BS: Bush and the State of the Union

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 02:40 PM

Peg: Byrd? Are you referring to the ex-member of the Klan?

I thought it was a good speech and a fitting kick-off to his re-election effort. I don't see any of the current Democratic candidates beating him anyway.

Now, if only Dean would splinter from the Democratic Party and start a third one, or choose to lead the Green Party ...now that would be heaven! That would provide a bit of insurance for my belief.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 09:26 PM

Good letter, Kat. You said it exactly. Thanks for taking the time.

The rest of you make me proud.

Except for MAV, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:58 PM

Jaysus, you folks aren't going to try to engage the MAV thing in rational dialogue, are you? What's that quote about learning from experience.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Dirty Tricks Enumerated
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:57 PM

In a related story this page reveals some really underhanded Republican dorty tricks for your enjoyment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Peg
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:40 PM

well said, Barry; your no-bullshit approach is always refreshing...

I wonder if Senator Byrd will be heard from more often in the coming days? we can only hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:17 PM

Good on you, Kat. I'm going to compose a letter of my own that suggests that if the Dem's feel like they are being ramrodded that they just reconvene elsewhere, hold their own hearings, write theit own proposals and buy a few danged media sources to offer their alternatives, if of course, they have any alternatives. Iy would at least be better than sitting around the Hose and Senate Chambers while their Republican counterpart sit in conferences, door locked with their lobbyists writing puble law...

Somehow the Democratic Party, if it has any alternatives to offer, needs to do something daringly dramatic.

And MAV, if I might ask you a question, my friend. Why does one have to declare "war" in order to perform police work? In declaring "war" on terrorism Bush has pushed buttons of folks who prior to this *declared* "war" really had no particular beef with the US but now consider the US to be the head and the heart of what they percieve to be bad guys. "Bring it on."??? Like what's that all about? American's have died just about every day since that little John Wayne quote. And probably the worst thing about declaring this crime a war and attacking two countries, one of which had absolutely nuthing to do with the 9/11 crime, is that all it has done is weaken the US's ability to collect intellegence and intellegence (not bombing and shooiting kids, women and old folks) is the best tool against crime.

(But Bobert, war is more entertaining...)

Not for the folks in it, it's not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:53 PM

You're welcome, dianavan.

At least Dean shows some life, something coursing through his veins which is warmblooded and sparked!

Here's what I sent to Kennedy:

Dear Sir,

I would like to thank you for resisting the pack mentality during the State of The Union speech the other night. While I would have preferred all Democrats show more backbone and walk out on the travesty it was, I was heartened by your refusal to stand and applaud like a puppet like so many others.

What has happened to Congress? Where is the adversity, the questioning, the OPPOSITION? Why are they allowing GWB to run roughshod over our civil rights, our economy, our children and seniors and our allies? I remember a day, not that long ago, when Congresspersons were free with their disagreements with a sitting President, even contemptuous and outspoken. I know there are a few others like yourself, including Barney Franks, but there needs to be many, many more. GWB is running our country and her citizens into the ground. We need leaders who will stand up to him and say "Enough is enough. We won't take it anymore!" That is what I hope the voters will also do come this next election, but we have to see more backbone from the Democrats and a united force behind their candidate for president.

Thank you, again, would there were more of you and your like,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:14 PM

Your ability to conduct civilized discourse is on a par with your talent for logical thought, MAV. If you ever get your head loose, zip up your trousers and take a new look around. This sort of reactionary right-wing extremist jingoism is not going to make it. I know it is currently in style but it is juist as ineffective as it was when it was out of style. LEarn to think, man!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: MAV
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:04 PM

"With us or with the terrorists" is the most mindless drivel I have ever heard, and it pains me to hear it spouted in connection with a nation I am a member of

...and what nation would that be, the nation of Islam?

First of all, you had better be willing to define the "us" for which you presume to speak

I don't, the president was referring to the American people who have had war declared on them by Islamonazis.

Second of all, it would help if you defined your impression of the "terrorists" -- do you mean those members of Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden? Or other terrorists

There is an official definition of terrorism, which differs from actual acts of war. Terrorists are typical civilian murderers not uniformed military members. They usually attack innocent civilians in surprize attacks.

