View Full Version : state of the union
manu1959
01-28-2008, 10:41 PM
good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....
pity bush found his voice in his last speech....
Psychoblues
01-28-2008, 11:52 PM
I honestly thought he was going to break down ad cry while apologizing to the American people for his mismanagement of everything from 9/11 to the present recession.
good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....
pity bush found his voice in his last speech....
We'll see how the MSM spins this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
theHawk
01-28-2008, 11:54 PM
It was sickening to see the Dems mum when the President asked them to allow our anti-terror agencies the tools they need to fight the terrorists.
Psychoblues
01-29-2008, 12:04 AM
Oh yeah, that part where he was begging the congress to approve his unconstitutional spying on otherwise innocent Americans!!!!!! It was hilarious!!!!!!!
It was sickening to see the Dems mum when the President asked them to allow our anti-terror agencies the tools they need to fight the terrorists.
I'll bet you he at least gets a 30 day reprieve if not a complete renewal of the abuses he seems to dismiss as executive priveledge without regard to the Constitution and the protections he wants for those companies that have agreed to do his dirty work for him.
I think he even tee(a)red up during that otherwise apology!!!!!!!!!!!!
manu1959
01-29-2008, 12:05 AM
I honestly thought he was going to break down ad cry while apologizing to the American people for his mismanagement of everything from 9/11 to the present recession.
We'll see how the MSM spins this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
missed that part.......
theHawk
01-29-2008, 12:08 AM
Oh yeah, that part where he was begging the congress to approve his unconstitutional spying on otherwise innocent Americans!!!!!! It was hilarious!!!!!!!
I'll bet you he at least gets a 30 day reprieve if not a complete renewal of the abuses he seems to dismiss as executive priveledge without regard to the Constitution and the protections he wants for those companies that have agreed to do his dirty work for him.
I think he even tee(a)red up during that otherwise apology!!!!!!!!!!!!
How is it unconstitutional when Congress passes the law authorizing it?
Psychoblues
01-29-2008, 12:09 AM
You probably missed about all of it, didn't you? Did you catch all the quotes from the previous SOTU promises that have also failed under his leadership? It was pitiful, pitiful I tell you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
missed that part.......
Why did you not listen to us in 2000?
Psychoblues
01-29-2008, 12:13 AM
The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America has struck down many congressional mandates and legislation, hawk.
How is it unconstitutional when Congress passes the law authorizing it?
How long have you been living in America?
Sitarro
01-29-2008, 12:14 AM
I honestly thought he was going to break down ad cry while apologizing to the American people for his mismanagement of everything from 9/11 to the present recession.
We'll see how the MSM spins this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is truly amazing how you can watch the very same thing everyone else does and see nothing but negatives....... oh thats right, you're a lib, if it isn't molesting children, homo sex or buying votes from the lowest forms of life in this country, it's just not "progressive" enough for you. It's no wonder why you identify with "the blues", it's nothing but whining too.
Mr. P
01-29-2008, 12:19 AM
Had it on...didn't pay attention...what can he say that would change his incompetence...it would be FINE with me if he resigns in the morning.
Yeah, I voted for him.......twice.
Psychoblues
01-29-2008, 12:23 AM
Thanks, Mr P. I'm gonna think about taking back all that ol' shit I've been saying about you.
Had it on...didn't pay attention...what can he say that would change his incompetence...it would be FINE with me if he resigns in the morning.
Yeah, I voted for him.......twice.
You are far more of an American Hero than gwb will ever be in my book. Thanks for your honesty.
avatar4321
01-29-2008, 12:37 AM
After watching the part of address i just have one comment:
The President can issue an executive order not to disperse earmarks and no Presidents have done it before?!?
JackDaniels
01-29-2008, 02:44 AM
It is very obvious; to support the current Republican Party means you support higher spending, big government, and liberal interventionism.
To say any less is to admit you do not understand political philosophy...
Psychoblues
01-29-2008, 02:53 AM
While I agree with your observations of the current administration as well as the administrations of the previous 3 Republican presidents I think you are mistaken on the "philosophy" thing.
It is very obvious; to support the current Republican Party means you support higher spending, big government, and liberal interventionism.
To say any less is to admit you do not understand political philosophy...
