If Bush says, "The state of the Union is...

[Aeschines]

good" or "strong" or any of those other words that Presidents say when they're pandering to their base and bullshitting the nation, I'm going to fucking retch.

The state of the Union is not strong. It's total shit.

Now before the rightie dumbfucks chime in with, "Iron production is up 15%, comrades. The union is strong, after all!" let me says this: Sure, the US is a great country with lots of good points, tons of strong ones. We're not on the verge of collapse. But that's not the point. The points are that

1. We're fighting a shit war we should never have fought. It's a certified goddamn quagmire.

2. The economy is doing superficially well, but the benefits are going disproportionately to the wealthy and real wages are long stagnant, so people are in a lot of pain but told to shut the fuck, the economy's great!

3. Nothing new or fun is happening. We're not adding new states, sending men to the moon, or doing anything else to make us feel proud as a nation. Instead, we're tapping wires and torturing Arabs, we're fucking others while fucking ourselves. In a word, we're goddamn pathetic.

Add to that fears of terrorism, bird flu, peak oil, and whatever-the-fuck else. All the Pubbie rah-rahs can do nothing to beat the malaise.

And the Mother of all Points here is that the Bush regime is responsible for about 75% of the malaise. So don't tell me the "state of the union is strong!" when you of all people are the one making it weak, you wretched cunt!

But still Bush is going to lay the bullshit on thick as jam and spit out factoid after factoid with his gimpy grin and spin deluxe. A day before the speech, I feel as though I've heard it all already:

WAR.
9/11.
ECONOMY.
MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

Really, Bush, just fuck off. You have ZERO credibility--don't you get that, stupid motherfucker?!

[drewbert]

This is why I won't be watching or listening this time. If he actually says something worthwhile, I'm sure I'll hear about it eventually.

[drewbert]

(Hit reply too soon.)

In fact, nobody will need tell me about it. I'll figure it out from the faint oinking noises coming from high overhead.

[wring]

well you know damn well he's going to go w/the "state of the Union is.... (pause for emphasis) strong. (Pause for applause)" his address is not to the entire country but rather to his constituents, those who believe that he's only doing "fillin the blank" to keep us safe, that the war was justified, we must stay the course and all, and the economy (their own) is doing fine, just fine, thankyew, plus they're about to control the Supreme Court for the forseable future. what's not (for them ) to like?

and t'other side will say all the things we're expecting to hear too. anyhow who believes that the SoTU address is any more than a political rah-rah time for both parties should invest in some bridges I have for sale.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

3. Nothing new or fun is happening. We're not adding new states, sending men to the moon, or doing anything else to make us feel proud as a nation.

Don't you think you're setting the bar a little high there? Not even the greatest nation can come out with a legendary achievement every year.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

Americans' Savings Rate at Lowest Level Since 1933

the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before -- in 1932 and 1933 --

Seriously Aeschines, you're overinsured. The whole country is overinsured.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Don't you think you're setting the bar a little high there? Not even the greatest nation can come out with a legendary achievement every year.

"Adding new states," for example, isn't an achievement per se. It's something that is part of growth, progress; it's something of interest.

The Internet boom was probably the one time in my life I thought, "These are interesting times, times in which it's really great to be an American." No war, high prosperity, technological progress, etc. (please don't respond that none of it was real; part of it indeed was real).

Five years later, hoo-eee. Malaise, baby, and everyone knows it.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

"Adding new states," for example, isn't an achievement per se. It's something that is part of growth, progress; it's something of interest.

"...and not only are we winning the war on terror, we are now prepared to add Iraq and Afghanistan to the union and will be evicting Louisia and Mississippi for an overall net financial gain!"

[John Mace]

Well, the state of the Union is.... strong. Too fucking bad if you don't like it. No, Bush has not destroyed American. You are not a victin, much as you seem to wish you were one. The President is required by the Constitution to give this speech. He get's to decide what goes in iit. Yeah, it'll be all platitudes, but when was tha last SotU speech that wasn't.

Too bad the Dems had to select a Governor who's been in office for about 1 month for the the response*. Maybe if they could stop squabling among themselves for a few minutes, they might actually be able to win a national election.

*Richardson's response, to be given in Spanish, can't really count.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The President is required by the Constitution to give this speech.

Actually, he isn't, it's just traditional. He is required only to "from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_union

[jlzania]

I totally agree Aeschines.
Which is why I'll be joinIng in a rally in Austin to protest the bullshit and to listen to speakers that may have suggestions on more things I can do to help turn the tide.
I will make a point of reading the transcript of Bush's address the next day however.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

"Adding new states," for example, isn't an achievement per se. It's something that is part of growth, progress; it's something of interest.

