State of the Union-notes of interest...

[Ellipsis]

Did you find he implied anything?(Iran, Iran, Iran....etc.
Did you buy into anything he said?
What did you HATE in his address(which issue/part...etc.)

Or whatever else you have to say about the address to the nation...

[joft]

(21:06:31) j0pht: the state of the union address is so funny to me
(21:06:53) j0pht: the president tells us all what we all already know
(21:07:01) j0pht: and they stop to clap for a minute after ever 3rd sentence
(21:07:33) j0pht: and all of the republicans stand up and clap excitedly while all of the democrats sit down and clap begrudgingly
(21:08:07) j0pht: and the speech isn't even written by the president (not even close)
(21:08:09) j0pht: it's all so silly

edit:
oh now it's "wowwwwee look at these heroic people! isn't that something! this man saved a guy from a train, isn't our country great?"

[rhinosaur]

I had to turn it off, it was starting to get on my nerves.

Its good that he's pushing for alternative energy sources, but actions speak louder than words.

[nottaprettygal]

Eh. I don't remember anything that was said. That was boring.

[FranG]

Did you find he implied anything?(Iran, Iran, Iran....etc.
Did you buy into anything he said?
What did you HATE in his address(which issue/part...etc.)

Or whatever else you have to say about the address to the nation...

I didn't catch it, I just got in the house. But Iran being mentioned infinitely in the speech is no surprise. Did he mention Zarqawi (sp?) and that new Al Queda tape (which is some BS)? How about Syria and the Iraqi insurgence? Imma check the rerun in a couple of hours.

[Fade2Black]

I am glad I didn't waste my time watching state of the union address.

[rhinosaur]

I am glad I didn't waste my time watching state of the union address.

I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't have something better to do.



Ms. Speaker sure blinks a lot. :blink: :blink:

[Ellipsis]

I had to turn it off, it was starting to get on my nerves.

Its good that he's pushing for alternative energy sources, but actions speak louder than words.

The US plan is far better then Canada's NEW reduce green house gases by 2050 plan....Now the was funny when I heard that made in Canada solution...talk about procrastination...(I thought we would have cars running on water or pure electric by then....aww well...Conservatives will be conservatives...)


I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't have something better to do.



Ms. Speaker sure blinks a lot. :blink: :blink:

yeah lol...it was kinda funny because at one point she was pushing her hair up...lol:theclap:

But it was fun to analyse all the lies that might be embedded within it or at least come up with conspiracy theories... :)

[joft]

cheney blinked a grand total of 4 times during the hour

[attila_the_hunny]

I didn't watch it, because I don't care. I imagined it was the same shit regurgitated to sound like new information.

[nottaprettygal]

cheney blinked a grand total of 4 times during the hour

Robots don't need to blink!

[HappyNoodleBoy]

Robots don't need to blink!

So you're saying he's not a robot?

[nottaprettygal]

So you're saying he's not a robot?

I'm saying that what you think was blinking was actually him short circuiting.

[Wolf]

I heard:
- Iran
- Iraq
- Terrorists
- Regurgitating the new energy stuff for the 5th year running.
- New Math in relation to the National Deficit.
- Hero worship

Patent insanity.

[Kilby]

Robots don't need to blink!

If you're implying that he is a robot (like the one in that movie, was it called "Short Circuit"?), then you must think he is really smart.

I once said to a friend, "You know, great men only blink when they must. This is why they see the truths of the world so clearly."

Just trying to keep it Fair and Balanced. :)

[omnirook]

I don't watch Bush.

You have to understand - my English grandfather kept pigs - but you would not have known that because he was very diligent about keeping them clean. Pigs don't stink if you keep them clean.

That's how the Congress used to be - yes, they were always pigs, but at least they used to bother about their own smell - no more. The stench has filled the 4 corners, and there are Papua New Guinea tribesmen right now performing exorcisms - I mean, they've no idea about the world outside of their jungles, so the foul odor that has been filling their nostrils must be demonic - so, naturally, they are trying to drive out the demons. But, then to have that thing come into the Capital sty and stand there and lie for above an hour while the swine applaud - even I'm tempted to light candles and chant gibberish!

Pig-in-Chief: blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -terrorists (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -our values (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -war on terror (applause) - blah-blah-blah-blah (spontaneous, gratutitous applause) - democracy (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah - God Bless America! (wild applause) - Then the media swine come on and "translate" for us dummies: blah-blah-blah-blah - the president - blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blibbidy-blah - commercial break ...

[AllAboutSoul]

I didn't know Cheney could blink. :blink:

[rhinosaur]

Pig-in-Chief: blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -terrorists (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -our values (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah -war on terror (applause) - blah-blah-blah-blah (spontaneous, gratutitous applause) - democracy (applause) -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah - God Bless America! (wild applause) - Then the media swine come on and "translate" for us dummies: blah-blah-blah-blah - the president - blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blibbidy-blah - commercial break ...
Yep, that sums it all up.

