State Of The Union Address
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Initial thoughts</div> I thought the message was basically "No, democrats are all wrong. I r0x0r and you should vote for me again."
The lack of specifics on some of the programs Bush proposed was a little unsettling, and I would've liked to see a stronger stance on g4y marriage.
More later, I'm down with a case of strep right now and my mind isn't clear enough to really think about it.
The lack of specifics on some of the programs Bush proposed was a little unsettling, and I would've liked to see a stronger stance on g4y marriage.
More later, I'm down with a case of strep right now and my mind isn't clear enough to really think about it.
Comments
I think that it was important that he rejustified the War on Terror. And while many may get in a huff about it, I don't think you completely understand just how evil Saddam was. I wasn't even completely convinced until I watched a History Channel documentary on him I was simply thinking that he was cruel, but wasn't that evil. I was wrong, he killed his first person when he was ten, and worked as a hitman for the Baath party. He's paranoid and violent, and most of the time accused people of being traitors when they were completely innocent. On his inaguration he killed a group of people he claimed that a group of people were planning to overthrow him on the first day of his ruling.
He had people tied up to ceiling fans and lifted until their backs broke, he had limbs amputated. He had his thugs literally take an innocent person, his wife and his child into a torture chamber, and had them throw the baby at the wall and when the head broke open, they took the brains and threw it on the faces of the parents, then they killed the husband and let the woman live to tell everyone. He had men shock the genitals of victims, people sodomized with rods. People had acid torture, fingers cut off, genitals cut off and more. How bad this man was gets played down way too much, I'm looking at my copy of Time magazine and I don't think the people in the polls would really disagree with the war on Iraq if they knew this. I mean, he was really bad, really bad.
On the economy he really played it up, the economy is growing right now, although I'm not completely convinced the tax cuts really helped it that much, the main thing is the business cycles. The recession was uncontrollable, and the growth isn't really under his control either.
In general it was pretty good. I liked his no guff approach to the War on Terror, "The US doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself..."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I thought the message was basically "No, democrats are all wrong. I r0x0r and you should vote for me again."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that wasn't the message that I got although that's an interesting synopsis <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Much of it is simply opinion, if you disagree with Iraq war there's nothing he could really say that would appease you. You also need to know that he may have been a little more emphatic on certain things because the upcoming election and the mark of the nomination election with the Iowa caucus yesterday. (By the way, Kerry won, wow, that came out of left field, Dean got fourth, poor Lieberman got 0 votes)
He repeatedly stated how evil saddam was, and how we did a great thing by removing him (no argument there). However, he somehow managed to make it sound like we found WMDs (i believe the words were roughly 'some evidence of previous weapons programs'), even though we havent.
He deftly supported the marriage thing without ever mentioning the people it denies equal treatment to.
He managed to make religious organizations sound like some repressed underclass that deserves government funding.
Even though the programs have been shown to simply not work, he pleged more funding for abstinence and drug enforcement.
I still dont understand how he expects to lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and increase spending in a ton of areas.
As expected, he played the 'you dont love america' card when addressing the concerns people have about his rule.
I gotta admit, the guy has got a way with (twisting) words.
If your quote is any where near correct ( unfortunately I have yet to read/hear the speech ), then I don't see how you could get the impression that he said we found any WMD's. All your quote says is what EVERY previous administration and world intelligence organization has said about the subject. So who has a way with twisting words?
Brilliant, the american people will never see it coming now.
While I am wholly against the Patriot Act, but I am also against jingoistic Bill of Rights proclaimers.
The bill of rights is not an absolute nor was it evernever intended to be so.
1. Does the right to bear arms mean the right to bear fully automatic weapons? Grenades? Biological contagions?
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can own weapons but not ALL weapons
2. Does the right to religion mean the right to human sacrificie?
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can pratice your religion so long as it's in the privacy of your own home and doesn't harm anyone
3. Does the right to free speech mean the right to spam and falsely advertise?
etc. etc.
Point being these rights are not absolutes although they are often toted as being so. Allowing these rights to exempt all other rationally voted and passed litigation is simply insane.
1. Does the right to bear arms mean the right to bear fully automatic weapons? Grenades? Biological contagions?
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can own weapons but not ALL weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our constitution is like a giant game of jinga. Whos to say that the right to bears aint taht last piece wear you screw up ?