What fucking states are you talking about? We've got (I'm sure with your thinking) Afghanistan and Iraq lined up to join once Halliburton can figure out whom to pay off for a Constitutional amendment to ratification of statehood based on Presidential decree. Iran is getting nervous and I heard that the invitations to be sent to Alberta are being engraved as we speak. I'm really curious what the adding new states is supposed to mean.

And no, most people don't know how important the moment they're living in will be until it's viewed in hindsight. How many people do you think stood in awe in 1977 of the personal computer? I'd say that turned out to be a pretty big thing. When you're a bit older you'll gain some perspective. Life is so much faster and information-filled today that we're all accostomed to NOWNOWNOW! If a President or Senator or CEO doesn't make a life-affirming impact on everyone, everywhere in 3 months, he's seen as a failure.

The big picture takes time to paint. During WWI the US was extremely reluctant in joining the Allies. The fact that WWII happened shows we maybe should have been a little more concerned with resolving the situation. But at the time, as today, people focused on the minutiae and day-to-day progress. We won't know the full effect of this war for another 20 or 30 years. But if your world-view makes you happy, have at it.

I wouldn't say we're wealthy, but we're paying the bills and saving some money. Like the majority of Americans. We may not both drive Corvettes, but we're not living some destitute shithole existence you think everyone is. If your life isn't going so well, do something about it or keep bitching about it. It's your choice. Beleive it or not, they're not really out to get little ol' you.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Actually, he isn't, it's just traditional. He is required only to "from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_union

Yes, I suppose that he could submit a written statement, but I think you knew what I meant. He's required to assess the state of the Union. I'm sure the OP would have had just as much whining to do about a written statement.

[Shodan]

If Bush says, "The state of the Union is...

The Usual Idiots will instantly respond "Is not!" without waiting to hear the rest of the sentence.

Regards,
Shodan

[Merijeek]

It'll be words without a frame of reference. For example, he'll probably say "stronger" rather than "strong".

Or so we'll see.

-Joe

[jlzania]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The Usual Idiots will instantly respond "Is not!" without waiting to hear the rest of the sentence.

Regards,
Shodan

Hardly.
As I stated in my prior post, I will make a point of reading the transcript of Bush's address.
However, some of us are not quite as pleased as you are with the current State of the Union.
I am ashamed that my country has gone to war-a war based on what the current administration has admitted is false information.
I am ashamed that soldiers are being asked to die and, when questioned as to why, the president can only repeat that to leave now would dishonor those already dead.
I am ashamed that my country has admitted to torture.
I am ashamed that the current administration and the Pentagon is spying on law abiding citizens like the Quakers whose only 'crime' is lawful dissent.
I am ashamed that months later, the citizens of the Gulf coast have received little or no assistance in rebuilding their communities.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Well, the state of the Union is.... strong. Too fucking bad if you don't like it.

That can't be right, John. Last I'd heard we're in mortal danger. Like, we could see a mushroom cloud over an American city at any moment.

Did I miss something? Have we won? Is the mission accomplished? Is the insurgency in its last throes (again)? Have we finally turned that seventh corner?

-Joe

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by jlzania

Which is why I'll be joinIng in a rally in Austin to protest the bullshit and to listen to speakers that may have suggestions on more things I can do to help turn the tide.

Grab your Birkinstocks and bongos!

[AFAIKnow]

And if he says anything other than "strong" it would be a political field day for the Dem's for months to come. The Union is strong. We don't have a civil war or major dissent against the federal government (liberal handwringing notwithstanding). At the worst we have a foriegn war that has nothing to do with the strength of the Union, a Constitutional Issue that experts can't agree is illegal or not.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by duffer

What fucking states are you talking about?

Chill, comrade, he was speaking rhetorically about the sort of national pride and excitement that would come with a major development like, say, the admission of an Alaska or Hawaii to statehood. He wasn't suggesting that the USA should literally annex additional territory and carve new states out of it.

Originally Posted by duffer

I wouldn't say we're wealthy, but we're paying the bills and saving some money. Like the majority of Americans.

Except that, as Squink pointed out above, the majority of Americans aren't in fact saving money or even paying the bills. For the first time in over seventy years, we have a negative savings rate.

I'm glad things are going well for you personally, and I'm pleased to say that I've been doing pretty well too. But if the statistics show that most Americans are struggling financially, with stagnant or dropping incomes and increased debt, then I don't think we can just shrug that off as isolated examples of lazy whiners who simply aren't exercising their choice to "do something about it".

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Well, the state of the Union is.... strong.

