State of the Union address...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zander,

"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."
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, has there been a State of the Union address in the last fifty years that has not included those words, or a variation thereof?

This newfound fiscal responsibility, does that include that $15-billion package which will wind up helping fat black guys in train conductor outfits buy leopardskin seat covers for the presidential Rolls and gold-plate for the palace guards AKs?

What irks me so much is not that the Repubs have morphed into Democrat Lite over the years, but the fact that folks cheer for 'em no matter what like they're some kind of freakin' football team...

Anyone who doesn't think that the lynch mob would be forming here in L&P right now if Slick Willie or Algore proposed the same fluff and waste that Bush did is proving that de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. ;)
 
I for one think G.W. did and excellent job. Particularly with the foreign policy stuff. However, I liked the Hydrogen car idea and getting more involved in Africa to stop AIDS.

My father was a chemical engineer. He used to say if we could create a car that would be able to break off the Hydrgen atom from water (H2O), and do it cheaply enough, then all of our auto energy problems would be over forever. Imagine filling your car up with water. The engine would liberate the Hydrogen atom and use it to run the car. The exhaust from a vehicle like this would be water. The Hydrogen atom would combine with the Oxygen in the air and create H2O. Streets would be constantly wet but who cares.

Better yet would be nuclear Fusion. I said Fusion, not Fission. The person who can invent cold Fusion would go down as the greatest scientist of all time and we would have an unlimited supply of energy. The next best thing to a perpetual motion machine!

The problem with both of these economically is how to let the oil and car companies make money off it. They are too big not to want a huge piece. It would devastate the economy if they didn'tin the short run.

As far as Bush's comments on Iraq went, we should already be there. All these terrorists want is to do is to destroy us. Let's do it to them first. Many Democrats say if we attack Irag, Alqaeda would attack us. That is the stupidist thing I have heard in years. If they could, they would attack us today. They don't need an excuse. They sure don't need us to go to Iraq for an excuse. Once we are done there, we should liberate Syria and Iran too.

The liberal Democrat morons are out in force against Bush. Their logic fails. Get more U.N. approval they say. I say we get out of the UN. They are more than irrelevent and downright evil. Look what they allowed to happen in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

I think Bush is a good, honest man. I trust him. He is not to be underestimated. I don't like the way he has allowed alot of the Democrat agenda to go through over the last couple of years but I gotta beleive he has a plan to nail them in the end.

What was the alternative? The Libertarians? That will never happen as long as Harry Browne is the head. Even if he weren't, I don't think they will ever gain a foothold, certainly not in my lifetime. Maybe a hundred years from now. I could be wrong. The Republicans were a 3rd party once too.

That's my 2 cents and if it's worth that I would be surprised!
 
My father was a chemical engineer. He used to say is we could create a car that would be able to break off the Hydrgen atom from water H2O, and do it cheaply enough, then all of our auto energy problems would be over. Imagine filling your car up with water. The engine liberates the Hydrogen and uses it for energy. The exhaust from a vehicle like this would be Water. In other words, the Hydrogen would again combine with the Oxygen in the air and create H2O.
Click to expand...

If your father was a chemical engineer, he probably told you why hydrogen is not currently a feasible fuel for cars, and the reasons for that.

Hydrogen is a low-density energy source. It requires energy to store hydrogen in a form efficient enough to allow more than a few miles range on the family car....more energy than you can get from the hydrogen to begin with. Even if it was feasible from an energy standpoint to fill up the car with compressed enough hydrogen, say in frozen form, you'd have a safety risk. Rear-ending a hydrogen-powered car would result in mushroom clouds on the freeway. If you think gasoline is volatile when subjected to fuel tank rupture, you ain't seen nothing yet. (Think of your hydrogen-powered family sedan as the Hindenburg.)

Hydrogen as fuel is a nice pipe dream, but not technically feasible at present. That's why we don't have a Ford Focus powered with hydrogen yet, not because the Evil Big Oil is keeping their thumbs on it. Pledging resources to the development of hydrogen cars is a nice gesture to pacify the eco-fascists and wow the undereducated yokels, but he could have pledged a few billion to the development of arm-flapping powered flight, for all the good it'll do.

I'm sure we'll have alternative-fuel cars at some point, but I am equally sure it won't be because .gov sank a few billion of our taxpayer dollars into it in order to score political points. It'll come out of the private sector.
 
Out of curiosity, has there been a State of the Union address in the last fifty years that has not included those words, or a variation thereof? -- Tamara
Click to expand...
I don't know; maybe you could do the research and let us know. I bet you'd uncover some real surprises...

This newfound fiscal responsibility, does that include that $15-billion package which will wind up helping fat black guys in train conductor outfits buy leopardskin seat covers for the presidential Rolls and gold-plate for the palace guards AKs?
Click to expand...
LOL! Exactly...no, that was a very unpleasant surprise. Can you imagine trying to administer such a program on the continent of Africa? I'm not volunteering.

What irks me so much is not that the Repubs have morphed into Democrat Lite over the years, but the fact that folks cheer for 'em no matter what like they're some kind of freakin' football team...
Click to expand...
What irks me is that some folks can't find any good in any proposal whatsoever unless it is outlined by other than the Big Two.

Anyone who doesn't think that the lynch mob would be forming here in L&P right now if Slick Willie or Algore proposed the same fluff and waste that Bush did is proving that de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Click to expand...
This seems to presume that there aren't objections to anything Bush proposed. That isn't what you mean, is it?

Other than the proposal to throw $15 billion taxpayer dollars into a cesspool, what else aggravated you?
 
