MERGED--> State of the Union - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-22-2007, 07:57 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 11:13 PM
I can't listen to that man speak. It's literally painful. I never thought I would call my president a dumbass: not because of political differences (although there are many ) but because he is, in fact, a literal dumbass! If "American Idol" is preempted because of his *erm* speech? I will be more pissed than I thought I could be.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:22 PM   #17
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:13 PM
I was at the gym one morning, and he was on TV saying something about "getting deficit spending under control." Was I high, or was the closed-captioner high? Or was the president high?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:25 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 10:13 PM


he says a lot of things. he doesn't even have to be high to make some of the most outrageous statements.

but i think to the answer to your question is none of the above: i was high.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:29 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 11:13 PM
Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




oh, STING, protect us from the liberals! blame the media! combat insurrection from within!

Hey, someone has to be in that 33 percent .
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:34 PM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
tiny dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: small town Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 87,250
Local Time: 03:13 AM
I wonder how many Republicans will stand & clap when he talks about the war.
__________________
Into the heart of a child...
tiny dancer is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 08:58 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and if you read, you'll see that what's significant is that he's been so low for so long and his DISAPPROVAL numbers are second only to Nixon after Watergate. and all anyone talks about with Nixon and Carter are how low their approval ratings are, what a disaster their presidency was, and what a criminal they were.

why should Bush take after Truman, but not the others?

but, please, carry on.
Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things. Provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan and Iraq, it will accomplish its objectives in both countries. History will then see the removal two evil regimes as well as their replacement with stable and non-hostile regimes that benefited those countries as well as the rest of the world. All of this, at a cost that is relatively small compared to other US wars in history. In terms of economics, the USA recovered from a recession that started with an economic downturn in the Clinton administration and is currently experiencing record levels of unemployment.

In contrast Nixon was forced to leave office and had to be pardoned. Carter failed to win re-election. Everything points to history's take on Bush being closer to Truman than the others, but obviously, it will be heavily impacted by what happens to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 09:04 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.

It's just that another poster alleged that you did, and you never contributed to that discussion.

Personally, if someone implied I was being paid for my posts - in effect, paid for spouting propaganda - I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd probably want to nip those kinds of insinuations in the bud.

So perhaps it's for the best if we clarifed the issue once and for all, y' know?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 09:08 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things.ns to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.
Unfortunately, most people will look at the fact that he has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden first and foremost, whether that is fair or not.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 01-22-2007, 10:27 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:13 PM
what Bush has demonstrated in Iraq is that the insurgency -- for lack of a better word -- can kill anyone who cooperates with the US, and the US is utterly incapable of protecting them. the policies Bush has pursued in the Middle East are not in and of themselves good policies; they are only as good as the people who carry them out, and Bush has failed miserably. you can argue as much as you'd like that invading Iraq was the right policy, but it has turned out to be the wrong thing to do because the wrong men did it.

and it is because of these mistakes that the US is eventually going to withdraw because it is increasingly politically impossible to continue to send men and women to fight in someone else's Civil War.

and all this because Bush's incuriosity and intellectual laziness caused him to wishfully believe that we were invading some kind of functional, secular state with institutions robust enough to survive a foreign invasion and then continue to function under new leadership.

it turns out that Iraq -- for all its roads and schools and oil -- is quasi-medieval where Saddam had merely secured loyalty through equal measures of fear and treasure.

there is no Iraq. there is only Saddam's Iraq.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 01:34 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:13 PM
If that is really the case then there is no position that isn't morally reprehensable in some way or another.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 04:52 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.

It's just that another poster alleged that you did, and you never contributed to that discussion.

Personally, if someone implied I was being paid for my posts - in effect, paid for spouting propaganda - I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd probably want to nip those kinds of insinuations in the bud.

So perhaps it's for the best if we clarifed the issue once and for all, y' know?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 06:39 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Do you get paid for your posts here, STING2?

I was just curious.
Hey, as long as he posts, I believe in propaganda and manipulation
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 06:47 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush: State of the Union

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush took decisive action to defeat Al Quada and the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as remove Saddam. History will likely judge the removal of such terrible and threatening groups as a victory for the world, and Bush is the person who led the major effort to accomplish these things. Provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan and Iraq, it will accomplish its objectives in both countries. History will then see the removal two evil regimes as well as their replacement with stable and non-hostile regimes that benefited those countries as well as the rest of the world. All of this, at a cost that is relatively small compared to other US wars in history. In terms of economics, the USA recovered from a recession that started with an economic downturn in the Clinton administration and is currently experiencing record levels of unemployment.

In contrast Nixon was forced to leave office and had to be pardoned. Carter failed to win re-election. Everything points to history's take on Bush being closer to Truman than the others, but obviously, it will be heavily impacted by what happens to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the US withdrawing or not, is very likely to go on for decades, with the costs of human lifes reaching the millions.
The costs of the war in Iraq alone will overtake the costs of the Vietnam war this year, with over $670 billion.
A recession and also a boom are not that closely linked to any government that you can claim the one being responsible for the recession, and the other being responsible for the boom. Even lesser in a free market economy as the US is.

Here in Germany it's the same. We are picking up at the moment, as the whole western world does.
That's the economic cycle, and with September 11, it was clear that the world economy would decrease for a while.
Now that our economy is picking up again people are saying our Grand Coalition is responsible for that.
But it's not. The only good to say about the current government is, that they didn't change the reforms undertaken in the previous years.
Still, even Schroeder and the reforms are not responsible for the upswing, they are only a little help.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 08:38 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:13 PM
[q]The doubt on Capitol Hill reflects the continuing erosion of Bush's public support across the country. His approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, and only twice in the past six decades has a president delivered his annual speech to the nation in a weaker condition in the polls -- Harry S. Truman in the midst of the Korean War in 1952 and Richard M. Nixon in the throes of Watergate in 1974.

For the first time, majorities of Americans say Bush cannot be trusted in a crisis, has not made the country safer and should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq to avoid further casualties rather than leave them until civil order is restored. And, in a sign of intensifying opposition, a majority -- 51 percent -- for the first time expressed strong disapproval of Bush's performance, compared with 17 percent who strongly approved.

"The world changed significantly on Election Day, and the only people who were surprised were them," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said of Bush and his aides. Now, he added, "they've backed themselves into a tough corner, and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want, makes him look . . . like [he's saying], 'I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway.' "

The poll indicates that Bush has made no headway in selling his decision to bolster troop levels in Iraq by 21,500, with 65 percent now opposing it, compared with 61 percent the night of his Jan. 10 nationally televised address. Three in five Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan.

Bush's overall approval rating of 33 percent matches the lowest it has been in Post-ABC polls since he became president, and 71 percent say the country is seriously off track, the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade. By contrast, newly installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is enjoying a honeymoon, with 54 percent approving her handling of the job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012200236.html

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-23-2007, 09:15 AM   #30
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:13 PM
^ I got no sympathy for those who are just now realizing that Bush has sold them a bill of goods. Where the hell were they six years ago.

Americans can be so lame.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com