State of the Union 2006

[Barihawk]

So, President Bush just gave the new State of the Union.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first half hour of the speech was a visionary statement of America's foreign policy. The President spoke of the many new multipartisan democratic elections spreading across the East and criticized Iran and Lebanon for thier contracts with terrorists. To be honest, this part was really not the gem of the speech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most awe-inspiring part of this Address was the domestic affairs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bombshells such as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE LINE ITEM VETO FOR THE PRESIDENT!!!

 

 

 

-Theres a reason why Texas and other states with the line veto have amazingly efficient governments, and thats the ability for the Governor to strike out single items of a bill. This would allow the President to eliminate Pork Barrelling without having to cut an entire bill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reauthorizing the Patriot Act:

 

 

 

-The President wants the Act to only extend to foreign communications. He gives the reason that Law Enforcement agencies have been using this technique for years successfully, what reason is there to not use it here?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Energy Research

 

 

 

-Big item here. He wants power for our housing to depend on clean-burning coal, wind power (my entire city of 350,000 and the surrounding 250 miles are powered by windmills), and clean-safe nuclear fusion.

 

 

 

-Automobile fuel research in the areas of more efficient batteries for hybrid vehicles, more efficient Hydrogen engines.

 

 

 

-The President's plan will decrease the American reliance on Middle Eastern oil by 78% by 2025. Take that you guys who think we went to Iraq for the oil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Reform

 

 

 

-The President's initiative will increase math and science education across America to give students a competitive edge in the world. In addition, it will train 70,000 teachers to teach AP courses and bring 30,000 professionals into high school classrooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Reform:

 

 

 

-The cutting of fring programs with no results to keep Bush's tax cuts in place for more than 20 years. It also leads the groundwork to cut the Deficit in half by 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Security and Medicare Reform

 

 

 

-Let's face it folks. By 2020, Social Security will be eating up 70% of the nation's budget. Bush pretty much said that if the Democrats and Republicans don't stop eating eachothers butts over this issue and get something done about it, the government will not be able to function.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please discuss in an orderly manner these and other facets of the Address.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Personal thought on Democratic Response...Was this guy even AT the Address?*

[rocketman089]

Wow, didn't even know it was today. I was watching Band of Brothers box set instead.

[Guest GhostRanger]

What I liked about this speech (that was predicted by several Senators in December) was that Bush finally showed he was listening to what the people were saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His motions about energy reform and immigration policy let us know that he does want to listen to what we had to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also stressed bipartisanism, motioning for a Commission to investigate proper action towards Social Security. That was a plus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really felt like I saw a different Bush. Clearly he's not going to give up on his conservative values and so liberals still won't like him, but he showed an open-mindedness that we all needed to see. It seems like there are good things to come...we'll see...

[Barihawk]

What I liked about this speech (that was predicted by several Senators in December) was that Bush finally showed he was listening to what the people were saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His motions about energy reform and immigration policy let us know that he does want to listen to what we had to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also stressed bipartisanism, motioning for a Commission to investigate proper action towards Social Security. That was a plus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really felt like I saw a different Bush. Clearly he's not going to give up on his conservative values and so liberals still won't like him, but he showed an open-mindedness that we all needed to see. It seems like there are good things to come...we'll see...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were parts of the speech in which he was so serious, he dropped the whole Southern accent and went straight into a Yale one. I was like...wow?! Is that the same guy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad I voted for him. He has big brass ones, and I hope that the next President (no matter what party) also has the cahones to step outside popular opinion and get things done.

[Tomato]

Wow, I must say that was one of the best SoTU addresses I've ever heard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't particularly like Tim Kaine's(governor of Virginia...my state!) response. The whole "better way" slogan got old really fast, and he never really pushed an alternative agenda to Bush's plans.

[indy500fan]

it was on... tonight? i thought i read that it was tommorow, and i thought that was why they were doing a repeat of lost. oh well, i guess i missed it live, is there anywhere to download it?

[Guest GhostRanger]

it was on... tonight? i thought i read that it was tommorow, and i thought that was why they were doing a repeat of lost. oh well, i guess i missed it live, is there anywhere to download it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have a link to watch it there I believe.

