cwsox Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 what did Bush say about how this administration has captured Osama bin laden - perhaps anything on al queda - perhaps anything on the claims last years about Iraq's womd, the nuclear weapons false accusations, and being an imminent threat that were wrong - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Here's a link to the transcript. More of a campaign speech than a state of the union. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...ext_012004.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 ZERO mentions of Osama bin Laden in his SotU speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 ZERO mentions of Osama bin Laden in his SotU speech. Ya, but he did talk about the War on Terror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Ya, but he did talk about the War on Terror Wouldn't you think that Al queda (sp) and Osama should be at the forefront of that discussion. No he spent time talking about Steroids instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 what did Bush say about how this administration has captured Osama bin laden - perhaps anything on al queda - perhaps anything on the claims last years about Iraq's womd, the nuclear weapons false accusations, and being an imminent threat that were wrong - was the 8pm slot too late for you, old man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Wouldn't you think that Al queda (sp) and Osama should be at the forefront of that discussion. No he spent time talking about Steroids instead. Commitment to war on terror my sweet patootie. First of all, if ANY politician was even remotely concerned about "terror" they would do something about the violence that actually affects this country daily. Gang "terror," domestic abuse "terror," sexual violence "terror," drunk driving "terror," but this is a much higher profile war to fight, one where we can actually put names and faces and people in jail. GAH! Don't even get me started on this IDIOTIC war on terror. There is plenty of TERROR in this country--we don't need to go to another country to find it.... Okay, I'm done. Sorry. I've been riled up since, um, since, November 2000.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Commitment to war on terror my sweet patootie. First of all, if ANY politician was even remotely concerned about "terror" they would do something about the violence that actually affects this country daily. Gang "terror," domestic abuse "terror," sexual violence "terror," drunk driving "terror," but this is a much higher profile war to fight, one where we can actually put names and faces and people in jail. GAH! Don't even get me started on this IDIOTIC war on terror. There is plenty of TERROR in this country--we don't need to go to another country to find it.... Okay, I'm done. Sorry. I've been riled up since, um, since, November 2000.... Don't forget about our funding of Colombia and their civil war etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Don't forget about our funding of Colombia and their civil war etc. Oh honey, don't even get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 was the 8pm slot too late for you, old man? actually, no - I worked out until 8 and then came home and watched MTV Road Rules vs Real World which has far more educational and veracity values than any Karl Rove production I did get the detailed analysis of the speech via BBC and NPR for about 4 hours this morning - which is why I knew what questions to ask - not that it took actually knowing what was in to speech to know what G W would avoid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Commitment to war on terror my sweet patootie. First of all, if ANY politician was even remotely concerned about "terror" they would do something about the violence that actually affects this country daily. Gang "terror," domestic abuse "terror," sexual violence "terror," drunk driving "terror," but this is a much higher profile war to fight, one where we can actually put names and faces and people in jail. GAH! Don't even get me started on this IDIOTIC war on terror. There is plenty of TERROR in this country--we don't need to go to another country to find it.... Okay, I'm done. Sorry. I've been riled up since, um, since, November 2000.... There's one little problem with the federal government dealing with all those problems you mention. Its called the ........drum roll please....... 10TH AMENDMENT. You know, that little blurb in the constitution about powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states and or localities. How bout letting local law enforcement to handle local issues and letting the federal government deal with national threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 How bout letting local law enforcement to handle local issues and letting the federal government deal with national threats How about the rest of the country not interfering with the always judicious and mighty East Coast intellectual elite? What gives the local/state folk the right to meddle in affairs far beyond their grasp and worth? Is that what constitution framers orginally intended, to have unwashed masses regulate themselves without extraneous Federal help? That's sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Rector Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 State of the Union: More like State of Politicians Blather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 How bout letting local law enforcement to handle local issues and letting the federal government deal with national threats. How about the Federal Government acting like care our everyday safety...If they made it a priority to talk about maybe state and federal governments would actually take it upon themselves to do something about it. Both of the governments are just waiting for the other to do something... And I'm sorry, but if you had ever seen how local law enforcement authorities handle some of the offenses I had mentioned above you, as a citizen should be outraged. Often times there is no arrest, no citation, nothing. Just a boys will be boys, college kids will be college kids, or there's nothing we can do attitude. So, I understand your point, but it's a little to jaded, flippant, unrealistic and utopian to be a real-life thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 How about the Federal Government acting like care our everyday safety...If they made it a priority to talk about maybe state and federal governments would actually take it upon themselves to do something about it. Both of the governments are just waiting for the other to do something... And I'm sorry, but if you had ever seen how local law enforcement authorities handle some of the offenses I had mentioned above you, as a citizen should be outraged. Often times there is no arrest, no citation, nothing. Just a boys will be boys, college kids will be college kids, or there's nothing we can do attitude. So, I understand your point, but it's a little to jaded, flippant, unrealistic and utopian to be a real-life thing. "Rescue me, Federal Government! My local Police are inept!" Give me a break. That's where