TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › State of the Union - Will you watch?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

State of the Union - Will you watch? - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Heidi, I am sorry, but you voted *against your own interests* and if my pointing that out bothers you so much you need to look into why. Just ignore me if you know *in your heart* you did the right thing. Ok? Cause I am tired of you saying people are talking down to you...or aren't being nice. Just IGNORE US if you believe truly in your
choices.

Don't read the posts if you don't like it. You should expect comments like that when it comes to him or any one else in public office. We are not a communist state. We have freedom of speach. we have a right to question and critize our leaders. It's sad to me that soo many people were blinded by his scare tactics and vote for him. then he came out and said "I have a mandate" . Every political scientist will tell you. unless you get 99% of the vote, you have no mandate. He should of said some thing like "we are very divided, and I will work with the democrats. Lets work together to mend our divided country". But he didn't b/c he's a @%$#@

I really don't like this guy.. can you tell???
post #32 of 51
Yeah, I think the scariest thing about this administration isnt what *they* do but how quickly they can get people whose *interests are not only not served by their policies, but hurt by them* to jump on their band wagon. I mean those aren't my "values", to treat people like that.
post #33 of 51
Thread Starter 
I didn't realize that only dissenting opinions count anymore.
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I didn't realize that only dissenting opinions count anymore.
What?
post #35 of 51
I thought this was supposed to be a discussion of the State of the Union Address, and/or the Bush administration's policies. I think it's a bad idea, i.e., non-productive, to let it disintegrate into a discussion of who did or didn't vote for him.
Actually, both education (No Child Left Behind) and health care (county centers) were touched upon. These addresses generally consist of "sound bites", so whether something is mentioned or not probably isn't all that important, since there are time constraints, and presumably dozens of people saying, "Make sure ..... is included."
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I thought this was supposed to be a discussion of the State of the Union Address, and/or the Bush administration's policies. I think it's a bad idea, i.e., non-productive, to let it disintegrate into a discussion of who did or didn't vote for him.
Actually, both education (No Child Left Behind) and health care (county centers) were touched upon. These addresses generally consist of "sound bites", so whether something is mentioned or not probably isn't all that important, since there are time constraints, and presumably dozens of people saying, "Make sure ..... is included."
I understand your point but when you discuss the man's speech you are going to discuss the man.

Excuse my frustration venting, but I still can't get past how people who are screwed by this man's policies voted for him. I'ts like seeing women go for men who hurt them, and turn away from someone who would be good for them. I find it so tragic. And I think it's the same psychology, "I get what I deserve", and low self esteem.
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I understand your point but when you discuss the man's speech you are going to discuss the man.

Excuse my frustration venting, but I still can't get past how people who are screwed by this man's policies voted for him. I'ts like seeing women go for men who hurt them, and turn away from someone who would be good for them. I find it so tragic. And I think it's the same psychology, "I get what I deserve", and low self esteem.
Different people have different priorities, especially when it comes to politics. And a great many people support a party's "philosophy", or parts of it, rather than the nuts and bolts of its policies.
Don't you think equating voting for Bush with low self-esteem a bit too simplistic? That would mean that about 51% of those who voted had "masochistic tendencies". Some people voted for him because they were upset that ceilings for arsenic in well water were raised (almost doubled) during the Clinton administration, forcing them to invest a lot of money in local infrastructure in areas with a low population. Or because they were alarmed at the divorce rate, or against gun control.
post #38 of 51
I actually think they do have masochistic tendencies. Look at how many women marry men who are bad for them, and I mean really bad.
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I actually think they do have masochistic tendencies. Look at how many women marry men who are bad for them, and I mean really bad.
What about the men who voted for him, then?
post #40 of 51
I was using women and marriage as more of a point of logic. I think men do things against their interests too.

You know a friend of mine said it best "I don't care about charisma, I just want a job, health care and for my country not to do amoral things"
post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I was using women and marriage as more of a point of logic. I think men do things against their interests too.
I get what you're saying
post #42 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Just a clarification, he did mention the deficit at least once.
I only heard him mention the deficit as it pertained to social security, not the national deficit. I'll have to check out the transcript.
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Actually, both education (No Child Left Behind) and health care (county centers) were touched upon. These addresses generally consist of "sound bites", so whether something is mentioned or not probably isn't all that important, since there are time constraints, and presumably dozens of people saying, "Make sure ..... is included."
These were both tallied as "vague promises" in my count. The only topic he spent time with during the speech was social security. I give him credit for covering that beyond a sound bite.
post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany
These were both tallied as "vague promises" in my count. The only topic he spent time with during the speech was social security. I give him credit for covering that beyond a sound bite.
I have to agree. I simply didn't want anybody to be under the false impression that the topics weren't touched upon. Social Security reform is going to be really "hard to sell", so I'd expected a fair amount of time to be dedicated to it, and also mention of Iran, as the "carrot and stick approach" seems to have been decided upon by the West. I didn't watch the address (wrong time zone), but I saw excerpts on the news today, and read the transcript. What really jarred was the "good stewards of the economy" bit - record deficit started flashing in my mind.
post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I have to agree. I simply didn't want anybody to be under the false impression that the topics weren't touched upon. Social Security reform is going to be really "hard to sell", so I'd expected a fair amount of time to be dedicated to it, and also mention of Iran, as the "carrot and stick approach" seems to have been decided upon by the West. I didn't watch the address (wrong time zone), but I saw excerpts on the news today, and read the transcript. What really jarred was the "good stewards of the economy" bit - record deficit started flashing in my mind.
Well the speech is a selling point but still to hear all the BS flying is hard to take. Youre lucky to live in EU
post #46 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Well the speech is a selling point but still to hear all the BS flying is hard to take. Youre lucky to live in EU
Hey, there are now 25 EU member countries - you could OD on BS here! The "single" currency and lack of customs duties and border controls are nice, though.
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Hey, there are now 25 EU member countries - you could OD on BS here! The "single" currency and lack of customs duties and border controls are nice, though.

