State of the Union address...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Our national interest is the protection of our freedom, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It can be, but isn't necessarily. Protecting access to a particular resource, whether it is oil, rubber, bananas, guano, titanium or whatever, may be in the national interest for economic or military reasons, but that doesn't make it a freedom issue. For just one example, consider our ongoing involvement in the Middle East tribal wars. We've expended huge amounts of treasure and some blood supporting Israel. You could make a case, I suppose, that supporting Israel is somehow in our national interest. The continued existence of Israel is not, however, a linchpin of American freedom.
 
Coronach pretty much nailed it!

You see, there already is a smoking gun to most people, it is obvious. But, to ask for it, the liberals know they can always try to dispell it anyway. After all, if you can truly say Iraq is in the clear, should be trusted and is no threat, you could say about anything to whatever is found. Of couse, that would not be logical but, thinking Saddam is not a threat that needs to snuffed is not logical either.

The Pres did good!
 
I think the "nucular" is a Texan slang thingy.

Hell, that's how I've always said it. Never tak'n notice for it be'n wrong 'till read'n this hare thread.

It's just not to high on my list of priorities.
 
Ian,

I think we can agree that there are problems both here and abroad. Splitting hairs over the priorities does not do us much good.

QKRTHNU,

I don't think I'm confused at all. Security and freedom in this instance are directly related. Unless we are reasonably secure from attacks it will become increasingly difficut to sustain our free way of life. Example: You are not very free to travel via the airlines anymore. Yes, the airlines may be more secure, but at the cost of our freedoms.

This not not to say that all of our nations interests are link as close to freedom. But on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, a demonstated inability to use them in morally responsible fashion limits resources of neighbors near and far.

I don't like the idea of having to spend trillions of dollars over the next several decade to defend the country against terror. We have the means to stop it now, and we should not leave this problem to future generations of Americans.
 
Unless we are reasonably secure from attacks it will become increasingly difficut to sustain our free way of life.
Click to expand...
Only because so many are quick to give up freedoms when they are scared.

Example: You are not very free to travel via the airlines anymore. Yes, the airlines may be more secure, but at the cost of our freedoms.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and I would argue that the cost is not worth it. Awareness is all that is needed. And everyone is now aware of threats while flying.

I don't like the idea of having to spend trillions of dollars over the next several decade to defend the country against terror. We have the means to stop it now, and we should not leave this problem to future generations of Americans.
Click to expand...
While removing Saddam from power will eliminate any threats from him it will not come close to ending the War on Terror. And we will not be any more Free than we are today. Only very slightly more secure.
 
Tamara,
Golgo-13 said: "Tamara is far too erudite to have made this error other than intentionally for humorous effect. The paper-strip thingie cheerleaders wave is a pompon. A pompom is the 37mm, water-cooled, belt-fed Maxim-Nordenfeldt (among others, with variants produced as Vickers-Maxim and Hotchkiss-Maxim). It featured a firing rate of 60 rounds per minute, utilising a belt of 25 one-pound shells, each shell with a maximum range of up to 3,000 yards. The nickname pompom (also spelled pom-pom) came from its distinctive sound when fired.
Since this is a gun board, and Tamara is Tamara, she obviously meant Zander is acting peevish because Seminole wasn't waving a small artillery piece in support of Bush Mk2."

Wow! I didn't realize you had such a devoted fan club! :p :D
 
Out of curiosity, did you learn these manners at finishing school? -- Tamara
Click to expand...
The only finishing school I attended was basic training...but thanks for asking. :cool:

That doesn't prevent us from having the vague feeling that shipping off $15 billion dollars of money stolen from Americans to give to people on another continent might not be the best way to "fix" anything.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

Really? I've heard quite a few of these recitations from you, also.
Click to expand...
You have never heard me exclaim that our Constitutional Republic is dead...because it isn't. I'm in agreement with Seminole's "analysis", but it's incomplete. He left out remarks that didn't make his point.

You asked for someone's opinion on the speech. He gave it to you. Now you're mad? Why? 'Cause he didn't wave a pompom?
Click to expand...
Whatever on earth gave you the idea that I'm "mad"? He didn't give us opinion on the speech; he claimed that nothing Bush said mattered because the Republic is "dead". More useless woe-is-me hyperbole that contains not a smidgeon of original thought...and not a hint of possible redress for what ails us.

At least Bush offered some solutions...
 
300 million people with AIDS in Africa, $300/person/month to supply drugs, forever. Then you have to feed them or they are going to die of starvation, once you feed them then they will reproduce, producing another generation with AIDS. How many MILLIONS of dollars of this aid will never get to starving AIDS infected masses? How many dictatorships in Africa will use U.S.aid as a political tool?
IMHO the best way to solve the problem of disease and hunger in Africa is to allow nature to take its' course.
15 billion dollars of our tax money could be better spent on healthcare in the U.S. instead of Africa

:cuss:
 
Zander wrote:
What, specifically, is your suggestion for a solution?
Click to expand...

