The State of the Union

[DonnyMost]

6 minutes and counting...

I've got to pay close attention to this one for a paper I have to write tommorrow about Social Security..

Should be interesting to see how Bush handles this post US and Iraqi election..

[KaiSeR SoZe]

The Rockets game is on man!!

[whag00]

It's great the Iraqis voted but do some of these fools have to display "purple fingers" especially that idiot woman in red near the door that kept waving her finger around. Pretty childish.

Love the Dems reaction to social security...
All sitting and not clapping. Clearly they are going to make it tough on the President.

[Deckard]

First one in a long time that I didn't watch. I'll let that speak for itself.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Deckard First one in a long time that I didn't watch. I'll let that speak for itself.

Poor sport?!

[mateo]

I'm ok with the speech, but someone plz buy the Pres a thesaurus.

My Freedom-meter blew up.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by giddyup Poor sport?!

Rockets, and then I forgot.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[mc mark]

Pretty Slick to slip in the gay bashing right in the same breath as the Social security spiel.

I must say though that the boy has learned a lesson or two about how to give a speech.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Deckard Rockets, and then I forgot.

So it's age, then, huh!! :D

[Deckard]

Originally posted by giddyup So it's age, then, huh!! :D

I'm caught!! :D



Keep D&D Civil!!

[whag00]

What a miserable rebuttal. No passion, no heart.

[DonnyMost]

"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life."


Find the problem with this statement.

[robbie380]

agreed the rebuttal was weak

bush's speech was pretty strong in my opinion. now whether he gets ALLLLL that done is the question.

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by robbie380 agreed the rebuttal was weak bush's speech was pretty strong in my opinion. now whether he gets ALLLLL that done is the question.

I agree.

The rebuttal was a snoozer, but it always is.

No roaring crowds, special guests, etc. and a very small time window to do it in.

The people giving the speeches seemed to be a lot of the problem, very little charisma between Reid and Pelosi..

[robbie380]

Originally posted by DonnyMost "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life." Find the problem with this statement.

i think the problem is not going into adequate depth about the first sentence. i can see where you find the contradiction, but if bush simply states that he is not trying to impose american-style democracy (america's style of democratic government is rare among democratic governments if you didn't know that) or social values outside of freedom and equality then i think the contradiction that you interpret from this statement is avoided. do you get what i'm saying? i may not be clearly expressing how there is no contradiction, but a poorly explained first sentence in this statement.

[robbie380]

Originally posted by DonnyMost I agree. The rebuttal was a snoozer, but it always is. No roaring crowds, special guests, etc. and a very small time window to do it in. The people giving the speeches seemed to be a lot of the problem, very little charisma between Reid and Pelosi..

i just meant it was a snoozer in the sense that i don't think they offered up much from the democratic party other than the fact they are against bush and that they are gonna be watching him. it's what is seeming to become the traditional democratic party line...that they are just against bush/republicans. that's all i got out of their rebuttal.

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by robbie380 i just meant it was a snoozer in the sense that i don't think they offered up much from the democratic party other than the fact they are against bush and that they are gonna be watching him. it's what is seeming to become the traditional democratic party line...that they are just against bush/republicans. that's all i got out of their rebuttal.

That's all they can really say at this point.

Watching Bush is all they can do now that he is a terminal President.

Their real job is going to be less about being partisan with the President and more about dancing the dance with the Republicans in Congress that will set them up in 08.

[SamFisher]

"The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy"

Wow, he has the guts to make this disingenous statement.


I'm going to do my civic duty and put this in huge letters.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS CURRENTLY IN SURPLUS, IT WILL BE ABLE TO FULLY FUND ITSELF UNTIL 2042. AFTER 2042, IT WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PAY AN ESTIMATED 70% of BENEFITS.

If this is "headed toward bankruptcy, then what does that make the rest of our government, WHICH ALREADY CAN'T PAY ITS OWN DEBTS, PARTIALLY DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUTS AND WILD UNDISCIPLINED SPENDING?.

THe army, navy, air force? Bankrupt

State Department? Bankrupt

Federal courts? Bankrupt

Congress? Bankrupt

US Postal Service? Bankrupt

Federal Reserve? Bankrupt

Congress? Bankrupt

Executive Branch? Bankrupt as hell in every possible way.


HE IS LYING TO YOU, JUST LIKE HE DID BEFORE

We have seen this movie, people, the ending sucks.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by SamFisher "The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy" Wow, he has the guts to make this disingenous statement. I'm going to do my civic duty and put this in huge letters. SOCIAL SECURITY IS CURRENTLY IN SURPLUS, IT WILL BE ABLE TO FULLY FUND ITSELF UNTIL 2042. AFTER 2042, IT WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PAY AN ESTIMATED 70% of BENEFITS. If this is "headed toward bankruptcy, then what does that make the rest of our government, WHICH ALREADY CAN'T PAY ITS OWN DEBTS, PARTIALLY DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUTS AND WILD UNDISCIPLINED SPENDING?. THe army, navy, air force? Bankrupt State Department? Bankrupt Federal courts? Bankrupt Congress? Bankrupt US Postal Service? Bankrupt Federal Reserve? Bankrupt Congress? Bankrupt Executive Branch? Bankrupt as hell in every possible way. HE IS LYING TO YOU, JUST LIKE HE DID BEFORE We have seen this movie, people, the ending sucks.

Worth repeating.




Keep D&D Civil!!

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by SamFisher "The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy" Wow, he has the guts to make this disingenous statement. I'm going to do my civic duty and put this in huge letters. SOCIAL SECURITY IS CURRENTLY IN SURPLUS, IT WILL BE ABLE TO FULLY FUND ITSELF UNTIL 2042. AFTER 2042, IT WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PAY AN ESTIMATED 70% of BENEFITS. If this is "headed toward bankruptcy, then what does that make the rest of our government, WHICH ALREADY CAN'T PAY ITS OWN DEBTS, PARTIALLY DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUTS AND WILD UNDISCIPLINED SPENDING?. THe army, navy, air force? Bankrupt State Department? Bankrupt Federal courts? Bankrupt Congress? Bankrupt US Postal Service? Bankrupt Federal Reserve? Bankrupt Congress? Bankrupt Executive Branch? Bankrupt as hell in every possible way. HE IS LYING TO YOU, JUST LIKE HE DID BEFORE We have seen this movie, people, the ending sucks.

Sam I'd love for you to share your definition of bankrupt to the rest of the board. Please explain how each of these groups that you listed are bankrupt. Thanks in advance.

Yours Truly,
NDP