State of the Union Address

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]As many of you know, President Bush presented the State of the Union Address last evening. Because this is an election year, President Bush, like many presidents before him, used this platform not only to outline his plans for the 2004 year, but to discuss what he hopes to accomplish if he is elected for a second term. Although I think that Bush has done a pretty fair job as President of the United States, and though I have been his advocate on many a debate, I was distressed about a few of his points and propositions.

One of my concerns may not end up being a concern at all, but since the budget has yet to be released I will share my skepticism. Between the war on terrorism, the additional funding for school drug tests, the additional funding for the [i]No Child Left Behind[/i] act, the increasing proposed aid for both Medicare and the senior citizen prescription drug plan, funding for the prisoner re-initiative plan, and additional funding for college tuition aid, how does he plan to cut the National Deficit in half without raising taxes? I just don?t find it feasible. Bush tends to be a president of action and when he proposes something, he usually follows through with it, and if he follows through with all of these programs I think (at best) the National Debt will remain the same. Again, this is a concern that is subject to change with the release of the National Budget in two weeks.

I?d also like to comment on some segments of President Bush?s speech, and on certain ideas that I am skeptical of. [/color]

[quote] Testing is the only way to identify and help students who are falling behind. This nation will not go back to the days of simply shuffling children along from grade to grade without them learning the basics. I refuse to give up on any child -- and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children. [/quote]

[color=indigo]As many of you already know I do not have the fondest opinion of the [i]No Child Left Behind[/i] act, and President Bush?s above quote pushes me even further away from accepting it. By stating that ?testing is the only way to identify? Bush continues to take power away from the most important and influential person in the education process, the teacher. More than likely a teacher knows when a student is falling behind in class and whether or not he or she is on par with fellow peers. I truly believe that Bush should have used the funding for the [i]No Child Left Behind[/i] act to fund additional tax breaks for teachers and administrators. [/color]

[quote] By computerizing health records, we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care. To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. (Applause.) And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.[/quote]

[color=indigo]While I do support a government bill that will allow Americans to deduct 100 percent of their health care premiums, I am skeptical about allowing the computerization of health care records. Call me old fashioned, but I think that by computerizing these records we not only compromise the doctor/patient confidentially but we risk not knowing exactly who is viewing our medical records. [/color]

[quote] To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- [/quote]

[color=indigo]I am not really sure why President Bush focused his anti-drug blurb on steroids. Perhaps it is because steroids are one of the few drugs in America that have not witnessed a rapid decline in confirmed use over the past eight years. I don?t disagree with the president on this issue, but I do think it was pointless to mention it in this speech. If he had simply stated that confirmed drug use among Americans has declined during his administration I believe he would have made a much more eloquent point. [/color]

[quote] 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.[/quote]

[color=indigo]My biggest problem with the President address lies in the above blurb. Not only do I disagree with the [i]Defense of Marriage[i] act, but I also think that the President is unintentionally implying that he will bypass state?s judicial systems and their rulings and propose an Amendment to the Constitution to the Supreme Court. It is very odd that Bush would imply that he is willing to take power away from state governments and feed power to the national government; it is very much the opposite of Republican ideology. I definitely think that the president?s religious beliefs are affecting his judgment on this issue.

Well that is my two or three cents on the State of the Union address, what did you guys think of it? What issues do you agree or disagree with? Did the State of the Union Address give a more or less favorable opinion of the President?

If you didn?t catch the President?s State of the Union Address this link will forward you to a text copy. [/color]

[url] [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html[/url][/url]

[Transtic Nerve]

I have all the confidence in the world that he will do anything, lawful or not, against his party views or not, to get what he wants....

I didn't personally see it, thank god, but i did read it this morning. Makes me sick that he said some of the things he did... also makes me wonder why he even brought up steroid use in his speech. We don't have more important things to talk about then athletes and steroid use? Makes me wonder what he's hiding that he doesn't want to talk about.

[Raiha]

[color=royalblue]Aside from the clapping that just wouldn't stop, I caught parts of his speech. Then discussed it in Economics all over again. And sadly, I am sick to death of hearing everything get raked over the coals one more time.

