State of the Union
 

:confused: Any thoughts on your presidents State of the Union speech?

I didn't get to hear much it so I'll be waiting til tomorrow, but I what I did hear reminds me how much I dislike the constant applause they do. They're only clapping because it sounds good. Sit on your hands til the end of the speech.

The President's comments on alternative renewable sources of energy was promising--we depend to much on Middle Eastern oil, I'm tired of making these countries rich...

Bush's support for "civilians assisting in Iraq" is outrageous. This is a classic case of the military-industrial complex, what he really meant was big companies like Haliburton are private industry war profiteers, they send private citizens that the government pays to do jobs that the military used to do for themselves like peeling potatoes, etc.

As far as the rest of the speech about 1/3 of it was about again connecting Iraq and the War on Terror...Blah Blah Blah...He basically begged for more time to put more troops into this Billion dollar war and his New Strategy. What new strategy? Sounds like the same old stuff to me...Democrats always stood and clapped when Bush called for us to support the troops. They always want to show their support for the troops it is pathetic--most people know Democrats are patriotic and are not anti-military, why do they always have to publicly let the American people they are against the war but behind the troops? I think we should support the troops by removing them from the war and taking them out of harm's way...I believe Republicans call this "Cut and Run" but it is better than "Stay and Die."

The clapping thing was ridiculous, I felt like most of the politicians were sheep. They clapped for everything and it was unnecessary. If I were a Senator of Congressmen I would sit right in my seat...it's not like the President was issuing the New Deal.

I was stunned by how much sense he made... seriously... I commend his speech writer... he did talk about health care and education which has been long overdue, and he did gloss, emphasis on gloss, over the situation in Iraq and he subtley (sp) told congress that more troops will be in Iraq before the year is out...

everytime the house clapped and people got up, I got a bit mroe aggravated... you could see Pelosi was not feeling it, even though Bush spent like 20 minutes flattering her...

why was Hillary just cheesing everytime the camera found her... and why was Obama sitting right in front of her?

all in all... I like Jim Webb's response... yay VA!!!

*getting off soapbox*

Re: Seating
I think they have assigned seats, and it's probably that Illinois comes before New York (and Obama just happened to be directly in front of Clinton).

But I'm not sure about that.

Halliburton has professionals far beyond what the military can offer. I mean, I agree it'd be cool if the military could do that, but a lot of what Halliburton does is extremely specialized. Also, I like that we have groups like Blackwater. I don't see why everyone is so upset about the clapping, it always happens. Its basically SOTU tradition. Did you guys get upset when it happened to Clinton?

Here is the president's speech for those that missed it (like me :) )
Full test of the president's speech

if any inane comments were made during Clinton's SOTU address that caused unnecessary applause, then yes I would have been irritated as well... but I don't recall him making any nonsensical remarks...

Not Sure About dignifying this with a response but...
 

I think the jist of what everyone is saying is that the clapping is annoying all around. Why is everything a Democrat/Republican issue with you? You don't have to answer that.

Because its probably a republican/dem issue here. I think much of the annoyance is that a lot of people simply don't want to see applause for someone they hate. People have different tolerances for things based on what side they're on. Maybe I didn't pay attention to this board last year or the year before around the SOTU, I just don't see why this is an issue now when it happens every year. If people complain every year, then so be it, they have a right to be annoyed. I'm just questioning whether its the clapping itself or the person who is being applauded.

I dislike the clapping all the time. Congress is only doing it because it looks good and there's no need to clap, or start clapping but not quite follow through, after every phrase.

At the same time I probably wasn't paying as much attention to politics under Clinton, so I can't tell you if I even watched the SotU. And in six years I won't remember this one either.

The clapping is stupid. I heard on the news that pundits, etc. are measuring the effectiveness of the speech by how hard people clap and where they clap. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And I'd say the same whether it was a dem or a republican. The clapping, and all the signifigance accorded to it, irks me.