I know...no country is perfect. But ours is also amoral, not just disorganized and corrupt! Gosh to just be corrupt again, now wouldn't that be nice! I miss the cold war!
post #48 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany
These were both tallied as "vague promises" in my count. The only topic he spent time with during the speech was social security. I give him credit for covering that beyond a sound bite.
I have to say, none of the State of the Union addresses that I've seen and paid attention to, namely Clinton and Bush, have held a lot of substance beyond one or maybe two talking points that they want to focus on. Unless we want to have 8 hour addresses, they can't go in depth on every topic. Like the 150 programs he said are cut from his budget - should he have listed all of them and taken up 10 minutes of the planned 40 minute speech (without applause)?

And sure there were exaggerations and spin, but no more than in any other State of the Union speech. I remember thinking the same thing about Clinton's speeches.

P.S. My self-esteem is just fine, thank you, and I have no need for a dominatrix.
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I have to say, none of the State of the Union addresses that I've seen and paid attention to, namely Clinton and Bush, have held a lot of substance beyond one or maybe two talking points that they want to focus on. Unless we want to have 8 hour addresses, they can't go in depth on every topic. Like the 150 programs he said are cut from his budget - should he have listed all of them and taken up 10 minutes of the planned 40 minute speech (without applause)?

And sure there were exaggerations and spin, but no more than in any other State of the Union speech. I remember thinking the same thing about Clinton's speeches.

P.S. My self-esteem is just fine, thank you, and I have no need for a dominatrix.
Your self esteem may be fine, but you might want to pry out the needle you stuck in your foot when you voted for a man whose policies are against your best interests. I suppose people feel their "values" are honored by Bush but that infection in your foot is going to outdo the pie in the sky honor they have been hood winked into believing he stands for.

Did you note Bush's comments about Asbesto's litigation? That it's breaking the economy? It's not in the least. That was homage to Haliburton. What a jerk, I worked for a law firm briefly and
had to go through files of those who died due to asbestos related causes. But little does he care...
post #50 of 51
Ahem! Choke, choke, choke. Consider this a threat: Have pity on me, guys - it's almost 2 a.m. here, and I want to go to bed, instead of editing posts! Heidi, you might want to copy this smiley! I honestly don't see any reason to get too personal here - a State of the Union Address is too short, and too aimed at good PR, to lead to a lot of serious discussion. It's a required formality, for goodness' sake! I personally don't believe that every word should be weighed like gold. Unfortunately, politics and entertainment have become too similar - that's what I meant about "sound bites".
post #51 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I have to say, none of the State of the Union addresses that I've seen and paid attention to, namely Clinton and Bush, have held a lot of substance beyond one or maybe two talking points that they want to focus on. Unless we want to have 8 hour addresses, they can't go in depth on every topic. Like the 150 programs he said are cut from his budget - should he have listed all of them and taken up 10 minutes of the planned 40 minute speech (without applause)?

And sure there were exaggerations and spin, but no more than in any other State of the Union speech. I remember thinking the same thing about Clinton's speeches.
You are absolutely right - you can't get beyond sound bites for most of the discussion. My disappointment in the speech is that if you are going to pick a topic to discuss in any depth, chose one that is of dire importance to the country.

He has 2 HUGE issues at hand - Iraq and the spiraling deficit. The discussion on Iraq is everywhere these days and I can understand him not covering that one in length. But to only mention the deficit one time (yup, checked the transcript and my tally was wrong)? The financial implications to everyone's lives in the country and the world economy are so staggering and they have impact in the near term, not in 2052.

I'm a mid-level manager business person who has to make decisions for my company based on sound solid financial assessments and risk analyis. At my level (which is so much lower than the president of the U.S.), I understand that you tackle the most urgent problems first. I don't get the fact that he doesn't appear to understand the basic fundamentals of running a business. I know that he has run most of his businesses into the ground and I see him doing the same for the country.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › State of the Union - Will you watch?