State of the Nation Address

[MtnGoat]

S-C:

"Newsflash, Mtgoat, I didn't like Clinton; I didn't like his use of the military."

 

Newsflash, I don't care if you didn't like Clinton! I never asked if you liked him, I asked for your thoughts on his use of the military given his non service. Thanks for the answer, it's consistent with your criticism of Dubya.

 

And yeah, I guess I'm old-fashioned: If someone wants something as serious as war, then I really really really think that that someone should have the courage and conviction to serve in the war effort, risking as much as the front-line soldiers. "

 

This means only former military personell should serve as president, and that non military personell have no place determining military usage.

 

"Recently heard something about congressional members' off-spring not serving. Do you have info to the contrary? I'd love to hear it...."

 

I find the chance that out of 635 members of congress, not one has any children serving, vanishly small. Especially given that many members themselves have service records. I will not claim I have proof and I'm not going to look it up either, I will suggest that this statistic is bogus anyway given the former two reasons.

 

"And I believe it was Bush Sr. who flew jets. I think his son flopped around Texas in the National Guard, getting his nose white and his dick red."

 

No, senior flew in WW2. Dubya flew jets.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2003 by MtnGoat

[RobBob]

Goat,

 

If I were president, I *think* I could work with Israel, which has its roots in terrorism *without going to that degree*...

 

[MtnGoat]

Allison on tax cuts and increased revenue in the 90's

 

"Actually this is partially true, we ran up a huge deficit, incurred a large debt."

 

I disagree. You are not showing that cuts didn't result in increased income, only that the increased income was then spent even faster than it came in. The record does in fact show that total revenue climbed, regardless of how it was spent.

 

"Also, it has been proven that cutting taxes for middle income taxpayers is more effective at stimulating the economy than cutting the top tax payers taxes, which shifts the burden to lower income tax payers."

 

When was this proven? And how does one shift the burden of an income tax to lower income payers, most of whom do not pay any income taxes at all, and many of whom get earned income credits, money back when they paid no income tax in the first place? By definition, a tax cut can only happen if you pay income tax in the first place, of course an income tax cut will only effect those who pay income taxes.

 

Now if we're talking the SS/payroll tax, then that's a different story. If the Dems want to support an across the board cut there, I'm all for it.

[MtnGoat]

"Please don't so blithely elide over the Iraqi civilians who would be killed for no reason"

 

Iraquis are killed for no reason anyway. This is not a situation in which one option results in no dead Iraqui civilians. If we go to war, some will be accidentally killed. If we do not, Saddam will continue to kill more intentionally.

 

In case of war, the deaths will be accidental and then cease when the war ends, and all the folks who would have been gutted and raped in dark basements tomorrow, next week, and next year, will still be alive. We do not have the luxury of choosing an option where no Iraqui civilians will die, we do have the opportunity to choose an option where the dying will end ASAP.

[MtnGoat]

"Why are the Saudis, Egyptians, assorted Kuwaitis (since they keep killing our citizens) against us? It's our blind, unilateral support of Israel! "

 

Gee blind unilateral support of not allowing these nations to obliterate Israel, as they tried multiple times? Gosh, who'da thunk we'd be such bastards.

[MtnGoat]

"In the meantime, the current electric/gasoline hybrid vehicles get ignored, even though they are a much more timely means of reducing our dependence on oil. Big oil wins again!"

 

Get ignored? And here I thought there were at least two, with a few more in the pipeline if people actually choose them. They're sitting on the lot waiting for you to go down and buy one, and get a tax credit for doing so to boot.

 

 

 

[RobBob]

Goat,

 

You are often so practical. We need oil. Why is Israel so sacred that you can totally overlook its bullying colonialist activity, and instead insist that we protect it regardless of its behavior. Leave Palestine out of your answer, please, focusing only on your rationale for protecting Israel at all costs in the face of alienating a large part of the rest of the world.

[MtnGoat]

"Get the world thinking that "hey they're helping people all over, they're not just war mongers"."

