Bush's State of the Union Address: The Final Chapter

[John Smith]

I know it's hard to believe, but they all still respect him. He is the President, afterall.

 

They respect the office and it never hurts to reach out

[Good Old Neon]

what a suprise. let me guess. you couldnt stand John Kerry in 04 either??

 

I voted for Kerry in 2004

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I voted for Nader in 2000. At that point in time, before Al found his voice, and came across as only semi-life like, he did not strike me as someone to get excited about. Plus, I had become disillusioned with the Clinton administration.

 

Since then, I

[LouieB]

I voted for Nader in 2000.

Thank you for nothin.....

 

 

what a suprise. let me guess. you couldnt stand John Kerry in 04 either??

 

I found one of the strangest things of the night was Barak and Teddy hanging around together like pals and poor Hillary sort of sitting there left out. So sure, Teddy is welcome to endorse Barak, but his timing kind of sucked. Even though the campaign has hit some rather large bumps and Hil and Bill have played the race card badly, I hate to think the Dems are doing anything to hurt their chances in the general election.

 

LouieB

[Good Old Neon]

There is no new Al Gore. He's fatter and more well-liked, but that's it. He's always been awkward on the campaign trail and thoughtful in office (and concerned with the environment). He'd be awkward on the trail yet again if he ran.

 

I don

[Edie]

I don

[Good Old Neon]

Please tell me why that is a reason not to vote for someone. I don't think that Nader is exactly Mr. Personality.

 

That is not why I voted for Nader, he won my vote because I think he is exactly the sort of person we should be electing into office. Plus, Nader has done more good on behalf of us, than any ten contemporary politicians combined.

 

In a toe to toe, no holds barred, Nader vs. Al Gore 1.0 Personality Cage Match

[bobbob1313]

My things (for Treehug'n):

 

What didn't you like specifically? You made this big sarcastic post that seemed to criticize Bush, but you didn't actually say anything.

 

Bush has done very little, to no irreversible damage to our country. We survived Vietnam, Watergate, 3 assassinations, empiriliasm, a civil war, Andrew Johnson, the burning of our capital, and a complete rewrite of our constitution. We'll be fine.

 

Should we be in Iraq? Probably not. Was it the right thing to do? Well, you can't judge things like this without the benefit of historical perspective, but at this point I'll say probably not. Do congress, the cabinet, the CIA, and other worldwide intelligence agencies have just as much fault as Bush? Yes, and collectively, far more.

 

I'm glad to see him getting out of office. He hasn't done much good. I just don't think we're completely fucked because of him.

 

As for the state of the union, I thought this was a fairly good one, and for the first 15 minutes when he talked about domestic policy, he actually came off as thoughtful and passionate, something he has failed to do for his entire 8 year term. Once he turned to foreign policy it became the same old Bush. I still think it was probably his best SOTU address, which isn't the highest praise, but whatever.

 

As for Nader, I can't understand how people are still mad about 2000. He served his purpose as a third party. In our completely backwards, fucked up, 2 party system, the best a 3rd party can do to make themselves heard is to influence the election. What ended up happening was the Democrats couldn't overcome Nader, and when they realized they lost votes because of Nader's strong environmental approach, they realized they as a party needed to champion the environment in order to gain back those lose votes and once again marginalize Nader and the Greens. This is why after 2000, the environment suddenly went from like the 18th most talked about issue in politics to one of the democrats big 7 issues. This is no coincidence. Nader got what he wanted there. Blame him all you wants for 8 years of Bush, but it is in no way his fault that the democrats couldn't overcome one of the weakest presidential candidates of all time. TWICE.

 

Last night my friend who bleeds blue as a democrat (refuses to accept any weaknessesin the dem party) was bemoaning the fact that Edwards was still in the race, potentially taking votes away from Obama. He likened it to Nader and said it was all egotistical. I called bullshit, and I can't believe vehemently he defended a 2 party, Dem-Repub system, which is obviously the least effective way to represent the actual thoughts and feelings of the people. Bah, whatever.

 

Discussing politics with anyone who have 100% belief in their party or beliefs is useless. The more certain someone is on any given issue, the less enlightening or useful things that person will say on that issue.

[cryptique]

All 7 years? Way to give him a chance.

He hasn't earned a chance. He was never qualified to be president in the first place, and his administration has done one disastrous thing after another.

 

I read plenty about that prick. I just don't want to see his face or hear his voice.

[Good Old Neon]

My things (for Treehug'n):

 

What didn't you like specifically? You made this big sarcastic post that seemed to criticize Bush, but you didn't actually say anything.

 

Bush has done very little, to no irreversible damage to our country. We survived Vietnam, Watergate, 3 assassinations, empiriliasm, a civil war, Andrew Johnson, the burning of our capital, and a complete rewrite of our constitution. We'll be fine.

 

Should we be in Iraq? Probably not. Was it the right thing to do? Well, you can't judge things like this without the benefit of historical perspective, but at this point I'll say probably not. Do congress, the cabinet, the CIA, and other worldwide intelligence agencies have just as much fault as Bush? Yes, and collectively, far more.

 

I'm glad to see him getting out of office. He hasn't done much good. I just don't think we're completely fucked because of him.

 

As for the state of the union, I thought this was a fairly good one, and for the first 15 minutes when he talked about domestic policy, he actually came off as thoughtful and passionate, something he has failed to do for his entire 8 year term. Once he turned to foreign policy it became the same old Bush. I still think it was probably his best SOTU address, which isn't the highest praise, but whatever.