Do you have anything to back that up? Is the state of the Union stronger now than in 1978? 1985? 1993? 1999? Or weaker? Whacha got?

Too fucking bad if you don't like it.

No, I love how things suck.

No, Bush has not destroyed American.

But he gets an A+ for effort--a grade he's rarely if ever achieved elsewhere in his life.

You are not a victin, much as you seem to wish you were one.

I'm a victim of your stupidity if nothing else. Get a fucking clue!

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by duffer

And no, most people don't know how important the moment they're living in will be until it's viewed in hindsight. How many people do you think stood in awe in 1977 of the personal computer? I'd say that turned out to be a pretty big thing.

You have a point. There are many things now that are going to be big in the future, and people recognize that. One you hear about almost daily: Biotech. Cloning, stem cell treatments. Nanotechnology. People didn't just blow off the computer in the late 70s. Hell, at the time I had a Sharp pocket calculator and thought it was pretty neato.

But the 70s were still a time of malaise in the country: inflation, unemployment, and realistic worries about the country during and in the wake of Watergate. Plus the Viet Nam War for a large chunk of the decade. The Iran Hostage Crisis. (And Reagan was a big part of getting us out that malaise through a certain something special in his leadership, though I don't think all his policies were great. See, I'm not a "Liberal" spitting out "Liberal" talking points; I'm a socialist, a lefty, but not a "Liberal.")

No, life doesn't suck totally; my life is pretty good. That's not the point! The point is that the political leadership in this country is an absolute abomination. Can't you take off your "Conservative" blinders and fucking get that?

If a President or Senator or CEO doesn't make a life-affirming impact on everyone, everywhere in 3 months, he's seen as a failure.

Dude, your president is making an impact on everyone on the planet, and no, it's not "life-affirming"; it's an up-your-ass fucking rape of world, goddamn it!

The big picture takes time to paint. During WWI the US was extremely reluctant in joining the Allies. The fact that WWII happened shows we maybe should have been a little more concerned with resolving the situation. But at the time, as today, people focused on the minutiae and day-to-day progress. We won't know the full effect of this war for another 20 or 30 years.

And had we not helped defeat the Germans, there might never have been a WWII. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Also, sometimes people at the time get it right. The consensus on Viet Nam in 1970 was that it was a big fucking mess, a waste of money, and bad for both us and the people we were bombing the fuck out of. That viewpoint is only stronger today.

But if your world-view makes you happy, have at it.

My worldview was that the US was committed to justice and not doing things like, I dunno, torturing people.

Who was it that said we weren't going to do nation building. Whose worldview was that?

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Except that, as Squink pointed out above, the majority of Americans aren't in fact saving money or even paying the bills. For the first time in over seventy years, we have a negative savings rate.

I understand it was rhetoric. Maybe I should start a GD or something about the savings rate. In fact, I will. I'm honestly curious about why this is a governmental problem.

[Leaper]

I'm not Bush's biggest fan by any means, but it seems to me that the OP is flaming Bush for the wrong thing. I mean, given that he's either made mistakes or launched into a Machiavellian conspiracy for power (depending on who you listen to), is it reasonable now to expect him to say anything else in the biggest speech a President makes? What do you expect him to say? "The union is on the verge of collapse, thanks to my incompetence [and/or malice]. I will now turn myself in to law enforcement for crimes against humanity." What President would say ANYTHING other than that, no matter what the circumstances?

I think the OP's better served flaming him for the root causes and actions, but I think he's realized that it's all been done already. But don't worry; I'm sure he'll do or say something completely outrageous soon.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by AFAIKnow

And if he says anything other than "strong" it would be a political field day for the Dem's for months to come. The Union is strong. We don't have a civil war or major dissent against the federal government (liberal handwringing notwithstanding). At the worst we have a foriegn war that has nothing to do with the strength of the Union, a Constitutional Issue that experts can't agree is illegal or not.

No major dissent? When half the electorate is unhappy, that seems pretty major to me. But maybe I'm being nitpicky.

But the rest of your post is just plain-out bullshit. There's no civil war, hurrah for us. And the very major war that we are fighting right now? That's not relevant to our strength as a country! Even though that war is draining our coffers, the goodwill of our international friends, and inciting anti-American hatred. Not to mention, severely wounding tens of Americans (who are going to need to be cared for somehow) and killing thousands of others.

This is the argument of a goddamn fool.

Why are Americans so arrogant to believe that all that matters is what happens within our borders?

