|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 107 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 16 of 107:
| 
Feb 1 18:02 UTC 2006 |
re resp:14: He watched the speech. Does that tell you anything? If
you recall, I related our conversations about it here in this item. I
don't think you could infer from what I said that I "put the blinders
on" my son. I am not clear on how you came up with that idea.
re resp:15: I have more information than my son does. If he makes a
mistake in his math homework, I help him to come to the correct
answer. I do it with his spelling, too. And now I am just starting to
do it with national affairs.
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 107:
|
Feb 1 18:06 UTC 2006 |
re #16
I inferred in what I reposted of what you said. Did you read what I quoted
from you?
I also would like to add about last night's performance that for GW's oft
references of "enemies of freedom" that he sure did seem to forget about his
own gorilla gestapo that are enemies of free speech who arrest folks for
wearing quotable t-shirts to his speeches. Reminded me quite a bit of Coleman
Young or Chairman Mao really...
|
marcvh
|
|
response 18 of 107:
|
Feb 1 18:19 UTC 2006 |
Are there any successful politicians who will admit to having a concept of
irony?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 19 of 107:
|
Feb 1 18:25 UTC 2006 |
nice george *oil monkey* bush telling the rest of us
that we are too dependant on petro.
harken energy, aloha petroleum, arbusto, bush exploration, etc.
i betcha if one of his girls gets knocked up at one of their
keggers she gets a nice quiet 'borshun...probably in france.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 20 of 107:
|
Feb 1 18:35 UTC 2006 |
re #12: Are you saying he's a divider, not a uniter?
re #15: Alternatively, we can look at it this way: Jep told his
son to not pay attention to what's being said but to focus on
whether the president seems like an honest person, whether he's
comfortable giving the speech, etc.. His son thereby drew a
conclusion about events that jep felt was substantially mistaken.
Seems like a great metaphor for Bush's career to me. Throughout
his presidential career Bush's success has been pinned on people
who cared less about whether what he was saying made sense than
whether they felt he was, at heart, a "regular guy" or "a straight
shooter" or "a good person." And look where that's got us..
Jep's son has an excuse. He's still a child and isn't expected
to know much about politics and politicians, nor is he responsible
for making political choices. I expect more from adults who are
voting for someone with an established record of falsehoods,
evasions, and outright lies.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 21 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:02 UTC 2006 |
I don't know that it's a totally defunct way to look at politics. A
couple nights ago on Colbert, Annie Duke noted that it was pretty easy
to get a read on some presidents, like Nixon and Clinton, and to tell
when they were lying. Unfortunately such an approach leaves you
vulnerable to a president who appears to actually believe his own
bullshit.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:02 UTC 2006 |
The string "conserv did not pass Bush's lips... nothing about
conservation, conserving.... or conservative for that matter. Increasing
conservation of fuels would be the most immediately effective means to
reduce costs and extend supplies while putting a major effort into
alternatives to petroleum. "Peak oil" is another term not mentioned, and
yet it is one of the most significant events of our age with worldwide
repercusions that could well spell new wars.
And while "global trade" and "global economy" were said once each, "global
warming" was not mentioned, yet it is the other ongoing event, along with
Peak Oil, that are going to change the world of our descendents.
Bush did mention ethanol and hydrogen as alternative energy sources, but
neither is a useful candidate to replace transportation fuels. The jury is
still out on whether (and when) ethanol could produce more renewable
energy than is consumed in its manufacture, and hydrogen is even more
difficult to manufacture.
The word "environment" was also not in Bush's vocabulary, with only one
reference associated with ethanol/hydrogen (with no realizations of the
environmental impacts of attempting to produce enough ethanol or hydrogen
to replace petroleum). But what about resource depletion, pollution from
coal burning, degradation of lands and the oceans, and the impacts on
everythig of overpopulation? Not a word.
Bush did mouth "bipartisan" twice, and the Republican talking heads
interviewed afterward almost all mentioned "bipartisan" and castigated
Democrats for not being "bipartisan" enough, making it clear that their
concept of "bipartisan" is agreeing with the Republican agenda.
There was one thing to Bush's credit, however: he smirked less than usual
in delivering his platitudes.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 23 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:12 UTC 2006 |
I agree with Rane on everything except his 2nd to the last paragraph. I
think the democrats and republicans are way too polarized for anything
to be "bipartisan". Its just not going to happen any time soon, by fault
of both sides.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:20 UTC 2006 |
He said "hope" 20 times.
