The W
Views: 97583521
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.07 2022
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - State of the Union Address
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(376 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 40

Posts: 304/360
EXP: 422674
For next: 18639

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 3099 days
Last activity: 2703 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 3.2.05 0951.39
Reposted on: 3.2.12 0952.46
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript/

I thought it was a decent speech but I don't really have any clue where he is going with Social Security and didn't explain it very well last night.
Promote this thread!
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 182/545
EXP: 789362
For next: 34186

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1206 days
Last activity: 131 days
#2 Posted on 3.2.05 0957.34
Reposted on: 3.2.12 0957.39
BWT - you beat me by a few minutes!

Did any other wieners tune in? Was the constant pausing for applause as annoying to everyone else. I'm curious, when did this applause business start - I don't recall much before Reagan other than Jimmy Carter's mentioning his daughter Amy was his nuclear advisor.

To me the highlight was the women human rights activist from Iraq (who sat next to the first lady) who the President introduced as being proud she was able to vote a couple days ago. She couldn't decide whether she voted once (purple finger) or twice (oh, that was supposed to be the peace sign).

Nobody mentioned that the rest of Iraq wants to give the President a different finger gesture.

Regardless of how people feel about the President's positions, how would you grade his address? To me, it was one of his better performances, even while I disagree with much of it - it was delivered well, and spent some time addressing domestic issues without saying 9/11 50 million times. Too light on the details about how to pay for any of this, but these addresses never give the details.

I'd give the address a C-, better than the consistent F's I gave before.

Does that mean I'm finally accepting the fact that Dubya's our Commander in Chief?


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4484/4700
EXP: 21359977
For next: 476685

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 973 days
#3 Posted on 3.2.05 1013.48
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1014.24
    Originally posted by too-old-now
    B>Nobody mentioned that the rest of Iraq wants to give the President a different finger gesture.
Only if you believe the mainstream media. Discover the power of the blog....

Outstanding speech. Got pissed in the usual areas(the overreach of federal authority, marriage amendment, stem cell policy) but was pretty good with the rest of it.

The inane, disrespectful booing during the speech is a microcosm of the Democratics problem. They have parlayed hate of the man onto the hate and disrespect of the insitution. They are an embarrasament to Congress.

Speaking of embarrssing, the Reid/Pelosi tag team was pretty pathetic too. Their remarks can be summed up as "We oppose what Bush supports" and "We believe in God (especially AFTER the election)".

None of the rebuttals are ever memorable or useful, but you got the worst of both worlds; a professorial, unemotional Reid; and Nancy Pelosi, Duchess of Botox.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1455/2159
EXP: 6265171
For next: 127628

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2199 days
Last activity: 2197 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 3.2.05 1023.05
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1025.21
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The inane, disrespectful booing during the speech is a microcosm of the Democratics problem. They have parlayed hate of the man onto the hate and disrespect of the insitution. They are an embarrasament to Congress.


I don't disagree that it was utter lack of decorum. Especially considering that they're going to get their day on the Social Security issue. It's the worst-kept secret in the Beltway that the Dems are planning an All Hands On Deck fillibuster when it comes around, so the booing was just overkill.

EDIT TO BELOW POST: To me, it's about tact/manners more than it is lack of patriotism. If I get invited to a dinner party I have every right as an American to say the food sucks and the living room furniture is ugly, but it doesn't mean it's good form to do so.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 3.2.05 1138)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 265/449
EXP: 640697
For next: 19472

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 453 days
Last activity: 320 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 3.2.05 1034.50
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1038.04
The State of the Union address is nothing but a glorified stump speech for an agenda (whether Democrats or Republicans give it), so for God's sake don't pass it off as some breech of Americanism to boo. This isn't some pristine event untouchable by politics. Republicans overdo it on the applause and Democrats overdo it on the booing.

And as long as Republicans continue to overdo it on the applause, the Democrats better be allowed to overdoo it on the booing.

(edited by messenoir on 3.2.05 0835)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 272/512
EXP: 718833
For next: 47376

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#6 Posted on 3.2.05 1041.19
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1042.24
    Originally posted by messenoir
    The State of the Union address is nothing but a glorified stump speech for an agenda (whether Democrats or Republicans give it), so for God's sake don't pass it off as some breech of Americanism to boo. This isn't some pristine event untouchable by politics. Republicans overdo it on the applause and Democrats overdo it on the booing.

