2005 State of the Union Address

Great speeches does not equal instant accomplishment. Bush is going to have to work with both parties to get his agenda through, and some of what he talked about in his speech he is going to have to give up on.

The gay marriage ban will never make it into the Constitution, and I doubt a ban on therapeutic cloning will as well.

I agree with your entire post, But if you look at some of the catty remarks just a few posts up, you see my meaning.

Note: I said "Libs", Not Dems. Didn't wanna slap an entire party, just the extremists.

And yes, I know I, myself, am a right-wing extremist.

 

Vaderize said

The gay marriage ban will never make it into the Constitution

I don't want to see such a ban either, but there are a lot of democrat Senators whom WILL have it used against them in Re-Election bid's if they don't in some shape back such a measure.

 

I disagree.

I think there are a lot of democratic senators-and a few republican ones as well-who may find their seats threatened if they do back such legislation.

Most americans oppose gay marriage, but a majority also oppose the FMA. It's bad legislation, and I believe that a harder price will be paid-especially in the long run-for backing it than for opposing it.

Peace,

V-03

 

Perhaps this should be posted in the 'Revenge, Return, Homosexual' thread. Anyway, from wikipedia:

On November 2 (Election Day) 2004, the same-sex marriage movement suffered a severe setback, and the traditional marriage movement a major victory, when state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage were passed in eleven states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. The measures in Oregon, Mississippi, and Montana bar same-sex marriage only; those in the other states bar civil unions and domestic partnerships as well; and Ohio bars granting any benefits whatsoever to same-sex couples. Every state that had the "definition of marriage" amendment on the ballot passed the constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, they were passed overwhelmingly, even in blue states Michigan and Oregon.

Now, I don't see a constitutional amendment passing Congress because of what it would take both in time and a reluctancy to touch such a sacred American document. But IMO the opposition to gay marriage is vastly understated.

 

We are supposed to decrease our dependence on foreign resources through clean and safe nuclear energy, yet other countries are being encouraged to give up their nuclear programs

To expand on Kimballs post, Nuculear enegry is probably one of the most misunderstood sources of energy.

Nuclear energy is just like a regular coal or steam engine. The only differnce (basicly) is that a samll nuckear reaction heats the water to turn it into steam and turn the turbines. Just like coal.

I live in Las Vegas and they are planning to build Yuccas mountain to store all the waste. If you want to get into that then fine. I support it. IF you are going to refute me, find a better place to put the nuclear waste.

Bush's intrest in the nuclear engery is a good thing. He arn't using it for bombs as some other nations are.

dkt

 

It's not a matter of knowing how to build one, but having the resources available to build one.

I agree. but These are sovreign nations. In order to maintain that they are not producing the materials we would need inspections from a third party, perhaps the UN. But the US is somehow not subject to the same restrictions. We can produce all the weapons we want without the fear of being invaded for it.

I can understand why the Libs are bitter and upset this morning.

Bitter and upset. Two emotions injected into the reading by the reader. If any of my remarks seemed "catty" it isn't because I'm an upset Lib, I'm just a concered dissenting citizen. Left or right I'd still be concerned. I don't think anyone can solve these problems without creating new ones.

Edit:
IF you are going to refute me, find a better place to put the nuclear waste.

I'd rather not produce the waste in the first place. From what Bush said about creating a future for our children, one might think he'd feel the same way. Yucca valley or the Moon, nuclear waste will be around for a very long time.

 

I don't really even see why more of the liberals don't embrace nuclear energy in this nation. In my opinion, it is the cleanest energy production that is robust enough to be a realictically viable source. Maybe its just me, though. Europe loves it.

As for the speech, I thought it was okay. I like the push on SS reform. I highly dislikde the push for the FMA. The embrace was a hell of a nice touch.

 

I love how the Dems were campaining about the poor shape of Social Security. Now they claim it is fine.

Blindness...simply blindness.

 

Scizophrenia will do that to ya.

Error: Only 1 post per minute is allowed.

 

Bush's State of the Union speech was awesome. The man knows what he's doing and I support him 100%. This speech only strengthened my support for him. I could care less if he mispronounces some words every now and then. He seems to be very honest and genuine in his love for our nation and for his desire to make it better and stronger. He has the best interests of the nation at heart and I believe he is doing the right thing in strengthening and protecting America.

The Dems are looking more and more foolish every day. I find it particularly interesting that the Dems were heckling Bush when he was talking about how we should fix social security now rather than ignore it and let our children fix it themselves after it actually becomes a crisis. Just why should we put off fixing something that will be easier to fix now than later? Are the Dems simply procrastinators or are they just so filled with hate for Bush that they will disagree with anything he says? They don't actually think that they can convince us that Social Security is just fine the way it is do they? I don't know a single person that believes that, Dem or Rep.