[camille]

What about the tax breaks for payees of health insurance? Do you really think we are going to see a time when everyone can afford health insurance? I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of parents being able to switch schools either. The 'No Child Left Behind Act' was wrong. I don't see anything happening in our schools besides kids spending time learning how to take tests. I got bummed out after he started talking about sending in more troops and turned it off. I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of training civilians to go to war and paying them. I wonder if we might not get a lot of fruitloops signing up just for the chance to fight or make a name for themselves without really knowing what they are headed into. I want to know more about the program.

[rhinosaur]

Where the rich just get richer, and the poor you don't ever have to see!

[Wolf]

camille! Thanks! You reminded me of things that fell out of my memory. It was difficult to follow, far too slow for my taste.

I couldn't figure out the tax break method of paying for health insurance, because I know there's no way someone making minimum wage could afford to live and pay for health insurance. Most couldn't afford to drive an old junker to work every day.

I thought the civilian training thing was great, because I believe that the government should provide military weapons training to all willing civilians in the country. This is good for our country. However, I think sending them to war is akin to a second wave of the crusades. I have advocated this for years from a libertarian standpoint - I believe that anyone capable and willing to learn how to use military weapons should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether or not they are in the military. "A well regulated militia" = "Well trained armed citizens", which means the people should have the skills to wage a war against an enemy without direct government oversight, and it's our last as well as most important defense against enemies from outside and inside our country. I would also like to know more about their plans for this program. If it requires mandatory time in a foreign war zone, I wouldn't participate, but I'd be happy to help defend my country on our soil.

[camille]

camille! Thanks! You reminded me of things that fell out of my memory. It was difficult to follow, far too slow for my taste.

I couldn't figure out the tax break method of paying for health insurance, because I know there's no way someone making minimum wage could afford to live and pay for health insurance. Most couldn't afford to drive an old junker to work every day.

I thought the civilian training thing was great, because I believe that the government should provide military weapons training to all willing civilians in the country. This is good for our country. However, I think sending them to war is akin to a second wave of the crusades. I have advocated this for years from a libertarian standpoint - I believe that anyone capable and willing to learn how to use military weapons should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether or not they are in the military. "A well regulated militia" = "A well trained armed citizens", which means the people should have the skills to wage a war against an enemy without direct government oversight, and it's our last as well as most important defense against enemies from outside and inside our country. I would also like to know more about their plans for this program. If it requires mandatory time in a foreign war zone, I wouldn't participate, but I'd be happy to help defend my country on our soil.

I could be off here but isn't this the reason we no longer have any civilian, non-gov affiliated programs? Because the gov wasn't able to regulate? Fears of conspiracy and revolution? I'm not really up on the details of the reserves but aren't they civilians who are trained to served their country? I can understand wanting to have the training necessary to defend your country in a time of need without serving four years but I think it would be scary to have THAT many people, whomever they may be, with trained fighting skills. Imagine the severity of bar brawls if everyone knew how to take a person down. LOL

[FranG]

No Wolf is right. It would be scary for the government and people who "love" the government so much. A well armed militia makes occupying a territory damn near impossible. In the revolutionary days, the U.S. citizenry was armed and the Crown had their hands full with trying to occupy the land. Militia groups in the Middle East are making it hard to occupy their land. What if they had guns like Americans? Oh it'd be a lot more dead U.S. soldiers over there. Most imporatntly though, an armed citizenry protects the people against their own government, who is always the biggest threat to their freedom. Our government, like all governments, know this and that's why they try disarm citizens. They present all the smokescreen strawman arguments against guns and the people eat it hook line and sinker. As we lose more and more of our gun rights, we move closer and closer to being in a police state.

[omnirook]

What about the tax breaks for payees of health insurance? Do you really think we are going to see a time when everyone can afford health insurance? I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of parents being able to switch schools either. The 'No Child Left Behind Act' was wrong. I don't see anything happening in our schools besides kids spending time learning how to take tests. I got bummed out after he started talking about sending in more troops and turned it off. I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of training civilians to go to war and paying them. I wonder if we might not get a lot of fruitloops signing up just for the chance to fight or make a name for themselves without really knowing what they are headed into. I want to know more about the program.

As noted, I did not watch the "Bullshit for the Braindead Address," but if the pig did say something about yet more tax cuts, he was setting up the Democrats for a fall. If they give the tax cuts, they'll worsen the Federal Government's already perilous financial position; if they don't, they'll anger the average moron who believes that the Republicans mean it when they quack-quack about "less government and fiscal responsibility" (translation: impotent (but expensive!) regulatory agencies that can't stop their pals from dumping, destroying, cheating, stealing, and poisoning the public, free rides for the super rich (they need the help and are oh, so deserving of it!), and even smaller crumbs for everybody else, if we get lucky the smelly, flea-ridden ones who have no holes to climb into when it's cold will die - they deserve to die! God does not love them; otherwise, they would be multi-trillionaires!).