I'm sure TN, that everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but really, even if he did talk about anything more important than steroid use, chances are it would make you sick too.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Well we are still here and earth hasn't been ripped apart by a volley of nukes yet; all in all I think the trigger happy Texan hasn't done to bad for the sort of control given too him. (Excusing a lot of things that is.)

[Guest rttocs77]

I really like the President and I agreed on everything he said except when it came to marriage. I don't think he, or anyone else on this earth, has the right to decide for a nation what is moral and what is not. Obviously there are quite a few things that are immoral, but things as subjective as marriage/sexuality and religion shouldn't be touched when it comes to making and/or justifying laws.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Raiha [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]I'm sure TN, that everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but really, even if he did talk about anything more important than steroid use, chances are it would make you sick too.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

He's entitled to his own opinion alright, but if his opinion affects my life, hell no he isn't entitled to it. And the only thing that makes me sick are the bigotted things he says right out infront of everyone and people think this man is a good role model for their children.. He's a bigot... he doesn't like gay people... it's obvious... there is no real logical reason to ban gay marriage.... the only reason one would do that is if they don't like gay people. Thats the only ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason. This Defense of Marriage act is only a scapegoat for his own biggotry toward gay people. It's a bunch of BS, pure, 100% prime cut, all American Bull S...

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]He's entitled to his own opinion alright, but if his opinion affects my life, hell no he isn't entitled to it. And the only thing that makes me sick are the bigotted things he says right out infront of everyone and people think this man is a good role model for their children.. He's a bigot... he doesn't like gay people... it's obvious... there is no real logical reason to ban gay marriage.... the only reason one would do that is if they don't like gay people. Thats the only ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason. This Defense of Marriage act is only a scapegoat for his own biggotry toward gay people. It's a bunch of BS, pure, 100% prime cut, all American Bull S... [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Well, the Defense of Marriage Act isn't Bush's initiative, is was a Clinton approved bill (personally I think Billy boy had a grudge against gays as well) but I do agree whole heartedly with you TN. I truly feel that Bush hides behind this act because Gay marriage undermines his Religious beliefs. [/color]

[satan665]

Did he say anything at all about environmental protection? Its so ridiculous to have a president that doesn't ever talk about environmental issues except when he's against them. I liked it better before we banded together with this dumbass in a patriotic sense. He used to have horrible approval ratings back when he rejected the Kyoto treaty even though that may not have had much to do with it.

Ugh, the clapping...its all so fake!!!

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]I truly feel that Bush hides behind this act because Gay marriage undermines his Religious beliefs.[/quote]...And sending fellow country men off to fight, die and kill other people and civilians isn't? Wow I knew his religion had changed a bit since it split off from the church but I didn't think it was that much!

He bases most things on his religion from what I?ve seen; I'm personally of the opinion that religion has no place in the decisions of a nation that at a least pretends it accepts all people as "equals" because it puts a block on freedom of religion and everything else is restricted to a fundamentalists "closed" views.

[Genkai]

Ugghh... Refer to the latest issue of The American Prospect to see everything wrong with the NCLB act. I'm too lazy to type it all up right now.

Anyway, I haven't read the whole speech (where could I get my hans on it? Google news hasn't helped..)

I heard what he said about marriage.. And I don't see logic in it. Naturally, there is no logic to the idea of banning Gay Marriage. Who is it harming? WTF?

Steroids? I don't understand why he would mention that....

I love how he made about one millionth of the references to WMDs as he did last State of the Union.....

Anyway, I would have moe to say if I could read th ewhole speech, I've only read responses to it.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Just because he didn't mention Enviromental issues, doesn't mean that he isn't accepting all of them.

I mean, that might have just not come to mind in his preperation for his speach. He might just say "Woah crap! I forgot to mention enviromental issues!". I haven't heard anything about him not accepting enviromental proposals. Especially since my news network decided to make a big deal about him refusing a bill to increase weight-loss advertisement. I'm sure that if he stepped on a daisy, they would call him on it.

EDIT: Can't believe I forgot to mention this.

The reason why he brought up Gay marrages is not only that he doesn't agree with it, but aslo as another main point that the Judges of the state have been going around passing bills that make a nation-wide law void only in their state. You could say that they are just making what's right or not to suit what their opinion is. After all, "Unconstitutional" is a broad blanket term that can mean many things.