Even if you ignore the war and the unethical stuff we're doing in the name of war, I don't really see how our country is doing alright. The economy is doing superific...just tell that to the hundreds of thousands of folks who just found out they're being laid off, and all the college students who are having to pony up huge increases in their tuition costs. We're doing a great job...just tell that to the millions of Katrina victims who are still waiting for the federal government to lend a helping hand, and all those old, sick people beating their heads against the wall, trying their hardest to figure out how to get much-needed drugs. Let's hi-five each other...as we turn a blind eye to blatant civil liberties violations (but they better not touch mah guns!). I'm so happy about that Abramoff scandal and the fact that oil companies are making money hand over fist while we continue to pull out our pockets at the pump.

I'm so thrilled about the state of the Union that I'm not going to even tune into it. I don't want to have nightmares.

I don't blame Bush for all the shit. I despise the man, but I'm not irrational with my hatred. I know he can't control the weather or feed the multitudes from a loaf of bread and a couple of fish. However, I will be very angry if he paints a rosy picture and if he tries to convince us that we're in la-la land. He pulls that patronizing, father-knows-best shit all the time...and it doesn't work on me. I know things could be worse (we could be Iraq), but I know the state of the Union isn't strong, stronger, or relatively strong. It's none of the above.

I got a raise this year, but from where I'm sitting we don't have anything to be proud of. The economy may be doing better, John Mace, but money isn't everything. Everything else sucks, IMHO.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

You have a point. There are many things now that are going to be big in the future, and people recognize that. One you hear about almost daily: Biotech. Cloning, stem cell treatments. Nanotechnology. People didn't just blow off the computer in the late 70s. Hell, at the time I had a Sharp pocket calculator and thought it was pretty neato.

Biotech will be big. Just not today. The ethics alone are what is holding back full-scale implementation. You can take the easy shot at fundies, but that isn't the biggest hurdle. If it was there would be dozens of countries doing exactly what you want them to be doing. Cases like the South Korean researcher extend the debate, and rightly so, IMO. True, there are countries that are further in developing the use of biotech, but it's still in it's infancy. The US isn't falling behind in knowledge, we're hampered from accelerated progress. Biotech (stem-cell research especially) will go forward in the US. And when it does, look out. It will explode in usefulness. You can bet your ass that if Jeb developes cancer, George will want every treatment available. It's a matter of using the science ethically. Someone once said, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Either that or Bush really wants people to die. That's rhetoric, but I doubt you beleive it in your heart.

Whatever the case, this scientific development alone means you are living in the most exciting time since the control of fire. The US isn't yet on the forefront, but our scientists are studying it and will soon, I think, be able to set a boatload of benchmarks.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

But the 70s were still a time of malaise in the country: inflation, unemployment, and realistic worries about the country during and in the wake of Watergate. Plus the Viet Nam War for a large chunk of the decade. The Iran Hostage Crisis. (And Reagan was a big part of getting us out that malaise through a certain something special in his leadership, though I don't think all his policies were great. See, I'm not a "Liberal" spitting out "Liberal" talking points; I'm a socialist, a lefty, but not a "Liberal.")

They were called Reagan Democrats. Many were liberal but saw his vision as a better course. I have no problem with someone that is liberal. I just rag on the extreme faction. Much like the left ragging on the extreme right. It's human nature and keeps us ponying up the $15 each year. See? We're all helping the economy. And Cecil's bar tab.

Originally Posted by Aeshines

No, life doesn't suck totally; my life is pretty good. That's not the point! The point is that the political leadership in this country is an absolute abomination. Can't you take off your "Conservative" blinders and fucking get that?Dude, your president is making an impact on everyone on the planet, and no, it's not "life-affirming"; it's an up-your-ass fucking rape of world, goddamn it!

Hey, I've got plenty of problems with Bush. The drug program and amnesty not the least of them. Also, I'd prefer simplification of the tax code over a tax cut. But seeing the former is impossible, I'll take the latter. And he must be Superman. He's able to fuck up the lives of 6 billion people at once? Jesus, even I didn't think he was that powerful and persuasive. I can think of a few governments that are actually capable of touching off WWII and seem to actively be persuing it, but if the conservative platform is the make-or-break, I guess you have a point.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

And had we not helped defeat the Germans, there might never have been a WWII. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Nope, because then we wouldn't be dealing with Europe. We'd be buying $80 Benz' and speaking Deutsch. Hitler had no ambition for domination of the US. (Nope, not Godwin. A direct reply to the issue stated.)

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Also, sometimes people at the time get it right. The consensus on Viet Nam in 1970 was that it was a big fucking mess, a waste of money, and bad for both us and the people we were bombing the fuck out of. That viewpoint is only stronger today.My worldview was that the US was committed to justice and not doing things like, I dunno, torturing people.

Kinda like today when people still make an argument that not fighting WWI would have been better?