[Mr_Putter]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11110276/

 

 

 

Rejecting calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Bush said, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThere is no peace in retreat.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Barihawk]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11110276/

 

 

 

Rejecting calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Bush said, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThere is no peace in retreat.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[stevester77]

Bah the governor of Virginia with his "the better way" motto got way old, way fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the speech itself..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was fairly suprised/pleased with Bush's strong rhetoric towards Hamas and Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When he brought up the patroit act/survellance I was fairly discouraged (im completely against them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I found it rather amusing when Bush made a joke about how him and Clinton are now baby booming senior citizens... and then the camera (at least for the channel I was watching it on) panned over to Hilary and she gave him the diriest look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At this point in time, I had to pick up my sister from some school function she had to go to and I had to listen to the rest of the speech in the car. From what I heard though, it sounded pretty good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, pretty good speech. yes, I know I just repeated myself.

[Barihawk]

Im really not against the Patriot Act. It does not mean that the US is going to bug every Joe Smith's phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only be employed in situations where the person is known to or believed to be linked with terrorist organizations, much like the legal ways we bust drug trafficing. All the listening posts will be focused on the recieving end, so no bugging will be done on US soil. So really...if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

[stevester77]

Im really not against the Patriot Act. It does not mean that the US is going to bug every Joe Smith's phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only be employed in situations where the person is known to or believed to be linked with terrorist organizations, much like the legal ways we bust drug trafficing. All the listening posts will be focused on the recieving end, so no bugging will be done on US soil. So really...if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The definition of a terrorist under the patriot act is "anyone who endanger's human life". That seems fine at first, but think about it in lawyer speak- where it will be applied. It I decide to go jaywalk, I am then considered a terrorist under the patriot acts definition of a terrorist. Why? Because when I jaywalk, I am technically endangering human life. Sure, if im not a terrorist, I have nothing to worry about. But according to the patriot act, I may just be considered a terrorist.

[Scruffy5389]

Im really not against the Patriot Act. It does not mean that the US is going to bug every Joe Smith's phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only be employed in situations where the person is known to or believed to be linked with terrorist organizations, much like the legal ways we bust drug trafficing. All the listening posts will be focused on the recieving end, so no bugging will be done on US soil. So really...if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That depends on if you trust the government or not, and arguably the single most important principle of democracy in America, starting in 1776, is a healthy distrust of putting too much power in a centralized government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...And with an opening like that, I think it's pretty obvious where I stand politically :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But anyway. I am not a fan of Bush, but this speech was pretty good. He made some pretty blatant misdirections, such as his connection between Iraq and 9-11:

 

 

 

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

 

Of course he avoids making an explicit connection so he has deniability later, but this is an obvious effort to help blame Saddam for 9-11 and further justify the war. Which is simply not true. Whether the war was justified or not, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, he talks about increasing federal funding in a lot of areas, and tax cuts, and a plan to get rid of the deficit. I'm not entirely sure how all those fit together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't know what to think of the line-item veto. Seems like too much power for the executive branch, to me. I think Id probably say the same to a Democratic president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But overall, I am sorta impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naw, nevermind. I'm not. It's all just flowery words to me. I guess I'm glad I saw it first here instead of reading about it (from a liberal bias) in the Boston Globe tomorrow morning. At least here I began by giving it the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parting shot:

 

 

 

His so-called concession to environmental concerns is absolutely just lip service. He spends 3 paragraphs on it, compared to 6 or 7 or more on other issues. And hydrogen cars are already a failed technology. You have to put energy into the hydrogen before you can get any out (my understanding is that it takes energy to isolate the hydrogen, hydrogen cars then combine the isolated hydrogen with oxygen to form water, releasing that energy again, correct me if I'm wrong), and where do you think the original energy comes from? I'll give you a hint: it's not clean or environmentally friendly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, I feel cynical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to bed.

[weezcake]

I missed it because I had to go out to dinner. Blah, I'll watch it later.

