State Of The Union speach

[MarkM]

Im wondering what different peoples thoughts are about theses isues George W. Bush is talking about( I will post my opinion later)

-hothead

[Kent]

I was wondering the same thing.

Im watching this right now.

What Im wondering about even more, is how many board members are gonna get on here and talk about this with out having seen the address.

I personally liked the hydrogen suggestion and large sum of money bush is putting forward to get this stuff started.

I also like the fact that bush is taking all this time to talk about aids and giving support to africans with the disease.

Its suprising to see how much of this address is being devoted to aids and america/bushs desire to confront hiv/aids problems.

He is now proposing a new plan to fight aids that will theoretically prevent 7 million cases of aids.

He wants 15 billion over the next five years to fight aids in the carribean and africa.

I just happen to be acting as a stanographer right now, so this stuff is being typed as it comes to me.

I will be back with more, but I dont wanna bother typing the stuff he has to say about terror and all the war crap. For now, that can wait...

I also liked the part about getting rid of any marrage tax that people may be paying.

Being married should not be a disadvantage.

I also loved the part with the rhetorical question about terrorist letting us know about what they were doing.

It was also pretty nasty to hear our government acknowledge the rape and torture that occurs in iraq, perpetrated by its government. It kinda makes you unhappy to think about those people. Especially if youve seen the interviews with iraqies that had to watch their own sisters being raped and their own parents being blinded. (dont qoute me, but I think it aired on pbs)

Its also good to see bush come out and start talking about the evidence america has been gathering, which directly addresses saddams involvment in terrorism. (I believe this is all a result of the guantanamo bay interviews.)

59 minutes and 40 seconds of speeking, interupted by appaulse 77 times.

The focus of the speech was odd. It was obviously about building and laying out and revealing his case against Iraq as well as the classified info which will be given by sec. powell sometime next week.
But it was most important to me, to see him talking about aids and hydrogen simply because they are both subjects that we should all be able to work through regardless of our political partisanships.

Although, the fact that he began addressing Iraq was important also, simply because he didnt say we were going to war, yet he did say that the case is soon to be revealed.

Its also important to note that the president did talk about aids in africa more than medicare in america, and to me that is an odd thing. In one way, it shows his honest drive to get involved in africa, but it also shows that bush knows he cant do anything about making americans more willing to work with each other about working with medicare.
but he did talk about medicare and he did make the point that he wants to deal with medicare.

I believe that the most important thing I have realized in this, is that there are 2 groups (simplified of course) of people. Those who are judging the situation based on what they heard and saw, and those who are judging things on their own deeper beliefs of the president.

It also bothers me to see so many people in the government (not the president specifically) who are talking about saddams weapons and acknowledging his tyrancy. To me, its bothersome because it almost could be seen as people saying, "...sure we know hes a bad guy doing horrible things, but lets just worry about his weapons."
I say, what about those people he tortures and maims?

But enough of that. I think I should focus solely on bushs words in his speech.

I also think its amazing to see the attacks that have already begun. Its kinda funny if you watch the way things are presented. Things like sentences that put words into the presidents mouth like "lets read the fine print." It was also said by the gov. of washington "this administration is trying to role back progress for the enviroment." Im guessing he was talking about the hydrogen cars and development.

But like I said above, I am getting off topic and it would be best to focus on the speech.

I gotta say though, it was really amazing to see Jaun Williams (big time liberal of "afro-american" decent, if that matters) say "this speech moved me." with a tear forming. Now that was suprising.

It was also great to hear the president make the point that the profits made on stock dividends shouldnt be taxed again since it was already taxed when the profits were made at the companies level.

[Barra Maral]

Yeah, my fave is the hydrogen powered cars hes suggested. But I dont know how many of the other things hes trying to do will actually happen.

[Valen]

Hydrogen Powered Cars -- Those were already in the making anyway... he's just trying to get credit for the idea...

[quote]
I also loved the part with the rhetorical question about terrorist letting us know about what they were doing.
[/quote]

I dun think he meant that as a rhetorical question...

[quote]
It was also great to hear the president make the point that the profits made on stock dividends shouldnt be taxed again since it was already taxed when the profits were made at the companies level.
[/quote]

Bwaha yeah, I agree with you there...

