipment from us. The small countries destroy the economy by interrupting trade. I can go on and on citing clear, economically based incentives for being the world's po9lice force but the bottom line is, how much is it costing us and should we step in to save ourselves a buck? There has been fighting in all kinds of places. South Africa is one place the U.S. couldn't care less about. That whole region of the African continent has been racked by civil war since the 30's. The same goes with the Congo Basin. It's also where things like AIDS is popping up but there is no economical interest there. Most of teh aid organizations are private with government funding but beyond that we have not sent anything more than bags of wheat and rice.

Nobody really is the good guy. But the U.S. has realized that we have an enourmous amount of power and influence in the world. We need to use that responsibly. Hence things like our international aid programs, the nuclear disarmament treaty, the construction of not only the U.N. but NATO too. We have to consider defending ourselves and our interests too. When Korea, who signed the nuclear arms treaty announced they were actually arming, we had no choice but to pull out and reinstitute a defensive system for our own protection. We don't instigate war. We do our best to avoid. That's the reason Iraq has had 12 years to jerk us around. Things need to change for the good of everyone, not just the U.S. and that is what we are trying to do.

But looking at things from anything other than a financial point of view is not going to help anyone understand any motives because all it is is business. Nothing more.

steve simmons

MX: Wait until you have a few more years experience in the real world supporting yourself and a family before making asinine comments.

It's easy to take potshots from the sheltered view of youth. Agree or not with the president he is anything but a moron.

My .02.....

madmax

Originally posted by MxStYlEpOlKmAn
I think bush is an effin moron.

Just one thought here, MX, he is "President Bush", not "bush". Whether you agree with him or not is immaterial. Someday when you are president, I'll refer to you as "President MX", OK?

madmax

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

ok, sorry.

*I think President Bush, is an effin moron.*

shepx2

If Bush is a 'moron, then ALL of our previous Presidents are stupid, because he is the only President to ever hold an MBA. Plus, he blew away Gore's scores on the SAT.
It's pathetic how people let the media influence their thoughts and opinions. People need to learn to have some facts, before opening their mouth, and showing how stupid THEY really are.
I don't agree with everything Bush has done, but he is hardly 'stupid'.


Shep

madmax

Originally posted by MxStYlEpOlKmAn
ok, sorry.

*I think President Bush, is an effin moron.*

Well ok then! Seriously, this is America. You can have your own thoughts but you should still be respectful at the same time. I can respect your thoughts when they are presented the proper way. I think you are wrong on this one though, Mr. Mx.
madmax

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

Alright, I respect ya'lls opinions. I know friends that make best grades in the world but make decisions of a 2 year old. I listen/watch what President Bush does. He really didnt try to compromise between Iraq. He just insisted on bombing them. However at the same time he is REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY TRYING! to compromise with Korea. If im not mistaken Korea is closer to having Nukes than Iraq. Correct me if im wrong. Clinton may not have been a war addict, and may not of done nething with war. But according to my dad, he was one heck of a financial person. He kept the economy up. President Bush hasnt done a thing to this economy, and I personally do not think he handled the 9-11 situation very well. I feel between the thousands of dollars wasted by insurance companies, and the war on Afghan so soon, and then once they started dropping bombs, they bombed the whole entire area. I mean cmon...
President Bush, is just a cowboy from Texas trying to finish his Dad's work in 91. Thats what I think, I listen to this all the time when I'm around my dad. I hear it from everyone, everyone feels the same and has the same opinion. After hearing it all, I agree. I feel President Bush is a Class A Idiot. Whether he made a better score on a test or not. Down here we have cannon mills, and back when it started, the president charlie cannon (?) i think that is his name, dropped out of school in high skool or so, and he ran Cannon mills some time down the road, he was one of the SMARTEST MEN on this earth in planning, and financial stuff. He owned most of this part of NC. He was a BRILLIANT person. I love to hear about this guy, its cool to hear what one man can do. Now we have these complete MORONS running pillowtex and they'be already filed bank ruptcy. My point...U can be the dumbest person in grades and test and w/e the heck u want, but me a complete idiot the other way around. I see it every day when I'm around my friends. My opinion is President Bush is a complete and absolute idiot. That is my opinion, Mr. Madmax.

geekmedic

Originally posted by shepx2
If Bush is a 'moron, then ALL of our previous Presidents are stupid, because he is the only President to ever hold an MBA.

Wasn't there a president who was a lawyer (therefore, he held a doctorate [JD] degree)? Or am I just dreaming?

Naw, surely nobody doesn't hold higher than a masters!

shack

So then...everyone who agrees with President Bush must be an idiot also...because only an idiot would blindly follow another idiot..Right?

Oh and about your uneducated genius...here is an exceprt from his bio:

Mr. Cannon was born in Concord, North Carolina, in 1892. The youngest of ten children, he attended Concord City Schools, Fishburne Military Academy, and Davidson College. He also received honorary doctorates from Presbyterian College, North Carolina State University, and Duke University. In 1911, after one year at Davidson, he entered his father's textile business

He was obviously a smart and tallented businessman who was good for his company and community...but for the turn of the century any college education was way above the norm. Stories are great but facts are more reliable.

Oh and by the way...it took me exactly 1 min. to find these facts...it was easy...any moron or idiot could do it.

shack

"Read More, Post Less, MUCH less" - Russ

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

Ah yes, fooled by facts again, another one of Mx's great f*** ups! WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOO! now, I don't care if u follow President Bush to hell because he says it right, I still feel hes a moron. Thats what I think, u may think hes God, dont phase me a bit.

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

I still havnt figured out how people can tell me to post less, when yet alone Russ has over 3000 post in a year in a half?????? then u got people that have been here for the same length of time as me and have yet more post. Me still not receiving this message. Until I get flawed and comletely OUTPOST everyone in a certain amount of time, I will until yet of that agree with this request.

pensacola

It's interesting how things never change.
The first State of the Union Address, given over 200 years ago, dealt with:

—Education
—Gun Ownership
—Illegal Aliens
—Defense
—Foreign Policy
—Commerce
—Foreign Trade


http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/washsu.html