They have declared war on Israel and the United States. Other countries such as France, Russia and Germany also have had and will continue to see attacks.

I don't care where they come from, terrorists are terrorists. Since they have no regard for human life including their own, there is only one way to neutralize them.....

Does that include the FBI and the IRS?

No, but it does include ELF, the SLA and the KKK.

Third, do tell us what you mean by "to be with" a group

"We" are the attacked, the citizens of the US, and they are not my words, don't you remember?

-- does that mean blind compliance and agreement with all policies high or low? Or is free discussion occasionally allowed, and if so how much?

No, but we're at war. Congress pretty much was in agreement right after the attack. When at war, it's traditionally been customary to back the president, otherwise you are seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and emboldening them to kill American troops.


If one disagrees with, say, a tax rule, is one being un-American

Not as far as I'm concerned, but then again the thieving Internal Revenue "Service" is the perview of the lying, thieving, socialist bastards (of whichever party).


in your malevolent little mind?

There...another unnecessary ad hominem attack against me, you...@)*(!)@$$*%"&$*(just kidding)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: MAV
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:26 AM

MAV - America may or may not be a democracy but last time I checked, the politicians were supposed to be democratically elected.

Yes, except for the President, who is indirectly elected by the electoral college.

I am not a terrorist, I am a dual citizen, but I do think that America has terrorized many other nations.

Well, I didn't address you directly, but if the shoe fits.........

Your tone is threatening. I am not intimidated by your ultimatum.

It's not my threat, perhaps you haven't heard.

The duality of your thinking is ignorant

Nice ad hominem attack, right off the bat.

I am a human being. Thanks to my place of birth and my freedom of speech and travel, I do not have to be a terrorist. Given other circumstances, I could be.

So, you do admit to having the proclivity of blowing up innocent civilians?

Nor do I have to lie to justify acts of aggression

..and so you also cop to committing acts of aggression.

The lying is mostly coming from the RAT side of the aisle (as usual)X42 helped establish this standard.

From the very beginning, after 9/11, the President clearly laid the cards on the table concerning the War on Terrorism.

Sadaam is a terrorist, he supported terrorism, paid suicide bombers and had airliner hijacking training facilities, all clearly documented.

I accept personal responsibility for my actions

Good. I'm a strong believer in accountablilty.

Martial law? I doubt it. I give Americans a little more credit than that

Guess you hadn't heard about that either, you need to get a better news source. When they suspend the Constitution, the people are just passengers.

If there is a terrorist nuclear attact, the ACLU (Anti-Constitutional Liberals Union) and others will be treated as they should, modern day Nazi-sympathizers, and enemies of the American people.

Who would be the martial? You?

No, W.

Oh boy, I hope I find you in my neighborhood. There's more of us than there are of you!

Really, now a personal threat of assault. What are you, some kind of union thug?

I guess there are more of you than police, swat teams, National Guard etc?

This is what I usually encounter when challenging the "conventional wisdom" of the kind, compassionate, caring defenders of diversity and freedom of speech, the liberals.(progressives, socialists, whatever)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 09:14 AM

Well danged. Is this unreal 'er what! The media, who BTW just got what they wanted from Bush in the Omnibus bill with the FCC regs, are makin' a big deal out of Kennedy not jumpin' to his feet like some kid a pep rally? Yep, my local paper printed a letter from someone who was righteously indignant just yesterday.

Like what's the big deal. Back in the 90's the Republican routinely did the same thing to Bill Clinton?

(But Bobert. Bill Clinton wasn't getting ready to give the farm away to Murdock, Fox and Mickey Mouse...)

Details, details...

Hey, the Dems have been routinely marginalized by the Repubs in the House and Senate and have watched as state after state has so blatently redistricted so as to insure large Repub, majorities in both houses. The Dems have been barred from conferneces where Medicare and Energy leslation was being hammered out. They have even been threathened with arrest in the House of Representatives by the Republicans for trying to have a friggin say...

Yes, Kennedy was *wrong* for remaining seated, my friends. He should have stood up...... and lead every danged Democrat out of the frigging chambers... reassembled outside in the cold and held their own State of the Union pep rally...