Political philosophy is simply to win. Republican philosphy is to win with populist bullshit and screwing their own poulation all the while. When I see a blue collar that espouses inclination for the Republican Party I am already put on notice that I am viewing an anamoly of the American and human race. I am looking upon an idiot that will never be convinced that his own self destructive actions are at least partly responsible for the predicament that he claims most offends him.
Sitarro
01-29-2008, 03:25 AM
While I agree with your observations of the current administration as well as the administrations of the previous 3 Republican presidents I think you are mistaken on the "philosophy" thing.
Oh boy, a couple of drunken know nothings with the same asinine opinion..... what's new?
Political philosophy is simply to win. Republican philosphy is to win with populist bullshit and screwing their own poulation all the while. When I see a blue collar that espouses inclination for the Republican Party I am already put on notice that I am viewing an anamoly of the American and human race. I am looking upon an idiot that will never be convinced that his own self destructive actions are at least partly responsible for the predicament that he claims most offends him.
Ha ha ha ha ha
The three idiots running for the dimwits..... Hill, Jonny Boy and BamBam are the biggest bunch of "pandering to the pathetic" tools ever.
"Do you sit at home across a couch on the stoop all day? You deserve free health care and a living wage for all that you do for our country...... vote for me and you'll get it, some fried chicken, some malt liquor and a carton of Kool cigs"........ the slogan for all things democrat.
Democrat philosophy is to keep anyone that is poor or has a blue collar job exactly where they are.... drinking cheap beer and watching ugly loud cars go round in circles on a muddy dirt track or...... watching basketball every night so your brain becomes as numb as possible..... basically raising cattle that you get a vote from. Keep believing boys, that's what you do best.:laugh2:
Kathianne
01-29-2008, 06:31 AM
good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....
pity bush found his voice in his last speech....
It was a good speech. Though in my fever induced haze, I feel asleep before the commentary really got going.
Do you think he's the one that stole Hillary's voice, the one she 'found' awhile ago and seems to have lost again? Hmmm
Sitarro
01-29-2008, 06:44 AM
good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....
pity bush found his voice in his last speech....
I enjoyed it. I was amazed at how childish the kids on the side to the President's right were, refusing to applaud almost anything, pathetic. And the Speaker of the House doing all of that weird lip stuff, what a strange person(said like the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).:laugh2:
red states rule
01-29-2008, 06:48 AM
I enjoyed it. I was amazed at how childish the kids on the side to the President's right were, refusing to applaud almost anything, pathetic. And the Speaker of the House doing all of that weird lip stuff, what a strange person(said like the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).:laugh2:
I had to listen to the speech on the radio - but I knew damn well how the Dems were reacting to what Pres Bush was saying
I was right
I did enjoy hearing Pres Bush getting in the face of Reid and Pelosi and telling them to get off their asses and do their job
I doubt if they will do it. The Dems do not want answers to the nations issues - they want the issues for the next election
red states rule
01-29-2008, 06:52 AM
and then we have the coverage of the speech from the liberal media
Always fair and balanced to the left
CBS: 'Bush Redux,' Bad Legacy; CNN's Toobin: No 'Humanity' In GOP
By Brent Baker | January 29, 2008 - 00:53 ET
ABC and NBC pivoted almost immediately from President Bush's State of the Union address to the 2008 presidential campaign, but CBS stuck to Bush's speech in its post-coverage in which Katie Couric complained “a lot of it was Bush redux,” Bob Schieffer kvetched that Bush “did not say what his assessment of the state of the union was until the next to the last sentence” and historian Douglas Brinkley declared: “It's not looking good for his legacy. I mean it's hard to point to any big accomplishments.” Schieffer, however, cautioned it's too soon to assess Bush, noting: “We're only beginning now to understand completely the impact of Ronald Reagan. When he left office, we didn't know that the Soviet Union was going to collapse.”
Meanwhile, on CNN between Bush's address and the Democratic response, Jeffrey Toobin used Bush to condemn all the Republican candidates for lacking “humanity” in their approach to immigration.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/01/29/cbs-bush-redux-bad-legacy-cnns-toobin-no-humanity-gop
Classact
01-29-2008, 07:30 AM
Oh yeah, that part where he was begging the congress to approve his unconstitutional spying on otherwise innocent Americans!!!!!! It was hilarious!!!!!!!
