State of the Union

"So, Bush is opposed to animal-human hybrids (must have been all those unkind references to him as a "Chimp-boy") and in favor of hay-powered autos. Sugarbeets and corn would be better ethanol source, but then, they tend to grow in a "blue", or at least "bluish" states.

Are we sure this guy ever got off coke?
He gives crackheads a bad name"

I am sorry, I just can't help it. It's for laughing purposes only

:lol:

 

Good point Eric.. have you watched president Bush?... He talks out of his heart more than any president I've ever seen.... if he is using notes he is an expert and remembering them and saying them with passion and conviction.

The only thing I ever see the democrats say out of their heart without notes is spewing bitterness and negative poison that infects themselves and everyone foolish enough to drink it.

I would listen to the Democrats more if they actually had something to say.. all I hear is them criticizing and saying over and over "there is a better way"
Kerry's & Gores speech".. they change thier story over and over based on political pressure.

They are just crying in their beer!.. if they have all the answers, lets hear them?

They are full of hot air only saying what has not worked, totally ignoring what has.

They are experts at playing politics... the only problem is America is wiseing up to the same old mudslinging lying tactics.

They are an embarrassement worldwide to the American system the way the whine and carry on.

Kerry was complaining that he only had 10 minutes to talk and the president had an hour in the state of the Union Address... is this a debate or an election?.. I thought that was over? They just can't give it up?.. Its over!

They need to quit crying about not having any "POWER" and back up those who do.

It's a control game about image and reputation. They would rather not support something thats right because they didn't intitiate it and come up with the idea and so would not get the credit.
Its all about building their status and reputation... helping the American People is the fartherest thing fromt thier heart. They are comsumed with power and are extremely bitter they don't have it.

I used to think the Democratic party had some good ideas, but its really gone downhill in the last 3 years.

I think it's totally appalling that all they can do is criticize the leadership.... they need to all be dismissed until they can remember why they are in office.

They will never have any power if they can't figure out how to be honest and do something proactive rather than being in defense all the time looking in their rearview mirrow constantly complaining and licking thier wounds about the past.

The more I hear them, the more I'm thankful they are not in power and controlling the country.

I seems most of the influential members of the Democratic party you see in the news lately can't even run thier family well.. let alone a country.

 

There is a big difference between Honor and respect. You should honor the president for the office he carries not because you repect him. Its not all about your approval or disapproval. The man is the President of the United States! If any pipsqueak has the right to interrupt him, then this nation has no clue about manners.

If you can talk to your father and interrupt him and not let him finish his thought, you dishonor him... I think the President/Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces deserves honor regardless if you think he's a jerk.

If he walks in the room, you would stand up out of honor.....

There is no respect for authority in this country. An no man beside Jesus Christ himself has more authority on this planet than the president of the United States of America.

 

You're right, I had forgotten about President Clinton's post graduate law degree. President Bush did have better grades than his contemporary at Yale, Senator Kerry.

 

That's because Mrs. Young complied with the orders of the police. Mrs. Sheehan refused to do so.

 

I just can't get away from this thread... :lol:

I wanted to make it clear that, it didn't matter...

Bush got his way, and had sheehan removed, the po-po then apologized later... Perfect way to remove her, and give you the *illusion* it was a "mistake" to keep you from screaming about her 1st amendment rights, and generating even MORE bad press that would effectively eclipse his "big night"...

It went "down" precisely how it should have gone down...


h34r:

edit: oh crap, I'm going to attract the wrath of Karl Rove aren't I?

Er, JUST KIDDING! :lol:

 

This is not a speech issue. It was the slogan on the shirt that was not allowed. That kind of rule has always found to be constitutional, especially in government buildings, by public employees, etc.

The "stunts" you speak of during the civil rights movement were passive resistance techniques that were not protected by the first amendment, in that the people did indeed spend the day in jail, pay the fine, or whatever the legal consequence of their actions was. Most of those convictions did not get overturned. The courageous people committing those acts did so knowing that the penalty they would endure was worth the goal.

 

heh,

...I agree

 

I doubt the President even knew about it. Perhaps some handler did, but I doubt even that. At the most, I would suspect that Senator Frist may have asked the Capitol Police to have a zero tolerance policy to avoid having to deal with the embarrassment of being the first majority leader to have something like this happen. But I doubt even that. The Capitol has a zero tolerance policy for this kind of thing that dates back to the founding of the country.

I do know that not a single Capitol Policeman would want something to happen, even if they agreed with the sign, poster, tee-shirt or a disruption. Too embarrassing for it to happen on their watch.

The thing is, if she had simply coverd up when asked, she would have been on camera every 5 minutes. Her mere presence there would have been a statement. It would have had an impact. The fact that she thought she could get away with something that 230-some million other Americans can't shows how out of touch she is. She blew her chance by being stupid about it.

 

Are we to interpret this to mean there's no respect in your country for authority other than American? What about the other 5 billion people on the planet? Though the apparent subtleties may be lost on some, there are large differences between the concepts of anti-American, un-American, and non-American.

 

Exactly...




It was damned if you do (she covers up, gets tons of attention), damned if you don't (risk of her screaming or loudly ranting and raving giving her even MORE attention), and the only real solution was to get her out.

As for Bush not knowing, I highly doubt that...

But, of course, that's merely MY take on it...

 

Authourity is generally interpreted as meaning the amount of weight and force they have to power to enact with simply a gesture or word.

A police office has the power to stop an 80000 lb truck by standing in the freeway and simply raising his hand because of the authority he carries.

Even So, our president carrys more power than anyone else on the planet to "affect the planet" with a single word. True there are others with equal power such as Russia, but authority is more than power, its clout, respect all wrapped together. The ability to motivate and move people with a suggestion.

Its not all about America, its just that presently America has the most influence economically and in many other ways to change and affect.

How else can we be so far in debt, yet be considered the richest country in the world?

the concepts you speak of

have a play about the attitude and relationship with our country.... little to do with respect for authority.

 

Re: Sheehan

Um, no.

She was never given the chance to cover up. She was taken out and arrested first.

I'll post this link again. Here's how it went down:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/1/31944/23746

 

Wow, that is the first time i have seen a poster called a troll besides myself!

 

Exactly. The NEV (Net Energy Value) is quite poor compared to crude. Gasification is a far more energy-intensive process and - ironically - uses up resources at a faster pace.

Much like the Tar Sands near Ft McMurray, Alberta. True they have the *potential* for having more raw reserves than the entire mid-east combined, but the NEV is very low.

Maybe when Bush discussed getting off mid-east oil, he intended to tap the Alberta Tar Sands. Maybe the Chinese will enter into an agreement to share ("We fund more of your consumer and government debt, you buy more of our stuff, and in exchange you get 50% of the tar sands")

The chemical plants left in North America depend on crude sources for raw feedstock, especially for NH3 production. The alkanes, cycloalkanes, and alkenes are all essential to fertilizer production.

Let's not forget about the herbicides and pesticides that are essential to allow that level of agricultural output. Yet nobody seems willing to discuss the energy input required to produce the fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, let alone running the farm machinery to apply it.

So - ironically - you end up using more crude to make more fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides to grow more corn to ... you get the idea.