BTW, like many other people, I felt that it was very touching to see the Iraqi woman hug the mother of one of our fallen soldiers and thank her for her son's sacrifice. That image alone was definately worth more than a thousand words and it brought a tear to my eye.

 

Hey, Vez, you've been supporting Bush a long time. I'm curious if it were any Joe Scmoe Republican would you support them? Or a Democrat if you thought he had the best interests of the U.S. at heart?

 

Dem or Rep, if I feel that they truly do have the best interests of the U.S. at heart (and I agree with their policies for the most part), then yes I will support them.

As it is now, I personally feel that most of the most vocal dems care more about bashing Bush than they do about making our nation a better and safer place. Boxer, Kennedy, Moore, Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Hillary are just the tip of the iceberg in a long line of very bitter and angry dems. Sensible Dems like Lieberman are drowned out by the loud shots of these left wing radicals. It's a shame too because if a Dem like him were to become a candidate for office, I would have a tough choice to make in voting for a President. Instead the Dems choose a nut like Kerry and my choices are made very clear and easy. Bush is far better a choice than the left wing nut jobs that seem to dominate their party.

I believe that same sex marriage is not what's best for this nation. So I don't support it.

I don't believe that raising taxes is going to be good for our nation, so I don't support it.

I don't believe social security is something that we should put off fixing.

These are just some issues that I agree with Bush on, personally.

 

Overall this was perhaps the single best speech that President Bush has issued to date.
The speech itself was typified by the fact that Bush is looking towards the big picture, leaving the details to the Congress.

The proposed budget, holding spending growth underneath the rate of inflation, eliminating 150 frivolous social programs, and attempting to take control of the deficit is both a great actual and political move.
The move forces the Democrats, who have complained about the deficit since 2001, to make some hard decisions on their beloved social programs.
The American people also now understand that Bush wants discretionary spending to be basically halted where it is.

Support for the Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of marriage is also the proper move.
A December poll showed 51% of Americans opposed to Civil Unions and another 65% oppose Gay Marriage.
The problem is that only 43% support an Amendment Banning Marriage, 53% do not.
There is not enough support for a new Amendment for or against Gay Marriage at this point.

Social Security will be the primary objective of the Bush Domestic Agenda.
Americans understand Social Security is in trouble, 50% think it has major problems, 17% think it is actually in crisis, and only 3% think the system is sound.
Americans will not support higher taxes to float Social Security, with 60% opposed to a possible tax hike.
Even more Americans, 81%, oppose reducing benefits.
Approximately two thirds of Americans want to raise taxes on the richer people by raising the taxable cap above $90,000. Tax the Rich to pay for us is the basic excuse.

Here is the most important part however.
As of the end of January 51% of people support the idea of investing Social Security Taxes in the Stock Market. Only 43% do not like that idea.
Republicans are solidly behind the idea with 64% while Independents are for the idea with 51%. Democrats have a 57% opposition to the idea however.

People between the ages of 18-59 are between 50%-60% in support of the idea.

While a majority of the American people like the idea of Investment, only 26% trust Congress to fix the program. The people want a nonpartisan commission to look at it, not Congress.

The American people support private investment accounts to fix social security, while only the Democrats and people reaching retirement age now opposed to the idea.

This will be a major battle in the next year, seeing massive opposition from the Democratic Party and the AARP, however Bush might actually have a chance of accomplishing something here.

On the Foreign Policy front President Bush has clear priorities.

Bush praised the advancement of Freedom and Democracy throughout the world, and did so in a manner where he refrained from gloating about the Iraqi Election. The President came across the election with a humble appraisal giving the majority of the glory to the Iraqi people themselves. He made sure that he praised the sacrifices of the American soldiers as well, a very positive move.

Bush is very clear about the idea of restricting the advancement of Nuclear Arms in places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea. He is calling upon North Korea to return to multi-national talks over their nuclear program, making a point of presenting only a diplomatic resolution to the crisis at the moment.

Bush made it clear to the American people that Iran and Syria are still state sponsors of terrorism and that the war on terrorism is far from over.

He gave his criteria for removing American soldiers from Iraq. Bush policy requires a strong central government and an Iraqi Defense Force capable of defending Iraq before he considers calling back the troops.
He made the point that we will not introduce an artificial timetable for removing troops, the proper move I would think.

Bush also dissuaded critics who claim the United States wants to control Iraq.
He made it quite clear that he does not believe that the United States has the authority to impose its culture and government upon any other country.

He sp

 

This was an awesome State of the Union speech. It was his best speech as a president and probably the best State of the Union speech in atleast 14 years or so.
Not too flamboyant, just straight and to the point. Definately much better than his Inaguaral Address which I didnt care that much for.

This was my favorite part:

>>>>>>>>>>>America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I was so glad to hear this. And it was fairly detailed. The wasteful government spending was one of only two economic gaffes during his first term. The other was the 2001 steel tarrifs. Now, I am not neccessarily against high government spending or deficit spending, as long as it is for GOOD INVESTMENTS. But a lot of the government spending in the past four years has been unnecessary or wasteful.