I'll bet you he at least gets a 30 day reprieve if not a complete renewal of the abuses he seems to dismiss as executive priveledge without regard to the Constitution and the protections he wants for those companies that have agreed to do his dirty work for him.
I think he even tee(a)red up during that otherwise apology!!!!!!!!!!!!The FISA bill will be passed that Bush has asked for or the Democratic Party will be headline news every day it isn't passed. Yesterday the senate rejected a 30 day extension leaving the senate with Bush backed bill or nothing. The Republican Party will not allow more than a three day extension to allow the Democrats to eat shit in public just like they did the last time they voted to approve the Protect America Act.
If I lived close enough to you we could put a case of beer on this one because the Dems are going to eat shit once again on this one because they had a whole year to get it done and now the deadline is here and they have no excuse!
red states rule
01-29-2008, 07:32 AM
The FISA bill will be passed that Bush has asked for or the Democratic Party will be headline news every day it isn't passed. Yesterday the senate rejected a 30 day extension leaving the senate with Bush backed bill or nothing. The Republican Party will not allow more than a three day extension to allow the Democrats to eat shit in public just like they did the last time they voted to approve the Protect America Act.
If I lived close enough to you we could put a case of beer on this one because the Dems are going to eat shit once again on this one because they had a whole year to get it done and now the deadline is here and they have no excuse!
Here is how the Dems way of fighting terrorists cost a couple of GI's their lives
October 15, 2007
How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Find A Captured GI?
The answer should be "none", but thanks to the FISA hiccup earlier this year, the question became very germane indeed. Charles Hurt reports at the New York Post that the restriction on communications through American telecom switches caused a ten-hour delay in NSA tracking for Corporal Alex Jimenez after his capture by terrorists in Iraq. The attorneys had to decide whether they had enough probable cause to wiretap terrorists talking abroad:
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
The core part of the FISA upgrade focused on just this problem. The old FISA statute specifically referenced the requirement for warrants on anything passing through American switches. The FISA court correctly referred the issue back to Congress for resolution -- correctly, if one believes in judicial restraint -- and Congress punted it until forced to act in August.
Congress eventually eliminated the reliance on switch location as a means to determine the necessity of warrants. However, this points again to a problem that has been evident all along in the war on terror -- the tendency to treat it like CSI: Baghdad. War is not a crime in progress, and one cannot apply the processes of criminal prosecution to it. In war, one must have the ability to access the communications of the enemy if one wants to actually defeat them.
The entire notion that lawyers had to review a statute before military intelligence could pursue the captors of an American soldier in a theater of war is absurd and embarrassing. The proximate embarrassment in this case was Congress' delay in acting on the FISA problem the moment it arose. The larger embarrassment is that some still insist on applying civil court processes like habeas corpus on enemies captured abroad, which never -- never -- applied in any war we ever fought before, and that some use the same system to block intelligence efforts that have always been an accepted feature of war since the very beginning of the Republic.
No one got a lawyer when Washington's men captured the man who carried Benedict Arnold's offer of West Point to the British, and until this war no one seriously suggested that courts needed to issue warrants to listen to foreign enemies of the US talking to each other. It should take zero lawyers to chase down captors of American soldiers abroad in a theater of war, and any laws that add to that total should be immediately stricken from the record by Congress.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/014846.php
retiredman
01-29-2008, 07:35 AM
How is it unconstitutional when Congress passes the law authorizing it?
so congress has never passed unconstitutional laws? :lol:
Kathianne
01-29-2008, 07:36 AM
so congress has never passed unconstitutional laws? :lol:
and as noted above, SCOTUS so rules.
Classact
01-29-2008, 07:39 AM
Here is how the Dems way of fighting terrorists cost a couple of GI's their lives
October 15, 2007
How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Find A Captured GI?
The answer should be "none", but thanks to the FISA hiccup earlier this year, the question became very germane indeed. Charles Hurt reports at the New York Post that the restriction on communications through American telecom switches caused a ten-hour delay in NSA tracking for Corporal Alex Jimenez after his capture by terrorists in Iraq. The attorneys had to decide whether they had enough probable cause to wiretap terrorists talking abroad:
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
The core part of the FISA upgrade focused on just this problem. The old FISA statute specifically referenced the requirement for warrants on anything passing through American switches. The FISA court correctly referred the issue back to Congress for resolution -- correctly, if one believes in judicial restraint -- and Congress punted it until forced to act in August.