[booyalab]

If they give the tax cuts, they'll worsen the Federal Government's already perilous financial position; if they don't, they'll anger the average moron who believes that the Republicans mean it when they quack-quack about "less government and fiscal responsibility"

:rofl: you seriously think that more tax revenue=more money being spent to pay off the national debt? Even conservatives know that their elected officials dont spend money wisely. That's why we want fucking tax cuts, so LESS money will be spent unwisely. Holy crap that's good.

[panda]

Wesley Autrey was the shit. He should've stood behind Dubya, blowin' kisses during the speech.

[camille]

No Wolf is right. It would be scary for the government and people who "love" the government so much. A well armed militia makes occupying a territory damn near impossible. In the revolutionary days, the U.S. citizenry was armed and the Crown had their hands full with trying to occupy the land. Militia groups in the Middle East are making it hard to occupy their land. What if they had guns like Americans? Oh it'd be a lot more dead U.S. soldiers over there. Most imporatntly though, an armed citizenry protects the people against their own government, who is always the biggest threat to their freedom. Our government, like all governments, know this and that's why they try disarm citizens. They present all the smokescreen strawman arguments against guns and the people eat it hook line and sinker. As we lose more and more of our gun rights, we move closer and closer to being in a police state.

You basically restated what I just said with more words. With the exception of 'people who "love" the government so much' would find it scary for everyone who wanted to do so be trained in weapons. What on earth does not wanting Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane trained to use military weapons have to do with loving the government? I want to make sure people are screened. I want to know more about the program.

[Zergling]

:rofl: you seriously think that more tax revenue=more money being spent to pay off the national debt? Even conservatives know that their elected officials dont spend money wisely. That's why we want fucking tax cuts, so LESS money will be spent unwisely.

The money will just be spent on different pet programs, except it will come from borrowing instead of taxes.

[thelastsortasane1]

I can't stand to even look at that shithead anymore.
Other than what Omni said about setting up the Dems for
a fall on another dumbass, deficit enlarging, badly distributed tax cut,
he is fucking irrelevant on the domestic front-good riddance to that.

[camille]

As noted, I did not watch the "Bullshit for the Braindead Address," but if the pig did say something about yet more tax cuts, he was setting up the Democrats for a fall. If they give the tax cuts, they'll worsen the Federal Government's already perilous financial position; if they don't, they'll anger the average moron who believes that the Republicans mean it when they quack-quack about "less government and fiscal responsibility" (translation: impotent (but expensive!) regulatory agencies that can't stop their pals from dumping, destroying, cheating, stealing, and poisoning the public, free rides for the super rich (they need the help and are oh, so deserving of it!), and even smaller crumbs for everybody else, if we get lucky the smelly, flea-ridden ones who have no holes to climb into when it's cold will die - they deserve to die! God does not love them; otherwise, they would be multi-trillionaires!).

From the last night....


First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents.

BUSH: Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll taxes -- or payroll taxes -- on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income.

With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job.

For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings: $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year.

And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach.

Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured.

States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick.

I have asked the secretary of health and human services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand health savings accounts.

[Geoff]

At various times in UK tax history there have been tax breaks for private medical cover (which in the UK is used as a top-up for the often time delayed and basic state provided healthcare). It doesn't seem to make a significant difference to the take up of private cover here, it just costs tax revenues.

Which in itself might not be bad thing, because less tax charged, may mean more money for the economy (or it may not, its much more complicated than one might think).

-Geoff

[FranG]

:rofl: you seriously think that more tax revenue=more money being spent to pay off the national debt? Even conservatives know that their elected officials dont spend money wisely. That's why we want fucking tax cuts, so LESS money will be spent unwisely. Holy crap that's good.

Booya is right. The national debt is a lost cause. We've been bankrupt for years now. We're living off monopoly money. Given that though, I would rather have all of my monopoly money :).

I think what omnirook meant though (don't want to put words in your mouth. correct me if I'm wrong) is that tax cuts are mainly for the super rich while the little people only get a few dollars which doesn't do anything to help their financial situation.


You basically restated what I just said with more words. With the exception of 'people who "love" the government so much' would find it scary for everyone who wanted to do so be trained in weapons. What on earth does not wanting Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane trained to use military weapons have to do with loving the government? I want to make sure people are screened. I want to know more about the program.

Oh sorry, guess I misread something. But the average Joe should be allowed to have their pistols too. It's their right. We don't need to supervise them. Sounds like you'ere in favor of at least limited gun control. I don't want any gun control laws.

