55 replies to this topic

[TechrEvolution]

Hey, it's 9:03. Bush is about to give his address. Articles dated TOMORROW are already on the Net, discussing what he SAID (has not said yet)

Check out: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/internatio...fm?id=122312007

It begins:

Bush faces 'political reality' in State of the Union address
ALEX MASSIEIN WASHINGTON
GEORGE Bush, the president of the United States, was forced to face "political reality" last night as he delivered his first annual State of the Union address to a Democrat-controlled Congress and a sceptical public.


Can anybody explain???

[Charles]

It didnt actually say anything about the speech. What time is it in Scotland?

[djharkavy]

TechrEvolution, on Jan 23 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

Hey, it's 9:03. Bush is about to give his address. Articles dated TOMORROW are already on the Net, discussing what he SAID (has not said yet)

Check out: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/internatio...fm?id=122312007

It begins:

Bush faces 'political reality' in State of the Union address
ALEX MASSIEIN WASHINGTON
GEORGE Bush, the president of the United States, was forced to face "political reality" last night as he delivered his first annual State of the Union address to a Democrat-controlled Congress and a sceptical public.
Can anybody explain???

Transcripts of major speeches are released to the media ahead of time. There may be some changes in the execution, but usually very little.

It allows stories to come out based on the speech for the early edition of the newspapers.

[TechrEvolution]

djharkavy, on Jan 23 2007, 09:41 PM, said:

Transcripts of major speeches are released to the media ahead of time. There may be some changes in the execution, but usually very little.

It allows stories to come out based on the speech for the early edition of the newspapers.

Thanks. I thought I was losing my mind.

[NickC]

The state of the union address this year was very persuassive.
Bush is trying to up his approval rating, and I like that. Its good to see that both democrats and republicans (except for a few) can work together in Congress.

Anyway, I liked it.

[katinka]

He was actually discussing real issues this year. You know, things that actually matter.

[tycoonboy388]

Bush's unpopularity stems from the war in Iraq, so he decided that he could not make that the focus of the speech. Furthermore, his promises from last years State of the Union (that we could begin to reduce troop levels) have been broken.

As for "Bush having to face political reality," that was in reference to Bush delivering his first state of the Union to the Democratic 110th Congress, which would be less of a rubber stamp than the previous three Congress'.

As for what the President has said: some of the points that the President raised were worthy causes, indeed the President is focusing much more on Domestic issues (seeing as his foreign policy is in the toilet). I appreciated the acknowledgement for incentives in alternative energy sources, the usage of ethanol, clean-burning fuels and hybrids, and attempts to break our dependence on oil; I also was glad to hear that education, immigration, balancing the budget and cleaning up DC were mentioned by the President. The funny thing is that Bush's party has been against many of these programs, which Democrats (on some levels) have supported.

I have to admit, as much as I dislike President Bush, it pleased me to hear that "divided government will not stop this nation." Divided government has worked for this nation before, and while I was apprehensive that the President would not want to work with the Congress, I am optimistic.

[Josh]

tycoonboy388, on Jan 23 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

As for what the President has said: some of the points that the President raised were worthy causes, indeed the President is focusing much more on Domestic issues (seeing as his foreign policy is in the toilet). I appreciated the acknowledgement for incentives in alternative energy sources, the usage of ethanol, clean-burning fuels and hybrids, and attempts to break our dependence on oil; I also was glad to hear that education, immigration, balancing the budget and cleaning up DC were mentioned by the President. The funny thing is that Bush's party has been against many of these programs, which Democrats (on some levels) have supported.

I hope you realize that bringing up such issues was either a formality (he's said those things for years and hasn't done any of it), or a thinly-veiled attempt to sweet-talk the Democrats. He's not "focusing...more" on domestic issues. If you listened to the Democrats' response, they didn't seem to buy into his affectation of candor.

tycoonboy388, on Jan 23 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

I have to admit, as much as I dislike President Bush, it pleased me to hear that "divided government will not stop this nation." Divided government has worked for this nation before, and while I was apprehensive that the President would not want to work with the Congress, I am optimistic.

