• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

State of the Union Address

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I was surprised yet not so surprised at this address. Most of the usual stuff, more on his tax cuts, which really won't solve this growin deficit of ours and would cause more in harm by footing the bill to the next generation, or in this case, my generation.
On oil though, I'm surprised he mentioned it, but then with the unpopularity of Exxon's exceptional profits, I'm not surprised he'd have to pay lips service about it.
The rest of the speech, not much.

What I find really upsetting about his speech was not so much of what was said, but of what occured. This government now is so partisan to such an extent that nearly all congressional members on the democratic side refused any form of applause even when applause was clearly deserved, and the republican side would just applause at nearly everything even when it was clearly uncalled for.
Are these idiots the guys I elected? Can they get nothing done without partisan bickering?
I really wish that the government would be more united and respectful such as the days of Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, only without the discriminations.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I thought both the president's speech and the Democratic response were god-awful. There were no bold new ideas. Bush's message to the Iranian people was as weak and toothless as I've ever heard him; he would've been better to say nothing at all, than to say what he did. I am glad that he talked about energy independence, but his credibility on the subject is not particularly high. I was hoping for a punitive gasoline tax, or a bold new energy initiative. He mostly just paid lip service to the idea of energy independence, and was utterly unconvincing in his commitment to it.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
I thought both the president's speech and the Democratic response were god-awful. There were no bold new ideas. Bush's message to the Iranian people was as weak and toothless as I've ever heard him; he would've been better to say nothing at all, than to say what he did. I am glad that he talked about energy independence, but his credibility on the subject is not particularly high. I was hoping for a punitive gasoline tax, or a bold new energy initiative. He mostly just paid lip service to the idea of energy independence, and was utterly unconvincing in his commitment to it.
I agree, it really was nothing but lipservice, but I was surprised that this lip service would come from him, seriously how ironic is that?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Frankly, the ideas that the Dems were pushing are a good start, but they needed someone other than Kaine (no matter how much I love the man) to do it. He is most definetly not his mentor, Gov. Warner, and frankly they should have picked Warner to do it because he doesn't screw up delivery like his protege does.

What the Dems needed to do was denounce -- they can't say that they will be working with them because the Repubs have no interest in that, and frankly, neither do most Dems. They need to be an opposition party both in practice and name if they are to garner any respect anymore.

Now, the state of the Union stat of the night was that people clapped 61 times and Bush messed up his wording/said things wrong 23 times.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are other ideas and thoughts out there, but as long as we have a one party dominance, they don't get heard or they are denounced as liberal rhetoric that doesn't follow party (read conservative) lines.

If you would like to read General Wesley K. Clark's state of the union, here's a link. I think he has some interesting points and ideas.

http://securingamerica.com/node/560
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I fell asleep during the speech. What does that tell you? ;)
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
I really wish that the government would be more united and respectful such as the days of Roosevelt,
Yeah, it was so united in those days because his Congress was OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat! And he took that to try to tamper with the Supreme Court because he didn't like their decisions! Is what the kind of "united" government that you want?

Frankly, both the State of the Union and the Democratic response were awful. Both parties advocate things that are clearly beyond the scope of their Constitutional powers it is sickening and doubtlessly making our Founding Fathers do all kinds of flips in their graves.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
Yeah, it was so united in those days because his Congress was OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat! And he took that to try to tamper with the Supreme Court because he didn't like their decisions! Is what the kind of "united" government that you want?

Frankly, both the State of the Union and the Democratic response were awful. Both parties advocate things that are clearly beyond the scope of their Constitutional powers it is sickening and doubtlessly making our Founding Fathers do all kinds of flips in their graves.
Frankly, that is up to personal interpretation. I know one founding father who would probably love what is going on right now-Thomas Jefferson. He and Roosevelt expanded the power of the Federal Government more than any other presidents and advocated an increase in power beyond the limit of the constitution ebcause they were implied powers. That is what, for the most part, is being talked about, the stuff that they can do with implied powers.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
Yeah, it was so united in those days because his Congress was OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat! And he took that to try to tamper with the Supreme Court because he didn't like their decisions! Is what the kind of "united" government that you want?
Edit edit edit, nice of you to leave out the remainder of my argument, go back and re-read of all the presidents I brought up, not just the single one.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Edit edit edit, nice of you to leave out the remainder of my argument, go back and re-read of all the presidents I brought up, not just the single one.
I don't have a specific complaint to make about the others. I DO have a complaint to make about FDR and as usual, you can't answer it.

BTW, I hope the year of the Dog is treating you well.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.

It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GPS_Flex said:
I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.

It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.
Welcome back Flex!...:2wave:

You're confusing me...

Look at her...Then look at her investigations...Then look at the people that went to jail for her...Then look at her husband...

And your saying you were almost embarrassed for her for THIS?...
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GPS_Flex said:
I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.