Did anyone count how many times he repeated himself? I counted at least 10 times -- Easily.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]The terrorist thing really was a rhetorical question. Nobody would answer the question by saying "Oh yes! The terrorists will tell us what they're doing next! Of COURSE!".

I agree with pretty much 100% of what he said. I agreed with his stance on drug treatment, the fight against AIDS in Africa, the economy, partial birth abortions (I only support choice in the early periods of fetal development), terrorism, the environment and energy policy...pretty much everything.

It was a good speech with plenty of substance, I thought. I've never agreed more with President Bush.[/color]

[Manic Webb]

I have a new-found respect for the man... and he'd better maintain that level of respect, too!

I was particularly intrigued by his proposals toward helping AIDS victims in Africa and that hydrogen car he's opting money for. I'm a little confused by what he said about tax-cuts, though. Did he say that a family of 4 with a household income of $40,000 would end up paying roughly $45? I don't really have an income of my own and I don't pay taxes, so I don't really know that much about tax-cuts.

[TheShinje]

All we got of Mr Bush's speech on 3 news was the part about war, But I'm intrigued by his pledge to hydrogen cars.

One way to take away alot of Saddams power, build hydrogen cars and make crude oil a defunct commodity, then he would not be able to literally hold the worlds oil hostage. need we go to war?

And I'm in full support of the pledge to conquer AIDS.

[LiL_MuEsLeE]

does anyone know a link to where I can read the entire speech? I havent seen it but I'd really like to know what Mr. Bush has to say.

[Mitch]

[color=red] I didn't watch it, but I saw bits and pieces on the news, and I read an article on it from our newspaper.

I agree with him mostly, it seemed it was a pretty just speech. But a speech is nothing, nothing at all. Most of the things he mentioned--I doubt some of them will even be done. That's pretty obvious there.

OK, so seeing as I didn't watch it, I really don't have all that much to say. I'd love to see the Hydrogen Powered Cars, though. Because, I think our enviroment [i]should[/i] be something that should be careda about, and most certainly more focused in our world today.

But the only part I was against was most of the things he said of Iraq. I don't want to go to war, whatever he says. [b]Especially[/b] not without the UN's recognition, or our allies.

Bush is really getting himself deeper into this then he should. I mean, if Iraq's such a damn threat--What about Korea. They have nuclear weapons, why the hell don't we just go to war with them, too?

See, it's kind of one sided. Like he's only approaching Iraq, and that's all. Or so it seems. So really, I am really tired with this whole damned thing with Iraq. I know Saddam is very unlikely to just one day pop up magically and say, "Wow, here's all of my weapons of mass destruction, check 'em out, dude."

So, I believe our only route now is going to be war...and I really, really, don't think we need a war right now. Our economy's just recoving from 9/11, and what the hell do you think a war is going to do? Obviously, not much good.[/color]

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Actually, wars are traditionally pretty good for the economy...[/color]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]Actually, wars are traditionally pretty good for the economy...[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=red] It goes welly both ways, Jamesy. Wars can be devestating for economy, they cannot. But, in most case I've seen, which isn't much, it does cause the economy to slightly drop down, and even more. Just look at the Great Depression, just look at the past wars...bleh. But, yes, I do admit I'm no master in the world of politics or economics, but heh, this is just how I feel. ^_^[/color]

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Actually, that's not quite true. Wars traditionally bolster the economy -- especially if the nation involved (USA for instance) is winning.

The main reason war bolsters the economy is because it creates a level of certainty. Right now, the US markets are jittery because they are uncertain about the future. They don't know when/if something will happen. When the war finally goes ahead and when the first signs of victory appear, the markets will stabilize and strengthen.

In addition, the Government spends a great deal of money during the period of a war. Money is spent on ammunition and fuel in particular (billions of dollars). This is another factor that helps to bolster the market.

And finally (especially in the case of Iraq), there is the possibility that the nation's oil will become available to the world market once Saddam is gone. This would mean a higher level of oil production and thus, oil prices would drop. This would also mean that cars cost less to run, which puts more money in people's pockets for other things.

It's a big cycle. I'm not an economist, but I [i]do[/i] know that in most cases, war has a positive impact on the markets (though obviously it has many negative effects on other areas of the country as well).[/color]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]Actually, that's not quite true. Wars traditionally bolster the economy -- especially if the nation involved (USA for instance) is winning.