We can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up
quicker, GW.
Seven of those 20 were specifically "hopeful society".
(I think that's a codeword for "schmuck"!)
Let's see:
Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are
and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent,
schmuck.
A schmuck depends on courts that deliver equal justice under law.
A schmuck has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical
corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life.
A schmuck expects elected officials to uphold the public trust.
A schmuck gives special attention to children who lack direction and love.
Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring
adults to get involved in the life of a child.
A schmuck comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and
emergency and stays at it until they're back on their feet.
A schmuck acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be
prevented and treated and defeated.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:21 UTC 2006 |
Bipartisanship has to *start* with the party in power. Since they control
outcomes, it has to be apparent that they are adopting some outcomes favored
by the party not in power. Once they do that, it is more likely that the party
not in power will support more of the actions of the party in power.
It doesn't work in reverse. If the party not in power starts acting to support
more of the actions of the party in power, what does it gain them? Their
support wasn't *needed*, so they are not likely to have their agenda supported
too.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:26 UTC 2006 |
My only burning question is:
What Christian name will we give the new Iraqi-Iranian country formed by our
crusaders? New Texas?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 27 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:33 UTC 2006 |
Checheneya.
|
klg
|
|
response 28 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:33 UTC 2006 |
Sorry, Charlie. In math and spelling homework there is just one
correct answer to each problem. In politics, opinions vary and there
is no emprirical means of determining which opinion is absolutely
correct. You can say, "In my opinion, your conclusion is incorrect
based upon these facts and assumptions," but you can't just tell
someone else, "I am right and you are wrong. Case closed."
Ah. Curl must be referring ("start") to the way the Republicans
supported Teddy's education legislation and campaign finance "reform."
But what comes after the "start," Einstein? (How short are their
memories!?!?)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:54 UTC 2006 |
> but you can't just tell someone else, "I am right and
> you are wrong. Case closed."
klg, thy name is Irony.
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:55 UTC 2006 |
but you can't just tell
someone else, "I am right and you are wrong. Case closed."
The president has declined another meeting and has taken issue with Sheehan's
calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it," Bush said in August. "I think
immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."
|
klg
|
|
response 31 of 107:
|
Feb 1 21:00 UTC 2006 |
MM, thy name is dishonesty.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 32 of 107:
|
Feb 1 22:59 UTC 2006 |
oooh...i wouldn't throw THAT stone, bootlicker.
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:11 UTC 2006 |
re resp:28: Dangit, I'm a bad parent. I hate it when that happens.
|
twenex
|
|
response 34 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:13 UTC 2006 |
arf arf.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:16 UTC 2006 |
Whooooooops!
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:09 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:8: You know, conservatives often complain about liberal
political correctness. But liberal political correctness mostly just
consists of attempts to shame people who violate it. Violating
*conservative* political correctness can get you led away in handcuffs.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:32 UTC 2006 |
FactCheck.org has published their analysis of the State of the Union
address. They found nothing factually incorrect, but several instances
of statistics being used selectively. I'll copy the summary here; the
full text is at http://www.factcheck.org/article376.html
---
The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the
Nation:
* He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of
self-government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of
democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither
Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very
group whose statistics he cited.
* Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention
that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional
in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional
amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
* The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past
two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs
in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush
took office is just a little more than 2 million.
* He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary
spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent
since Bush took office.
* He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by
2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the
Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than
half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
* Bush spoke of a "goal" of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil,
failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum
products increased substantially during his first five years in office,
reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.
|
klg
|
|
response 38 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:36 UTC 2006 |
I don't know if JPJR is a good or bad parent. I just believe it's
rather inconsistent to tell a child to think for himself, then blast him
when he doesn't agree with you.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:46 UTC 2006 |
Well, I respect enemies of freedom but I disagree with them and see no reason
to discuss it further. I don't know why they hate our country and our
freedomes. Freedom is on the March. We want to send the right kind of
message to our troops. That's why I'm asking Congress to summon Chtulu here
tonight as we carpetbomb the shit out of Iran. See, I'm a war przdunt.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 40 of 107:
|
Feb 2 02:42 UTC 2006 |
From Knight-Ridder:
"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on
Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his
energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the
president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters,
was that alternative fuels *could* displace an amount of oil imports
*equivalent* to *most* of what America is *expected* to import from the
Middle East in 2025.
'This was purely an example,' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said."
|