Originally Posted by Aeschiens

Who was it that said we weren't going to do nation building. Whose worldview was that?

Marshall?

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by duffer

I wouldn't say we're wealthy, but we're paying the bills and saving some money. Like the majority of Americans.

Good to see you're paying attention as usual.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by duffer

I'm honestly curious about why this [the savings rate] is a governmental problem.

Why is high unemployment, or sluggish growth, or inflation, or recession, or negative wage growth, or any of a host of other unpleasant economic phenomena a governmental problem?

'Cause the government is supposedly implementing economic policies that increase prosperity for its citizens. Economic problems that impede prosperity imply that the government isn't performing this job successfully.

Sure, you could treat any of these problems as simply a widespread failure of personal responsibility. When unemployment is high, it's because workers are doing their jobs poorly and getting fired. When growth is slow, it's because workers aren't working hard enough and increasing their productivity. When wages drop, it's because workers are slacking off and getting their pay docked. When the savings rate falls below zero, it's because consumers have suddenly turned into greedy spendthrifts who demand goodies they can't afford. Uh-huh. Sure it is.

[ZebraShaSha]

But, when the economy DOES begin to swing the other way, imagine the investment oppurtunities!

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by duffer

Biotech will be big. Just not today.

We agree.

Whatever the case, this scientific development alone means you are living in the most exciting time since the control of fire. The US isn't yet on the forefront, but our scientists are studying it and will soon, I think, be able to set a boatload of benchmarks.

We don't agree. The technology is amazing but the benefits will be incremental. That is, unless they really come up with cures for cancer and heart disease, things that make the average person say, "A lot of my fears and/or problems just disappeared."

And he must be Superman. He's able to fuck up the lives of 6 billion people at once? Jesus, even I didn't think he was that powerful and persuasive.

He's not persuasive; he's a joke. But he's supported by "dead-enders" (thank you, Rumsfeld) who will always support the guy on the right because they see him as more likely to effect their right/fundie agenda.

Bush is fucking up the world on a very large scale. He's got the US clawing at itself politically even when he could be a uniter (the very opposite of the Reagan effect), and he's got us into the war which is pretty much a sufficient condition for malaise. Other countries are involved, either getting shot at along with us or playing the shootee. The US malaise doesn't help the world in any way. Yeah, Bush is responsible for a lot.

Nope, because then we wouldn't be dealing with Europe. We'd be buying $80 Benz' and speaking Deutsch. Hitler had no ambition for domination of the US.

Wha'? I'm saying that if the US hadn't helped the Allies in WWI then it is possible that one of several other outcomes might have occured in which a bitch-beaten and bitter Germany didn't give birth to Hitler and the Reich: 1) Germany wins, 2) The war is called a draw with face saved on both sides, 3) The war of attrition continues and both sides are made too weak to fight over the long term, etc. Also, Japan was on the side of the Allies and was, conversely, made stronger by being a victor. Had the Entente won, Germany might have remained civilized and the growing power of Japan curtailed.

In any case, the point really isn't whether it was a moral choice for the US to take the side of the Allies; the point, rather, is that you never know what's going to happen.

The Middle East is such a fucked up mess to begin with, with such a lack of modern civilization and values, that no student of history (and Bush is no student of anything) could imagine that we could just go in there and do the "right thing" and thereafter "good things" would happen. No matter what, it's going to be a crap shoot, and right now it's a very expensive game of craps.

Marshall?

Ah, no. Bush in the 2000 campaign explicitly said that he would not do nation-building. Kind of like "no new taxes" but a far more dire promise to break.

[AFAIKnow]

Originally Posted by monstro

No major dissent? When half the electorate is unhappy, that seems pretty major to me. But maybe I'm being nitpicky.

But the rest of your post is just plain-out bullshit. There's no civil war, hurrah for us. And the very major war that we are fighting right now? That's not relevant to our strength as a country! Even though that war is draining our coffers, the goodwill of our international friends, and inciting anti-American hatred. Not to mention, severely wounding tens of Americans (who are going to need to be cared for somehow) and killing thousands of others.

Oh please. Do you have an clue what the US economy produces? And what coffers are being drained? The US will not collapse if a few social program are curtailed. It is a foreign war (I'm sure 50 years ago Americans would laugh in your face if you called it an actual war). We are spending money and losing minimal lives. Do you remember when we actually fought wars that killed 10's of thousands of our troops? I don't think the Union was in threat then either. The sky is not falling Chicken Little. None of our international friends are threatening any kind of censure or punitive measures towards the US. Do you remember the civil rights era? Do you remember the depressions of the 20's 70's and 80's? This aint even close darling. Get your knickers out of a knot and look at the real world. Not what is fed to you through blogs. "Half of the people are unhappy", eh? You do know that changes every time a poll is produced right? that doesn't reflect the strength of the country. It reflects whch blowhards get enough facetime on TV and which morons are watching.

