BS: State of the Union

Subject: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

Well, I figured I'd get in my State of the Union address before the Repubolcrats stink up the joint so here goes:

It sucks. Boss Hog has pushed so hard that in doing so he's not only eaten everything in sight but also the seeds for next years crop. Man, that's bad,

But now for the good news. Unemployment is up meaning that those folks lucky enough to still have a job will take pay cuts, health insurance cutsm higher co-pays. Heck, they'll work longer and harder just to have a job.

But on the down side. The stock market is in the crapper. The bond market ain't too far behind. The states are bankrupt but, hey, per capita incarceration is up, especially amoung black males. Now that's good 'cause if they can't play sports that's a good place for them. Right.

Ahhh, now in the coming year we're going to have to get governemnt off the working man's back so the Justice department is going to very active in getting pro-choice and AA off the books. Speaking of books, I say "No child left unrecruited!" Yep in the next year tyhe military will begin visiting the elementary schools looking for folks to bring along into the fold.

Now as for the economy, we're gonna have to pump some money into it if we're going to get it turned around. Ms. Mitchell, who taught Econmics back when I was in school called me the other night and said, "Mr. President. Ahhh, that's me you know. Mr. President, it doesn't matter who gets the money as long as someone does so we're going to give it to the folks who pay the most taxes and, don't woryy, it will filter down to everyone." So that's what we're going to do.

Now, these a difficult times that require great courage so I'm asking John Ashcroft to start tomorrow to reign in the voices who challenge the greatness of America. Yes, these are not times for disent. These are times to get behind America. So until further notice there protest will be outlawed in America and will be as long as we are at war.

Speaking of war, Saddam tried to kill my daddy. I don't know about you7 folks but I only have one daddy and it makes me real mad when someone tries to kill him. Plus, we have ariel photographs of truck movement in Iraq and you know when a truck moves nothing good comes out of it so Saddam has to go. He is a wart on the end of the Eart's nose, a peeble in the Earth's shoe and an evil man so he has to go. Did I tell you that he tried to kill my daddy?

Well, my fellow Americans, that's about it from here.

God Bless America...

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:46 PM

Thanks for posting it in full. I was waiting for the birth of the Mudcat baby before turning on the TV. Now I don't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:48 PM

Always willin' to lend a hand, Sinsull...

Presbert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:04 PM

Gee, I had never realized that Mr. Hussein really supported and financed Al Quaeda. Yet our President says, we know this. Anybody know more about that?

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:10 PM

Man, I thought Bush would really have something new, but it's the same old recyled heresay, rummor and fiction that we've heard for the last 6 months. Man, he should have delivered this speech with a bag over his head. He sai9d absolutely *nothing*. No make that NOTHING!

So how many Catters are now ready to sign up and get their butts blown up in Iraq. Sign up below...

Man, the man ought to be ashamed of himself.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:17 PM

Why bother? He's going to blow your butt off here.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: momnopp
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:33 PM

Or, you can check out the important story of the week:
"U.N. Orders Wonka To Submit To Chocolate Factory Inspections"
or the all important notice, "New Swiss Army Phone May Pose Health Risks"

(from www.theonion.com)

Peace, Bobert and company,

JudyO

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: mmm1a
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:40 PM

Sounds like George jr was singing the song by Kelly Osborne,
Ya know the on "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" EXCEPT IT WAS US WHO SAID
       "SHUT UP"
59 minutes of the same old bull,
          mmm

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:42 PM

Danged, JudyO, that's what happens when they get them smoke and mirrors going. Ya' loose sight of waht's really important, like Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. I was going to mention that one in my State of the Union Address but thought with all that sugar it wouldn't go well with the "Kill Saddam" part.

But, hey, lookin' back, I should have mentioned the tought times that have fallen on Willie since 9/11.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:00 PM

59 minutes? Got back into town at 7:30, and all i saw was the proselytizing. I'm looking for the text so i can make up me own mind..........hate having the spin docs do it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:16 PM

We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression Da Bush/State of the Union 2003

Unless it's a typo, what's this about "In four short months, our nation, etc, etc." For pity's sake, how long ago was this speech written?