[camille]

I didn't mention anything about the right to own firearms. We were discussing military training for civilians. Two separate issues.

[FranG]

Hey for those that saw, did Bush mention again that they foiled an Al Queda attempt to fly planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles? If so, he lied (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/240107terrorclaim.htm). There was never no such attack. Intentional misstatements are impeachable offenses.

[Jennywocky]

Hey for those that saw, did Bush mention again that they foiled an Al Queda attempt to fly planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles? If so, he lied (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/240107terrorclaim.htm). There was never no such attack. Intentional misstatements are impeachable offenses.

At this point, I don't even hear anything Bush says. It's like listening to a radio full of static: Meaningless.

(As far as judging the veracity of his statements, there's so much obfuscation that I can't tell what's true and what isn't anyway. Hence another reason to just ignore him.)

[nottaprettygal]

Hey for those that saw, did Bush mention again that they foiled an Al Queda attempt to fly planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles?

I don't think he mentioned any specific attacks that they stopped. Granted, I was only half paying attention. But I don't doubt that they've quelled potential threats.

[Ferrus]

All political speeches are bullshit, it's a well known fact of life. What you need in America is a proper opposition debate so that instead of letting the President ramble on he has to engage in witty repartee responding to questions from the Speakers or those hostile to him ala PMQ. It would be just as pointless but more entertaining.

[euterpenc]

Why isn't he being impeached? They tried to impeach clinton for getting a BJ, but they won't impeach bush for flat out lying about important issues? As well as being an idiot...

[euterpenc]

I don't think he mentioned any specific attacks that they stopped. Granted, I was only half paying attention. But I don't doubt that they've quelled potential threats.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made the potential threat themselves, just so they can say they stopped it.

[Wolf]

I could be off here but isn't this the reason we no longer have any civilian, non-gov affiliated programs?
There are plenty of civilian militias. You must live in a democrat-controlled state with demented anti-firearms laws, like CA, NY, or MA.


Because the gov wasn't able to regulate?
Regulate = Train
They could, but they shirked their responsibility.


Fears of conspiracy and revolution?
This is probably a large part of trying to end citizen militias. Think about this logically - the government doesn't want the citizens to be able to resist them, while it is in our best interest to maintain a way to resist the government. It keeps them in check.


I'm not really up on the details of the reserves but aren't they civilians who are trained to served their country?
No, they are members of the military. Someone decided they couldn't trust the American people unless they were actual members of the military to handle military weapons. Basically, they only trust those they have beaten into total submission.


I can understand wanting to have the training necessary to defend your country in a time of need without serving four years but I think it would be scary to have THAT many people, whomever they may be, with trained fighting skills. Imagine the severity of bar brawls if everyone knew how to take a person down. LOL
No, it would be great. Nobody would ever consider attacking the US. It would be like poking a beehive... Almost every single one of us would be safer, the prime exceptions would be criminals and politicians.

[Wolf]

Why isn't he being impeached? They tried to impeach clinton for getting a BJ, but they won't impeach bush for flat out lying about important issues? As well as being an idiot...
Sadly, idiocy isn't a crime. If that was true, we'd need to capture and lock up all our elected officials.

Better yet, I wish it was a capital offense and could result in execution.

[euterpenc]

There are plenty of civilian militias. You must live in a democrat-controlled state with demented anti-firearms laws, like CA, NY, or MA.


Regulate = Train
They could, but they shirked their responsibility.


This is probably a large part of trying to end citizen militias. Think about this logically - the government doesn't want the citizens to be able to resist them, while it is in our best interest to maintain a way to resist the government. It keeps them in check.


No, they are members of the military. Someone decided they couldn't trust the American people unless they were actual members of the military to handle military weapons. Basically, they only trust those they have beaten into total submission.


No, it would be great. Nobody would ever consider attacking the US. It would be like poking a beehive... Almost every single one of us would be safer, the prime exceptions would be criminals and politicians.

From what I see the people want to government to do everything for them. They don't want responsibility. Baaaaa.

[euterpenc]

Sadly, idiocy isn't a crime. If that was true, we'd need to capture and lock up all our elected officials.

Better yet, I wish it was a capital offense and could result in execution.

Still... Lying as he is so blatantly... that is not enough for impeachment?

[camille]

There are plenty of civilian militias. You must live in a democrat-controlled state with demented anti-firearms laws, like CA, NY, or MA.
Indiana.....when I hear civilian militias I think of millenium groups hiding out in the woods or some of the more radical conspiracy theorists. Not people like my husband who want to be able to protect their families.


Think about this logically - the government doesn't want the citizens to be able to resist them, while it is in our best interest to maintain a way to resist the government. It keeps them in check.

