theblazer said:Democrats are cunts and always will be.
nbcrusader said:Aside from the usual partisian responses, did anyone find a component of the speech that they could fully support? Something they found to be a good new direction or initiative?
nbcrusader said:Aside from the usual partisian responses, did anyone find a component of the speech that they could fully support? Something they found to be a good new direction or initiative?
BonosSaint said:
For better or worse, his legacy is Iraq and his Supreme Court picks. He won't have any other legacy. He no longer really leads. He lost that a while ago. He is too compromised.
cjboog said:Democrats are just a little unorganized right now. I hate to admit it but all we can do is oppose Bush (which is good), we have trouble coming up with any real unified policies. The party should come up with its own policies instead of just opposing the administration. It's better to do both than just one.
And during Bush's speech I practically laughed out loud when he said something like "Congress didn't adopt my social security plan" and he was interrupted by a loud roar from the democrats. He basically had to completely stop his speech and listen to the dems cheer over their victory. Priceless. How could he not have seen it coming? This has probably been mentioned in the thread already, I just thought it was hilarious.
deep said:Did you hear any good ideas?
nbcrusader said:
Most of it was typical lame duck stuff. As usual, it was designed to energize the base and sound pleasant to the middle. No real challenges to the country.
Except the "addiction to oil" line could catch on. Bush only took a half step (but safer step) in the right direction. Improving existing technology is nice, but we really need a campaign to achieve new technologies.
melon said:
The reason they chose a governor was likely because it came to the Democratic Party's attention, following the defeat of Kerry, that governors are more electable for the presidency than senators. Such has been the prevailing belief since.
YBORCITYOBL said:How do you propose to fund this "achieving new technologies"? It all sounds nice and I agree with your points about energizing the base and pleasentries to the middle - in fact not long ago I might have been part of the middle leaning a bit to the right. Unfortunately, I can't just mindlessly go along with everything this Administration shovels out anymore. Bush said that we are at a very crucial time in the history of this WORLD and what really scares the sh out of me is that this Guy is in control of this time in History. He has made one mistake after another. I can't believe he would bring up Bin Laden's name. To me it's emberassing. This guy should have been eradicated within weeks of 9/11 and he's allowed to still live and obviously conduct his affairs to this very day. I actually was personally touched by those tragic events that happened in New York City that day, so maybe my view is a bit askew about this.
nbcrusader said:
I would like to see the US approach energy solutions in the same way we approached space flight and the moon landing. We landed men on the moon in the 60’s with less than a decades worth of planning and preparation. Perhaps it would be controllable fusion reactors (or the dream of “cold fusion”). Something radically beyond alternative fuels for internal combustion engines or better batteries.
As for the foreign affairs aspects, I think we undervalue the global increase in democracies since 1945. Continuing this work through the Middle East and Africa, while not a panacea, certainly provides the framework for achieving permanent goals – which could not be achieved by continued strings of totalitarian regimes.
As for Bin Laden, I doubt he is still alive because anyone in the Administration wants him alive.
nbcrusader said:
I would like to see the US approach energy solutions in the same way we approached space flight and the moon landing. We landed men on the moon in the 60’s with less than a decades worth of planning and preparation. Perhaps it would be controllable fusion reactors (or the dream of “cold fusion”). Something radically beyond alternative fuels for internal combustion engines or better batteries.
nbcrusader said:Except the "addiction to oil" line could catch on. Bush only took a half step (but safer step) in the right direction. Improving existing technology is nice, but we really need a campaign to achieve new technologies.
YBORCITYOBL said:Points very well taken. I think sometimes I get caught up in the Media Machine and listen to the drivel that's poured forth.
the rockin edge said:
yes, if we really focus on the energy problem like the focus on the 60's space race then solutions should come
nbcrusader said:The State of the Union has evolved from a defining moment in a President's term to a carefully orchestrated hurdle that must be crossed annually. Style replaces substance for the majority of the speeches.
the rockin edge said:
i agree totally
if Bush could give a half decent speech then maybe it wouldn't be such a hurdle
nbcrusader said:
The State of the Union has evolved from a defining moment in a President's term to a carefully orchestrated hurdle that must be crossed annually. Style replaces substance for the majority of the speeches.
nbcrusader said:A parallel could be drawn to the Middle East. The oil producing states could be "demonized" so that we desparately want to make them insignificant by having our own sources of energy. This may be a goal in a number of policy questions, though not stated so bluntly.