Gypsy, I'm reading the text of the speech right now. I tried listening to the man and turned off the TV. Figure I can handle it better on cold text.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:29 PM

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. Sounds like he was talking about himself and his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:40 PM

BLUNDER ALERT: The State of the Union address I quoted is from 2002!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:44 PM

OH!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:50 PM

Oh MAN! and i printed the damned thing out! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..........try, try, again.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Richie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:58 PM

Bobert,

I like your speech but I liked the Bush speech better,

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:58 PM

http://wwwhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
My first time, we'll see if it works. If it dun't, here is the plain cut and paste........http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Now i can read the CURRENT speech!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:29 AM

I watched. I listened.
The first part about the economy was a lot of spending proposals. One billion for hydrogen car research.The thought there was a good step in the right direction, and he made it sound good that we need to become less dependent on other peoples oil.MO- not enough money and to long a period of time to get it going.
4 billion aid package to help Africa and the AIDS crisis.MO-It's about damn time.
Tax cut where a family of four will end up paying $45.00 a year on income tax. MO- The country won't be able to afford his war at that rate. Although it is considering the fact that they will more than likely lose their family deductions and end up paying more than they are getting back now.
And there was more but someone else can take over on the economy speech.

Then came the second part. Bush is ready to go to war. He always was.With or without the rest of the world behind US he wants to take Saddam down. He revealed some things that were not heard, like people playing games with the inspectors. Saddam not destroying weapons and showing no proof of this.
He also touched on Korea, but they said that's going on the back burner for now. Imagine that.
enough from me.
Peace, Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:41 AM

Once you've finished with the speech, have a read of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World NY, Ballantine, 1996 for some background on how charlatans like the Bush Baby get away with spewing this crap.

An excerpt:

Most of these figures are only after your money. That's the good news. But what worries me is that a [charlatan] will come along with bigger fish to fry-attractive, commanding, patriotic, exuding leadership. All of us long for a competent, uncorrupt, charismatic leader. We will leap at the opportunity to support, to believe, to feel good. Most reporters, editors, and producers--swept up with the rest of us--will shy away from real skeptical scrutiny. He won't be selling you prayers or crystals or tears. Perhaps he'll be selling you a war, or a scapegoat... Whatever it is, it will be accompanied by warnings about the dangers of skepticism.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:48 AM

Well the audience ate it up -- they were voting with their overworked knee-joints standing up and sitting down over and over again, and he looked smug and self satisfied.

But the rhetoric was impressive, as rhetoric goes, and if he meant half of what he said, it woudl have been very satisying. Let's see how much of what he said actually makes sense compared to his actions between know and the elections.

This is not to say I am persuaded it will. Just that he turned a good show, moved the little cups smoothly. I especially liked the African intiative. If he were selling snake oil, I might even buy a bottle as a souvenier.

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:37 AM

It was an excellent speech, and I am sorry that most of my friends here on the Mudcat were not satisfied. On the other hand, nothing less than a speech of resignation would have satisfied them.

Bobert: did you REALLY listen to the speech?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:06 AM

I listened, and watched... In a world full of possibilities, I imagine a man standing at the helm of the richest, most technically advanced, and most powerful nation in the history of this good earth, and when I open my eyes to George W Bush, I'm shocked... When I listen to him speak, I'm instantly bored... When I think about what he's saying, I'm appalled... But when I see the following, I am amazed, though somewhat crestfallen...

What the heck is he doing up there? Does he have *any* conception, however remote, of what middle class values are? What the deficit is? What prosperity for all might look like? What diplomacy and encouragement can bring? I wonder... Where are the incentives for growth?

The high point of the evening for me, was the democratic 'response'! Our very own Washington State Governor laid out George, and hung 'im up to dry! ...All very nicely, and tactfully...

Yawn... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 AM

DougR, I was working late, but I'll read it for myself tomorrow. Considering the people who have already criticized it, I suspect I'll like what I read...