I understand this reasoning because I think part of keeping the Middle East in an uproar is to keep them from turning against us or collaborating to control the oil industry. However, our government isn't violently attacking our own citizens. I don't think we are in a situation where we need to worry about having to defend our physical beings from the government. I understand this in countries where the citizens are violently attacked by their government's military but this isn't happening here, nor do I think it will.


No, it would be great. Nobody would ever consider attacking the US. It would be like poking a beehive... Almost every single one of us would be safer, the prime exceptions would be criminals and politicians.

Do you think people should be screened before training? If this were to happen, how would you ensure you weren't training violent criminals?

[FranG]

:thumbup: Keep it up zeitgeist. I'm digging the commentary

[Wolf]

Still... Lying as he is so blatantly... that is not enough for impeachment?
The same as Clinton, I suppose.

[FranG]

The same as Clinton, I suppose.

Those pricks don't want to impeach Bush. They're in cohoots with him. Did you see Nancy Pelosi in the background looking like she was part of the team? Bush can do whatever the hell he wants, Democrats aint gonna impeach him. Too many Democrats got dirt (more like blood) on their hands.

[Wolf]

Do you think people should be screened before training? If this were to happen, how would you ensure you weren't training violent criminals?
No guarantees. The military has stringent screening and has created some of the worst spree killers of all time. The fact is that criminals don't even get civilian training, it's just the nature of criminals. They would almost never take an interest in government training programs, just as they don't in civilian ones. The sad thing is that the police tend to be just as bad about training and are therefore more dangerous to you and I than the criminals themselves, at least from the standpoint of physical harm.

I, personally, am reasonably well versed in civilian-legal firearms, but I haven't the first clue about the operation of military weapons beyond the AR-15. The vast majority of people that haven't been in the military or a police force probably couldn't claim any knowledge beyond there.

You seem to exhibit an fear of other people that doesn't make sense to me. Criminals and crazies are rather rare, while the vast majority of people are quite harmless. If you can't trust your neighbors, you're never safe. That's no way to live.

[Wolf]

Those pricks don't want to impeach Bush. They're in cohoots with him. Did you see Nancy Pelosi in the background looking like she was part of the team? Bush can do whatever the hell he wants, Democrats aint gonna impeach him. Too many Democrats got dirt (more like blood) on their hands.
Well, you know that and I know that, but the average person doesn't know or realize that. They were all unified, but the democrats are now waffling (as democrats always do), and claiming that they didn't do what their voting records show.

The republicans are no less guilty, though. The only thing I respect about them is that they don't deny their mistakes.

[FranG]

Yeah because Republicans are the bad cop. The good cop always speaks contrary to his actions.

[Jennywocky]

Well, you know that and I know that, but the average person doesn't know or realize that. They were all unified, but the democrats are now waffling (as democrats always do), and claiming that they didn't do what their voting records show.

The republicans are no less guilty, though. The only thing I respect about them is that they don't deny their mistakes.

Huh? What the hell do you consider Bush's first five years after 9/11 happened? It was ALL about denial that he made a mistake. He didn't admit ANYTHING in any context that meant anything.

Any time he DID admit anything, it was always with a "...but" added on the end, and there was NO punishment for his failure. (In that context, even a six-year-old will confess. There was no accountability whatsoever.)

And finally, now, in December 2006, he suddenly says, "Fine, I made some terrible mistakes." After he lost the election, so to speak. After he realizes all of his support is gone, all of his buddies are now out of power. After he realizes the rules of the game has changed. He only admitted failure because he had no choice.

And there is STILL no accountability. I can respect someone who confesses to a crime and is punished for it, and willingly accepts it. Bush hasn't been punished for squat... so any confessions of wrong-doing hold no actual value; he sacrificed NOTHING to make them.

And that's just Bush. Don't even get me started with Frist, or DeLay, or all the other silver-tongued lying scum who have promoted themselves ahead of the people they were supposed to represent, just because they considered themselves overly important.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been liars and often continue to be; and I see no basis whatsoever for you to distinguish Republicans from their opponents. (Sorry, but this sort of partisan comment really irks me.)

[camille]

[QUOTE]No guarantees. The military has stringent screening and has created some of the worst spree killers of all time. The fact is that criminals don't even get civilian training, it's just the nature of criminals. They would almost never take an interest in government training programs, just as they don't in civilian ones. The sad thing is that the police tend to be just as bad about training and are therefore more dangerous to you and I than the criminals themselves, at least from the standpoint of physical harm.
'Ensure' was a bad word choice on my part. This idea bothers me because I understand the need to protect your homefront but also worry that by giving people these skills, anxiety levels will rise. The doubt of worrying what to do in a situation if we were attacked would be lowered but the anticipation of something happening might increase. Also, they aren't just talking about training people to protect the country if needed but are talking about paying them, from my understanding. So I worry about people signing up for the wrong reasons.