It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.
What I find rather disgusting is that there is Bush saying that we need to put partisan politics aside, while at the same time, Karl Rove is making speeches about how the democrats have a pre-9-11 mindset. Yeah, let's set aside partisan politics. :roll:
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,983
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Most of it was typical State of the Union verbiage and what has become typical partisan defiance. What was very well put was the oil issue. We do, in fact, receive our oil from very unstable regions. Our biggest problem with the Middle East is our dependance to oil. It ties our hands. Because of our oil needs, we are sworn to protect the House of Saud (The true Lords of Terror) as they oppress their people into a fanatical state, using us as the scapegoat. Without our presence in the desert sands....we would no longer be a "logical" scapegoat for them. They will have to face their own self-inflicted failures or simply blame someone else. Meaning well, and behaving foolishly, we plunged into the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "honest broker," although neither side can accept the compromises required by such brokering, while our baggage as both Israel's primary supporter and the long-time backer of many of the most reprehensible Arab regimes is a debilitating handicap to mediation.

Up until last night, no President has ever said what we all have known for decades and have been hiding from. What is also interesting is where my imagination went when he said it. I could see European and Asian governments jumping to their feet with dropped mouths. Without the "great Satan" there in the Middle East to take all of the lumps and finger pointing as we protect and "stabilize" the world's oil imports from this region, they would be left with two options - Put hypocrisy aside and sweat and bleed for their own oil and assume their role as the scapegoat or move on from oil.

Because of our industrustries, its going to take time, but what is significant is that no matter what President is in office when we finally achieve a mostly oil free civilization, it had to be voiced and initiated somewhere. Once it was publicly stated, there is no turning back. Imagine if Reagan had stated this back in the mid 80's during the Iraq/Iran war. Where might we be today?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
I was surprised yet not so surprised at this address. Most of the usual stuff, more on his tax cuts, which really won't solve this growin deficit of ours and would cause more in harm by footing the bill to the next generation, or in this case, my generation.
On oil though, I'm surprised he mentioned it, but then with the unpopularity of Exxon's exceptional profits, I'm not surprised he'd have to pay lips service about it.
The rest of the speech, not much.

What I find really upsetting about his speech was not so much of what was said, but of what occured. This government now is so partisan to such an extent that nearly all congressional members on the democratic side refused any form of applause even when applause was clearly deserved, and the republican side would just applause at nearly everything even when it was clearly uncalled for.
Are these idiots the guys I elected? Can they get nothing done without partisan bickering?
I really wish that the government would be more united and respectful such as the days of Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, only without the discriminations.
The worst bit of partisanship is when Bush mentioned the failure of his social security initiative and the entire left side of the isle stood up and applauded not to mention the fact that they invited Sheehan.
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Imagine if Reagan had stated this back in the mid 80's during the Iraq/Iran war. Where might we be today?


80's???

Why not the oil shortage of the 70's? That hit the US hard but nothing much was done about it.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GySgt said:
Most of it was typical State of the Union verbiage and what has become typical partisan defiance. What was very well put was the oil issue. We do, in fact, receive our oil from very unstable regions. Our biggest problem with the Middle East is our dependance to oil. It ties our hands. Because of our oil needs, we are sworn to protect the House of Saud (The true Lords of Terror) as they oppress their people into a fanatical state, using us as the scapegoat. Without our presence in the desert sands....we would no longer be a "logical" scapegoat for them. They will have to face their own self-inflicted failures or simply blame someone else. Meaning well, and behaving foolishly, we plunged into the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "honest broker," although neither side can accept the compromises required by such brokering, while our baggage as both Israel's primary supporter and the long-time backer of many of the most reprehensible Arab regimes is a debilitating handicap to mediation.

Up until last night, no President has ever said what we all have known for decades and have been hiding from. What is also interesting is where my imagination went when he said it. I could see European and Asian governments jumping to their feet with dropped mouths. Without the "great Satan" there in the Middle East to take all of the lumps and finger pointing as we protect and "stabilize" the world's oil imports from this region, they would be left with two options - Put hypocrisy aside and sweat and bleed for their own oil and assume their role as the scapegoat or move on from oil.

Because of our industrustries, its going to take time, but what is significant is that no matter what President is in office when we finally achieve a mostly oil free civilization, it had to be voiced and initiated somewhere. Once it was publicly stated, there is no turning back. Imagine if Reagan had stated this back in the mid 80's during the Iraq/Iran war. Where might we be today?
Damn right not even the Democrats can argue with this one, Brazil has been oil free for a while now they now use appx 70% ethanol as a fuel source, if it can work there why can't it work here? We should make it a prerequisite if the farmers want to continue recieving their subsidies then they have to set aside a certain percentage of their crops soully for ethanol production. Combined with a nuclear power inititiative used to produce hydrogen we could easily rid ourselves of oil within a decade.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ShamMol said:
Frankly, the ideas that the Dems were pushing are a good start,
What ideas and be specific.

but they needed someone other than Kaine (no matter how much I love the man) to do it. He is most definetly not his mentor, Gov. Warner, and frankly they should have picked Warner to do it because he doesn't screw up delivery like his protege does.
Oh I WISH they had let Pelosi or Dean do it. Kaine's a moderate, that's why they put him up and hid their national leadership.