Why are Americans so arrogant to believe that all that matters is what happens within our borders?

Because we are talking about the state of the Union, dipshit. Not the state of our International Dancecard.

[Frostillicus]

I'd like to play a drinking game tomorrow night in which I take a shot of whiskey every time Bush lies out of his ass, but I am afraid I would die of alcohol poisoning within the hour.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Ah, no. Bush in the 2000 campaign explicitly said that he would not do nation-building. Kind of like "no new taxes" but a far more dire promise to break.

This is why I want the Iraqi's to take control of their country for the first time in decades. The war itself was to oust Hussein, not make Iraq Mini-America. We were still at war with Iraq when the offensive was launched. (Yes, an offensive, not an invasion.) There was no truce signed in '91. It was a cease-fire. That's why Iraq had to follow all the rules imposed on it. Hussein broke just about every agreement he agreed to, and continued to kill cilvilians. (Notes glaring lack of Iraqis killed by Hussein cites.)

Hussein had over a decade to comply with what he agreed to. After over a decade of bribes and kickbacks to keep the UN off his back (not to mention flat-out kicking them out of the country) it was time to enforce the terms of ending the fighting.

No, I'm not sitting here masturbating over the deaths of soldiers and civilians. War is always the last resort. Always. But there are times when it is necessary. In this case, we were still at war with Iraq when the offensive was launched. Bush didn't just wake up one morning and stub his toe, declaring in a fit of rage that war was the correct course of action. Hussein chose to act as he did concerning the terms of keeping hellfire raining down upon him. He lost.

Considering how Hussein acted towards his own countrymen, I find it difficult to understand how you claim him to be a better leader than Bush.

Look, I understand where you're coming from. I can appreciate the sentiment and beliefs you have. They are definately valid. But keep in mind the war is against Saddam's regime, not the Iraqi people. Bush is not worse for the Iraqis than Hussein. And we won't be running the country for 20+ years.

I hope that better explains my opposition to your view and trust you'll see it as an argument, not a fight. We're going to disagree on the fundamentals of it, that's obvious, but maybe we'll reach some sort of understanding. Hope springs eternal.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Frostillicus

I'd like to play a drinking game tomorrow night in which I take a shot of whiskey every time Bush lies out of his ass, but I am afraid I would die of alcohol poisoning within the hour.

That was cute. Thanks for sharing.

[Little Nemo]

Let me throw a seeming softball to the Bush supporters: Can you name some objective ways in which the United States is better off now than it was when Bush became President?

The rules:
It has to be objective - saying America "feels better" or is "stronger" doesn't count unless you can back it up with numbers.
It has to be non-partisan - saying America is better because the Republicans are in charge and it's good when the Republicans are in charge because then America is better is a circular argument.
It can't be personal - we're happy that you've got a new job and are getting laid since Bush took office, but we're looking for something a little more general.
It can't be hypothetical - no speculating on what might have happened in alternate timelines or what will happen in the future.

[duffer]

I landed a full-time job with a retirement plan, stock options in the 3rd largest company in the world, and solid job security doing software troubleshooting.

All in what most of you would consider a shitty place to live with no job prospects.

I'll have to go Tony Robbins and say "If I can, you can."

You may not have the option of working an unskilled job making $50k a year with a gravy benny plan, but there are options.

I know that if you're willing to move to North Dakota you can get trained to weld and work for Bobcat making $17.60 an hour. And they pay you $13.65 for the training period. I realize that's an insult wage to many bitching about the economy, so that negates the pay.

If you can make that in rural ND, I'd say there's ample opportunity in other areas of the country.

Shut the fuck up about not being able to find a job that offers you the comforts you demand. Sometimes you have to follow the money. The jobs don't come to you. Government isn't there to provide a job. Government is there to stay out of the way allowing companies to hire people while making sure the roads are suitable for people to get to work. To pay the taxes.

Goverment serves us the basics, not to make sure we have a big screen.

Care to show us how we're worse off than 10 or 20 years ago? Did Clinton commadeer the greatest economy in history only to see it lost in 6 years? Is the American economy really that fragile?

I think not. Simplify your life, you'll see a huge surplus in income. Or pay for all the goodies, the debt will reflect how bad the economy is concerning savings. You're writing the check.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by duffer

There was no truce signed in '91. It was a cease-fire. That's why Iraq had to follow all the rules imposed on it. Hussein broke just about every agreement he agreed to, and continued to kill cilvilians. (Notes glaring lack of Iraqis killed by Hussein cites.)