You seem to exhibit an fear of other people that doesn't make sense to me. Criminals and crazies are rather rare, while the vast majority of people are quite harmless. If you can't trust your neighbors, you're never safe. That's no way to live.

Violent attacks are increasing in my area. Not only that, but depression is on the rise. Children are settling squabbles with violence. And not just throwing a few punches. We have people in the service now who are charged with assaults they might not have ever thought about committing had they not been in the environment, and the mentality. So it isn't that I am just worried about criminals and crazies, but that civilians who have not gone through intense screening and training will wield guns with power, get caught up in a movement, and act out of character. I have absolutely no problem with training our citizens to protect themselves. I do have problems with teaching just anyone how to operate firearms.

[Wolf]

Huh? What the hell do you consider Bush's first five years after 9/11 happened? It was ALL about denial that he made a mistake. He didn't admit ANYTHING in any context that meant anything.
At first I believed Shrub would be a pretty ho-hum 1 term republican president. He wouldn't rock the boat too much and things really wouldn't change. Clinton's reversal of the debt would continue, we'd get some cutbacks in social welfare programs, some changes to federal oversight, and pay less taxes.

Then 9/11 happened and he turned into a flaming Democrat that made Clinton look like a choir boy. That's why the democrats supported his demented legislation - because they never could have passed such evil in their wildest dreams with the republicans in their usual sensible state.

I blame 9/11 on Clinton and the mess he left, much as I blame much (not all) of our current economic situation on him. The Shrub administration has passed tax legislation that has caused really strange effects on the economy that cannot be easily understood and I believe will be negative in the long term. I do blame Shrub's administration for the more extreme events and most of the inflation in select sectors (the tax code changes actually directed them). We'll see the long-term effects of the earliest decisions in 2-3 years or so (the economy has sufficient inertia that nothing really has an effect on it for quite a while).


Both Democrats and Republicans have been liars and often continue to be; and I see no basis whatsoever for you to distinguish Republicans from their opponents. (Sorry, but this sort of partisan comment really irks me.)
Sure, it's just that the one side doesn't deny that they made a decision, while the other does. I do take issue with republican claims that they are against socialist programs, while they happily maintain and vote for new socialist programs. Bunch of pandering liars.

How can you tell if a politician is lying?
Their lips are moving.

[Zergling]

I don't think he mentioned any specific attacks that they stopped. Granted, I was only half paying attention. But I don't doubt that they've quelled potential threats.

They stopped an attack where some terrorists were smuggling a nuclear bomb into Los Angeles on a plane and planning to have an american born convert set it off on the day she was married, funding came from an oil...whoops, I'm thinking of the 2nd season of 24. :)

(I did not actually realize the state of the union address was occuring, but it souns the same as the other Bush speeches I've occasionally heard.)

[Wolf]

Violent attacks are increasing in my area. Not only that, but depression is on the rise. Children are settling squabbles with violence. And not just throwing a few punches. We have people in the service now who are charged with assaults they might not have ever thought about committing had they not been in the environment, and the mentality. So it isn't that I am just worried about criminals and crazies, but that civilians who have not gone through intense screening and training will wield guns with power, get caught up in a movement, and act out of character. I have absolutely no problem with training our citizens to protect themselves. I do have problems with teaching just anyone how to operate firearms.
Well, we can agree to disagree. You have very authoritarian political opinions, while I have very libertarian. They're just incompatible opinions.

[FranG]

At first I believed Shrub would be a pretty ho-hum 1 term republican president. He wouldn't rock the boat too much and things really wouldn't change. Clinton's reversal of the debt would continue, we'd get some cutbacks in social welfare programs, some changes to federal oversight, and pay less taxes.

Right this is what his mouth said.



Then 9/11 happened and he turned into a flaming Democrat that made Clinton look like a choir boy. That's why the democrats supported his demented legislation - because they never could have passed such evil in their wildest dreams with the republicans in their usual sensible state.

So far so good.



I blame 9/11 on Clinton

Can you elaborate on this for me please?



and the mess he left, much as I blame much (not all) of our current economic situation on him.

He definitely helped. But Shrub is continuing where Clinton left off right?



The Shrub administration has passed tax legislation that has caused really strange effects on the economy that cannot be easily understood and I believe will be negative in the long term.

Tax cuts went to the wealthy people only, the capitalists. Their bargaining position got much stronger with the American labor. This in conjunction with other policy decisions by Shrub has our economy in a dire state.



I do blame Shrub's administration for the more extreme events and most of the inflation in select sectors (the tax code changes actually directed them). We'll see the long-term effects of the earliest decisions in 2-3 years or so (the economy has sufficient inertia that nothing really has an effect on it for quite a while).

Yeah true.



Sure, it's just that the one side doesn't deny that they made a decision, while the other does. I do take issue with republican claims that they are against socialist programs, while they happily maintain and vote for new socialist programs. Bunch of pandering liars.