Bunch of wimps...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 07:55 AM

MAV:

"With us or with the terrorists" is the most mindless drivel I have ever heard, and it pains me to hear it spouted in connection with a nation I am a member of.

First of all, you had better be willing to define the "us" for which you presume to speak.

Second of all, it would help if you defined your impression of the "terrorists" -- do you mean those members of Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden? Or other terrorists. Does that include the FBI and the IRS?

Third, do tell us what you mean by "to be with" a group -- does that mean blind compliance and agreement with all policies high or low? Or is free discussion occasionally allowed, and if so how much? If one disagrees with, say, a tax rule, is one being un-American in your malevolent little mind?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 01:31 AM

Thanks Kat

I only saw part of the speech. I didn't realize that Kennedy stayed seated and did not stand to applaud. Thank you for correcting my misconception. (I guess expecting him to stand up and shout down the prez is expecting too much) It wouldn't have been appropriate ... and isn't that what all professionals expect? Appropriate behaviour. It certainly keeps everyone in line, doesn't it. Hey, I'd rather see some action than another fat cat, frowning appropriately for the cameras.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 01:15 AM

I am no friend to Osama bin Laden. But I'm not sure I could say the same for George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 01:09 AM

MAV - America may or may not be a democracy but last time I checked, the politicians were supposed to be democratically elected.

I am not a terrorist, I am a dual citizen, but I do think that America has terrorized many other nations.

Your tone is threatening. I am not intimidated by your ultimatum. The duality of your thinking is ignorant. I am a human being. Thanks to my place of birth and my freedom of speech and travel, I do not have to be a terrorist. Given other circumstances, I could be. Nor do I have to lie to justify acts of aggression. I accept personal responsibility for my actions.

Martial law? I doubt it. I give Americans a little more credit than that. Who would be the martial? You? Oh boy, I hope I find you in my neighborhood. There's more of us than there are of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:56 AM

While I wish the Dems had walked on the little brat, I think it is important to let them know how we feel, esp. the ones who showed any kind of backbone, i.e. Ted Kennedy. I've sent him an email of thanks for not standing up and applauding the crap which was spewed. If they don't hear from us, they don't know.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: MAV
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:08 AM

Hi again Anti-Americans,

1. This is not a "democracy" never has been, hopefully never will be. (and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands)

2. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

If there is another major domestic terrorist attack they will declare martial law.

You might want to hope real hard that doesn't happen.

Bye bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:04 AM

Thank you all for restoring my faith in the people. I was beginning to think that America enjoyed being victimized by tyrants. If Bush is as evil as I think he is, he will surely win(?) the next election - by hook or by crook. Americans stood by in dismay as he won the last election (in spite of the dangling chads).

We're having the same problem with the liberals in B.C. Seems like statesman have been taken over by the politicians. Money rules. Whoever has the most money wins and on and on...

The only thing I have ever seen work (with the exception of the courageous Georgians in Russia) is an all out general strike. That means shut it down. Nobody works - bring the political machinery down by refusing to feed it. Start stocking your provisions and remember to help your neighbors. Problem is...which of the many issues should be resolved first? Isn't there a way to impeach this guy? Of course there are many clones ready to replace him.

Is this the end of America? Is democracy finished? Its really up to the people. It has to be demanded. It doesn't help to see Teddy sitting there shaking his head. Why didn't he stand up? Why doesn't anybody stand up? Is Bush really that powerful? Only if you give it to him. The power of America is the perception that Americans are strong and free. If Bush and his kind continue to strip Americans (Canadians, too) of their human rights and everybody just stands around and watches it go down, we are just as guilty.

Its the "bully syndrome" you know. Thats how they get their power. Push one person. If nobody reacts, push another. Pretty soon you can push anyone, because nobody will say anything for fear of being the next victim.

Fight tyranny every day. In your workplace. At home. At school. On the street. If someone says or does something thats unjust or just plain mean, say something. Tell them that its wrong. Stand up to it. Don't be afraid. Stop giving them so much power!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 08:37 PM

Barry:

Ditto...