And I agree with the person above me about Joe Lieberman. My choice for president would have been harder if the Dems had nominated him instead of a liberal wacko like John Kerry.

 

Good luck to him, the second term should be fun to watch, but probably not fun to live in.
Best of luck with the legacy, you'll probably need it.

-Seldon

 

Hehehehehehe......

Sometimes it seems the Dem's think they won on 11.02.2004, talk about living in fantasyland...or San Fransisco.....

Hehehehehehehe.....

Even funnier are the republicans who carry on like they won something. The only person who actually "won" anything was Bush. Its like fans of a sports team who refer to the team as "we" when discussing it.

Here's my impression of the speech....

"....fellow citizens....I..."

*Applause*

"....ahem...A new congr...."

*Applause*

"All of us in the...."

*Applause*

"We have been...."

*Applause*

"Iraq"

*Applause*

"Terra"

*Applause*

"Social security"

*Applause*

The constant clapping got very annoying.

Did anyone else notice how "pleased" Hilary Clinton looked to be there? I swear...that woman had a scowl that would melt steel.

 

This speech was a study in hypocrisy.

The staged "gimmicks" like the Republicans with ink-stained fingertips or the Iraqi woman comforting the soldier's mother simply conceited, contrived, ostentatious, overdone, pedantic, pompous, and schmaltzy. (thank you, thesaurus.com)

They were just a show to make us think that Iraq's vote was a "resounding success". Sadly, Bush seems to have taken that vote as another mandate that he's on the right track.

And plenty of people have probably pointed out the hypocrisy of his pro-life views, considering his governorship...

And "support faith-based community groups"? Translation: Seperation of Church and State? Not in Bush's America.

Also, the idea of a President in 2005, actively trying to re-write the Constitution to deny rights to a minority of Americans, sickens me. Utterly sickens me.

 

Hatter posted on 2/3/05 4:13pm

---

And plenty of people have probably pointed out the hypocrisy of his pro-life views, considering his governorship...

[hr][/blockquote]

Yes, because in Texas, the governor is the sole person responsible for executions. The District Court that sentenced them to death, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the United States Supreme Court, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has absolutely no say in the matter. [face_rolling_eyes]

 

Well, I for one am all too happy to see MOVEON.ORG make due on their promise to take back the party! Based on how the Democrats are dancing to their tune, it means more victory's for the GOP in the foreseeable future.

 

I'm fairly certain we can discuss the topics in this speech without insulting the characters involved. Calling liberals blind or John Kerry a wacko or Bush a bumbling hypocrit is the beginning of the end for this thread.

I will agree with the aesthetic impressions of the speech. I was much better than previous speeches given by Bush. But really, what good are such considerations?

Regardless of the approach, SS needs to be fixed. It has been broken for a long time. Talking about it with my mother, who is only 45, brought this to light. She recalls this being an issue when she was my age (Reagan's first term).

Another perception that I've encountered was from a Vietnam Veteran. According to him, and I'm not sure about the accuracy, the system was doomed when Nixon dipped into the program to pay for various aspects of the Vietnam war. True or not, the correlation to the current war is enough for at least some considerations.

 

Bush said: "Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight."

Let's see... how did her father get killed by Saddam??

Her father planned to overthrow in a coup d'etat in June 1993. However, the Americans did not want the coup to succeed (possibly because her father would not go along with their policies). America tipped off Saddam about the impending coup and gave the names of her father and his top aides. All of them were subsequently killed in Saddam's torture chambers.

Ironic, isn't it.

 

Except that's not what has been revealed as happening, and unless you have analysis that indicates otherwise, it seems to be speculation.

In April 1993, it was revealed that Saddam organized the assassination of former President Bush.

The INC (Chalabi's Iraqi oppostion group) was organized to overthrow Iraq, and assume power in the take over.

On April 22-29, the INC met with VP Gore, and then Sec of State Warren Christopher.

HERE

The INC organizes a revolt, and in a very "Bay of Pigs-esque" decision, Clinton decides not to support the opposition group with direct military support, and instead launces a series of 23 cruise missle strikes against intelligence targets in Iraq.

HERE

around 2,000 people were killed as a result of the unsuccessful opposition.

By 1998, CLinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act into law, which made it offical US policy to promote the transition of the Iraqi government.

SHORT FORM

ACTUAL BILL

 

America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hard-working people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists.

Looks like Bush is trying to please everyone with this statement. We just can't have it both ways. You know who used to do the jobs that American's won't do today? Able-bodied citizens who would otherwise be on welfare.

 

Lies, hypocrisy, and partisan hackery. In all, a very depressing speech.

 

Good job of fooling the misinformed and hyper patriotic. Bravo Bush.
The democrats need to learn how to lie if they want to win.