The main reason war bolsters the economy is because it creates a level of certainty. Right now, the US markets are jittery because they are uncertain about the future. They don't know when/if something will happen. When the war finally goes ahead and when the first signs of victory appear, the markets will stabilize and strengthen.

In addition, the Government spends a great deal of money during the period of a war. Money is spent on ammunition and fuel in particular (billions of dollars). This is another factor that helps to bolster the market.

And finally (especially in the case of Iraq), there is the possibility that the nation's oil will become available to the world market once Saddam is gone. This would mean a higher level of oil production and thus, oil prices would drop. This would also mean that cars cost less to run, which puts more money in people's pockets for other things.

It's a big cycle. I'm not an economist, but I [i]do[/i] know that in most cases, war has a positive impact on the markets (though obviously it has many negative effects on other areas of the country as well).[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=red] Thanks, James. You certainly know more than me. ^_^...

But, there still can be negative effects, though. Say we lose the war, lol. :Is going irrational:...[/color]

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Well, the United States lost the Vietnam war. And I believe, after the USA pulled out, the economy recovered.

So it's about whether you win or lose...and what kind of stability a war creates. War itself can often be a stabilizing force to a national economy and if the outcome is good, there are often significant benefits.[/color]

[Dan L]

Bleh.. it was on on the morning news.. but I was way too tired to actually pay attention. Not that the speech itself was boring, but the second coming could have happened and I wouldn't have noticed..

OK.. that's not quite true but it gives you some idea of what I'm like in mornings..

so yeah... I don't know my opinion yet but once I do (i.e. once I see or read the thing) I'll let you all know.

[Kent]

Actually James, I hate to disagree with you, but the vietnam war was not a cut and dry loss for the usa.

Infact, the usa never lost a large scale battle and by 1973 the usa had full control of the republic of south vietnam.

However, in 1975, the usa, ceased funding and support of south vietnam and with in 6 months of that date, the communist took back control of south vietnam. (Im sure the ceasing of funding was linked directly to anti-war protest in combination with nixons resignation)

It is however, important to recognize that during the tet offensive (cheapest trick ever but militarily genious) the nva put on a full offensive as well as the vietcong. These two groups suffered extremly high causaulties and could not sustain the war effort they had held to that point.

The reason there is a misconseption of loss in vietnam is simple. The usa did not have the support of the majority of the southern vietnamesse people. Only groups like the khamer serei(which tranlates to "free cambodians", quite the oppisite of the well know Khamer rouge, "communist or red, cambodians") and montagnards (rough spelling, french term for "mountain people" established during the french attempt at colonization in indo-china/vietnam) were willing to support the usa with their own military effort, which is why the usa established operation groups such as macv and mike force.

The vietnam war was a troubling one for the american people due to goverment coverups under lbj (which is being turned into an fx movie called the "pentagon papers") as well as the anti war protest, which were also responsible for the usa not continuing an effort to remove dictators such as pol pot.

In the war, the usa actually never suffered a decisive loss in battle. It was actually the gorrilla efforts of the vietcong that had the most effect on u.s. troops simply because of the mental damage inflicted on troops having to defend against women and children engaging in gorrilla combat. (just as what happen in mogadeshu, somalia. commonly known as the "black hawk down" inncodent)

I only put up this point because of my extensive research on this subject due to the american public education system's lack of ability and willingness to tackle the subject.
----------------------------------
However, on the subject of war and the economy, it is true.

winning can result in economic growth, while loss can result in economic callapse amongst other things.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]The United States failed to overpower the remove the communist north. What was their objective? To overpower and remove the communist north.

That's called a loss. lol

It doesn't matter what the reasons are. The United States and its allies (including Australia) failed to meet the prime objective.

I don't need to get into the details...I'm aware that there are many complexities to war and that it's not an all-out loss in every way. But the bottom line is that it was a loss.

Can we now stick to the topic of the State of the Union address?[/color]

[Kent]

State of the union indeed.

I still will say your wrong about the above, it was a defensive occupation of southern vietnam. Not an aggresive caimpaign against the north, so please dont start with me about the details/objectives of vietnam.

But I want to write about the address.

Specifically the evidence bush mentioned about iraq.