    And as long as Republicans continue to overdo it on the applause, the Democrats better be allowed to overdoo it on the booing.


Sorry, but I very much disagree.
The SOTU is NOT the time to hear booing in Congress from the opposing party. When Clinton was giving his SOTUs, & there was a pause every 15 seconds for standing ovation after standing ovation, I never once recall hearing booing from the other side of aisle no matter what was said by the President.

It is simply neither the time or place & it made the Democrats come off as petty & childish.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4485/4700
EXP: 21359977
For next: 476685

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 973 days
#7 Posted on 3.2.05 1055.17
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1055.36
I won't dispute the fact that the SOTU is a stump speech pedalling the President's legislative priorities. But at the same time, these people are members of the House of Represenattives and the US Senate respectively. There is a great deal of decorum expected from people elected to such officers. Remember, referring to other members by their proper names on the floor is a breach of decorum; so how is booing not a glorified temper tantrum?

    Originally posted by Von Mastro
    When Clinton was giving his SOTUs, & there was a pause every 15 seconds for standing ovation after standing ovation
That's what bugged me about Clinton's speeches; they had applause lines built in, and he'd pretty much wait for the self-gratification of the applause before he'd carry on. There were times last night where Bush was ready to move on, and an applause line busted out.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1808/2900
EXP: 10573545
For next: 144167

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 3.2.05 1211.23
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1214.48
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    The SOTU is NOT the time to hear booing in Congress from the opposing party. When Clinton was giving his SOTUs, & there was a pause every 15 seconds for standing ovation after standing ovation, I never once recall hearing booing from the other side of aisle no matter what was said by the President.

Brit Hume mentioned on Fox after the speech that Republicans boo'd during 1 of CLinton's SOTU's.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 273/512
EXP: 718833
For next: 47376

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on 3.2.05 1218.41
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1219.30
    Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Brit Hume mentioned on Fox after the speech that Republicans boo'd during 1 of CLinton's SOTU's.


Interesting Spiff & I honestly do not recall it.

Did he mention which SOTU & what was said that predicated the booing? (which btw is inappropriate, regardless of what party the President represents)
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1809/2900
EXP: 10573545
For next: 144167

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 3.2.05 1232.17
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1232.37
If he did, I don't remember.

(edited by Spaceman Spiff on 3.2.05 1333)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1456/2159
EXP: 6265171
For next: 127628

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2199 days
Last activity: 2197 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 3.2.05 1246.08
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1246.13
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Did he mention which SOTU & what was said that predicated the booing? (which btw is inappropriate, regardless of what party the President represents)


    Originally posted by cnn.com 1/19/1999
    Republicans appearing on the same ABC program said boos -- like those Clinton got in his 1995 speech -- or other displays of disrespect are unlikely Tuesday night, regardless of where lawmakers stand on impeachment.


As far as why the booing happened, this was the closest thing I could find to an answer. From a Washington Post article dated 1/22/95:


    While the language was markedly centrist for Clinton, many Republicans were not appeased. They applauded wildly when Clinton hit their political hot buttons: smaller government, tax reductions, less bureaucracy. But they glowered or sat on their hands when he invoked his own gun control; government programs that he believes work; his version of the crime bill, not theirs; his version of welfare reform, not theirs.



Compared to Google Research all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so. :)

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 3.2.05 1404)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1322/2690
EXP: 8757925
For next: 230894

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
#12 Posted on 3.2.05 1435.16
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1437.18
Just a few of items.

1. Having the President deliver the speech is a relatively recent occurrence. Normally, in the day the President wrote the SOTU (actually wrote it) and sent it up to the hill. With the advent of electronic media, it became an event. Doesn't bother me, just using the bully pulpit.

2. While not my cup of tea, the booing is hardly the worst thing since the creation of the world. Maybe if Bush would honestly state facts on SSI and then push his program, maybe no booing.

3. What bothered me was the Admin's claim that there would be details to flesh out what he said upon his inaguration, Where were they?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1703/1759
EXP: 4878577
For next: 114293

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 3.2.05 1609.26
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1609.52
I personally don't understand why Democrats are attacking Bush for not bringing a specific Social Security plan.

It isn't the time for that.

