State of the Union

and that is the problem...

 

No use trying... this is going to get ugly soon...

:lol:

h34r:

 

For proof of the above, a campaign speech in California during
the 2000 election, some
raw video of Bush and Cheney exists showing them chuckling
and agreeing with the person warming the crowd, a local
butt kisser who
criticized "all those democrats in their little electric cars".
Bush and Cheney thought it very amusing, and got a lot
of applause from their little hand picked crowd of supporters.
Made me sick to my stomach. But, by that time, I already
knew what a bunch of incompetents the republican ticket
held. I certainly didn't need that incident to form my opinion.
Rod

 

Can you say homophobia ? Excellent.

Now remember that 50% of those polled at the exit polls who voted repub 'believed' that WMD in Iraq were present.

Those two things were enough in themselves.

In the larger picture, the repub party has succeded in an exceptional way in collecting what I call 'one-issue' voters under its umbrella:
homophobes
gun people
anti-abortion
big business
small business
anti-intellectuals
Christian doctrinaires

And last but not least, ability to cheat at the polls when races are tight have been the deciding factor in the last two elections.

 

Homophobe? Are you refering to me? or all conservative leaning independents.

You sound just like the folks I was talking about. Keep your head in the sand and keep wondering why the dems can't win national elections anymore.

 

Is it his decision making (judgement) you admire or his resolution?

I could understand admiring his resolution, which, depending on your perspective, may pass beyond the border of arrogance.

His judgement and honesty, again depending on what you believe, are troublesome.
I did not know one way or the other about his claims of WMDs
I figured I didn't have all the information that the government had and couldn't share with the public.
However, when Colin Powell went to Europe and shared the information we had and failed to convince our allies, who generally bend over backward to give us the benefit of the doubt, I was convinced that the evidence was seriously lacking and we were being sold a bag of lies.
It ruined Colin Powell, who I had only the highest regard for.

 

:lol:

 

Wait I guess now the elections aren't lost they are stolen!

 

Clinton is clearly much more intelligent and quick on his feet than Bush. Watching Bush stumble through issues and trip over his own words is painful to watch. I don't care for him much and I'm looking forward to the day I can feel clean when I vote republican... again. Hopefully the party will find a way to return to its classic conservative roots. Theocrats belong in Iran, not the US.

That said, Bush is much more a leader than Clinton. Making difficult, unpopular, and principled decisions the mark of a good leader. I think it's particularly true in a time of poll driven, image intensive, short on content "coverage" of events. I just wish he'd make decisions that were more in line with true republican values.

 

I listen to every SOTU adress, irrespective of who the President is and which party is in power. I respect the presidency and it's importance as an American institution.

I'll just state up-front that I probably disagree with Bush's policies about 80% of the time, but here is my general analysis:

I didn't really hear anything particualrly new in this speech. It seemed like a rehash of most of his standard talking points. Bush truly does a magnificent job articulating moral and ethical, as well as the nationalistic importance of defeating the terrorsts and changing the societies in which they come from. But as I have said many times before, success is not independent of path. I agree with B2 completely when it comes to the need to utterly destroy Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, but I dissagree most strongly with the path that he has taken to achieve those goals. I hear no new policy that would identify and correct the deficiencies we have had in fighting terrorism, the war in Iraq, homeland security, rapid response to emergencies, etc.

The one comment he made that made me stand up and yell "NOOOOO" at the TV was when he said that he wanted to ban all human cloning. That includes theraputic cloning at a cellular level, which is imperitive to many areas of medical research today. Banning theraputic cloning could cripple American attemts to develop new medicines and cures for some of the most deadly diseases. What the heck was that line about "Hybrid Humans"? Watching too much "Island of Dr Moreau" I take it.

I was moderately impressed with his attempt to tackle the issue of oil independence. The phrase "addicted to oil" will udoubtedly be repeated by the press over and over again. Glad he finally mentioned the obvious. If he and the Republicans put out a plan that sets out aggressive but attainable goals to reduce out dependence on oil, I'll be the first to back it, even if there are a few components that I personally have an aversion to (nuclear power, drilling ANWAR). Let this be a lesson to the Dems, they should have beat the energy issue like a drum the instance gas increased to $300/gal, especially since the environmental lobby has been clamoring to increase CAFE standards for years. If the Repubs steal that issue and finally make some real, tangeable changes to out enery policies for the better, maybe that will force the Dems to grow some balls and tackle a problem because it's what is best for the American people.

My two cents ends now.

Peace,
Cosmo

 

...and who, precisely, were the allies he did not convince?

 

Very interesting...
http://currentera.com/blog/?p=495

 

It was sad to see Powell emasculated. I wonder where we'd be now if he'd run for president in 2000. I can't imagine him not getting elected.

I was referring to the fortitude to make decisions and not waiver and play polls to see what's popular. I have disagreed with most of W's decisions since Afghanistan but I do respect his willingness to apply a "vision". I just don't agree with the "vision".

 

Do members countries of NATO count as allies?
(Last time I checked, GWB still referred to NATO as allies.)

 

A larger percentage of the population than anyone is happy with believe this and not without reason (whether or not you dismiss those reasons).

 

So, bushies love war, love guns and hate the government. OK, got it.

 

...and which NATO "allied" countries were not convinced?

 

I tried to avoid the SOTU last night but I read the transcript this morning. On paper it looked great but I don't know know if they will be implemented.

 

huh.. I reread my post and it seems clear enough. As can be seen in this forum, people tend to have a diverse set of opinions that do not (ever?) completely match one party or another. So they tend to vote with the party that (at least, seems) to side on the issues most important to them. A not small fraction of the populace votes one party based on a single hot button issue. Many more of the one-button types are repub than democrat; and conversely, the largest fraction of a partie's base made up of hot-button types are in the greens.

In the last election, homophobia disguised as "sanctity_of_marriage" was enough to push a critical portion of the swing vote. That does not mean that all people voting repub are homophobes. It does mean that repubs tolerate homophobia, since it takes a back seat to other issues they value more.

Comprende ?

 

malorn, regarding my supposed 'anti-military' stance:

My ~ 10 years that I volunteered in the paratroops should clue you in a bit. I DO object to military being sent on fool's errands; and I really loathe cowards like bush who send others to die.