Incidently, try and pull up that Wash Post Italian commnentary I mentioned in the "A & B War Plans Blocked" thread. The part about the French being "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" had me snorting my coffee...

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:24 AM

I'll do that, Claymore.

TTR: Yep, and I'll bet the other five people who heard him were impressed too! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 03:04 AM

For two years the Shrub has racheted up the negative rhetoric until he has a good share of the country so demoralised, depressed, and completely terrified they don't know what to do to get out of the trough he's dug. All he ever says is fear-filled, dire, strident, negative...and, some were worried about David Duke being the anti-christ? He was just a red herring.

kattongueonlypartlyincheek

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:14 AM

THE STATE OF THE UNION MY FRIENDS IS........ BOO, HISS, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING MR BUSH. EVER READ BRAVE NEW WORLD OR PERHAPS 1984? IT'S ABSOLUTELY AMAZIING HOW MUCH NONSENSE CAN BE SAID IN 59 MIN. HAS ANYONE NOTICED HOW EVERYDAY FOR THE PAST MONTH THERE IS A DIFFERENT ANGLE THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TAKEN TO PROMOTE WAR? HE EVEN USED HIS DAD THE OTHER DAY. COME ON!!!! YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. THE LEADER OF THE "FREE" WORLD IS GONNA GO TELL HIS DADDY? THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE COME TOO FRIENDS AND FOES. MILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION AND THIS IS ALL WE GOT. WHAT A SAD STATEMENT WE HAVE MADE. WE ARE ISOLATING OURSELVES FROM THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF GREED AND HATRED AND THEN I'M SURE WE'LL SIT BACK AND WONDER WHY THE WORLD HATES US. DO YOU THINK THAT IF I BUY UP SOME OIL STOCK I CAN MAKE ENOUGH MONEY FROM THE POST WAR GOLDRUSH TO IRAQ TO FIX THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? BULLSHIT FROM THE BEGGINING MY FRIENDS AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:12 AM

Doug R --

Now let's get some perspective. It was not an excellent speech. It was a good piece of showmanship. His rhetoric relating to his determination to duke it out was oh so thrilling. His assertions about Iraq and, interestingly enough, Iran, were interesting. His promises, as always, were enticing if somewhat beyond his ability to actually deliver. He did not dwell on the record of actual accomplishments of his two years in office, and that for good reason.

He left out major, major concerns and did not in fact address the state of the Union, which is generally as subdued and depressed as at any time in the last fifteen years.

For a nice slant on the things that were NOT addressed and should have been, see this article in Slate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: UB Ed
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:33 AM

SADDAM DENIES PURSUING 'NUCULAR' WEAPONS
No Evidence of Nucular Program in Iraq, Strongman Says
Responding to last night's State of the Union Address in which President George W. Bush repeatedly accused him of attempting to acquire "nucular" weapons, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq today categorically denied having a "nucular" weapons program of any kind.
"Iraq does not now nor has it ever had a 'nucular' weapons program," Saddam said in a terse official statement. "Nor does it have any idea what a 'nucular' weapon is."
At the White House, press secretary Ari Fleischer accused Saddam of using Mr. Bush's pronunciation of "nucular" to distract attention from Iraq's persistent refusal to disarm.
"I think the international community knows that when the President says 'nucular' he means 'nuclear,'" Mr. Fleischer said. "We challenge Saddam to prove that he does not have any of the weapons that President Bush may have mispronounced last night."
Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address drew support from an unlikely quarter today, as Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter announced that he "completely agreed" with the President's pronunciation of the word "nucular."
"Back when I was President, I often gave speeches about nucular energy, and everybody always knew what I was talking about," Mr. Carter said. "I think people should back off."
In other international pronunciation news, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain split with President Bush today over his pronunciation of the words tomato and banana.
While Mr. Blair indicated that he and Mr. Bush had "a serious difference of opinion" about how tomato and banana were pronounced, he said it would in no way affect Britain's support of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:38 AM

I flinched about sixteen times listening to him abuse thast word.