Usually what the pundits are referring to are control groups of citizens brought together by political operatives to watch the SOTU or other political type events. They measure (often with a response meter held by the control group participants) the like/dislike responses of control groups participants. Operatives do the same with candidates' stump speeches, testing them on groups and using the most liked lines-topics as the basis for future campaign ads and such.

The clapping at the State of the Union is just political posturing and stagecraft. ...or maybe they do it to stay awake. :D

This makes all kinds of sense...especially the latter half.

OK, I just read his address so thank goodness I missed all the grandstanding. :) But based on what I read I don't think he address what the American public wanted to hear. Great ideas in regards to the fight against AIDS, NCLBA (although I do think that it still needs some major work - children should be thought to think critically, not to simply memorize info in order to get a particular test score, but digress), even immigration reform. But the main hot button is the war - which the majority of american (regardless if you Dem/Repub/liberal/conservative) has grown remarkably tired of it. It matters not how much he wants to grow our military forces, if there are no volunteers who are willing to take up the challenge?

I think if the Republicans are going to have even a remote chance in 2008, they are going to have to either (a) some SERIOUS butt kissing to the more moderate voting base (b) more vocally publically distance themselves from Pred. Bush's initiatives with his current Iraq stratefy being one of them or (c) pull a SUPER candidate out of a hat that will overshadow our current presidnent's damage and alienation to current republican party memebers.

Long time groups which at one point was considered a "shoe-in" for Republicans (ex. evangelicals) have grown tired. Not to mention the fact that you now have more candidates of other parties (especially the Democrats) touting themselves as "evangelical friendly" (ex Bob Casey of Penn). Its almost like the Democrats have found this niche and are taking advantage of the opportunity and the Repubs are just basically sitting back and letting it happen. Well I take that back - Sen Brownback has been publically critical of our President so maybe some Repubs are S-L-O-W-L-Y starting to catch on that for a victory in 2008, its going to take more than the old school party line tactics that were used in days gone by.

Just my 2 cents.... :cool:

You may be right about the SOTU, but I'm not sure you're close regarding 2008. Just because people are tired of Bush doesn't mean they'll vote for a Democrat for President. Currently, the dems don't have a candidate who can take on the RNC big guys. Granted, things will change as the country starts hearing from them, but I don't think Bush will have as much an impact on 2008 as people think. All three of the Republican front runners are quite different from Bush on many levels, and that'll be apparent as the campaign goes on. Despite the mid-terms, American's are still default republicans right now because the DNC is so bad at politics. I think its gonna be Democratic candidate who has to sway the middle, not the other way around. It'll be fun.

that's ok... we won't tell anyone...

Its alright, I changed it.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear your president mention anything about helping to develope New Orleans and helping those that were in the hurricane. :confused: :confused: It doesn't appear to me that New Orleans is on the list of priorities.

What do you expect him to do? You can help. Go to Mardi Gras, spend money.

I'm not sure there's much more the federal government can/should do. There's sort of a limit to how much money they can put there, and when it becomes State/Local responsibility.

I expect him to send some $$ down there and re-build the wards that have YET to be re-built. We've obviously got the money. Look at how much we are dropping in Iraq. It doesn't make sense that we are all over the world shelling out loot but over a year later, a MAJOR CITY in the UNITED STATES is still looking like a war zone.

His lack of caring for that area while insisting on shelling out money in other countries makes me sick.

Stop defending that fool. How would you feel if YOU were from that area? Would you defend him then? You act like everything that he does is reasonable.
Give.me.a.break.

SC

No offense to anyone, but why was he talking about malaria??? Can we get some help in New Orleans. There are a lot of people who have illnesses connected with the contamination down there. (and on the Gulf Coast)

Major CO-SIGN!!!

the majority of the people displaced or affected by Katrina don't mean siht to that yahoo...Kanye said it best.....

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

Bye!:rolleyes:

A view from the Op-ed sections around the country:
http://cagle.com/news/StateoftheUnion07/

too early in the am for nonsense...
 

I really didn't see where anyone asked you to come over here in the first place. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_4.gif So you go do that.