It turns out that today it was announced that on feb. 5 collin powell will be releasing audio and video evidence of Iraqi involvment in terrorism and the possesion of weapons that violate u.n. resolution 1441.

It seems to me that it would have been better to come out with this stuff long ago, but there is a possibility that this sort of evidence may very well accelerate aggressive actions against Iraq.

I am also hoping that this stuff doesnt bring out evidence that france, germany and russia have been dealing with Iraq in economic relations which may violate the rules of 1441.

I think its important to remember that the orders laid out in 1441 specifically state that Saddam must come out and prove he has dis-armed, contrary to what many think, we do not need to prove saddam has weapons, he must prove he doesnt.

I also think its sad about the way a political offensive was begun immediatly following the speech. It was a speech by the gov. of washington state. Oddly, he didnt address much besides the few objects that bush didnt concentrate on.

On a positive note, I am still stoked to see that bush is pushing for aids help in africa and hydrogen powered cars.

The hydrogen power idea was in use atleast 3 years ago. It was, as far as I know, first commercially shown, in a bmw 7 series. Its almost sad that it is taking so long to get this stuff into application.

But from what the reps. at bmw said back then, the main problem getting this into practice is getting a system of refeuling that can replace the gasoline systems in place already.

[Manic Webb]

I wonder how much speed could be packed into one of these hydrogen cars. If none of them can go an excess of 70 miles per hour, I'd still be happy with them (for the sake of the environment). However, I still can't help but wonder about how fast the average hydrogen car will be some odd decades from now.

--EDIT--
As for your little discussion about the Vietnam War... you both talk as if the government can only send soldiers to another country if they only have [b]one[/b] intention. Depending on what book you read or who you ask, you can be told two different reasons why the US got involved in Vietnam. You're likely getting your information from two or more reliable sources with different viewpoints.

[Cora Jane 2]

well we were watching it in school, and yeah, the speech was funny, and there were alot of underlying tones on religious stuff... i dont know. i guess since i go to a catholic school i noticed it as did the teacher. we were watching it in government class. we had to take notes on it, but those are at school in my notebook. but i do recall some comments he was making "We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

I'll post more later... gotta run

[Kent]

I gotta ask you guys if you heard what nelson mandella said just a day after the speech.

It almost directly applies to the state of the union speech, in a bad way.

OK, we all know bush pledged 15 billion dollars to fight aids in africa.

Now for mandella.

He said, the day after the speech, that bush was trying to push the world in a holocaust and that bush wouldnt work with the u.n.(which he is) because of coffi anan being black, and bush being a racist.

That after bush pledges to send 15 billion to save mandella's fellow africans from as much trouble as 15 billion can. (not too much, but better than anything else Ive heard)

What do you guys think of that?

And what do you think of this qoute I heard...

"going to war without france is like going hunting without an accordian, all your doing is leaving behind useless, noisy bagage."

I thought it was funny.

[Manic Webb]

Well first of all, Bush proposing to send $15-billion to fight AIDS in Africa is a [i]slightly[/i] different subject from his lack of cooperation with the U.N. It seems like what you're saying is that Mandella should forget about anything he disagrees with Bush about just because he's sending his people 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS. It's not the same.

And not to be cynical or anything, but does Bush's plan to send oodles of money to Africa have to pass through a legislative body composed mostly of old, white, wealthy, right-wing republicans? Just a question.

Of course, if I'm way off, you can always pull up a couple of quotes for us to debate over. I'd be [b]so[/b] much easier for someone to prove they're right around here if we would actually quote something.

--EDIT--
I forgot "wealthy"

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Endymion [/i]
[B]And not to be cynical or anything, but does Bush's plan to send oodles of money to Africa have to pass through a legislative body composed mostly of old, white, wealthy, right-wing republicans? Just a question. [/B][/QUOTE]
You mean black dictators? A better thing to say was that will this money go to pharmacuetical(yeah it's spelled wrong) companies to off set losses.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]
Now for mandella.

He said, the day after the speech, that bush was trying to push the world in a holocaust and that bush wouldnt work with the u.n.(which he is) because of coffi anan being black, and bush being a racist.

