1
   

State of the union speech.So what.

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:21 am
Yeah.......
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:23 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
I have noticed when he says something that is especially deceitful, he stammers and mispronounces words. I heard a tape yesterday that was a collection of his diiferent pronounciations of "Abu Ghraib." It was pretty funny.

What is really telling about his body language is the way he walks, that phony John Wayne swagger. This i s a man who is not comfortable in his own skin.


But Roxanne.... he worked so hard on that bowlegged swagger! Hhehehehe.... I like to describe his walk as "Walking like a Penquin with a diaper rash"
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:32 am
I'll join the chorus of those who will be reading the transcript rather than watching it on live tv. Watching takes about an hour: reading the actual speech takes about fifteen minutes. I skip all the boring parts -- the endless series of standing ovations, the acknowledgment of yet another great American or tragic foreigner in the gallery ("Mr. Hepperpfeffer rescued two kitties from a tree -- he is truly an American hero"), the lame jokes, the medley of show tunes, etc.

I tape the Academy Awards ceremony for the same reason.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:34 am
Magginkat wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, good on ya. It's not my ideology that makes me less than enthusiastic about his speech, it's his past performance, which I think is a perfectly reasonable criteria.

Not if you can't specify exactly what in his past performance is bad and in what way. Otherwise, it's just name calling.



Bad? LMAO! It would be much easier to mention what is good.

The answer to the good part is seeing his back as he gets his ugly, giggling, smirking, lying arse out of the room!


The expectations are so low when Bush speaks that when he doesn't completely make a fool of himself (and us!!!) he is lauded as doing well.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:22 am
News Flash
It has just been revealed that George Bush is in reality an Android. Programed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. At the same time Cheney offered his profound apologies for having to use a defective model. Stating that was the best we had at the time. He did however reveal that a new model has been developed which will go on line in the near future to replace the presently defective one. One which better approximates human speech and gait. "It may even be able to think" said Cheney as Rumsfeld stood by and nodded.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:32 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, good on ya. It's not my ideology that makes me less than enthusiastic about his speech, it's his past performance, which I think is a perfectly reasonable criteria.

Not if you can't specify exactly what in his past performance is bad and in what way. Otherwise, it's just name calling.


To say that Bush is not a very inspiring speaker is not a statement that needs supporting evidence to anyone who has heard him, and is not even close to name calling (I didn't call him any names). You've seen him speak just as I have, correct? Even his die hard supporters concede he doesn't speak well. But if you'd like to derail the thread, I can start posting random nonsensical quotes.

I was not aware that you were referring to his performance as a speaker. I thought you meant his performance in office, which would have required more specificity.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:35 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
and..... we have not one but TWO new boogeyman to keep folks scared shitless. damn he's lucky.

And when asked to specify exactly what the lie is, you'll make a personal insult to the poster and run.


trying to pick a fight fella?

Yesterday while I was running at the lake I stepped in dogshit.Very unpleasant and difficult to dissassemble from. From now on I will be careful to avoid it at all costs. I will apply the same principle to communicating with you Brandon.

Yes, that is a reasonable response to my observation, on a political debating forum, that you never provide support for your positions. And, of course, the profanity was very necessary to your point.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:36 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
and..... we have not one but TWO new boogeyman to keep folks scared shitless. damn he's lucky.

And when asked to specify exactly what the lie is, you'll make a personal insult to the poster and run.


trying to pick a fight fella?

Yesterday while I was running at the lake I stepped in dogshit.Very unpleasant and difficult to dissassemble from. From now on I will be careful to avoid it at all costs. I will apply the same principle to communicating with you Brandon.

Yes, that is a reasonable response to my observation, on a political debating forum, that you never provide support for your positions. And, of course, the profanity was very necessary to your point.


..
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:38 am
Magginkat wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, good on ya. It's not my ideology that makes me less than enthusiastic about his speech, it's his past performance, which I think is a perfectly reasonable criteria.

Not if you can't specify exactly what in his past performance is bad and in what way. Otherwise, it's just name calling.