I for one say it is, it should be reverted back to where it was when it was laided down. I would feel much safer and my neighbors would as well knowing that the flak cannon, ak47, and associated ammunition kept in my backyard underground bunker are perfectly legal, and could be used in a appropriate manner to deter/maim unsuspecting robbers.
1. Does the right to bear arms mean the right to bear fully automatic weapons? Grenades? Biological contagions?
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can own weapons but not ALL weapons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our constitution is like a giant game of jinga. Whos to say that the right to bears aint taht last piece wear you screw up ?
I for one say it is, it should be reverted back to where it was when it was laided down. I would feel much safer and my neighbors would as well knowing that the flak cannon, ak47, and associated ammunition kept in my backyard underground bunker are perfectly legal, and could be used in a appropriate manner to deter/maim unsuspecting robbers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You guys are so wrong. The Bill of Rights is absolute, and every article of the federal consitution is applicable to all states (Incorporation Doctrine / Fourteenth Amendment). However, according to Marbury v. Madison we've got a system of "judicial review", which gives the Supreme Court implied powers to define what necessarily the Constitution means. Therefore, the second amendment is able to be interpreted. So the Supreme Court can consider arms as rifles and handguns not assault rifles and siege weaponry. This doesn't mean that it's not absolute though !
To quote jon stewart, "Its alsmot as if george bush was given a to do list, and he doesnt get an allowance till he does them.
And even though he did all that, we didn't invade for humanitarian reasons. Thats why people were against the war.
Anyways, I only read a small portion of it, so my opinion might change if I ever decide to read it in its entirety, but it basically seemed to me to be a campaign speach. And the bit about homosexual marriages left me absolutely sure that this man should not be in the whitehouse:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it just me or is the judicial system <b>supposed</b> to act independantly of the other branches of government? Now our judges are bad because they're doing their job? Because they're interpreting the constitution differently from what the current president's religion dictates? Frankly I'm starting to wonder how homosexuals can put up with this crap without killing somebody, I know that I'd be **** if I was treated like a sub-human in a country that is supposed to be "the land of the free". Should the religious extreemists get their way, and homosexual marriage is outlawed, it will be the last straw, I will consider this country beyond repair and move before its too late to get out.
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can pratice your religion so long as it's in the privacy of your own home and doesn't harm anyone <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Circumcision. It all depends on who's to say what is harmful.
And if you have a problem with the part about finding weapons programs, maybe you should look up what they've actually found over there. While it's true they havn't found a stockpile of nerve gas or some such, they have indeed found proof of weapons programs to develops a wide veriety of nasty things. Programs the UN was completely oblivious about. So, if the programs are all there, the illigal conventional weapon stock piles are all there, that implies in my mind that the unconvential weapons were moved during the long slow process leading up to the fight, not that they didn't exist. Maybe that's just me. It's not like there isn't anyone near Iraq who would want to take such things off of Iraq's hands so we wouldn't find them.
Anyway, do some research please. I'm not convinced that he's a liar, and simply saying he is without a specific example won't convince me. And don't bring up the last State of the Union, because I've already researched that line, and it wasn't a lie, sorry. Anyway just my two cents or so, I know many of you disagree, so try not to hate me too much in the process. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yet, they would probably be perfectly fine with the Baath party being in power. People are ignorant. They don't know how dangerous and terrible Saddam was, save the rosy coverings.
I don't care why we went there, but what humanitarian needs were accomplished, so I'm satisfied.
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can pratice your religion so long as it's in the privacy of your own home and doesn't harm anyone <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Circumcision. It all depends on who's to say what is harmful. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've experienced no negative effects from it.
do you remember it?
anyway, I have one word:
Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities!
No, it simply draws a line that is suitable in a democratic society of reasonable men: Yes you can pratice your religion so long as it's in the privacy of your own home and doesn't harm anyone <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Circumcision. It all depends on who's to say what is harmful. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've experienced no negative effects from it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did as a baby. Cutting a piece of skin for no medical reason, without anesthesia from a baby/child so that it bleeds and could have serious damage if it goes wrong(like they sometimes tend to do) counts as child abuse. No one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual. It's a painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn.
I'm kind of amazed that it hasn't been banned but I guess it's just one of the negative effects of having a religious society.