That after bush pledges to send 15 billion to save mandella's fellow africans from as much trouble as 15 billion can. (not too much, but better than anything else Ive heard)

What do you guys think of that?[/B][/QUOTE]
Mandella is a moron. His hatred for white people blinds him pretty much. He called Colin Powell an Uncle Tom for not fighting the oppressive white controlled government of the US. He is extremely racist but you will never heard anyone say that in public since it's not Politically correct to call black people racist since they were victims of slavery.

[Kent]

Wow, endymion.

I think you also forgot to call those people in the government a dozen other stereotypes. Maybe bigots or crackers while your at it.

I guess you forgot about the other half of white rich fogeys that represent, what I assume, to be your side. (the left) such as tom daschle or ted kennedy. Or any of the other 48, I repeat, 48, democrates in the senate (with one independant).

I dont want this to be about race, so I will leave it at the inflamatory statments we have both made. I would say its easier to use generalizations and stereotypes than qoutes.

But I do wanna mention that I have no intention of saying mandela should agree with bush simply because of the money going to africa. I was simply saying that it takes alot of nerve to do that when the war hasnt begun nor has the war stopped for that matter. ( I mean, where was mandela, and you for that matter, when clinton was bombing Iraq for the 8 full years of his administration, I didnt hear protest then.)

But the point Im making might not be clear. I am not saying mandela has to agree, I am saying however, that accussing bush of being a racist for NOT doing something that he IS doing is simply foolish. Bush has been using the U.N. and working with them and there has been no action taken yet. Coffy Anon is a black african. He is the head of the U.N. and has been working and discussing this situation with bush for the last 6 weeks.
For mandela to jump in and say that bush never did that and then call him a racist would be like me saying that to you even though you have often spoken and interacted with whites and all sorts of other people. (I am assuming you have)

So once again, my statment in the post before stands.

To me, there is a difference between a legitimate disagrement between leaders and a blatent personal insult. (which is what it is to call someone a racist.)

Disagree all you want, but personal insults have no place in diplomacy.

I also gotta say I was quite suprised to see you call everyone in senate a white wealthy RIGHT WINGER. I happen to know of many who are far to the left. Infact, just to throw you off, I know of a state that is represented by 2 democrate senators (both white if that matters to you) and its my own state, which is, if you ask me, one of the most racist states Ive ever been in... Louisiana.

I also want to remind you of something that I doubt you knew...

Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) from tennesse is a medical missionary to africa. He is the driving force behind this 15 billion going to africa. So think about him next time you imply white, wealthy, right wingers are gonna nix this african aid initiative. (above all else, frist was there a long time before this stuff ever came up.)

And remember that you can stereotype myself and every other republican if you want, but those sorts of actions dont make me look like the ignorant one. (sad thing is, I really have liked and respected you, and I still do, but this does give me insight into your deep feelings.)

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=green]Overall I was impressed by almost every aspect of the President's speech. The only thing that could have been better would to have ordered the Republican attendees to sit and hold their applause for the end. It would have made the whole process much more expedient, and less like a pep rally.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[color=red] But the only part I was against was most of the things he said of Iraq. I don't want to go to war, whatever he says. [b]Especially[/b] not without the UN's recognition, or our allies.[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]The UN can rot in hell for all I care.

The idea of an organization that would try to maintain world peace, solve global problems and protect human rights is good, but the result has been laughable.

The UN human rights council, or whatever it calls itself, is headed by Libya of all countries. It has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and is lead by a murderous dictator.

The president nation of the UN disarmament committee rotates every few months. This means that before 2003 is over Iraq will get to preside over the supervision of the dismantlement of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons worldwide. :rolleyes:

The United States has over twelve important European Nations, our real allies that have pledged to back an invasion of Iraq with or without UN approval/support.

The United States should and will attack Iraq to disarm Saddam. It is only a matter of time until the world becomes a safer place... [/COLOR]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]Now for mandella.

He said, the day after the speech, that bush was trying to push the world in a holocaust and that bush wouldnt work with the u.n.(which he is) because of coffi anan being black, and bush being a racist.

That after bush pledges to send 15 billion to save mandella's fellow africans from as much trouble as 15 billion can. (not too much, but better than anything else Ive heard)[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]Nelson Mandela is a loser. It seems like history has forgotten why he was put in prison by the Apartheid government of his nation. Sure, he was a political prisoner, but he was also a terrorist. He was the leader of the African National Congress's military wing. He led fighters that carried out attacks on civilians as well as military instillations.[/COLOR]