What the Dems needed to do was denounce
They've been doing that for 5 years.

-- they can't say that they will be working with them because the Repubs have no interest in that, and frankly, neither do most Dems.
Not true, the Republicans have just learned that if you try to pet a Democrat you will get bit.

They need to be an opposition party both in practice and name if they are to garner any respect anymore.
So you DON'T believe they should work with the Republicans, just prevent anything from happening.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GPS_Flex said:
I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.

It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.
That was HORRIBLE for the Dems, and then AFTERWARDS their spokesman talked of working together, amazing.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,983
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cherokee said:
80's???

Why not the oil shortage of the 70's? That hit the US hard but nothing much was done about it.

Even better.

I was referring to the first big controversial event where oil was the issue in the Middle East that we were involved with and what should have woken the powers that be. Our countries state of mind just wasn't at this stage yet. 9/11 really has made many Americans eximane the social issues in the Arab world. After all of the studies have been done and all of the problems related to the rise of and spread of Radical Islam have been declared, there is one conclusion - there isn't a thing we can do unless they are willing to do for themselves. As long as we need their oil, we are stuck and we will never be in a position to properly engage in a peace between Palestinians and Israel. And the Sauds and Persians will continue to fight Israel to the last Palestinian as a diversion for their people.
 

Dondie

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Damn right not even the Democrats can argue with this one, Brazil has been oil free for a while now they now use appx 70% ethanol as a fuel source, if it can work there why can't it work here? We should make it a prerequisite if the farmers want to continue recieving their subsidies then they have to set aside a certain percentage of their crops soully for ethanol production. Combined with a nuclear power inititiative used to produce hydrogen we could easily rid ourselves of oil within a decade.
Brazil is also not under the mighty thumb of the 'IMF' anymore. It also appears Argentina will follow suit.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I thought both the president's speech and the Democratic response were god-awful. There were no bold new ideas. Bush's message to the Iranian people was as weak and toothless as I've ever heard him; he would've been better to say nothing at all, than to say what he did. I am glad that he talked about energy independence, but his credibility on the subject is not particularly high. I was hoping for a punitive gasoline tax, or a bold new energy initiative. He mostly just paid lip service to the idea of energy independence, and was utterly unconvincing in his commitment to it.
The State of the Union addresses rarely offer anything interesting. It's just a big rah rah session.
 

AndrewC

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
351
Reaction score
71
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those of you who are giving Bush props for his statement on entergy have a selective memory. Environmentalists and democrats have been calling for the reduction of our dependence on oil for many years. Many have argued that less oil use is better for the environment, economy and security. Clinton argued as much with his entergy policy. Democrats in cogress fight for this all the time.

Face it. Replublicans are late on this issue. The like their kickbacks from the oil companies.

Bush had no choice but to face this issue. The difference between now and the 90's is that all Americans see the pain of oil dependence. It is a shame that you have to hit someone's pocketbook before they will open their eyes.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,983
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Damn right not even the Democrats can argue with this one, Brazil has been oil free for a while now they now use appx 70% ethanol as a fuel source, if it can work there why can't it work here? We should make it a prerequisite if the farmers want to continue recieving their subsidies then they have to set aside a certain percentage of their crops soully for ethanol production. Combined with a nuclear power inititiative used to produce hydrogen we could easily rid ourselves of oil within a decade.

The concept is simple, but the execution is going to be like pulling teeth. We have to deal with our industry and not just our oil industry. Everyone that has a business where oil is used in some way or manner is going to have to jump on board. If this means a brief period of loss of income...they won't be eager to sign on. This is something that is going to have to be forced. How much do you want to bet the "Global Left" turn it into a civil rights and government bullying issue?
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,983
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AndrewC said:
Those of you who are giving Bush props for his statement on entergy have a selective memory. Environmentalists and democrats have been calling for the reduction of our dependence on oil for many years. Many have argued that less oil use is better for the environment, economy and security. Clinton argued as much with his entergy policy. Democrats in cogress fight for this all the time.

Face it. Replublicans are late on this issue. The like their kickbacks from the oil companies.

Bush had no choice but to face this issue. The difference between now and the 90's is that all Americans see the pain of oil dependence. It is a shame that you have to hit someone's pocketbook before they will open their eyes.

The point, Einstein, is that until our government and a President publicly identified this, it did not matter who was screaming it. It isn't a Republican thing. It's the leader of America that is the point. This could have easily been President Clinton saying this if he chose to do so. Way to fall into the partisan rut that some of these "posters" have been typing about.

For example...the military, the CIA, and the Middle Eastern social and terrorism experts have been warning our government about the rise of Radical Islam and specific individuals within this disease for two decades. Until 9/11 happened, our government didn't want to face it, much less acknowledge it. It's always easier to pretend that all is well, when you lead a civilization full of naive people than to face the problems while dealing with your own ignorant citizens.
 
Top Bottom