So what because it's over the nation is supposed to move on and forget the people that live(d)/trying to live down there? I would feel some kind of way too if in the president's SOTU address our last major disaster didn't even rate a blip on his radar. I am sorry but there is a part of the US that looks like a war zone but we should be sending major $$ for this foolishness overseas instead of trying to help rebuild? Um no, don't think so. Since you want to support him so much there is a local recruiting center that is just waiting for you to sign up. Have at it.

To SummerChild and OOhSoFLy http://creditboards.com/forums/style...t/clapping.gif...Exactly!!

"you guys" ...? wow.... dude it's a message board...

I love the people who, when their ideas are challenged, take the stance that those that challenge them are so uninformed that their challenges are unworthy of engaging. Please. The fact of the matter is that for every op-ed, "war is good business," "conservatism is sound political policy" article that anyone could find, there are equally valid, well-researched articles that advocate for more liberal policies and political approaches. So don't feed me that uninformed line of bull.

If you, shinerbock, don't have enough confidence in your ideas to debate them when they are challenged, then yeah, you, shinerbock, should go somewhere where everyone will agree with you.

Also, I do love the bolded portion.

I would absolutely love to debate the Katrina situation with you. Would you like to? However, if I'm gonna get into a debate, I'd appreciate it if people would reference better sources than Kanye West. I just don't like getting into arguments where valid points are overshadowed by regurgitated rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, a common type argument on Bill Maher or something...

Conservative guest: "Well the Democrats on the SIC had equal access to the large majority of what our agencies used in making its reports regarding Iraq. We had the same information from British, Israeli agencies. We had defected nuclear scientists who described in detail the workings of Iraq's weapons programs."
(silence from audience)

Liberal guest: "Bush lied, people died!"
(roaring applause, shouts of "ohhhhh" and "you told him!")

If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on Katrina and the federal government's responsibility and role in relief, I'd be happy to.

Similarly, your response ignored the very pertinent question about the disparity between the resources that we are spending in say Iraq--in the billions on a daily basis--to rebuild their infrastructure, and the monies that the federal government has put into New Orleans as the result of Hurricane Katrina. Also, implicit in that criticism, is a question about the disparity in terms of the distribution of the funding that has been committed both on the federal and local level and which communities are benefiting from that funding. You focused instead on the brief mention of Kanye and had a knee-jerk response to that.

Additionally, I find very problematic that one solution that you offered to the situation in NO is to go to Mardi Gras and spend money. The idea that the solution to these major catastrophes that hit this nation is for Americans to consume at greater rates is, in a word, disturbing. I found the idea equally problematic when George Dubya, after the World Trade Center attack, suggested that the most appropriate and useful response of the American public is to spend money. Of course, that is an ideological debate.

That response was to get back into the argument. I was attempting to address any of your concerns.

On the disparity between Iraq and New Orleans;

Obviously the war in Iraq began prior to the destruction in New Orleans. The federal government has allocated 12 billion to Louisiana alone, so I have a tough time believing that the federal government is ignoring the problem. Now, how the money is being used and the speed at which it is allocated is information I'm not privy to, and i doubt many on this board are. Wars cost incredible amounts of money. If you have a problem with the Iraq war and how much it is costing, I think that is a legitimate concern, despite my disagreement with your position. However, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. We're in Iraq, right or wrong, and we have to spend money on it. Should we have instead pulled out following Katrina and diverted the funding? I think rational people already know the answer to that.

Other issues:

Many question why the city hasn't fully been rebuilt. Having been back to New Orleans on several occasions since the storm, there is obviously a lot of rebuilding left to take place. However, progress is obvious as well. Its not as simple as saying "Alright, tomorrow we're going to start on everything." First, it isn't the federal government's responsibility to go in and start rebuilding everything that was damaged. Not only is it not their responsibility, it isn't their role to take. Much of the low income housing that was destroyed are issues for the city and state, who will have to decide how to go about rebuilding, if they are to rebuild. Also, many of the people in NO obviously haven't returned, making it especially difficult to figure out what to do. Should the federal government just start rebuilding people's homes for them? What about issues with insurance payouts? People who try to make the solution to this problem seem simple are far removed from the situation.