Don:

Good point on the rebuttal, or lack there of. I'd have let Rev. Sharpton handle it...

Others:

Like if I were Sen. kennedy I woul;d have walked the heck out! But, no, he did his time. Now, I read that he is being criticized fir not jumping up every 30 seconds applauding like a friggin' jack-in-the-box on steroids... Give my boney Wes Ginny butt a friggin' break here, will ya? This was the circu of circuses when it come the the State of the Union!...... This was beyond a joke becuase it seems like a lot of cookie-cutter Nazi Republicans think just like the Adolf Bush himself. Hey folks, this is gettin' serious 'cause these folks are beginnin to believe their friggin' lies. In psychology, they call that pathological... Ahhh, we want a bunch of pathological liars runnin' our country into the ground?

Well, I don't.

If we're going down, lets go together and with leaders that are trying to keep the ship afloat rather than the current crop of thieves who are drilling holes in it's hull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,Johnny in OKC
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 08:03 PM

Tonight on Frontline
Airing: Thursday, January 22 at 9:00 p.m. (***CST)
Runtime: 1:00
Chasing Saddam's Weapons: An investigation into the search for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.


Documentary
Closed Captioning
In Stereo

MIGHT BE INTERESTING.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:56 PM

I watched & listened & got sick (easy thing for mr to do these days). What wasn't said was more telling. He didn't mention the kids left behind. The Head start program costs are rising rapidly, though he didn't cut their budget but he increase it either, which amounts to a budget cut. Steriod use was mentioned, PLEASE, but not the funding to slow down the increased use of hard drugs, "just say no". The shot in the arm drug programs are receiving comes before the the 2 warning shots to the head. Help to convicts getting out of prison, a large percentage which are drug related, where was the funding for drug education when it would've made a difference? Again, "just say no". How well the war (what war, didn't that end a while ago) in Iraq is going . It's going great guns, 9000 wounded US soldiers & 500 or so & climbing, dead young Americans & counless dead Iraqi innocent civilians. Repeatedly using Iraq as one of his strong sucesses while glossing over the unfounded WMD's that brought us there, let's no talk about that part of it & focus more on how we're getting rid of the last of the Sadam supporters. Those aren't Sadman supporters they're part of the increasing citizen's uprising, the message "Yank go home"is falling on ears that can't hear. The ecomony is on the rise? Who was it today that mentioned that they'll probably be laying off 20% of their work force & how is it good for the economy that we're now in the business of exporting jobs overseas? People are getting back to work now? Yea, they're finding part time &/or lowing paying jobs without benifits, who's benifiting They're back working & hey, they're off the unemployment rolls again, who's getting the best of all this & getting to be all that they can be? Sexual transmitted diseases, didn't "Just Say No, again" work well for Africa, it's much cheaper than education & isn't it "OUR GOD" at work here again saving women from their own bodies, saving & upholding the sacred institution of marriage. Right, near half of marriges end in divorce now. Who's got the God given authority & right to dictate how gay couples should live & limit the rights given to all the rest of us. If there is a God she made them in his own image & loves them equally, where's the Christian heart here? Did he mention the Patriot Act & what a good thing for us all, it's not just a threat from outside (which we're presently bringing down on our own heads) but also from the inside. Terror has won this war, we've become the victim whose afraid to walk past their street corner & cower's like a beaten dog that used to bark & bite all that crossed it's path. We're no safer now, we only have less civil & human rights. George II didn't mention that in the upcoming election that the polls that have made changes are getting new voting machines manufactured by a buddy of his & that there's plenty of flaws. I can see it now, if the election doesn't go Georgie's way or it's gonna be a close call all the machines will be discounted & some of the polls can't even report. It's than that Georgie will make a move to retain power. Did he forget to mention Mars or did that go over my head & I missed it? There's no money for Mars nevermind the other programs he mentioned & there's no money to fund them, but it all makes him sound & look good. He did say he will cut the defecit in half within 5 yrs but he didn't say how?. We don't have the cash nor credit to feed ourselves & he wants to go to Mars for dinner, I'm glad he can afford it, a lot of us can't take ourselves to the corner resturant for a snack. He did mention all the countries backing the coallition. The backing consists a couple of bucks here & there so we're doomed to foot the the bills, the debt & the casualties & still no talking with the UN. He should've been castrated for even bringing up the issue of his health care reform. Lastly, he really settled the issue of our experimental food source program, our resolve in properly taking the climate change issue as a serious concern & the failing environment that he has held close to his heart & pocket, he didn't give it thought, not even a tear.