Bad? LMAO! It would be much easier to mention what is good.

The answer to the good part is seeing his back as he gets his ugly, giggling, smirking, lying arse out of the room!

If the issue is speaking performance, then it's not a very interesting subject, and I have no more to say about it. If, however, this is your response regarding his performance in office, then you are only demonstrating that you cannot be specific in your criticisms. If someone posts that a particular office holder has performed poorly, but cannot say in what way, then his argument shouldn't be taken seriously.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:39 am
Brandon wrote
Quote:
I was not aware that you were referring to his performance as a speaker. I thought you meant his performance in office, which would have required more specificity.


The only thing worse than his ability to speak has been his performance in office.

Can you mention one thing aside from the initiation of the action in Afghanistan which he managed to F*ckup, that he did right?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:54 am
Poll: Just 25% want Bush directing national policy
RAW STORY
Published: January 31, 2006

President Bush delivers tonight's State of the Union to a voting public more willing to give an unpopular congress control of the nation's policies than him, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal follow:

#
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows health care at the top of Americans' priority list, with 76% calling increased access and lower costs "an absolute priority" for 2006. Two-thirds say it is time to reduce troop levels in Iraq, while just 28% support maintaining existing troop levels.

...

Yet Mr. Bush's lower personal ratings since the start of his second term suggest he will have a hard time controlling the debate in the face of opposition from congressional Democrats and some Republicans seeking an independent course. Asked who should take the lead in settling national policy, just 25% say Mr. Bush, while 49% prefer Congress to take charge.

The poll of 1,011 adults, conducted Jan. 26-29, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Mr. Bush's overall job-approval rating remains at 39%, down from 50% immediately following his 2004 re-election.

The proportion of Americans who credit the president with being "honest and straightforward" has fallen to 38% from 50% in January 2005; the proportion that gives him high marks for "strong leadership qualities" is 42%, down from 52%.

#
Read the full, registration-restricted story here.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Poll_Just_25_want_Bush_directing_0131.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:01 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon wrote
Quote:
I was not aware that you were referring to his performance as a speaker. I thought you meant his performance in office, which would have required more specificity.


The only thing worse than his ability to speak has been his performance in office.

Can you mention one thing aside from the initiation of the action in Afghanistan which he managed to F*ckup, that he did right?

I think he's done well with most things. One example that shouldn't be controversial is his bill to allocate $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and the Carribean.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:19 am
Brandon
Are you aware that while people were dying Bush held back funds such as this to organizations if they were in anyway involved in the teaching of the use of birth control methods and safe sex. Do you consider that a positive.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:25 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
Are you aware that while people were dying Bush held back funds such as this to organizations if they were in anyway involved in the teaching of the use of birth control methods and safe sex. Do you consider that a positive.

You asserted that there have been virtually no positives, not that you can name something that isn't positive. About the only thing I don't think he's performed well on is protecting the borders from illegal immigration. As for your allegation about AIDS funds, I need to trouble you for a citation.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:29 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

I think he's done well with most things. One example that shouldn't be controversial is his bill to allocate $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and the Carribean.


(1). That's three weeks in VietNam ... I mean, Iraq.

(2) Yet he championed 40 Billion in cuts to aid his own people.

Yea, this guy is a real humanitarian.

Anon
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:29 am
I wouldn't know where to find it. However it was all over the news several years ago. Try googling it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:49 am
Barndon
google Bush withholds funds because of birth control instructions You will find all you need.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:00 pm
The State of the Union
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 31 January 2006

i knew that i was dying.
something in me said, go ahead, die, sleep, become
them, accept.
then something else in me said, no, save the tiniest
bit.
it needn't be much, just a spark.
a spark can set a whole forest on
fire.
just a spark.
save it.

- Charles Bukowski
"He shall from time to time," reads the Constitution, "give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." And so it shall be. George W. Bush will be speaking tonight from the podium in the House of Representatives. Before him will be arrayed Senators, Representatives, generals and judges. The balconies will be filled with observers, luminaries, reporters and a few so-called "special guests" whose presence will be used to reinforce some argument or another.