 

They ought to think that, since that's the case. Seems these people do need reminding how much food aid, and other aid, come from the US, and much is privately funded via donation, a sign of direct personal moral commitment, which is not so for aid provided via govt.

 

[allthumbs]

I watched his speech. I also watched senate and congressionl reactions and the partisan snubbing he got from the Democrats. Interesting. Asshole Democraps.

 

I think he understands more now than he ever did that our future and our fate as the wealthiest nation in the world is hinged on helping those who cannot help themselves. I was interested to note his willingness to work on the AIDS virus and other potential viruses in a preventive medicine stance. I also get fed up with the "this is only for oil" crowd. They need to get a frickin life.

[MtnGoat]

"Why is Israel so sacred that you can totally overlook its bullying colonialist activity, and instead insist that we protect it regardless of its behavior."

 

Because not protecting it will mean it's destruction. It's behavior has been moderated due to our influence, without our restraints imposed on them it's likely they would be even more dogmatic about their defenses.

 

I am not saying we should overlook the settlement problem, but that does not mean they should not be protected either.

 

Wether or not protecting them alienates us from those who wish to kill them is not a consideration. I do not measure things by who actions alienate, because that places you in the position of judging issues by what others will think ,of instead of what the corrrect action is. Others can decide what to do on their own.

 

"Leave Palestine out of your answer, please, focusing only on your rationale for protecting Israel at all costs in the face of alienating a large part of the rest of the world. "

 

You want me to constrain my answer so tightly it only mentions the Israelis, which is impossible since then I could only discuss Israeli actions which do not involve Palestinians, and that cannot involve settlement issues or conflicts with them. I did not mention them by name, that will have to be good enough. Isreals relations with it's neighbors cannot be separated out from the neighbors themselves.

 

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

I watched his speech. I also watched senate and congressionl reactions and the partisan snubbing he got from the Democrats. Interesting. Asshole Democraps.

 

I think he understands more now than he ever did that our future and our fate as the wealthiest nation in the world is hinged on helping those who cannot help themselves. I was interested to note his willingness to work on the AIDS virus and other potential viruses in a preventive medicine stance. I also get fed up with the "this is only for oil" crowd. They need to get a frickin life.

 

Trask, what do you expect the Dems to do? Stand up and applaud with stuff they don't believe in just 'cause their constituents are? Come on, dude!

[bobinc]

Wouldn't it be simpler, though, if Bush's energy "plan" included this line item:

 

Use whatever means necessary to gain control of oil production capability in expanded Kuwait (formerly Iraq).

[Greg_W]

I watched his speech. I also watched senate and congressionl reactions and the partisan snubbing he got from the Democrats. Interesting. Asshole Democraps.

 

I think he understands more now than he ever did that our future and our fate as the wealthiest nation in the world is hinged on helping those who cannot help themselves. I was interested to note his willingness to work on the AIDS virus and other potential viruses in a preventive medicine stance. I also get fed up with the "this is only for oil" crowd. They need to get a frickin life.

 

Trask, what do you expect the Dems to do? Stand up and applaud with stuff they don't believe in just 'cause their constituents are? Come on, dude!

 

In the past, it's been known as respect, you prick.

[minx]

I also get fed up with the "this is only for oil" crowd. They need to get a frickin life.

 

so what exactly is it about in your mind? i don't think it's about oil but the pres seems to change what he thinks it's about.

[bobinc]

That would suppose Bush's accomplishments and plans deserve said respect... He's 2 years in and what he claims as accomplishments (for the most part) are still plans.

[RobBob]

I am not saying we should overlook the settlement problem, but that does not mean they should not be protected either.

 

Wether or not protecting them alienates us from those who wish to kill them is not a consideration. I do not measure things by who actions alienate, because that places you in the position of judging issues by what others will think ,of instead of what the corrrect action is.