My personal problem is the sense of entitlement people have regarding this situation. I have a problem that people living in government housing are demanding that their houses be rebuilt. It confuses me that people point to the faster cleanup from other hurricanes, but also fail to mention that much of that relief was the result of first party insurance claims. Obviously FEMA could have been better, but so could Nagin and Louisiana. The citizens of New Orleans should not depend on the government for their complete safety. At some point you must take responsibility for yourself, your family, and your property, as so many others in Mississippi and LA did do. Of my three friends who had their homes completely destroyed (2 in NO, one on Bay St. Louis), all have received insurance pay outs and have either rebuilt or bought property elsewhere. They are equally tired of hearing people complain about the governments inaction. I believe the city at some point will approach its original stature. Until then, I think people need to take personal responsibility and have some measure of patience with the process. Questioning the government is fine (especially when it is the city or state government, seeing as they'll make most of the decisions), but when you begin demanding compassion and charity, people begin to have a problem with it. It may be that we just have completely different views on what the government should do. However, I'm one who believes it is not the government's responsibility to look after my affairs.

Ummm. Why don't you go somewhere else. After all, you are imposing on OUR message board.

Thanks!

Why???? I mean this is why I don't go visit the "other" boards!:mad:

Shinerbock, I'm glad that your friends were satisfied with their insurance payouts, but believe you me there are PLENTY more that are not, hence the lawsuits against many insurers (and Statefarm having to finally be forced to pay what they should have in the first place instead of trying to shuck people with the "flood damage" bit - but I digress).

Every income and skill evel is needed in NO, not just those that are well off. I can TOTALLY understand that before you can just start bulldozing private property, you do need to track down the owner and etc. (although about 2 years ago, our Congress did pass some very LOOSE eminient domain laws so there are some options there) but in regards to public housing their is no one to check with but....themselves.

However, I wonder is the economic base there because it doesn't do anyone a bit of good to come back to some nice new housing but no place to work (as before) - although I know that my company is back and up and running in NO and have jobs available but there is no one there to fill these types of positions. :(

Hope this makes sense 'cause I am typing with one contact lens!

There you go constructing a rational/irrational, informed/uninformed dichotomy again. A distinction which automatically attributes more value to the opinions of the "rational" and the "informed" (i.e. people who think like you). Those kinds of dichotomies just are not useful in any situation where resolution is the goal.

How can we even begin to discuss an issue when your very language makes it clear that you don't recognize value in what I have to say because it might different from what you believe. Never once, have I said that you were irrational or uninformed. I recognize your right to believe what and how you believe, and I recognize that your beliefs are grounded in what you hold to be sound logic.

Honestly, I don't want to debate with you. I really think that the Katrina issue has been rehashed ad nauseam on this board and one more debate isn't going to change anyone's mind, especially if those engaged in the debate believe so firmly in the rightness and "rationality" of their stance.

Little, I really think you pulled out a rather small piece of what I wrote and made it into something its not. I didn't intend to make it a dichotomy of people who see things like I do and everybody else. I figured most people would agree that pulling out of Iraq and diverting all the money to Katrina immediately after the storm would spell disaster. If you think we should have done that, I find that very interesting and would love to hear more. However, I imagine you concur with me at least on that point.

Honey, there very well may be plenty of issues with insurance pay outs. I know that comes with just about any major storm. To be fair to the insurance companies, I think the devastation is going to be hard to sort through, and given the amount of claims may take a while to sort out. I don't really know much about how bad the problems are with that, so it could be an issue to be addressed (although I wouldn't know where to start addressing it).

Pinkies, while I tend to dislike you, I apologize for writing on your thread. I usually just look at new posts, and often miss where the thread was originally posted.

Hey, I'm an AKA. I'm used to being "disliked". Seriously, it's apparent that you're a Dubya fan. He can't read either. Toodles;)

Are AKA's generally disliked or something? Must be an inside deal. I can read pretty well, and I imagine W can as well. You know, HBS and all.