 

As for Nader, I can't understand how people are still mad about 2000. He served his purpose as a third party. In our completely backwards, fucked up, 2 party system, the best a 3rd party can do to make themselves heard is to influence the election. What ended up happening was the Democrats couldn't overcome Nader, and when they realized they lost votes because of Nader's strong environmental approach, they realized they as a party needed to champion the environment in order to gain back those lose votes and once again marginalize Nader and the Greens. This is why after 2000, the environment suddenly went from like the 18th most talked about issue in politics to one of the democrats big 7 issues. This is no coincidence. Nader got what he wanted there. Blame him all you wants for 8 years of Bush, but it is in no way his fault that the democrats couldn't overcome one of the weakest presidential candidates of all time. TWICE.

 

Last night my friend who bleeds blue as a democrat (refuses to accept any weaknessesin the dem party) was bemoaning the fact that Edwards was still in the race, potentially taking votes away from Obama. He likened it to Nader and said it was all egotistical. I called bullshit, and I can't believe vehemently he defended a 2 party, Dem-Repub system, which is obviously the least effective way to represent the actual thoughts and feelings of the people. Bah, whatever.

 

Discussing politics with anyone who have 100% belief in their party or beliefs is useless. The more certain someone is on any given issue, the less enlightening or useful things that person will say on that issue.

 

You

[Atticus]

I thought it was a well-written speech. but it meant nothing. same shit, newer polish.

[ikol]

Bush has done very little, to no irreversible damage to our country. We survived Vietnam, Watergate, 3 assassinations, empiriliasm, a civil war, Andrew Johnson, the burning of our capital, and a complete rewrite of our constitution. We'll be fine.

 

So if the wrong guy (or chick) gets elected, it's not the apocalypse?

[Atticus]

I am fully prepared to become a spanish speaking illiterate flaming ghey liberal on welfare, whether it's obama or the clinton dude. I'm an 'merican first and fourmoste.

[bjorn_skurj]

While watching Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia the other night, I hit upon a possible solution to immigration reform, but I have to iron out a few details - like how to dramatically increase the U.S. burro population - before I unveil it.

[Atticus]

While watching Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia the other night, I hit upon a possible solution to immigration reform, but I have to iron out a few details - like how to dramatically increase the U.S. burro population - before I unveil it.

 

bud light?

[owl]

I thought it was a well-written speech. but it meant nothing. same shit, newer polish.

 

Exactly. It's also kind of funny how he used a lot of big words that probably aren't even in his vocabulary, like "embolden the false purveyors of populism in our hemmersphere."

 

If I didn't have the flu right now, I would've considered doing some kind of MST3k version of the speech.

[Beltmann]

While watching Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia the other night, I hit upon a possible solution to immigration reform, but I have to iron out a few details - like how to dramatically increase the U.S. burro population - before I unveil it.

[John Smith]

Bush has done very little, to no irreversible damage to our country. We survived Vietnam, Watergate, 3 assassinations, empiriliasm, a civil war, Andrew Johnson, the burning of our capital, and a complete rewrite of our constitution. We'll be fine.

 

I won't respond to the whole thread, only the above comment. Bush and his people have been saying since the day his ratings started to drop, that only when time has passed and you have the ability to look back at an administration can you really judge it. So I think it may be a bit premature to say he has done no lasting damage.

 

What if everything he says turns out the way he said it would? Then he will be judged great, however if things turn out the way his critics have portrayed or they stay as they are then he will be judged far more harshly than he is being judged today. And if he is judged harshly and America begins a declining period, yes we will survive, but there will be lasting damage. Time will tell. BTW some think Lincoln did lasting damage by fighting the civil war and ending slavery, not many, some. So it is a matter of perspective too.

[IRememberDBoon]

My things (for Treehug'n):

 

What didn't you like specifically? You made this big sarcastic post that seemed to criticize Bush, but you didn't actually say anything.

 

Bush has done very little, to no irreversible damage to our country. We survived Vietnam, Watergate, 3 assassinations, empiriliasm, a civil war, Andrew Johnson, the burning of our capital, and a complete rewrite of our constitution. We'll be fine.

 

Should we be in Iraq? Probably not. Was it the right thing to do? Well, you can't judge things like this without the benefit of historical perspective, but at this point I'll say probably not. Do congress, the cabinet, the CIA, and other worldwide intelligence agencies have just as much fault as Bush? Yes, and collectively, far more.

 

 

I know 4000 people that are irreversibly damaged from The President being in office. They're dead.

 

Do congress, the cabinet, the CIA, and other worldwide intelligence agencies have just as much fault as Bush? Yes, and collectively, far more.

 

not even close on this one.

[bjorn_skurj]

Bush is the CiC, no war without him saying so. Besides him, the neocons - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et. al., are the ones who came up with and pushed for the war. They deserve a big fat dollop of the blame. Congress and the CIA were enablers, the latter probably less willing than the former.

[bobbob1313]

I know 4000 people that are irreversibly damaged from The President being in office. They're dead.

 

600,000 people were irreversibly damaged by Lincoln's presidency.

[IRememberDBoon]

600,000 people were irreversibly damaged by Lincoln's presidency.

 

What the flying fukk does that have to do with The War in Iraq?

[bjorn_skurj]

600,000 people were irreversibly damaged by Lincoln's Jefferson Davis' presidency.

[owl]

That's more like it.

[Mr. Kinsley]

Exactly. It's also kind of funny how he used a lot of big words that probably aren't even in his vocabulary, like "embolden the false purveyors of populism in our hemmersphere."

I laughed out loud on that one! He looked so damn proud of himself for even getting the words out. I have to say, it was his best delivered speech that I've ever seen, but definitely a little light on the substance.