[mad4u689]

I was quite surprised he used the phrase "evil empire." Now that's a loaded couple of words.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

And hydrogen cars are already a failed technology. You have to put energy into the hydrogen before you can get any out (my understanding is that it takes energy to isolate the hydrogen, hydrogen cars then combine the isolated hydrogen with oxygen to form water, releasing that energy again, correct me if I'm wrong), and where do you think the original energy comes from? I'll give you a hint: it's not clean or environmentally friendly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the moment there's no way of creating hydrogen that's environmentally friendly; pundits keep saying that an efficient and viable method of creating hydrogen is right around the corner, but I've yet to see anything close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The real problem with hydrogen, though, is building the infrastructure. Think of your city - think of how many countless petrol stations there are. All of those would be fairly useless for hydrogen refeuling.

 

 

 

If we can find a viable method of hydrogen creation, then it might be viable as a whole in the long run, but we'll pay through the nose for it in the beginning to create the infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really beleive that the future is in creating more efficient batteries for hybrid or even entirely electric cars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though I did see an interesting segment on television about air-powered cars. They aren't for highway-driving at all, top speed of I think 35 mph, but for densely populated urban environments they seem ideal. About 1/10th as much as gasoline, more or less quiet, and 0 emissions.

 

 

 

So, really could be interesting if they caught on. Especially since there's no infrastructure to build, all you need is an air-compressor. Pretty sweet if ya ask me.

[Barihawk]

 

Im really not against the Patriot Act. It does not mean that the US is going to bug every Joe Smith's phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only be employed in situations where the person is known to or believed to be linked with terrorist organizations, much like the legal ways we bust drug trafficing. All the listening posts will be focused on the recieving end, so no bugging will be done on US soil. So really...if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The definition of a terrorist under the patriot act is "anyone who endanger's human life". That seems fine at first, but think about it in lawyer speak- where it will be applied. It I decide to go jaywalk, I am then considered a terrorist under the patriot acts definition of a terrorist. Why? Because when I jaywalk, I am technically endangering human life. Sure, if im not a terrorist, I have nothing to worry about. But according to the patriot act, I may just be considered a terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, according to the Patriot Act, you only have to fear about being tapped if you go bragging about jaywalking to a guy overseas who has connections with Al Queda. The Act does not monitor domestic communications, only communications made from the US to known terrorists abroad.

[tintmangbpack]

 

 

Im really not against the Patriot Act. It does not mean that the US is going to bug every Joe Smith's phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only be employed in situations where the person is known to or believed to be linked with terrorist organizations, much like the legal ways we bust drug trafficing. All the listening posts will be focused on the recieving end, so no bugging will be done on US soil. So really...if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The definition of a terrorist under the patriot act is "anyone who endanger's human life". That seems fine at first, but think about it in lawyer speak- where it will be applied. It I decide to go jaywalk, I am then considered a terrorist under the patriot acts definition of a terrorist. Why? Because when I jaywalk, I am technically endangering human life. Sure, if im not a terrorist, I have nothing to worry about. But according to the patriot act, I may just be considered a terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, according to the Patriot Act, you only have to fear about being tapped if you go bragging about jaywalking to a guy overseas who has connections with Al Queda. The Act does not monitor domestic communications, only communications made from the US to known terrorists abroad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think that this violates a lot of privacy laws. What I really dislike about the phone tapping is that there are perfectly legal ways to do this. They keep claiming that the phones wouldn't be tapped unless there was sufficient evidence in order to do so. What bothers me is that if you had enough evidence assume that it was needed to tap someone's line, is that you could obtain a court order warrant that gives you the legality to do so. That is why it bothers me, not so much that they are tapping lines, but that they are circumventing the current laws.

[Barihawk]

The problem with a warrant is that you are required to inform the person of the search and seizure BEFORE you do it. I'm pretty sure if the CIA walked up to a terrorist and said "hey, just wanted to let you know we have this court order to spy on you" that the guy is not going to say anything incriminating afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are clauses in the Constitution that say that laws can be broken in extenuating circumstances. When the entire world is on edge dealing with a ticked off terrorist organization, it ups the ante a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only James Bond was real...