It shall be quite a thing to see, a show worth watching if only to observe exactly how many lies, distortions, threats, taunts and smirks can be crammed into a single speech. This will be Mr. Bush speaking, after all, and the truth is not in him. It will be in every pertinent sense a mere commercial, a television advertisement from a failing company, a whitewashing of ugly truths by a staggering CEO whose sole desire is to keep the stockholders in line for another quarter.

In the interests of truth, the actual state of this union deserves to be displayed for all to see. This is the deal. This is how it is.

The Real Economy

Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen to nearly 37 million. More than 13 million of these are children. More than one in four American families with children make less than $30,000 a year. Look within that number and you will find 46% of African American families with children and 44% of Hispanic families with children fall below this mark. Average annual income for Americans fell once again in 2005. 46 million Americans live without health insurance.

The response to this? Vice President Cheney, three days before Christmas, cast the tie-breaking vote on a spending reduction bill that will fall most heavily on the poor, the infirm and the elderly. Funding for health care, child support, and education subsidies for low-income families has been gutted. Medicaid benefits for the poor were cut by $7 billion, and Medicare programs for the elderly were cut by $6.4 billion. Federal student-loan programs were cut by $12.7 billion.

On the very same day, the Senate passed legislation that drastically cut funding for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The Head Start program was hit especially hard: the cuts here eliminate some 25,000 slots for low-income children. All in all, these spending reductions are expected to save $40 billion.

Meanwhile, recently-passed tax cuts ravage the budget far more deeply than these drastic budget cuts. Two tax cuts in particular that went into effect on New Year's Day will cost $27 billion, more than half of what the spending reductions are supposed to save. These cuts will cost more than $150 billion over the next ten years. 97% of the money from these cuts will go to households making more than $200,000 a year. Households with incomes under $100,000 will get 0.1% of these cuts.

If all of Mr. Bush's tax cuts are stopped or allowed to expire, $750 billion will be added to the federal budget. That is more than enough to pay for the programs that have been eviscerated. It won't happen, not with the priorities of this administration, but that is the simple math of the matter.

New Orleans Drowned in a Bathtub
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013106Y.shtml
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:14 pm
Does Bush the druggie playboy understand the plight or have empathy for those who struggle. Of course not. Too bad he did not choke on his silver spoon as a youngster.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:40 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I think it's perfectly plausible that he is not the enemy AND we are all a poor example of the opposition to the enemy. So what are you?


I am a supporter of Bush, but I will listen to his speech to determine if my support can be sustained. I will not assume, based on ideological bias, that what he has to say is reasonable or unreasonable.


i find your determination that those opposing bush on a2k are a poor example to be less than satisfying finn. just doesn't work since you've been among those who also criticise the people who oppose him in the street.

now question 1 is; does this measure also work for a2k bush supporters ? in other words, does blasting liberals, dems, cindy sheehan, abortionists on a2k make you guys excellent bush supporters ? have you attended pro-war rallies? joined up with "moving america forward" on the road trips ? gone to washington to challenge abortion rights ?

this is all directed at the rhetorical "you", btw.

---

i do agree with you on this point; if you really oppose the actions of george bush and his administration, it is imperative to listen to his speeches, q&a's and especially the sotu.

you mention that you personally will be listening to decide if he deserves your continued support.

after the last election, i stated that i believed that, absent any hard proof of election tampering, i wasn't interested in pursuing "stolen election; the sequel"; that he was the president and i would give him a chance to change my mind. our own bush supporter, the lovely just wonders, even thought that in doing so, i might even begin to "like dubya, just a little".

sadly, our president has not cowboyed up on that one for me.

now, as to listening to the sotu, i've been doing that for decades, so no news there. but since i still don't care much for george bush's presidency or his policies, i use the appropriate state of mind for his speeches...

"keep you enemies close and your friends closer"...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 05:09:06