Ever since the election ended, we have heard calls that Bush needs to work with the left. In his speech, he outlined a problem - Social Security. He explained why it is a problem, and why it needs to be fixed. He opened the door to the Congress, BOTH sides of the aisle, and invited them to help craft a solution to the problem. Of course there aren't details yet - he wants a brainstorming session from all of the lawmakers. I think that is what a good leader in this case does. Presents the problem, and fosters an exchange of ideas to best solve the problem. He is handling the Social Security issue quite well so far, I think.

As called upon to do, Bush opened the door, extended the hand of bipartisanship, and the Democrats slapped it away. I come here, and instead of a discussion here about the ideas he presented, we instead get a "The booing and applause were bad," and "no, no, it was nothing like it was during Clinton." Rehashes of the same tired "Bush is evil, Iraq hates us, no they don't" arguments. From both sides.

Bush talked about reforming Social Security, his amnesty plan, and quite a bit of foreign policy stuff. Doesn't anyone actually want to talk about that?

As far as Social Security goes, I think he is right on so far. I like the idea of protecting the plan as-is for those over 55, but opening the door to reform for people my age. I LIKE the personal account plan - not only because it gives me the tiniest bit of control over my retirement, but also because the account is an inheritable asset. If I die at 65, it is nice to know that the money I paid into the system will go to my heirs. I think it is a good thing that he hasn't drafted a whole

His "Guest Worker" plan? I hate it. I would rather see him promote the enforcement of existing laws than introduce a whole new program designed to legitimize people here illegally. They can start by doing workplace enforcement, and charging business owners who hire illegals with the crimes they have committed. If the illegal job market dries up, there will be less incentive for aliens to cross the border illegally.

As to the discretionary spending cuts - it is about time. I was wondering what happened to the Republican I voted for 4 years ago. Tax cuts are good, but spending cuts are better. I would rather see an overhaul of the entire budget, but I am realistic enough to realize that would never fly. This is a good start.

After the last year, I am really tired of the bickering back and forth - I'd like the politicians to start discussing the real issues instead of going on with the mindless partisan attacks. The Republicans are in the drivers seat right now - if the Democrats won't work with them, they need to leave them behind, instead of bickering with them. I don't like the blind opposition we are getting from the left right now, but the Republican response is equally as unproductive. It is really getting tiresome - I don't care about party rivalry, I just want some of these people to worry about what is best for the country before they worry about what is best for their party for a change.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 3.2.05 1411)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3097/5401
EXP: 26874001
For next: 258003

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 7 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 3.2.05 1624.14
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1624.14
I don't like the Social Security reform option for one reason...no politicans will ever have the spine to say to anyone who blows their retirement money on dot-com stocks (or gets fucked over by Enron) and is destitute at age 65 "go eat Alpo Granny." So in the end I end up seeing us having to pay for those people regardless.

I would love to see something done about illegal immigration. But as long as most urban economies rely on it to keep the service industry going I can't imagine it ever changing. It benefits both sides too much for anyone to really attack it. The Dems get the race issue (and eventually when some of them become new citizens they tend to vote Dem) and the GOP businesses get cheap labor. Personally, I would love to see a warning period of three months, and then a Federal fine of $1,000,000 for every illegal on staff somewhere. Of course, the right hook to the economy that would be likely would not be something the President much wants.

As to the idea of stopping the bickering though...in order for that to happen one side or the other needs to acquiesce, or else what is the point of the two party system. On almost every issue I disagree with Bush. If the Democrats suddenly become friendly and let his policies pass then who the hell is representing me in Congress. We live in a country that is very sharply divided right now about how to proceed into this century. The political process reflects that fact in that most politically interested people tend to be reflexively opposed to one side or the other. There really isn't a lot of room for compromise because it seems like most people who went out to vote were girded for battle. And really, do you want to see compromise if it means Bush moving towards the Dems, or is compromise for you the Dems being more agreeable to the President? (I could just as fairly ask the inverse, if I say I want compromise, am I not really saying I want the GOP to be more amenable to my opinions?)





(edited by spf on 3.2.05 1627)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1704/1759
EXP: 4878577
For next: 114293

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 3.2.05 1630.33
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1632.26
I don't necessarily mind the disagreement - I just think there is a big difference between blind opposition and constructive opposition. No one on the left is denying that there is a problem with social security. But they opposing Bush just for the sake of it, instead of bringing other ideas to the table and debating them. They say they don't like his "plan," when right now, his plan is to have all of them bring ideas to the table to fix the problem everyone knows exists. Debate is, after all, what a 2 party system is supposed to be about.