I've never argued that the war wasn't "permissible," merely that it was
1. Sold to Americans and others under false pretenses (WMD, Al Quaeda connection)
2. Horribly planned
3. Not in our national interest to pursue (at least in that form)

So your arguments mean precisely jack shit.

Bush didn't just wake up one morning and stub his toe, declaring in a fit of rage that war was the correct course of action.

No, indeed I think he was planning it or at least desired to do it before he was even elected president.

Considering how Hussein acted towards his own countrymen, I find it difficult to understand how you claim him to be a better leader than Bush.

Who's ever made that claim?!

But keep in mind the war is against Saddam's regime, not the Iraqi people.

Um, whom are we fighting now, pray tell--Saddam's regime?

Bush is not worse for the Iraqis than Hussein.

We've precipiated a civil war that looks like it's only going to get worse. In reality, Iraq was an artificial nation from the beginning. Like Yugoslavia, it was probably doomed to break up once no longer controlled by a dictator. Saddam was rotten, civil war is and will be rotten. At the end of the day our plan sucked, and that's our fault, not Saddam's.

And we won't be running the country for 20+ years.

If we aren't, then there won't be an Iraq.

I hope that better explains my opposition to your view and trust you'll see it as an argument, not a fight. We're going to disagree on the fundamentals of it, that's obvious, but maybe we'll reach some sort of understanding. Hope springs eternal.

Sorry, no, I don't get your position. I don't see how the war was in any way waged in a wise or even self-serving fashion (Bush-serving, perhaps). It was an other-fuck and a self-fuck.

[Aeschines]

Duffer, you duffed Little Nemo's rather simple question.

[Cerri]

Originally Posted by duffer

I landed a full-time job with a retirement plan, stock options in the 3rd largest company in the world, and solid job security doing software troubleshooting.

All in what most of you would consider a shitty place to live with no job prospects.

I'll have to go Tony Robbins and say "If I can, you can."

You may not have the option of working an unskilled job making $50k a year with a gravy benny plan, but there are options.

I know that if you're willing to move to North Dakota you can get trained to weld and work for Bobcat making $17.60 an hour. And they pay you $13.65 for the training period. I realize that's an insult wage to many bitching about the economy, so that negates the pay.

If you can make that in rural ND, I'd say there's ample opportunity in other areas of the country.

Shut the fuck up about not being able to find a job that offers you the comforts you demand. Sometimes you have to follow the money. The jobs don't come to you. Government isn't there to provide a job. Government is there to stay out of the way allowing companies to hire people while making sure the roads are suitable for people to get to work. To pay the taxes.

Goverment serves us the basics, not to make sure we have a big screen.

Care to show us how we're worse off than 10 or 20 years ago? Did Clinton commadeer the greatest economy in history only to see it lost in 6 years? Is the American economy really that fragile?

I think not. Simplify your life, you'll see a huge surplus in income. Or pay for all the goodies, the debt will reflect how bad the economy is concerning savings. You're writing the check.

Er...so because you're personally doing well, there's no problem? That seems...well...illogical.

Speaking *personally*, I'm a dancer in Dallas, Texas, and there's alot of (male-dominated) big business here, all of whom love paying to see titties right up close and in their face, so I'm doing well...and my hubby actually got a job last year *entirely because of* the Iraq War.

He's working for AIG processing the workman's comps claims of all the oil workers/rebuilders/private contractors over there, he's making the best pay he's *ever* made, a killer benefits package, 2 weeks vacation, etc. (And you really don't want to hear the stories he comes home with. Really.)

So we're both doing ok...and he's got his job entirely because we got ourselves into this damn fool war. But I sure don't think the two of us should be a benchmark for how well our economy is doing.

The two of us are doing alright, but a large number of our friends have been having a *very* hard time the last year or two. And these aren't dummies, these are electrical engineers, IT guys, guys who previously were making *2-3 times* what my hubby is. There's been layoffs, closures, etc etc. Dallas has been in a rough place in the job market the last year or so, and if you think differently, you're fooling yourself.

Hell, one of our friends who used to make 100k+ bennies a year as an IT guy at a very large company here is currently working as a bar bouncer because there just hasn't been anything for someone of his skillset, and no one else has been willing to hire him simply because he was so overqualified for the jobs he applied for after he got laid off.

We just got lucky, is all. He got hired due to one of his friends getting a job at AIG and getting him in, and I have genetics on my side. But we shouldn't be and aren't holding ourselves up as the benchmark of America's economy.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Duffer, you duffed Little Nemo's rather simple question.