voting comes in. If your local police / board / Mayor don't do anything about those problems, vote 'em out! Send a message by putting them out on their ass! No! Instead we keep electing the same corrupt politicians over and over and over again. And then we b**** for 4 years that they're worthless. Makes little sense to me. Your vote does have power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 "Rescue me, Federal Government! My local Police are inept!" Give me a break. That's where voting comes in. If your local police / board / Mayor don't do anything about those problems, vote 'em out! Send a message by putting them out on their ass! No! Instead we keep electing the same corrupt politicians over and over and over again. And then we b**** for 4 years that they're worthless. Makes little sense to me. Your vote does have power. Tell me when I ask to be rescued. I'm one of the people actively working for change NOT asking to be rescued. I'm asking for the government to take notice of the problems AND actual dangers in our society. Tell me when the last time in any election (state, federal, or local) that any of my issues were mentioned. I vote in Illinois. My issues are mentioned as sort of a courtesy, if anything gets changed it rarely happens. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT say I am asking to be rescued. If I waited to be rescued I would be dead. I cannot "unelect" police officers. I have done their training on many of these issues--including the higher ups--including the chief. Do NOT tell me I want to be rescued. I have fought harder and voted more than most Americans on many of these issues. I vote--but if they make Americans think they should be more afraid of terrorists than they should of being killed by someone they know (a stupid and irrational fear) then they are using their power in a wrong and corrupt way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 All I'm saying is that it gets old listening to people wanting the FEDERAL Government to take care of everything for them. Nuke brought up a great point about the 10th Ammendment. The Feds should keep theire asses out of local govt and local problems. They should be handled on the local level. The Federal Government is far too reaching today. For instance, show me in the Constitution where it says that the Federal Government should pay for schools and more teachers or smaller class sizes. It's not there. If we handled more problems on the local level without going to Washingtona and asking for more money, Wahington and their cronies wouldn't be as powerful and the deficit and debt wouldn't be so large. That's all I'm trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I completely understand your concern. But I think the problem lies in our concern in where danger to our country lies. I see the greatest threat to Americans as coming from intra-national violence/"terrorism" and would like to see greater monetary support for local programs to end those kind of problems. So, I think essentially, if the local government and the state government will not lower the crime rate of these particular types of violence THEN the federal government needs to step in. It's about time for someone at a national level to say I care enough about these issues to allocate more money to the states to train the police or just basically do anything. Or at least talk about the issue. I would be thrilled if elected officials talked about domestic/sexual violence 1/3 of the amount the time they talked about terrorism. And drunk driving the same amount of time they talked about terrorism. Those two things kill more people each year than terrorism in America does--so why on earth don't they do something--I think it's a national concern. I think it's a national crisis. Bush is having 1.5 BILLION to people staying together in marriage. Why not use that money to teach healthy relationships in HIGH SCHOOL or junior high when kids could actually use that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Tell me when I ask to be rescued. I'm one of the people actively working for change NOT asking to be rescued. I'm asking for the government to take notice of the problems AND actual dangers in our society. Tell me when the last time in any election (state, federal, or local) that any of my issues were mentioned. I vote in Illinois. My issues are mentioned as sort of a courtesy, if anything gets changed it rarely happens. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT say I am asking to be rescued. If I waited to be rescued I would be dead. I cannot "unelect" police officers. I have done their training on many of these issues--including the higher ups--including the chief. Do NOT tell me I want to be rescued. I have fought harder and voted more than most Americans on many of these issues. I vote--but if they make Americans think they should be more afraid of terrorists than they should of being killed by someone they know (a stupid and irrational fear) then they are using their power in a wrong and corrupt way. if you are worried about local thugs , and its a valid concern , chicago led the nation in murders last year ,then do what the guy in wilmette did..buy a gun..defend yourself...thats one of the principles this country was founded on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I completely understand your concern. But I think the problem lies in our concern in where danger to our country lies. I see the greatest threat to Americans as coming from intra-national violence/"terrorism" and would like to see greater monetary support for local programs to end those kind of problems. So, I think essentially, if the local government and the state government will not lower the crime rate of these particular types of violence THEN the federal government needs to step in. It's about time for someone at a national level to say I care enough about these issues to allocate more money to the states to train the police or just basically do anything. Or at least talk about the issue. I would be thrilled if elected officials talked about domestic/sexual violence 1/3 of the amount the time they talked about terrorism. And drunk driving the same amount of time they talked about terrorism. Those two things kill more people each year than terrorism in America does--so why on earth don't they do something--I think it's a national concern. I think it's a national crisis. Bush is having 1.5 BILLION to people staying together in marriage. Why not use that money to teach healthy relationships in HIGH SCHOOL or junior high when kids could actually use that? I hear what you're saying. There are SOME things that the Feds have done. There's a federal law for the legal limit of .08. This marriage proposal of Bush's I think will be a good thing. You talk about kids relationships in high school and such. Well, I believe the way young men treat women all starts at home. It will be a snowball or trickle down effect, if you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 This was the only thing I saw of it on the Late Show, "I have learnt Math at a 3rd grade level." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.