No one's going to barge into Congress (or send their message, like in the old days) and say that they're not going to cooperate. Every president has said something like that, either explicitly or implicitly.

[TechrEvolution]

ZoSo, on Jan 24 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

I hope you realize that bringing up such issues was either a formality (he's said those things for years and hasn't done any of it), or a thinly-veiled attempt to sweet-talk the Democrats. He's not "focusing...more" on domestic issues. If you listened to the Democrats' response, they didn't seem to buy into his affectation of candor.

No one's going to barge into Congress (or send their message, like in the old days) and say that they're not going to cooperate. Every president has said something like that, either explicitly or implicitly.

EXACTLY. Bush' agenda has always been to deccimate (sp) the Middle East. I know there are doubters, but that means, next stop, Iran. Why? I dunno? Why Iraq? Anyway, another poster said that this could only happen if it turns out --um, um, I wonder why the name Saddam Hussein keeps coming into my head? He's already dead. I'm talking about Osama bin Laden. That's it! That the excuse. Bin Laden is hiding out in Iran. Hah! (some evidence suggests he's already dead too, but hey? lots of impersonators.) Doesn't have to be true, but, there are still Republicans out there. Wait for news of some "intelligence" or some "increased chatter." Ever hear the lines from The Boxer? "I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles such are promises. All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

Bush is a man on a mission (from God?) and nothing is going to stand in his way. He probably thinks the Democratic majorities sent to him so's he can show his intent to cooperate, throw some people off guard, and continue doing whatever he wants (he probably had to be coached endlessly through the words "solar energy.") Sorry, my bias is obvious. It's just that he has lied too much. Ask the sci and architect teachers at Tech. I wonder if they really think that planes hitting the twin towers would collapse straight down like that instead of say, leaning or falling over and crashing into NYC streets. What about building 7's collapse (building containing a lot of important legal docs supposedly including Enron stuff). It wasn't really a conspiracy. Terrorists did hit the twin towers, but it sure looks like the Bush gov. knew about it and maybe used it to help their agenda. Detonation is a better answer for the collapsed buildings. The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures ever. Oh, and the um, the vanished 757 that "hit" the Pentagon without leaving any wing marks or showing up on videos. That's one plane big to disappear, but it sure adds to the terrorist argument. What's the worst that can happen to Bush? He leaves the next Pres. with a Really Really Big Mess?

As for Congress or anybody putting Bush out of office, history has shown that the few people who do know the inside story are reluctant to tell in time. It took Danial Ellsberg, (from some high position in the defense department), years to release the "Pentagon Papers" showing the Tonkin Gulf attacks (which launched the US into Vietnam) never happened. Ditto Richard Clarke (Counterterrorism Chief), who told Bush and Rumsfeld in Sept. 2001 that Iraq was not part of 9/11--nor was Al Qaeda (?) It wasn't until he resigned and published his book around 2004 or so that this info was revealed to the public (and maybe even to Congress). These security guys have to take oaths of secrecy. If they break them (treason?) at the time a war could be stopped, they'd lose their careers and probably be put in jail. Maybe something similar is going down now. What in-the-know guy would want to risk himself and his family.

I know I'm gonna get in trouble from lots of kids for saying all this, but I think it is possible.

djharkavy?

[Hypergrl41]

I agree with Zoso. Even though last year's speech discussed the importance of spreading the "democracy" more than the domestic issues, he still he mentioned our dependence for oil and immigration. Anyway it's all politician talk to me. Hopefully his future actions will speak louder than his words.

[djharkavy]

TechrEvolution, on Jan 24 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

Ask the sci and architect teachers at Tech. I wonder if they really think that planes hitting the twin towers would collapse straight down like that instead of say, leaning or falling over and crashing into NYC streets. What about building 7's collapse (building containing a lot of important legal docs supposedly including Enron stuff). It wasn't really a conspiracy. Terrorists did hit the twin towers, but it sure looks like the Bush gov. knew about it and maybe used it to help their agenda. Detonation is a better answer for the collapsed buildings. The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures ever. Oh, and the um, the vanished 757 that "hit" the Pentagon without leaving any wing marks or showing up on videos. That's one plane big to disappear, but it sure adds to the terrorist argument. What's the worst that can happen to Bush? He leaves the next Pres. with a Really Really Big Mess?