[GreenEyedDragon]

Heaven's Cloud:
[QUOTE]I definitely think that the president?s religious beliefs are affecting his judgment on this issue.[/QUOTE]
Heaven's Cloud:
[QUOTE]I truly feel that Bush hides behind this act because Gay marriage undermines his Religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

[color=light blue]Okay, now, in no way am i trying to personally attack anybody for any references made in these quotes above, and the one below, but they are all referring to Bush's religion, which happens to be my religion. If this isn't a widespread fact, dear President Georgie Bush is indeed Episcopalian. *hush falls over the room*

Due to recent developments in the Episcopalian church based on the ordination of a gay bishop, many people have gone anti-episcopalian. Sadly, this is getting out of hand, where people with little information hear one thing and decide what they want to believe...Many people in the episcopalian church, including myself have the opinion that is: 'Why does it matter what his sexuality is? He is already a cleric, a priest, and when you ordained him into the priesthood you were fully aware of his sexuality, so why the sudden change?'.

Unfortunately that is most commonly met with 'Bishops have the most power in the episcopalian church..blah blah blah', which is true, but him being a priest and no change in his manner having occured, shows that there is nothing to 'worry' about in his becoming a priest, as if there ever was. The public now sees the episcopalian church as gay-bashers...which is totally unfair. I have even come across looks of shock when i say that i support homosexuals, because they're still people, and i could really go on and on, but that's not the point.

This is all to show you that the Episcopalian religion in general may be portrayed as anti-gay, but every person has their own opinion. These general statements may not be meant to slash Episcopalians, but until i get the bible verse that says 'thou shalt not be homosexual' i'm not going to base any of my decisions on that subject on my religion, and we can only hope that Bush has enough sense in his skull to do the same, though it seems quite the contrary, doesn't it? [/color]

Cloricus:
[QUOTE]He bases most things on his religion from what I?ve seen; I'm personally of the opinion that religion has no place in the decisions of a nation that at a least pretends it accepts all people as "equals" because it puts a block on freedom of religion and everything else is restricted to a fundamentalists "closed" views.[/QUOTE]

[color=light blue]This quote i completely agree with, although when it gets down the the fundamentalists bit you kind of lost me...but still, religion shouldn't be involved in politics in any way, not only does it distort the belief system of the religion, but it also conflicts with people of other religions than whomever may be speaking, or athiests, etc.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]...And sending fellow country men off to fight, die and kill other people and civilians isn't? Wow I knew his religion had changed a bit since it split off from the church but I didn't think it was that much![/B][/QUOTE]

[color=violet]Yes, but they did that before in the crusades, so I guess if you're fighting a 'holy war' it's okay to send men and women off to fight for someting which makes no sense.

However, getting into the who idea of civilian causalties-I hate to sound cold hearted, but they're doing guerilla warfare and inmilitary tactics in populated ares. The same as when we fought world wars one and two. Yes, it's sad that we really can't do much to protect civilians against warfare, but on the same level, there are civilians going after military men and women with home made bombs and such so not all of these civilians are innocent.[/color]


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i][b]He bases most things on his religion from what I?ve seen; I'm personally of the opinion that religion has no place in the decisions of a nation that at a least pretends it accepts all people as "equals" because it puts a block on freedom of religion and everything else is restricted to a fundamentalists "closed" views. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=violet]I agree on that remark. When Bush was govenor of Texas the Military had just passed a law making paganism a recognized religion in their chaplin handbooks. He's quoted as saying 'I hope that the military recognizes their mistake and repeals this descision'. Yes, this sure sounds like the type of person I want governing over all the ideals of this country. He talks about the military recognizing a non Judeo-Christian religion as a mistake and he's supossed to be upholding al amendments including freedom of religion? Feh.

As for the comments about upholding familiy vaules, shouldn't he forgo talking about same sex marriages and recognizing their unions and perhaps check his daughters into the Betty Ford Clinic? Okay, maybe that was a bit off topic and I do appologize. But maybe instead he should try to talk about the deficite, or the environment instead imposing his beliefs on the private lives of citizens and soldiers alike.[/color]