I guess those are the weapons you need to get inuculated against, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Onion
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:42 AM

Well having read the text of last night's 'State of the Onion" schpeil I had to shake my head because it was "nowhere near"
as cogent and direct a laying out of one's case as the , IMO, superior speech Bush "did" make before the U.N. Assembly back on 9/12/2002.
Not wanting to just rely on memory I went to the official White House website , after reading last night's "all promise ,no actual blueprint" performance art last night.
And , no , saying that "all" State of the Union speeches are broad-brush strokes and zero details. That just does "not" cut it this time. This was to be the most important report to the Nation
speech of G-Dubya's limited professional career as our commander-in-chief and the level of pablum quota becomes apparent when one contrasts it with his U.N. Assembly speech.

Harboring a well-crafted level of "reading comprehension" I have to say that Bush successfully made his case for the U.N. to start doing their job or render themselves irrelevent ( as it almost did
thanks to the EU's , and Bush,Sr's , shameful hesistancy to frankly deal with what was brewing in Bosnia until too many people had been killed and concentration camps were finally on the cover of Time magazine. ).

However, with all the reviewing of the 1991 decision "Path to War" that left Saddam in place ( which Dubya blantatly contradicted in last night's speech_ quote coming later ),
one passage of the U.N. assembly speech lept off of the webpage to me.

(quote)
"And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993."

What haunts me about this passage is my strong intuition that
the unspoken purpose of this "Path to War" is being used as a collosal "fishing expedition" to force out into the open just what Saddam has by causing him to "use" them with our and Britain's boys as the bait. Then Bush can say, "See, we told you so".
Quite an alarming gamble at this late date.
Reagan impotently put our young boys directly in harm's way in Lebanon and, several hundred dead marines later, "turned tail" and pulled out dealing the rising Islamist terrorist organizations their first victory thus setting the fuse for 9/11 regardless of the
supposed "victory" over Iraq, but that was another "State of the Union" pablum speech by Bush senior.

Which brings me to the quoterom Dubya's speech last night that also lept off of the White House website transcript:
(quote)
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost...."

No president "ever" admits to outright "lying" ,but ,with all of the lookking back over the decisions made leading up to and then
"halting" the Gulf War ,everyone from Bush,Sr. to then Nat.Security Advisor Bretn Scowcroft, to Sect. of defense Cap Weinberger ,to now Sect of state Colin Powell stated "clearly"
that taking out opf saddam hussein was "never" ,read "NEVER" ,the objective of Operation Desert Storm.
So , my question is obvious.
Given that Dubya's speech writers and political strategists, headed by Andrew Card and Carl Rove, can "not' plead ignorance to this public record fact.
Hence, where the hell does G.Dubya ,in the most important report of the State of the union adress of his limited career as Commander in Chief, get off with a blantant whopper as that.

I guess his team is gambling you can fool "enough of the people enough of the time".
BTW: This is but "one" clear example of the flawed outline for the Nation our limited commanbder in Chief just delivered.
His "failed" Enronomic team ( all fired/resigned and left vacant )
is another lengthy thread altogether.

For thos genuinely interested in doing their homework in these most urgent times, the U.N. Assembly speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html



I know I long ago posted here about my concerns over Saddam,when cornered ,will not hesitate to do the same scorched earth policy on his own oil fileds that he proved he was willing to do in Kuwait. Only in 2002 are we starting to see news commentary finally giving serious attention to this "Art of War' tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:44 AM

Surprise, Doug! I watched it right up until he mis pronounced NUCLEAR. Then, I split.
I heard almost nothing about the actual state of the union (probably because it is in such a sorry state) but a lot of hot air about Proposed programs for the far future. He mentioned new technology to clean up the air; didn't he just sign something which would LOWER the standards? Money talks. Bullshit walks. I can't stand that bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Pooby
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:55 AM

Put aside Dubya's solo on the war-drum for a second. Let's see: a billion to develop hydrogen-powered cars? Just what we need -- the highways clogged at rush-hour with thousands of mini-Hindenburgs. Road-rage this, mo-fo! Why not a whole lot of money for R&D on broad-based adoption of solar power? Oh, yeah, I forgot -- the oil companies can't control cheap energy from the sun.