Congress eventually eliminated the reliance on switch location as a means to determine the necessity of warrants. However, this points again to a problem that has been evident all along in the war on terror -- the tendency to treat it like CSI: Baghdad. War is not a crime in progress, and one cannot apply the processes of criminal prosecution to it. In war, one must have the ability to access the communications of the enemy if one wants to actually defeat them.
The entire notion that lawyers had to review a statute before military intelligence could pursue the captors of an American soldier in a theater of war is absurd and embarrassing. The proximate embarrassment in this case was Congress' delay in acting on the FISA problem the moment it arose. The larger embarrassment is that some still insist on applying civil court processes like habeas corpus on enemies captured abroad, which never -- never -- applied in any war we ever fought before, and that some use the same system to block intelligence efforts that have always been an accepted feature of war since the very beginning of the Republic.
No one got a lawyer when Washington's men captured the man who carried Benedict Arnold's offer of West Point to the British, and until this war no one seriously suggested that courts needed to issue warrants to listen to foreign enemies of the US talking to each other. It should take zero lawyers to chase down captors of American soldiers abroad in a theater of war, and any laws that add to that total should be immediately stricken from the record by Congress.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/014846.phpHillary and Obama will cry the blues if Bush goes on the Bully Pulpit and tells the American people what the Democrats are desiring in their version of the bill. The Democrats will fold like a house of cards and pass the President's version and they will do it no later than mid week next week. They will turn purple and hold their breath and kick rocks but they will pass his proposed bill and do it fast before he has a chance to show the American people how they love to suck up to terrorists while leaving America defenceless.
red states rule
01-29-2008, 07:47 AM
Hillary and Obama will cry the blues if Bush goes on the Bully Pulpit and tells the American people what the Democrats are desiring in their version of the bill. The Democrats will fold like a house of cards and pass the President's version and they will do it no later than mid week next week. They will turn purple and hold their breath and kick rocks but they will pass his proposed bill and do it fast before he has a chance to show the American people how they love to suck up to terrorists while leaving America defenceless.
Dems have lost many fights with Pres Bush, and they will continue to lose. I never thought I would see a political party fight so hard to lose a war like the Dems have for the last 5 years
theHawk
01-29-2008, 12:50 PM
The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America has struck down many congressional mandates and legislation, hawk.
How long have you been living in America?
Bush was talking about extending a law that Congress already has passed and has been in use. The Supreme Court hasn't stricken it down.
How long have you been living in a cave? :laugh2:
bullypulpit
01-29-2008, 07:20 PM
good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....
pity bush found his voice in his last speech....
If you consider his "voice" to be the same tired crap he's been spouting for the last seven years. I downloaded and read the transcript. If I'd been forced to watch it, I probably would have tried to claw my eyes out at some point.
The diminutive doyen of deception, Dana Perino, called his speech "forward looking". And I'm thinking, "Not so much..." Unless you're talking about your eyes fixed rigidly on the road in front of you as you drive away from the group of pre-schoolers you just ran over in the cross-walk. You don't want to be looking in the rear-view mirror for that one. Bush is like that hit-skip driver in the mess he is leaving behind for the next president, Republican or Democrat.
Sir Evil
01-29-2008, 07:26 PM
If you consider his "voice" to be the same tired crap he's been spouting for the last seven years. I downloaded and read the transcript. If I'd been forced to watch it, I probably would have tried to claw my eyes out at some point.
The diminutive doyen of deception, Dana Perino, called his speech "forward looking". And I'm thinking, "Not so much..." Unless you're talking about your eyes fixed rigidly on the road in front of you as you drive away from the group of pre-schoolers you just ran over in the cross-walk. You don't want to be looking in the rear-view mirror for that one. Bush is like that hit-skip driver in the mess he is leaving behind for the next president, Republican or Democrat.
Now that sounds like your tour typical post but how about what you thought was wrong with it instead of that mess you piled above?
LiberalNation
01-29-2008, 08:23 PM
The I'll veto any bill to raise taxes that comes across my desk was kinda funny. Yeah like anyone is gona vote to raise taxes in the middle of an election year in the first place.