How can you tell if a politician is lying?
Their lips are moving.

Again dead on.

[euterpenc]

[QUOTE=Wolf;530758]
'Ensure' was a bad word choice on my part. This idea bothers me because I understand the need to protect your homefront but also worry that by giving people these skills, anxiety levels will rise. The doubt of worrying what to do in a situation if we were attacked would be lowered but the anticipation of something happening might increase. Also, they aren't just talking about training people to protect the country if needed but are talking about paying them, from my understanding. So I worry about people signing up for the wrong reasons.



Violent attacks are increasing in my area. Not only that, but depression is on the rise. Children are settling squabbles with violence. And not just throwing a few punches. We have people in the service now who are charged with assaults they might not have ever thought about committing had they not been in the environment, and the mentality. So it isn't that I am just worried about criminals and crazies, but that civilians who have not gone through intense screening and training will wield guns with power, get caught up in a movement, and act out of character. I have absolutely no problem with training our citizens to protect themselves. I do have problems with teaching just anyone how to operate firearms.

It's not guns (or drugs, or anything of the sort) it's the people who use them. And those who wish to inflict harm with guns can get them if they really want to. Same is with drugs. Making drugs illegal doesn't stop their use at all. With drugs the only thing it results in is people (like me, and half of my town) being unjustly persecuted for smoking reefer. With guns I would agree with Wolf. I am far more fearful of my government than my fellow citizen. If civilians can't have guns, we are powerless against the governement. If everyone had guns, people wouldn't mess with each other so much cause theyd knnow theyd be risking their lives. If you were criminal, would you try to mug someone who was armed? I know I wouldn't. As it stands now, we fear criminals cause they have guns. They should fear the standard law-abiding citizens. By fearing criminals (or drugs) we give them more power than they need or should have.

I would rather have more individual power, and less government involvement. Which is what conservatives are supposed to stand for.... Bush seems to do the opposite.

[camille]

it isn't the right to bear arms I am against. It is giving military training to just anyone.

[euterpenc]

it isn't the right to bear arms I am against. It is giving military training to just anyone.

o_0

What's better people having guns that don't know how to use them or people having guns and knowing what they're doing?

Moreover, if you have military training too, you'd be equal *approxamately.* If we all had military training we'd all be better able to defend anything, including ourselves.

Also, you could learn things to put you at a military capacity anyway. UFC for instance. Give him weapons training and you have one physically capable of being in the military. Most people have the capacity.

Lastly, I think it'd be better to give military training in the skills without the conditioning to obey. It'd be better to have people with military skills to think for themselves and decide rather than just being told. And I, for one, would like to be able to combat those who are drones. I don't like it that people who are morally and intellectually weaker than I having guns and me not. I went in to probation the other day, and ntaurally I saw cops. And I was sitting there thinking: "Man he could kill me right now if he wanted, and I can't do anything about it." That is not a good feeling, especially when the law is unjust. I can't defend myself against injustice. I shouldn't be so powerless against he government and its dictums.

If the people can't fight the military on equal grounds, what happens if the government gets out of control? We won't be able to stop the tyranny, and have no means to rebel.

[omnirook]

:rofl: you seriously think that more tax revenue=more money being spent to pay off the national debt? Even conservatives know that their elected officials dont spend money wisely. That's why we want fucking tax cuts, so LESS money will be spent unwisely. Holy crap that's good.

No. I think that tax cuts will mean more borrowed money being spent. The bastards can make all the noise that they want - in the end, they won't cut a damned thing, except for programs that help the poor.

[omnirook]

Why isn't he being impeached? They tried to impeach clinton for getting a BJ, but they won't impeach bush for flat out lying about important issues? As well as being an idiot...

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar - a very brilliant man who was actually running the Executive. A president who is actually in charge of things is surrounded by enemies. Bush is - about as intelligent as - Herman Munster. He thinks he's "head of the house," but we all know that Grampa is smarter and that Lily is the real boss. The "troop of players" that are filling our Executive these days are an ill-assortment of dim bulbs, nitwits, money grubbers, and emotional cripples - in other words, the public is truly represented! - Just what John Adams feared ...

Bill Clinton began every day of his 2 terms by reading a situations report. He insisted that it be ready and in his hand as he was getting out of bed. The report was some 50 typed pages long and detailed everything that had happened while he was asleep. He read it while on the toilet, while having breakfast, before getting showered and dressed. Bush got the same type of report handed to him when he became president. He whined about its length and ordered that it be cut down - and cut down - and cut down - and cut down, so that now he gets the equivalent of a NY Post headline, which he glances at while taking his morning piss.

[intpgolfer]

Nothing about any level of negotiations?

Is it a luxury of - absolute power - not to negotiate?