And billions for AIDS-related meds in Africa? Okay, so any AIDS-related research is arguably a good thing, but rather than giving the 3rd world a bunch of money for medication after they've got the disease, why not try to keep 'em from getting it in the first place? Like, maybe, condoms! Oh, yeah, I forgot -- the Republicans don't believe in that.

Private-sector funding of prescription drugs for the elderly? Maybe anything is better than nothing, but gee, what a nice bit of timing. Stick it to the senior citizens just as I'm a few years away from becoming one.

Those are just a few of the pop-ups that should've been on the telly screen as Dubya was delivering his Dub-ble talk.

Pooby

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:02 AM

he's a lying son of a bitch, a twerp, an embarrasment, and a danger to the world, but it's the Wolfowitzes and the rest that worry me more.

They are the ones with the plan for American domination of the world. Even the Republicans don't know they've been taken over by the farthest right wing war mongers this country has ever had in positions of power.

Work for peace watch your back, and see if they don't try to hold on to power in 2004 by any means necessary. Here comes the dictatorships of South America home to roost. I predict it will be in the name of some national security emergency, but no matter what the election results are, Bush's handlers will grab at least four more years. Thankfullly, there are real human beings in the rest of the world, in Europe and elsewhere, who have the sense and honor to stand up to them. The world will fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:11 AM

It's all theater. You watched the lead hijacker on the podium last night. You watched the man who has cut off medical benefits for WW2 and Korean War veterans. You listened to the man who has overseen a hundred major corporate scandals and taken no action. He has taken this country from record surpluses to a future of unending deficits while he sets our country up to be taken down by the U.N. You saw the 'Rothschild Formula' in action...when there is a weak country, tell it a strong country threatens it and sell weapons. Only now there are no countries left that can threaten 'the world's last superpower', so Bush is forming a coalition to fight us. Every action, every utterance from the man infuriates the world, and that is by design. We will launch an unjustified and illegal war and kill millions in the Middle East, and then the U.N. will be forced to take action against us...the most formidable rogue nation on the planet. And since Bush cut our nuclear arsenal by 80% before he started on his globalist-assigned task of making us the bully who HAS to be brought down, he will tearfully announce in the next State of the Union that, 'Things ain't so good, comrades'. Pitiful spectacle. The man is the greatest traitor this country ever produced.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:17 AM

"Let's see: a billion to develop hydrogen-powered cars? Just what we need -- the highways clogged at rush-hour with thousands of mini-Hindenburgs. Road-rage this, mo-fo! Why not a whole lot of money for R&D on broad-based " Pooby, if i can drift yet further, please remember, that petroleum based cars are a pretty darn good bomb themselves. Or weren't you around when pinto's were exploding? Hydrogen ain't a bad way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

Bill Kennedy...

You might be right, but the other day Hillary Clinton said we need MORE Federal control because of terrorism.

Bush (the conservative, non-government-interference guy) has Federalized religion with faith-based initiatives, Federalized education with national testing, and Federalized law enforcement with Homeland Security. He is doing EXACTLY what big-government democrats want. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the two parties now. It is all just command-and-control structure like the military. There is the Fuehrer and everyone below him.

Bill Clinton began setting this up after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush has expanded on it. I believe the next election...doesn't really matter who wins. The structure is here to lock down all cities after a bioattack and ship people to concentration camps. And bring in U.N. troops because all ours will be out of country. Any president could throw the switch to set it in motion.

I think Hillary Clinton is the one to watch. Sure Bush is the greatest traitor this country ever produced, but the backlash against him could put long-suffering, healthcare-loving Hillary in the White House, and I (former democrat) believe she could put Hitler and Stalin to shame when it comes to ruthlessness.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:23 AM

Yeah, Doug, I watched the entire thing and had my polograph wired into the TV for the purpose of *Lie* counting but it only goes up to a hundred so it gave out at the 43 minute mark.

