Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you don't understand is that reality is biased against Bush's, and by extension, your position.
What you don't understand is that Bush was duly elected by a majority of electoral votes to be president, and he is more real than you are and what you think.
Quote:Please tell me what Bush said of substance and that was new, in your opinion. I'd be more then happy to highlight everything he said that has been said in previous SOTU addresses. And the lies.
Cycloptichorn
I don't think we treat this thread correctly with you and I going into some detailed analysis of Bush's speech. Suffice it to say that I pointed out why the pundits were off base, and I cited valid reasons with facts. To take it any further is nothing more than wrangling over something that you will never agree with anyway. I would suggest we agree to disagree and let it go at that, for the time being.
I will say that obviously Bush said lots of things of substance, if you can't see that, then we will just disagree. Whether it was new, who cares, there were a few things new, but even if it involves wrapping up or finishing up old issues, that is just as necessary, if not moreso. I am not one to buy into this mantra of something new, or change, as I think we need to get back to the old tried and true basics. Many things new Bush proposed were shot down, like Social Security reform, and Bush is not as dumb as the pundits, he knows something new is not likely to be approved for a lame duck president, and if he proposed something bold and new like the pundits were criticizing him for not doing, they would have instead harshly criticized him for being unrealistic as a lame duck president.
Let us agree to disagree. I made my point, you disagreed, lets get back to the subject.