To sum it up in a nutshell, the state of the union is in the worst mess ever & he's telling the country that we're living in a rose garden that's in full bloom. I can tell by the smell that this supposed garden is full of shit.
      
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,/rank Hamilton
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 03:27 PM

Nah Mickey,

I think you and Don should wish for Bush everything that he would wish for you guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Mickey191
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 03:11 PM

Guest, I do believe you are right about Rove-probably wipes his --- as well. Does anyone know about the minister who is in Bush's ear as an advisor? Said to be one of the motivators of his ultra conservative stance on so many issues.

Can we get a coalition of gays, young people, veterans,old people & lovers of the constitution to do their best to depose the king & send him back to Texas? Let us all pray - even people who have never prayed before- that he's outta' public life for good.
Oh, okay- he can be the dog catcher in a town with alot of stray pit bulls. Not that I wish him bodily harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:20 PM

Mickey191; Bush puts his own pants on? I thought Carl Rove did that for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:40 PM

Yeah!! I was channel-surfing last night and as I popped onto CSPAN-2, there was Senator Byrd. Good speech!

On another thread I quote the adage "A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman thinks of the next generation," and later in that thread I talk a bit about presidents that I think were statesmen as opposed to being merely politicians. But there are a fair number in Congress as well whom I would consider true statesmen, and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is one of them. Another, whom I had the privilege of hearing speak in person a couple of weeks ago, is Representative Jim McDermott from Washington State.

I regard a true statesman as one who puts the good of the nation as a whole ahead of special interests and sticks by his or her principles no matter what the cost to them personally.

The average politician who thinks only as far as the next election has about the same moral fiber as the businessman who thinks only as far as the next annual report. They're often willing to turn truth to silly-putty and screw anyone to achieve their goal.

More statesmen. Fewer politicians.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Mickey191
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:08 PM

Anyone catch Robert Byrd,(Dem.Sen.W.Va.)Yesterday? Speaking about the sycophants on both sides of the aisle, how senators used to disagree & speechify against the Pres.What has happened to make the Congress forget who gave them their jobs? The President is a mortal man who puts his pants on one leg at a time-just as we do. He mentioned all the greats who were not AFRAID to speak their minds. He mentioned how Clinton called him, wanting himto vote on a certain bill-Byrd said no, Mr. President. He said -We were still friends-he understood my position. Didn't try to threaten.

He used this phrase a few times,in the dark of night, behind the closed doors of the White House, deals are being made to give away America to the Corporations. Bush's cronies. Gifts of tax cuts to benefit corporate America.293 billion tax cuts. Three million jobs lost since he's been Pres., eight million more will lose their overtime pay. Currently another 26,500 vets will be denied medical care.

He was followed by D.Sen.Dick Durbin, Ill. who was speaking about the white collar jobs going to India & other countries. He said if you call Dell for help with your new puter you will be talking to someone in India. Same with your new Discover card.

I'm sorry-gone on so long-but I was heartened by Byrd & the many points he made. If we could clone him America might stand a chance. Give the sycophants some damn backbones, remind them who pays their salary and above all, who's interests they _should_ be serving.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 11:13 AM

I heard the speech on the BBC World Service, the bedside radio woke me up. It reminded me of nothing so much as those old Soviet Politburo meetings where the leader speaks and everyone applauds dutifully and overlong every 30 seconds or so. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that this was a live broadcast from America and not a recording from the old Eastern block or China. It sounded just the same. Bush seemed to be speaking in the rhythm of totalitarianism. He'll be banging tables with his shoe next.

To me, it seemed Orwellian in more than one way: Pigs, to humans, humans to pigs. The enless war reports and descriptions of hollow/mythical victories.