So where's the "beef"? Where's the evidence? No where! That's where. If this were a court of law, the judge would have thrown this one out about half way thru Bush's call to war. He made assertions but he produced not *one shread* of evidence. Not one!!!

As for the rest of it? Just noise and lies and proposals that when held up to the light, mean nothing or very little. The aid to Africa will not be in the form of condoms but in the form of pushing abstainance. Oh, now that's really going to waork!

All the blah, blah, blah about working families and single parents is nothing more that a crock of dung. It will be just like his supposed *eductaion8 reform package that he went around the country with his chest out but now we learn that he won't sign the checks. Yeah, when it comes down to paying for anything that helps the working class, he writes checks like a man with no arms.

And lastly, Dougie and others who think this liar is the greatest thing since the Ronnie R., the tax proposal sounds good but when you hold it up to the light it amounts to a massive tax give away to the wealthiest 5%. And once they get it, they6 won't give it back. What does this mean for the average working stiff? Well, what it means is not only will it be *his/her* kids dieing in Bush's war but also it will be these same working folks who will end up paying for the war.

This Bush regime is nothing more thjan a smoke and mirror rape of America's working class.

Screw him. If want's to fight, I'll pay for the air fare to Bagdad!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:37 AM

Just another verse from a soon to be obsolete song to the tune of "The Ballad of Springhill":

Hear the sirens wail, o'er a sleeping city,
See the tracers light the midnight skies;
A dance of death, flashed 'round the world –
Bone and blood is the price of lies,
Bone and blood is the price of lies.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:59 AM

Here's a fun game to play with the speech. Search through it for tag words. Here's what I came up with:

In one hour and seven minutes of speaking he mentioned the word school 2 times, the word education also 2 times, health 9 times, economy 10 times, children 7 times, mass destruction 4 times, Iraq 22 times, and terrorist 13 times. He was interrupted by applause 77 times.

I watched it for as long as I could take it. Most irritating were all the bootlickers who had to jump to their feet and applaud every time he came to the end of a sentence or paused for breath.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:15 PM

Their lives depend on the bootlicking. Bush's # 1 critic, Wellstone, died, don't forget. Ashcroft's former chief rival in Missouri died, don't forget.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:26 PM

..and I quote: "...this administration will not pass on its problems to future administrations and future generations..."

How can he say this sh-t with a straight face? I sat on the sofa with my kids thinking here is the future generation that will be paying off this jerk's growing (even without a 200 billion dollar war) debt.

Another scary thought. Who did he leave at home to lead the country in case the entire government was lost during the state of the union address?

Mullah Ashcroft!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From:
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:04 PM

Was I hallucinating, or did shrub spend several sentences on the perils posed by Iran, and then abruptly shift gears? The transcript of the speech at the CNN site does not contain the word "Iran."

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From:
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:09 PM

Nope, it's there, my mistake -- I had only been looking at a partial transcript. Still wonder if he thought he was talking about Iraq. Geography isn't his long suit.

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,JB Guest
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:13 PM

You are all being much too complimentary to Mr.
Bush in saying he said this and he said that.

Do any of you think for one minute that he wrote one line of this speech? He would not have the intelligence for this kind of writing. Granted, he can deliver a speech, but where`s the great talent for reading off a speech? Do not fool youselves, it`s the Cheenys and Rumsfelds as well as other powerful people in the background who are pulling the strings here. Bush is merely the instrument through which to operate.

He certainly did not get to his position through achievement or talent-money, power and connections took care of that. As for intelligence, it has been reported in German newspapers that George W. Bush has a low IQ, in fact the only other President to have a lower one was his father, or is it the other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

TIA:

Good point about the debt. The average guy really may not understand that there's no ducking it. Bankrupcty does not protect one from the grasp of the Internal Revenue Service. It will get paid.

Now lets look at a few facts;

1. When Bush took office, the "White House and the Cogressional Budget Office forecasta surplus of $5.6 trillion this decade." (Washington Post 1/29/03, "2004 Budget Likely to Show Record Deficits).

2. Bush pushed thru his tax cuts which were *sold* top Congress based on this surplus.

but then....