And the savings account? If someone is unlucky or dumb enough to bankrupt their account, they still have another 96% of their payroll taxes going to a more conventional system. I would hope that no one would be able to make a serious case that we should bail those people out.

But then again, you make a valid point. These are politicians, and somewhere, one of them down the road would make the case that these people are starving or something, and we would end up paying them anyway. I guess that is the main reason I hate entitlement programs like this - they are impossible to get rid of, and it seems like all they end up doing is grow.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 3.2.05 1431)
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 500/2248
EXP: 7188234
For next: 402

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 21 min.
#16 Posted on 3.2.05 1745.19
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1745.58
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I don't necessarily mind the disagreement - I just think there is a big difference between blind opposition and constructive opposition. No one on the left is denying that there is a problem with social security. But they opposing Bush just for the sake of it, instead of bringing other ideas to the table and debating them.


That's not true. There's plenty of people who are arguing that this crisis is either completely fabricated or exaggerated in order to justify privatizing the program. Bush just doesn't want to hear it.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/

What no one's arguing is that there are issues with social security that need to be addressed - but Bush's plan essentially throws the baby out with the bath water.

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy

    And the savings account? If someone is unlucky or dumb enough to bankrupt their account, they still have another 96% of their payroll taxes going to a more conventional system.


My whole problem with what Bush is proposing is that it puts people's security into a system that's even more complex than the current social security system. Most people in the country have no clue how the market works - and those who think they know are often completely wrong. Only a select few would really be able to take advantage.

And really, it's not even about losing money, but about earning at a steady rate - at least enough to get you through retirement. Even people don't lose the account, will the earnings on it even be enough to sustain them - and how do you guarantee that such a system will provide security for the generations that need it.

Most people in this country do not own stocks. They have no clue what they are getting into with this kind of program.

All this to overhaul a system that may not even need a complete overhaul.

(edited by Leroy on 3.2.05 1546)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 903/1083
EXP: 2366138
For next: 95726

Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 845 days
Last activity: 815 days
#17 Posted on 3.2.05 1905.42
Reposted on: 3.2.12 1905.49
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The inane, disrespectful booing during the speech is a microcosm of the Democratics problem. They have parlayed hate of the man onto the hate and disrespect of the insitution. They are an embarrasament to Congress.


    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    The SOTU is NOT the time to hear booing in Congress from the opposing party.


Atrios found four times where Republicans booed Clinton's SOTU at one time or another in the 90's.

/Just sayin'.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong




Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#18 Posted on 3.2.12 2252.46
    Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
      Originally posted by Grimis
      The inane, disrespectful booing during the speech is a microcosm of the Democratics problem. They have parlayed hate of the man onto the hate and disrespect of the insitution. They are an embarrasament to Congress.


      Originally posted by Von Maestro
      The SOTU is NOT the time to hear booing in Congress from the opposing party.


    Atrios found four times where Republicans booed Clinton's SOTU at one time or another in the 90's.

    /Just sayin'.


At some point when I don't have to be up early the next morning, I'll have to search to see what, if anything, Grimis and/or VonMaestro said about "You lie."

(edited by Peter The Hegemon on 3.2.12 2357)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4487/4700
EXP: 21359977
For next: 476685

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 973 days
#19 Posted on 4.2.05 0651.51
Reposted on: 4.2.12 0653.12
    Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
    Atrios found four times where Republicans booed Clinton's SOTU at one time or another in the 90's.

    /Just sayin'.
Yeah. And that wasn't any better. Point?

(Incidentally, you really need to do better than Atrios for a source. He makes Fox News and CNN look non-partisan...)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3098/5401
EXP: 26874001
For next: 258003

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 7 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 4.2.05 0921.37
Reposted on: 4.2.12 0928.16
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Incidentally, you really need to do better than Atrios for a source. He makes Fox News and CNN look non-partisan...)


    Originally posted by Grimis a few posts up
    Only if you believe the mainstream media. Discover the power of the blog....


So we should believe in the power of the blog when it's going after Dan Rather, but not in this case?
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: WWE/Canadian Gov't Present Annoying PSAs
Next thread: PTC labels MTV as smut peddlers
Previous thread: Great news on the Stem Cell front
(376 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - State of the Union AddressRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.199 seconds.