I heard a BBC report today that said Bush is the best recruiting sergeant Osma bin Laden and Al Quaeda ever had. Funny to think that OBL and AQ gain from having Bush in power. Then they've got time on their side, and are no doubt considering their best moment for future action. After that speech I honestly think they're laughing at him and at America.

SM

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:55 AM

According to one of the links at google news, more people watched American Idol than the shrub, plus overall viewers of the SOTU were down 30% from last year. Not that I think American Idol is so much better, but I do think it's kind of funny that it won out over this little pissant.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,Ely
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:30 PM

We watched a "Matlock" rerun instead, in protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,Johnny in OKC
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:15 PM

If laughter is the best medicine,
perhaps it would work as a purgative.

Love, Johnny

PS, above I should have said
"Tony Blair in the House of Commons"

It might have been during Question Time.
Brits, am I getting this right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:15 PM

Good point, dainavan...

Time fir folk singers to lay it on the line...

Hey, it's our duty...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM

so - where are all the songs about this pompous yet ignorant little man? Where's Country Joe and The Fish when we need them? Time to start ridiculing this guy right out the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:02 PM

Kennedy also sat still with a bemused look on his face as the Republicans applauded the prescription bill 'accomplishment'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,Johnny in OKC
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:24 PM

Re Sen. Kennedy, he was shaking his head
while GWB was talking about weapons of mass
destruction. Probably thinking, "I can't
believe he is using the actual words."

Re Nancy Pelosi, seemed like Night of the Zombies.
I could almost believe they recorded their rebuttal
BEFORE the speech.

I heard Tony Blair in the House last week and
they were giving him holy hell. Why can't we
do that??

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:37 PM

Well, Sinsull, I'm kinda with Hillary on that one. I could have handled the speech a whole lot better if I'd been a little drunk, too.

I did notice a couple of dignified older men in uniform (lots of fruit salad, so they presumably had seen a fair amount of action) who, when Bush made some comment about the military and got a big round of applause for it, sat there glowering. At one point, one of them patted his hands together lightly about three times, but the other one sat there with his arms folded. The expressions on both of their faces were pretty eloquent. Like two old lions being flattered by an obsequious chihuahua.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:12 PM

Bobert I agree, after we've done a little White House landscaping.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: SINSULL
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 03:06 PM

Was it my imagination or did Hillary look as if she had sipped one too many banana daquiris before showing up for the speech?

Scary? My god - Candy Rice looked as if she might bite somebody.

And did anyone see Cheney move or even breathe?

Lastly, will someone explain to me why politicians from both sides of the floor were scrambling like teenage groupies for GW's autograph? What an undignified display!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:56 PM

Last night on Nightline a former speechwriter for Reagan said that the president's speech was "bi-partisanly partisan". Ted Koppel said, What the HECK does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:05 PM

Maybe Rove decrees they must be drugged if they're high-risk for independent thought, or something...to ensure all goes as planned.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM

I watched the whole furshlugginer thing and although I thought I would be writing a whole screed today, I find I don't really have all that much to say about it. I didn't hear anything that I didn't expect to hear. I glanced through the reactions to the speech in this morning's Seattle Times, and one of the letters expressed just about everything I would have to say about the speech. A man who lives in Bellevue, across Lake Washington from Seattle, said:

A divisive and arrogant speech by a man blind to the great number of people who seek for some shared national purpose and goals. He is totally partisan, he acts not as a president of the United States but an appointed mouthpiece of extremists and plutocrats. His speech was totally predictable, as was his stated agenda.

That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.

Why the hell don't they see that the people who are doing the loyal opposition response to State of the Union Speeches take a few vitamins before going on the air? Pelosi and Daschle—ye gods!—for people in public life who are supposedly used to speaking to crowds and to television cameras, they looked like a couple of beginning broadcasting students trying to read off a teleprompter for the first time, and not doing a very good job of it. The stumbles, the pasted-on smiles, the stilted prose. . . . And a similar speech delivered some time back (last year's SOTU speech?) by Washington State governor Gary Locke had the same amateurish characteristics. I've heard Locke speak a lot, and he's a good, dynamic speaker; but on that occasion, he looked and sounded like he had overdosed on Valium before going on camera. Same thing with the response speeches last night. What gives?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:37 PM

Cost of the war on terrorism                         87 billion
Cost of Howard Dean campaign in Iowa                  10 million
Cost of John Kerry's "big dig" im Mass.                6 billion
Cost of George Soros contributions                   15 million
Cost of pissing of democrats with 4 more years       PRICELESS
of George W. and 4 more seats in Senate

Cost of capturing Sadaam and making world safer for
our children.......


Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:06 PM

Well, upon reading about the State of the Union Address in the Post this morning just a few thought have come to my mind:

1. These dreadful things are nothing more than pep rallies in which the opposition is forced to participate.

2. Democracy certainly is in trouble when the Legislature has been wittled down into mass of admiriers of the Executive.

3. I don't think that the Founding Fathers wanted one person to have so much power.

4. The American people have placed way too much responsibility on thier presidents and turned them into heros to be worshipped. or anti-worshippped, which is just about the same.

5. Our democracy has not produced govern-ment but rulers.

6. In spite of my stated plans to work for the Dems, there is more need for a *new* party now than ever.

7. A constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriages is nothing more than a smoke screen. Porgressives should not be sucked into this game. Lets talk *reciprocal benificiaries* (sp) which is really at issue here.

8. The Bush administration continues to be Hell-bent on scaring people. How many times did Bush make reference to war? 30? 40?...

Well, those are just a few of thing that have been running thru my feeble mind this morning and I haven't even asked the Wes Ginny Slide Rules fir it's take on the pep rally...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Peg
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:57 AM

I sat and hecked the whole time. I watched ABC's coverage. I did enjoy seeing people in the audience, including military personnel, roll their eyes and shake their heads after repeatedly feeling compelled to standand applaud for the umpteenth time.

Also there was a great shot of Edward Kennedy shaking his head and smirking in disbelief at something Bush was saying; I have forgotten it now but I think it was about health care...

Pelosi was scary; even more robotic than Condi Rice. If she'd been speaking for the Republicans I would have found her scary because of her look and demeanor. Daschle was better but not much. Why these canned responses prepared before they've even heard the speech?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:51 AM

Glad I didn't see it. I really needed sleep last night.

Harvey, I'd sure hate to have the job as God, wouldn't you? *VBG*!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:24 AM

Well, the gang of 500 reviews are in, and consensus is, the speech pretty much sucked, even for Bush.

Not only that, but even Faux News gave it a thumbs down!

From a Washington Post article today:

"Over on the Fox News Channel, Fred Barnes, sounding as if he had walking pneumonia, allowed as how he'd heard George W. Bush deliver many an important and eloquent speech over the years, "and this was not one of them." It takes courage to say something like that on the Fox News Channel, normally a Bush cheering section."

Can't wait to see the Dems take this administration down! It will be so validating.

There was some very noticeable applause when Bush said parts of the Patriot Act would expire next year...before he asked that they be renewed!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: harvey andrews
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:09 AM

I noticed that at the finish Bush pointed out that God is an American. Strangely the God of the people he calls terrorists isn't.Apparantly there are also quite a few more Gods that aren't American either. Lots of voices claiming God is on THEIR side.
Only God appears to be silent on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:30 AM

Considering that the number of people in the UK (in anyM.I> politcal party) who need convincing that it'd be great to see the back of Bush must be vanishingly small, it seems a strange use of a front page (McGrath)

From the polls available online at the Guardian yesterday:
Question: In as much as his actions affect us here in Britain and the rest of the world generally are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job George Bush does as President of the USA:

satisfied 32% (Labour voters: 39 %)
dissatisfied 57% (Labour voters: 54 %)

Maybe the Independent doesn't consider 32 % 'vanishingly small'?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:43 AM

Cruiser, well said!**bg**

Thanks for the clarification on baptist...wonder if that will be added to the bushisms on Page-A-Day calendars.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and the State of the Union
From: LadyJean
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:00 AM

If I can find health insurance that I can afford I can deduct it from my taxes!
And the horse you rode in on George, and the horse you rode in on!