The jobs I mentioned (in a very small area) weren't being offered 7 years ago. Maybe it was a carryover of Clinton's policies? Or maybe an anomoly of the Republicans holding a majority in Congress at the time? Maybe it was people doing a job without finding shit to bitch about?

The post wasn't "simple". To you, it may seem that way. There is a component in economics that you need to understand.

Looking at last week's numbers doesn't say a lot. The internet boom showed the US was on the brink of unending economic domination. How's that working out?

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Sorry, no, I don't get your position. I don't see how the war was in any way waged in a wise or even self-serving fashion (Bush-serving, perhaps). It was an other-fuck and a self-fuck.

I guess we just won't agree on it.

Excuse me while I search for the document Saddam signed ending the war. It's probably the page after the one showing he was calling for your head.

[duffer]

Well, Cerri, I think that seals the deal. You win. How can anyone argue with that?

[Cerri]

Originally Posted by duffer

Well, Cerri, I think that seals the deal. You win. How can anyone argue with that?

I didn't think I was really arguing anything other than the fact I *know* you know anecdotal evidence does not a logical, factual argument make.

[Cerri]

Originally Posted by Cerri

I didn't think I was really arguing anything other than the fact I *know* you know anecdotal evidence does not a logical, factual argument make.

I meant "anecdotal evidence with a sample size of one", sorry.

[Bricker]

Translation of the OP:

Waaah! Stop liking Bush, Americans! I don't, so you shouldn't either!

[Taber]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Translation of the OP:

Waaah! Stop liking Bush, Americans! I don't, so you shouldn't either!

well gee, I previously thought the OP had some good points, but then I read this, and was totally convinced that the OP was just whining like a baby, as the esteemed Bricker has so deftly and eloquently demonstrated.

re: the OP. Yeah, Bush will probably say the country's doing well, as is most politically expedient for him, but would a president giving a gloomy SoTU do anyone any good? especially if the country is in a "malaise"?

Yes, honesty would be best, but I suspect that there's enough good news that Bush can stay at least "politician honest" and still keep a positive tone. The economy, while hardly booming, is better than some low points. I'm afraid I'm not keeping up with whether the economy is going up or down at this point, but certainly some indicator will be going up. Similarly, Iraq is doing better than it was, even though where it was is certainly bad enough that better than where it was is still horrible. Bush can also talk about partisan victories like the confirmation of Roberts, and the probable confirmation of Alito will "end judicial activism and restore judicial stability" or something of that sort.

[Waverly]

Originally Posted by Maureen

Good to see you're paying attention as usual.

It’s a bit worse than you might think.

The U.S. government plans to borrow $188 billion in the current quarter, the most ever for a single quarter, as the Treasury sells 30-year bonds for the first time since 2001 to meet demand for longer-term debt. – LA Times, one hour ago

For goods, the deficit was $68.9 billion in November – US Census Bureau Trade Statistics, Jan. 12

If the US were a person, I’d say he or she was running up the credit card despite taking a cut in pay. Now, the usual response is to note that our economy, and our line of credit, are HUGE. Great. Noted.

All the Bad Things® that can happen when you have a large debt, grow it, and fall short generating new income will eventually happen. The debt is normally buoyed by foreign governments investing in US$ (see the Treasury Bond reference above). This year that will change. Japan, Germany, and our newest trading partner, China, are all considering a shift. In fact, China announced their intention to do just that. A calculated move, to say the least. I won’t hijack the thread into the discussion, but Bush also doesn’t seem to realize that our new trading partner is in all out economic war with the US.

[crowmanyclouds]

Damn, I thought this was going to be a cool "State of the Union" drinking game!

[Waverly]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Translation of the OP:

Waaah! Stop liking Bush, Americans! I don't, so you shouldn't either!

Bricker, I don’t care what anyone else thinks about you. You are always well informed, well spoken, and witty.

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by Waverly

The debt is normally buoyed by foreign governments investing in US$ (see the Treasury Bond reference above). This year that will change. Japan, Germany, and our newest trading partner, China, are all considering a shift. In fact, China announced their intention to do just that. A calculated move, to say the least. I won’t hijack the thread into the discussion, but Bush also doesn’t seem to realize that our new trading partner is in all out economic war with the US.

Are your referring specifically to the proposed change to buying oil in Euros instead of dollars? Can you imagine the ways that will affect the U.S. economy?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

If Bush says, "The state of the Union is...

Originally Posted by Shodan

The Usual Idiots will instantly respond "Is not!" without waiting to hear the rest of the sentence.

Actually, that is what Aeschines is doing. He's just not bothering to wait for the speech to be made.