[tintmangbpack]

It depends on what warrant you obtain, like you said about there are extenuating circumstances where the law can be stretched (broken), but this can also be used when creating a warrant, there are ways to have someones lines bugged with a warrant, without telling them how it was done. I am not sure on procedure but it can be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also since a terrorist knows about the patriot act, would they really be making increminating phone calls on their home or personal phone, I think not. I would imagine they would use a public phone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it would be much more helpful if James Nond was real, or on a more extreme sense, Triple XXX, the Vin Diesel version not the Ice Cube version. :lol:

[Guest GhostRanger]

Bah the governor of Virginia with his "the better way" motto got way old, way fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the speech itself..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was fairly suprised/pleased with Bush's strong rhetoric towards Hamas and Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When he brought up the patroit act/survellance I was fairly discouraged (im completely against them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I found it rather amusing when Bush made a joke about how him and Clinton are now baby booming senior citizens... and then the camera (at least for the channel I was watching it on) panned over to Hilary and she gave him the diriest look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At this point in time, I had to pick up my sister from some school function she had to go to and I had to listen to the rest of the speech in the car. From what I heard though, it sounded pretty good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, pretty good speech. yes, I know I just repeated myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not necessarily for the PATRIOT Act but I'd be interested to know what you think is wrong about the terror monitoring program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush said specifically that calls are only monitored if they are between someone and a known al-Queda member. al-Queda is a terrorist organization, they aren't like a country. Its not like you are talking to an innocent person in Iran...everyone in al-Queda is a terrorist. Why should we not monitor calls that terrorists are making? If you don't want your phone tapped...don't talk to a terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which brings up a very good point...why would someone with nothing to hide be in communication with a terrorist? That doesn't seem logical...

[Mr_Putter]

 

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11110276/

 

 

 

Rejecting calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Bush said, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThere is no peace in retreat.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[stevester77]

 

 

 

I'm not necessarily for the PATRIOT Act but I'd be interested to know what you think is wrong about the terror monitoring program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush said specifically that calls are only monitored if they are between someone and a known al-Queda member. al-Queda is a terrorist organization, they aren't like a country. Its not like you are talking to an innocent person in Iran...everyone in al-Queda is a terrorist. Why should we not monitor calls that terrorists are making? If you don't want your phone tapped...don't talk to a terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which brings up a very good point...why would someone with nothing to hide be in communication with a terrorist? That doesn't seem logical...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simply, its just the principle behind the matter. One may say to themselves, hey why should I be against this, I mean im not a terrorist in anyway, and its not like it really effects me. Sure it will only be used against terrorists, but as I noted earlier, the patroit act's definition of a terrorist is fairly murky. Im also found trying to justify to myself various cases where the government has grown too far. I tell myself oh it's okay if the government does this.. its for our protection. But theres a point where the destruction of civil liberties far outways the pros that may result from that particular course of action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the fact that calls will only be monitered between citizens and known al queda members, that doesn't say much to me. Both I and the Bush administration knows that terrorism will not be stopped with the destruction of al queda. There are simply far too many terrorist organisations out there for the destruction of one to bring about the downfall of all. With this in mind, do you really think Bush wants to limit it to al queda only? I think not. I think that eventually (if not already), that this survallence act shall apply towards all "terrorist" organisations and all "terrorist linked" groups. But now lets bring up the no fly list. Im sure you have heard about some of the more rediculous stories such as the one where a woman could not fly on her airplane, because her 2 year old baby was on the no fly list. The government has made mistakes in identifying individuals in the past, as the no fly list shows. As for the survallence act, I feel that it will only echo some of the mistakes we have made in the past.

[rocketman089]

But now lets bring up the no fly list. Im sure you have heard about some of the more rediculous stories such as the one where a woman could not fly on her airplane, because her 2 year old baby was on the no fly list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reminds me when Ted Kennedy couldn't get on his airplane because of some terror watch list.

[Rilha]

I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw of it; he seemed to be paying attention to what the public has to say for once. He even seemed to drop the Southern accent for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did hear a bunch of untruths, though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly dislike Bush, but I respect him all the same. He did, after all, become President...