Dilloduck
01-29-2008, 08:33 PM
The I'll veto any bill to raise taxes that comes across my desk was kinda funny. Yeah like anyone is gona vote to raise taxes in the middle of an election year in the first place.
Don't laugh--people have ran on that platform.
Sitarro
01-29-2008, 09:01 PM
If you consider his "voice" to be the same tired crap he's been spouting for the last seven years. I downloaded and read the transcript. If I'd been forced to watch it, I probably would have tried to claw my eyes out at some point.
The diminutive doyen of deception, Dana Perino, called his speech "forward looking". And I'm thinking, "Not so much..." Unless you're talking about your eyes fixed rigidly on the road in front of you as you drive away from the group of pre-schoolers you just ran over in the cross-walk. You don't want to be looking in the rear-view mirror for that one. Bush is like that hit-skip driver in the mess he is leaving behind for the next president, Republican or Democrat.
What mess is President Bush leaving behind...... specifics Bully, not the tired crap from moveon.com. Why does Congress get a pass? It is all president Bush, right? You are so dishonest, you and Psycho make perfect poster boys for the dingocrat party.
manu1959
01-29-2008, 09:11 PM
The I'll veto any bill to raise taxes that comes across my desk was kinda funny. Yeah like anyone is gona vote to raise taxes in the middle of an election year in the first place.
when they let the bush tax cut expire shortly they will be doing just that.......
manu1959
01-29-2008, 09:12 PM
You probably missed about all of it, didn't you? Did you catch all the quotes from the previous SOTU promises that have also failed under his leadership? It was pitiful, pitiful I tell you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did you not listen to us in 2000?
no i missed nothing.....what did you try to tell me in 2000......
bullypulpit
01-30-2008, 05:22 PM
What mess is President Bush leaving behind...... specifics Bully, not the tired crap from moveon.com. Why does Congress get a pass? It is all president Bush, right? You are so dishonest, you and Psycho make perfect poster boys for the dingocrat party.
Well golly...so many piles of crap Bush is leaving behind and so little time.
1. A war of aggression against a nation which posed no credible threat to the US or its allies, and the aftermath of said war.
2. A staggering national debt, much of which is held by foreign nations which may not have America's best interests at heart. You know, like China. Nearly $1 trillion is attributable to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
3. The incredible sinking dollar.
4. US ground forces which are at the breaking point.
5. Al Qaeda reconstituted at, or greater than, pre-9/11 levels.
6. No energy policy to wean America off the oil teat, with oil prices at $100 per barrel.
7. Our ports remain vulnerable to nuclear materials being smuggled in containerized cargo.
8. Chemical and nuclear facilities that remain as secure as a package of Oreos with a bunch of stoners that have a baaaad case of the munchies.
And so many more.
jimnyc
01-30-2008, 05:31 PM
Bully, out of curiosity, are any Democrats responsible that voted for the war and voted for many of the finances that came through their hands? Or is this another "the buck stops here", even though Democrats voted?
bullypulpit
01-31-2008, 07:50 AM
Bully, out of curiosity, are any Democrats responsible that voted for the war and voted for many of the finances that came through their hands? Or is this another "the buck stops here", even though Democrats voted?
Oh puleeez! Listening to George W. Bush complain about a lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress is like listening to John Wayne Gacy bitch about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys.
Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like until the Democrats got their narrow majority in Congress. Earmarks more than doubled on his watch, and there was no fiscal accountability.
As for the war, Congress had only the cooked intel the Administration presented them. Those who knew better, or simply acted from fear, and still voted to authorize military action, don't deserve the office they hold...Democrat or Republican.
Dilloduck
01-31-2008, 09:35 AM
Oh puleeez! Listening to George W. Bush complain about a lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress is like listening to John Wayne Gacy bitch about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys.
Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like until the Democrats got their narrow majority in Congress. Earmarks more than doubled on his watch, and there was no fiscal accountability.
As for the war, Congress had only the cooked intel the Administration presented them. Those who knew better, or simply acted from fear, and still voted to authorize military action, don't deserve the office they hold...Democrat or Republican.
Instead of constantly bitching and moaning why don't you tell us who should be president and why ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.