 

Okay Mtngoat, you gave me a slippery answer. I did not suggest not protecting them. I am suggesting that we DEAL WITH their little colonialism problem by telling them that WE MAY WITHOLD ALL OR PART OF THE TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS THAT WE GIVE THEM EVERY YEAR if they don't cease and desist. It's just that simple. And immediately we gain some clout with the moderates in the Arab world.

 

 

[allthumbs]

minx, go back and reread my statement. That's what I think Bush is about. And to the retard that bashed the idea of hydrogen powered cars in the future because it may take 16 years, I say, "so fucking what?" Better to take on the R&D now, put the program together and have a economically viable clean car available at the dealerships for All peoples of the world. THEN, we can quit worrying about black gold.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

No, Greg, applauding every time the president pauses for applause is not respect, it's stupid. Respect was shown by not booing or throwing mooshy turnips.

 

Speaking of the applause, what is up with that? It was like a jazz gig, only with a starched Texan in a suit talking for an hour instead of music. "Brilliant solo, Mr. Bush!" "Nice riffs; just incredible improv, and man can that cat swing!" Buncha kooks.

[RobBob]

reducing world emissions from IC engines in vehicles seems like it would be pretty high on everybody's list. I have to suspect anyone who knocks that idea without research is simply a Bush-basher.

[allthumbs]

No, Greg, applauding every time the president pauses for applause is not respect, it's stupid. Respect was shown by not booing or throwing mooshy turnips.

 

Speaking of the applause, what is up with that? It was like a jazz gig, only with a starched Texan in a suit talking for an hour instead of music. "Brilliant solo, Mr. Bush!" "Nice riffs; just incredible improv, and man can that cat swing!" Buncha kooks.

 

DFA's answer personifies perfectly the Democrats' answer to Bush. They don't know what to say, so they say shit. Thank you DFA for making my point. Call me when you have a real Party with real ideas, to embrace.

[chucK]

 

Trask, what do you expect the Dems to do? Stand up and applaud with stuff they don't believe in just 'cause their constituents are? Come on, dude!

 

In the past, it's been known as respect, you prick.

 

Greg dude, was this the first presidential speech you ever watched or something? Every one I've seen (rep Prez's and dem Prez's) it is common practice for half the hall to stand up and hoot every time the Prez finishes a sentence, while the other half remains seated and acts like they just smelled something really bad. The only times everybody stands up is during the frequent vaccuous candyland blurbs that noone can disagree with like "We want our kids to be the best in Math" or "We need to protect our liberty", or the ever popular "America is the greatest _____ country in the world!!!".

 

Did you notice how quiet the applause was when Bush proposed a bunch of money for treatment for the drug addicted? Sounded like not even George's side of the aisle gave their "respect" to that one.

[Greg_W]

DFA - I hate your liberal ass. Fuck off, you pantywaste.

[erik]

No, Greg, applauding every time the president pauses for applause is not respect, it's stupid. Respect was shown by not booing or throwing mooshy turnips.

 

Speaking of the applause, what is up with that? It was like a jazz gig, only with a starched Texan in a suit talking for an hour instead of music. "Brilliant solo, Mr. Bush!" "Nice riffs; just incredible improv, and man can that cat swing!" Buncha kooks.

 

DFA's answer personifies perfectly the Democrats' answer to Bush. They don't know what to say, so they say shit. Thank you DFA for making my point. Call me when you have a real Party with real ideas, to embrace.

 

trask,

 

you mean only the repub's are out for personal gain and wealth?? i think you are a bit wrong there bucko. because they all seem to be out for personal gain and wealth.

 

strokefest is what the state of the union address is.

 

enjoy!

[Dru]

politics is

but that said, have you noticed how the euro (and CDN $$ too but not much) is climbing against the dollar, american unemployment and debt are skyrocketing, gold is rising etc. and no one has caught osama or mullah omar yet? and what about north korea? are they still on the axis of evil or did they get sent down to the minors cause they have nukes but no oil.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

DFA - I hate your liberal ass. Fuck off, you pantywaste.

 

Greg, why are you so mean?