Well, as Tamara pointed out, I haven't sought the job and (based on what my platform would be if I did seek it), I wouldn't get elected. But you asked, so here goes:

I would honor my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That means that among other things, I would veto every bill reaching my desk that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution. (I would probably veto a lot of the others too, but that would be on the grounds of politics or ideology--not Constitutional ones).

I would instruct all members of the Executive Branch not to enforce any current law that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution. The Executive Branch is a co-equal one and part of the "balance of powers" is that it should not execute unconstitutional laws.

I would ask for the resignations of most of the members of the Federal Bench and the Supreme Court for malfeasance and failure to uphold their oath of office. If they did not resign, I would seek their impeachment.

How is that for a start?
 
Zander is acting peevish because Seminole wasn't waving a small artillery piece in support of Bush Mk2.
Click to expand...

I'll pass on that suggestion. I'msure that waving an artillery piece with any sort of relationship at all to the President would get me some unwanted Secret Service attention. . ! ;)
 
Zander wrote:
He didn't give us opinion on the speech;
Click to expand...

Nonsense! Of course I gave you my opinion on the speech.
The long version confused you, so here is the abbreviated version of my opinion, taken from the first two statements of my original post.

It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution
Click to expand...

That is my opinon of the speech.
 
Aid for AIDS.

I think the President referred to AIDS as a "disease of nature." As is every other disease. How we respond to a disease determines what becomes of us. The people in Africa do not respond in the proper fashion to avoid this affliction. That is a personal choice on their part. As to the children: They pay for the sins of their parents. As all children do.

If I thought he was being serious I might drop him a line concerning the matter. He was tossing a bone to the Afro-centric portion of our society. Of course those same people aren't jumping up and down about the fact that the tribes over there are eating, raping, torturing, and killing each other every day.

The bottom line is that, short of putting them all out of their misery, there is nothing that we can do to change things.
 
Wow! I didn't realize you had such a devoted fan club!
Click to expand...

I'm in nobody's fan club as a quick look at my posts her and at TFL show. Tamara is very learned in weapons lore, her posts are well-written and often very amusing, and her political beliefs intersect with mine. Yet I am no Tamara fanboi. I daresay Tamara would find it less than a cause for celebration if I were.
 
I didn't watch but I am going to give my opinions on Bush anyway

Iraq and Saddam, The only reason we are gunning for him is for oil and he wants to finish his fathers job. I don't have a problem with this. I just wish he would he would be honest about it. I know good luck a politition honest:neener:

I also don't see how he plans to cut taxes and finace our rebuild of Afganistan and a war in Iraq. It costs alot of money to have our boys out there doing these things. How are we supposed to force people into our way of life and our beliefs on a shoestring budget? After all destroying reqiemes and building our own costs alot of money.

Also if they deciede to start a war with Iraq don't do it halfway. Our boys are going to die plain and simple. It sucks but it's a fact of war. Don't waste there lifes. If you take an area keep it. Don't give it up only to take it 3 weeks later. Also there are no civilians in a war it's all far game. I am not saying go over there and kill everyone you see but if they put a target near a hospital or a school well tough for them, level the target and if the school or the hospital gets hit too OH WELL.
 
I too am of draft age, and the idea that my freedoms are in danger because of Saddam Hussein is patently absurd.

So far, the current administration has:

-Infringed on my 1st amendment right to contribute my money to political candidates and organizations as I see fit.

-Given federal agencies far more license to spy on my personal activities.

-Signed the PATRIOT act, a piece of blatantly anti-freedom legislation.

-Infringed on Constitutional protections of trial by jury and right to council.

-Increased funding of many federal programs and created entirely new ones.

-Started an unwinnable, possibly unending, congressionally undeclared war, with few if any definitions on who we are fighting, or where the bounds of executive power are.

-Has raised import duties, restricting free trade and causing American to have to pay more for several commodities.

-Supports raising the age for possession of an "assault weapon" to 21 (I guess meaning that I will have to turn in many of my personal firearms)

-Supports banning imported "high capacity" magazines.

-Has an attorney general and Justice (?) Department which has prosecuted cases against people exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, while hypocritically stating that they do indeed have such a right.

-Has continued, and increased efforts in the War on Drugs, including active efforts to defeat marijuana legalization efforts across the nation.


Now, Saddam Hussein has restricted my freedom by doing:

????????
 
I opted not to listen to the President's speech. My reasons are simple. He would no doubt do a tub thumper on Iraq but not reveal any smoking gun (whatever that is). The domestic side of his speech would consist of pretty much Democrat positions lite. Virtually all initiatives would have no constitutional support. He would come out against some highly controversial ethical practices.

No, this time I opted to watch the speech, but not listen. Its a trick I learned flying coast to coast.

