What did everyone think of the president’s State of the Union address for 2006?
Did he raise hopes for the future? Did he tackle the right issues? Did he have good ideas? Will he follow through with his plans? Was it all merely political rhetoric?
Any opinions on any particular issues or on the speech in general?
i havn't seen the whole thing so i cant say i liked or disliked it as a whole. i did see the "addicted to oil" section, however, which made Bush look even more like a hypocritical fool with horrible double standards.
__________________ If you dont like Frenzal Rhomb, your a whore!
I am aware that "your" should be "you're," and while I know I should change it as not to offend the grammar fans around the boards, school always said not to bow to peer pressure so it stays as it is
There was not one redeeming quality to what he said. The democratic response was an even bigger joke.
If you ask me, and no one did, this is the perfect time for a third party to come in and start kicking some serious ass. It's clear that neither of the two parties have anything in their play book that is going to benefit the American people, or the world for that matter.
I keep thinking of that scene in Mars Attacks when the martians wipe out Congress and the folk in the retirement home just laugh about it.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
The best thing about the State of Union adress is watching the Republicans on one side of the room stand up and clap at certain parts while the whole other side of the room (Democrats) sit down quietly and vice-versa.
Perhaps it has always been this way, but IMO the sad truth is this: it is simply the nature of the modern political environment that no truly honorable person could make it to the top w/o some deceit and shenanigans along the way.
It's a jungle and you don't become apex predator without teeth, without using them, if only because lesser predators will look to take you down so They can become Top Dog.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I hear ya, Democrats are pussies! They don't do nothing but sit around and let the other party do as they please, not only that, but for the most part they don't even say what they stand for or believe in, theres no goal or anything.
The speech was not at all impressive, I was somewhat suprised about the whole reducing oil dependence! It sorta irritated me too that he didnt spend a lil more time on Katrina though, actually Im pissed w/ congress (Dem or Rep) as a whole, it doesnt really seem to me like theyre doing as much as possible to help these ppl or repair the city. our gov sucks... lol
im going to give you 1 million dollars.
you impressed by that? sure i'll never do it, but i said it.
bush addressed the oil dependancy issue with empty promises
in campaign speeches for both 2000 and 2004, and just about every
SOTU address. it means precisely dick.
Oh, what IS this mystical desire for a third party, as if this would be the white horse that will sweep along and deliver some massive change to American politics?
My word, I wonder at the staggering naivity of some people. There is not a single reasonable poltiical view that you will not find somewhere within either the Democrats or the Republicans, it justr so happens that different factions within are triumphant at different times. There is never any point where you actually need a (hopeless) third party, what you need is a shift in one of those parties or the other.
People just need to get a much MUCH better understanding of politics.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
It's not naive. A multi party system has to start somewhere, and that is with a third party. Then should come a fourth and then a fifth, etc.
The two current political parties aren't useless because of their differences. They are useless because of their similarities. It isn't a matter of finding any two sides of an opinion in different factions of the two parties, it's a matter of finding a third POV, or a fourth. When there are only two political parties any idea is packaged and sold as a two sided argument, when in reality nothing is that simple. Compromise starts when there are more than two sides.
Also, I've never said a third party was the answer to all of Americas political problems. I have always said it is a start. There's no doubt that corruption will find it's way into any political party, but more diverse corruption could be better for the country. The real answer is to do away with special interest groups and lobbyist organizations. The diversity inside any given political group seems moot to me. If diversity inside a group is supposed to solve the problem, then why not just have one political party?
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
KMC Community Forums
Feb 1st, 2006 06:39 PM