No plane disappeared from the Pentagon. My brother was there and saw the debris. Many pictures exist of all the debris.

The NIST did a complete analysis of all of this. All the conspiracy theory is nonsense. It would be nice to have a way to blame more people for what happened, but what is, is.

TechrEvolution, on Jan 24 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

As for Congress or anybody putting Bush out of office, history has shown that the few people who do know the inside story are reluctant to tell in time. It took Danial Ellsberg, (from some high position in the defense department), years to release the "Pentagon Papers" showing the Tonkin Gulf attacks (which launched the US into Vietnam) never happened. Ditto Richard Clarke (Counterterrorism Chief), who told Bush and Rumsfeld in Sept. 2001 that Iraq was not part of 9/11--nor was Al Qaeda (?) It wasn't until he resigned and published his book around 2004 or so that this info was revealed to the public (and maybe even to Congress). These security guys have to take oaths of secrecy. If they break them (treason?) at the time a war could be stopped, they'd lose their careers and probably be put in jail. Maybe something similar is going down now. What in-the-know guy would want to risk himself and his family.

You have to get off of the internet and start dealing with real life.

President Bush is not likely to be impeached, but having a Congress who will oppose him will weaken his ability to push things through.

[bklynd0llxoxo85]

"If you listened to the Democrats' response, they didn't seem to buy into his affectation of candor."

That's TWO vocab words from our final, ZOSO! I'm impressed by your use of them.

[esong27]

I was thinking the same thing, haha.

[TechrEvolution]

djharkavy, on Jan 24 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

You have to get off of the internet and start dealing with real life

Thanks for clarifying. Just so you know, I read Clarke's book about a year ago, so what I'm saying is not just from the Net. Also, the info on Ellsberg comes from Harper's magazine, October, 2006. I'm kind of addicted to books, not the Internet. Still, you're right, it's all virtual. I've got to try to get a life.

[stephanie]

I find it entertaining to count how many times the members of the audience stand up and clap during the entire speech. I lost count this year but in 2003, I counted 61 times.

[z2z007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/opinion/...xprod=permalink

This Times editorial on the State of Union address is very enlightening.

[NickC]

stephanie, on Jan 25 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I find it entertaining to count how many times the members of the audience stand up and clap during the entire speech. I lost count this year but in 2003, I counted 61 times.

I think the reason for that is because they are agreeing with what the president is saying. When the republicans stood up to clap, its like "YEAH, GO BUSH!". But most of the time, democrats remained seated, because they dont totally agree with the president on some issues. But there were times where both republicans AND democrats stood up to clap for the president.

[esong27]

TechrEvolution, on Jan 24 2007, 10:50 PM, said:

Thanks for clarifying. Just so you know, I read Clarke's book about a year ago, so what I'm saying is not just from the Net. Also, the info on Ellsberg comes from Harper's magazine, October, 2006. I'm kind of addicted to books, not the Internet. Still, you're right, it's all virtual. I've got to try to get a life.

I really don't think you need to defend your habit of reading. It's actually very worthy.

[tycoonboy388]

NickC, on Jan 25 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

I think the reason for that is because they are agreeing with what the president is saying. When the republicans stood up to clap, its like "YEAH, GO BUSH!". But most of the time, democrats remained seated, because they dont totally agree with the president on some issues.

Perhaps the most interesting point of this years State of the Union were the Democrats supporting the Presidents proposal to deal with illegal immigration, while most Republicans are very against the President's program. Very great role reversal.

[NickC]

Yeah it was really ironic. But the republicans still stood up regardless. The applaud starter was probably a democrat on the immigration issues.

I really like this site, it tells you how many times a single word was use in Bush's Speech Click.