I saw two distinct speeches last night. I saw a speech where his body language, head movement, and eyes lead me to believe he was distracted and not really convinced of what he was saying. He appeared to be discussing topics because it was expected of him, not because he wanted to discuss them.

The other speech was the second half. Different speaker. He was physically unmoveable, his face lost all emotion, his eyes were fixed, his head movements were minimal and not as wide as in the first speech. He was deadly serious in the second speech. He believed what he was saying. In his own mind what he comtemplated happening had already occured, time had not caught up with events.

The first speech was politics, the second speech was life and death.
 
Now we're getting somewhere, Seminole...

You said:

"I would honor my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Admirable! What do you think are the chances that a sitting president could enforce his "interpretation" of what is Constitutional without being charged with being a totalitarian by the true statists who inhabit The Swamp?

"That means that among other things, I would veto every bill reaching my desk that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution."

Give us an idea of where you would start. Is there some proposed legislation that you find more egregious than any other? Where's the most important flash-point?

"(I would probably veto a lot of the others too, but that would be on the grounds of politics or ideology--not Constitutional ones)."

Then you'd have no problem doing what you condemn others for doing?!?

"I would instruct all members of the Executive Branch not to enforce any current law that assumed governmental powers not explicitely granted by the Constitution."

I'm in agreement...but given the weight of decades [centuries?] of governmental abuse, how would you go about countering the appropriations that maintain blatantly unConstitutional practices by the fed.gov? I'm encouraged that you think that one man could accomplish such a thing; but where, exactly, would you start? It would seem obvious that Bush would have to choose his battles, wouldn't it?

"I would ask for the resignations of most of the members of the Federal Bench and the Supreme Court for malfeasance and failure to uphold their oath of office. If they did not resign, I would seek their impeachment."

Requiring the agreement of the other branches of gov't bent on maintaining the status quo. If we can't accomplish the impeachment conviction of the dirtiest president this nation has ever known, how are we going to make wholesale substitutions and get replacements confirmed?

"How is that for a start?"

It's excellent theory, but I'm more interested in the mechanics. How does Bush go about this in a manner that has a high likelihood of success?
 
Last edited:
Further...

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was pretty much as I expected. Almost everything he proposed was in direct violation of the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is my opinon of the speech."

Is there anything that Bush had to say that you found supportive of our Constitution? If so, would you, grudgingly or otherwise, admit it and give him credit for it?

Further, would you review my questions used to start this thread and make a simple distinction between opinion and analysis?

Believe it or not, we're in agreement on most everything re: our current state of affairs...but what's our strategy to reverse the trend?

As elegant and simple as your solution is, how practicable is it?
 
Waitone,

good observation on the body language. His heart was clearly more in the second half of the speech.
 
I would direct Mr. Zander to the case of Marbury vs. Madison, and note that the correct way to state his objection is that everything in the speech violates his interpretation of the constitution. What matters is how the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not how we do as individuals (though it certainly will affect my voting).

Mike
 
Vladimir Berkov:

I agree with many of your points and disagree with a few.

I would like to suggest that one of the issues that we as a country are wrestling with is the new policy of preemptive strikes. Traditionally, we have responded to other countries initial military moves. We are now changing our approach after over two-hundred years. I remember all of the folks that were screaming after 9-11 that we should have known and our government failed to stop the attack. Now, we have taken a stance of preemption and others are screaming that Iraq hasn't yet attacked us. The truth is that we can't have it both ways. We can no longer wait for others to launch a strike against us because the weapons generally available have spiraled upwards in destructive capability. I would suggest that short of having the same intel as is available to Bush, we are unable to fully evaluate this situation. Also, hitting Iraq will send a strong message to others. We can make a case against Iraq. Also, our actions will have major consequences with regards to our war on terror. A democratic Iraq and a strong U.S. presence will change the Middle East. I believe that our approach to Iraq is motivated by our long term objectives with regards to the Muslim fundamentalist faction in the Middle East.
.
 
I just don't get it , no prescription drugs for seniors yet and $300 a year for drugs for 50,000,000 African's? This from the man who want's to give my social security money I got robbed for to Mexican aliens?Screw him and both parties too for this tripe. Good speach otherwise though.How about decriminalizing drugs and go to treatment only? that can give him $ to "save Africa".:fire:
 
What matters is how the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not how we do as individuals (though it certainly will affect my voting).
Click to expand...
We've arrived at the same point from slightly different paths.

President Bush can't stand up and announce what Seminole wants because the correct interpretation of the Constitution has indeed been changed, almost solely by judicial fiat.

There were a number of things he said that gave me encouragement and irked the liberals/leftists/statists no end because they view the Constitution as an impediment:

"The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth -- and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C."

"This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately."

"To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends."

" No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit ..."

Lots of other gems, including one which referenced the "weakest" among us, but this should encourage others to post what they didn't like in the president's remarks. I fully expect to agree with many of the complaints.

At any rate, perhaps you'll find this worth reading:

"This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony."

Who said it and when? :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top