3. red ink, red ink and more red ink...

and...

4. This year's deficit is *estimated* by the White House to be $109 billion with the 2004 deficit to hit...

5. $300 billion, which will make Ronnie R's failed economic policies look good. So what this means is...

6. No chance of a surplus in this decade and maybe none in the next decade. And just because there were surpluses during the Clinton Administration there were no years that...

7. ...the American people weren't paying off Ronnie's borrow-and-spend spending spree and for that matter the American people are still paying for...

8. ... Ronnie's spending spree and when you throw in the current heavyweight champion of borrow-and-spend, there are not too many American's alive today that won't spend the rest of their lives paying off these two fools spending binges.

The problem is, as I see it, that the money isn't being spent to improve the infastructure or quality of life of the working man. Its going into the pockets of rich people and into pockets of the military industrial complex...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: ard mhacha
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

Guest JB, You beat me to it, Bush write a speech?, don`t make me laugh,the gormless bastard address the nation!?, he couldn`t address an envelope.
The evil warmongers who pull the strings do the writing and dictating, in the eyes of the world, the US government stinks.. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM

As much as I'd like to believe it, the IQ thing is a rather old hoax

see

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

The truth is (probably) that he's no dummy

see

http://www.sctimes.com/Election/bush011401.htm

(sorry I messed up the clickys...apparently I am, in fact, a dummy)

His words and actions do prove that he's a smug, arrogant, smirky, self-entitled, sneaky, hypocritical puppet worked by some very scary special interests.

Now let me tell you how I really feel.....

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:39 PM

...and Bobert, isn't it amazing how the solution to budget surpluses was tax cuts (for the rich, of course), and the solution to budget deficits is tax cuts (ditto)?

I bet tax cuts would be the perfect cure for shingles too.
Come to think of it, I'll try to lower the action on that old five string with a tax cut!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:45 PM

LOL, TIA...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:01 PM

I watched. I listened.

Some good points. The matter of hydrogen-powered automobiles and getting this country off dependence on foreign energy sources. Good one, George. I'm all for that. Incidentally, the technology is available now. Why wait until "children born today" are old enough to buy automobiles? That's a minimum of sixteen years in most states.

Increased funding for research into prevention and cure of AIDS. Excellent. Bloody well about time!

The rest of the speech was pretty much the usual stuff. Typical Republican agenda, with the usual practice of saying what he was going to do, but not indicating how he was going to do it or what the consequences might be, other than vague promises of future prosperity. I could comment, but I won't, because I'm up against a deadline for an article I'm writing and I'm sure others can do as well as I can.

A couple things more, however: In the "war on terrorism," I do hope he wasn't shining us on. 3,000 caught? Good. And I must admit that when Bush said, "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies," my vindictive little heart was gladdened a bit. Maybe I've read too many James Bond novels, but when it comes to genuine terrorists, I am for taking them out by whatever method works. But let's be sure we confine that sort of thing to genuine terrorists, okay?

Big one:— I was waiting eagerly to hear what evidence Bush was going to present (explicitly promised by much of the advanced billing) of Iraq's connection with al Quaeda along with evidence that Saddam is in possession of an arsenal of WMDs. I'm sorry. "Intelligence officials estimate" and "U. S. intelligence indicates" and "our intelligence sources tell us" and "from intelligence sources, we know" and "intelligence sources indicate" and "evidence from intelligence sources" (all direct quotes from the speech), no matter how many times and in how many ways it is said, does not constitute evidence. Bush went on to say, "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." (direct quote). If any of this is broadcast, I'll be listening and watching. I'm watching all of this very carefully.

Don Firth

P. S. Re: The word "NOOK-yuh-ler;" I usually wince every time I hear it, but I will cut George a little slack with this one. I have heard even nuclear physicists and engineers use that pronunciation. If even some professionals in the field can't get it right, well. . . . Put it down to inadequate education, rampant dyslexia, or whatever. I do, however, think that in the light of more important issues, jumping on George for this is a bit nit-picky.

Nice suit. I liked his tie.