I hope what history reveals about absolute power - is wrong?

[euterpenc]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar - a very brilliant man who was actually running the Executive. A president who is actually in charge of things is surrounded by enemies. Bush is - about as intelligent as - Herman Munster. He thinks he's "head of the house," but we all know that Grampa is smarter and that Lily is the real boss. The "troop of players" that are filling our Executive these days are an ill-assortment of dim bulbs, nitwits, money grubbers, and emotional cripples - in other words, the public is truly represented! - Just what John Adams feared ...

Bill Clinton began every day of his 2 terms by reading a situations report. He insisted that it be ready and in his hand as he was getting out of bed. The report was some 50 typed pages long and detailed everything that had happened while he was asleep. He read it while on the toilet, while having breakfast, before getting showered and dressed. Bush got the same type of report handed to him when he became president. He whined about its length and ordered that it be cut down - and cut down - and cut down - and cut down, so that now he gets the equivalent of a NY Post headline, which he glances at while taking his morning piss.

I see. How did we let this happen?

[NoahFence]

A bit late in the game here, but I've summed up the tax cut for health insurance.

If you make jack shit, and spend $10,000 a year for health insurance, we'll knock $1000 off your taxes.

Righteous, dude. Sounds like a sweet deal for someone making 25K. The poor will be flocking to the insurance companies for sure.

[Jennywocky]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar - a very brilliant man who was actually running the Executive. Bill Clinton began every day of his 2 terms by reading a situations report. He insisted that it be ready and in his hand as he was getting out of bed. The report was some 50 typed pages long and detailed everything that had happened while he was asleep. He read it while on the toilet, while having breakfast, before getting showered and dressed. Bush got the same type of report handed to him when he became president. He whined about its length and ordered that it be cut down - and cut down - and cut down - and cut down, so that now he gets the equivalent of a NY Post headline, which he glances at while taking his morning piss.

This is a case where Bill's ESFP "soak up all the details without being able to just skim" was of great benefit to him. He seems to have been a voracious reader.

I don't think Bush reads. He considers it a waste of time when he could be out doing something.

[omnirook]

This is a case where Bill's ESFP "soak up all the details without being able to just skim" was of great benefit to him. He seems to have been a voracious reader.

I don't think Bush reads. He considers it a waste of time when he could be out doing something.

Well - we have had presidents who did not read before. I wonder why they always made messes! All of our best presidents were readers - and most of them were extroverts, skimmers! FDR is a fine example of an intelligent, well-read extrovert who could take in vast quantities of information and pick out the important pieces and remember them ... The late John Paul II was not a reader. A constant complaint from the Curia was that he neglected his state papers and only did his paperwork when hard pressed. It's too soon to tell what long-term effects his legacy as pope will have, but, on the whole, I think that he did more harm than good. His successor is quite the opposite in approach. An introverted intellectual who does his homework, he will, in the end, have a longer, deeper, and perhaps worse effect on the Church. After all, John Paul's formal policy was really Benedict's intellectual baby. If the Roman Church does not elect a progressive pope next time, the institution will die. Some of the conservative, white European males who have a stranglehold at the Conclaves need to die off. That is the only reason that I am wishing Benedict a long reign.

[FranG]

Well I figured I'd post this here, instead of starting a thread, to avoid the SJ thought police roaming around :)

Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul364.html) has just informed me that the cost of the war in Iraq, is not accounted for in the specific defecit numbers of the U.S. The Iraq war funding is off balance sheet accounting, it's phantom inflationary dollars. So we really owe China even more money.

[omnirook]

Well I figured I'd post this here, instead of starting a thread, to avoid the SJ thought police roaming around :)

Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul364.html) has just informed me that the cost of the war in Iraq, is not accounted for in the specific defecit numbers of the U.S. The Iraq war funding is off balance sheet accounting, it's phantom inflationary dollars. So we really owe China even more money.

=)) Yeah, so - Reagan made "voodoo economics" and "creative bookkeeping" respectable ... This is what America wanted. This is what happens when Peter Pan is put in the Whitehouse. Our Peter is special - he thinks he's Matt Dillon! Gunsmoke! We're gonna ride in and teach them thar badduns a thing or two about being badduns, awritey! ... Look, the rape of America is old news, sorry. Anybody who has cared to take a look found out long ago that the US economy was a house of cards, set atop a wobbly table, a table that was sitting on shifting sands, and all of it a foot away from a giant, beyond control twister called the "free market" (translation: letting the rich do as they pleased, no matter who got crippled or killed in the process, fuck everybody, fuck everything, my own kids included, I got mine!) ... When it all implodes, as it will, well, I hope that you have a little stockpile of gold and a means of defending yourself and those dear to you. The other thread, "Do you think that you could kill someone?" will have new meaning and be much more relative to getting through from sunup to sundup.