FWIW, when using hydrogen as a fuel, water is not a practical source of it. The energy gotten from two atoms of hydrogen is less than the energy required to separate them from an oxygen atom.
 
lendringser,

If he was a chemical engineer? Do you think I lie?

My father was indeed a Chemical Engineer but unfortunately, he has been dead for 13 years (almost half your lifetime). He came up before super computers and all the gadgets we have now. He preferred a slide rule to a calculator. He built the first ethelyene oxide plant in California and as far as I know, the U.S. There are still people in the field who know who he was.

He did tell me why Hydrogen was not feasible at that time (20 years ago) and why it may never actually be feasible to develop as a reliable fuel source for cars. He noted the storage problems and suggested someday some type of plasma field might be be invented to contain it since the Hydrogen atom is so small. He did not think that a large storage tank would or should be used due to the problems you noted due to the volatility of the gas. The idea was to break off the Hydrogen atom and use it almost immediately without having to store a great quantity of the gas. He did not know how this could be accomplished but figured some bright person would figure it out someday. In his day and even now, it is not economically feasible. At the time, he said it would take more energy to liberate the Hydrogen from water than the fuel it'self would produce.

Unfortuneatly, he didn't solve the problem before his death nor did he really try to. It was all theory and dreams just as Fusion is at this time. Had he come up it, I would have more $$ than Bill Gates.

He also worked on the Manhatten project during WW II. If I could find you his resume, I'd be glad to send you a copy.Might be tough to come up with now since he's been gone so long.

Just because this stuff isn't happening now, doesn't mean it can't or won't.
 
Gary, we are not changing to a policy of pre-emptive strikes. A pre-emptive strike is one done to gain atvantage in the threat of an imminent enemy attack.

The "Bush Doctrine" is not one of pre-emption, but one of attacking nations because of their POSSIBILITY of doing harm.

Nowhere has anyone brought forth evidence of any imminent Iraqi attack against us, or even of plans for an attack.

The case for war is based on possibilities. IE, it is possible that Iraq could get nukes. If Iraq gets nukes, it is possible that they could use it against us, or it is possible that they could give it to terrorists.

Nor do I believe that attacking Iraq would make us any safer. Getting rid of Saddam means a huge power vacuum, in an area where there are many distasteful regimes willing to fill it (or at least try.) Plus, we will end up needing to station troops there and defend our new territory with American dollars and lives. We will end up paying more and more in defense spending while other nations will be paying less, getting a free ride from our protection. This will hurt our economy in the long run.

Nor do I think that establishing "democratic" government is even a good idea. To think that we know what is good for citizens of another country better than they do, is egotistical, and has been proven false in a multitude of examples around the globe.

Any regime we establish will be made at the point of our sword, meaning we will have to protect it, and this will likely only increase anti-American sentiments in the region.
 
We use gasoline as a fuel for internal combustion engines because it is efficient, cheap and relatively clean. IF we ever run out of oil or prices really go up, some enterprising individual -- probably an American -- will come up with something better.
You can't legislate creativity.

As far as nuclear fusion goes, how many million of the "No Nukes" crowd will we have to unchain from the first facility before it goes online?

If we're going to throw away money on futuristic transportation, I say a jet pack in every garage! Better yet let me keep my $$$ to buy a new car and give an autoworker a job.
 
Nor do I think that establishing "democratic" government is even a good idea. To think that we know what is good for citizens of another country better than they do, is egotistical, and has been proven false in a multitude of examples around the globe.
Click to expand...
I am [temporarily] speechless...

Please do give us some examples; they may or may not dispel what I see as pure sophistry.
 
Ian,

Just because it takes more energy to liberate Hydrogen from water now doesn't mean this will always be the case. Who knows, maybe a scientist with an imagination will come along and make it work.

By your reasoning, if man were meant to fly he would have wings.

No one said this will happen overnight but my guess it that it's alot closer than you think.

Russ
 
Just because it takes more energy to liberate Hydrogen from water now doesn't mean this will always be the case.
Click to expand...

Do you think it will ever take less energy? The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted to one form or another. There can be more effective means of energy transfer, but it takes the same amount of energy to separate hydrogen from water. Whether it is done with electric, coal, natural gas, nuclear or other means of energy, it will take more energy to liberate hydrogen due to the transfer of energy to other forms, namely heat energy.

I always love how environmentalists want an electric car you can plug in. If they would just trace the cord, they would most likely see a wonderful coal burning plant that is powering their environmentally sound car. :D

Coal burning is much better than living in the dark ages. Environmentalist should live in tents and live off the land. Perhaps they'll become outdoorsmen (and women) and forget their liberal ways. :p

We can only hope!
 
P.I.,

It really boils down to how COST EFFECTIVE it is to liberate the Hydrogen. And yes, I think someone may well come up with a process that will make it cheaper. Maybe not in our lifetimes, well maybe in yours, but I think it will happen.

I'm not holding my breath. I love the smell of Gasoline. If you infer that I am an environmentalist, you really don't have a clue what a true environmentalist is. A true environmentalist would have surgery without anestesia due to all the "toxic" chemicals involved.:D
 
Russ,

I wouldn't accuse anyone of being an environmentalist. I don't see anyone living without the luxuries of industry and technology. But I could be wrong. Some day we may all live in caves.

If someone did find a way to produce energy that was more cost effective, I would think that it would come out of a free market rather than government funding. Of course, most businesses are on the government dole anyway so they'll claim victory either way.
 
Russ - In order to reduce the amount of energy required to liberate a hydrogen atom, we would have to find a way to modify or remove the attraction between protons and electrons. This would require an incredible leap in technology, and would completely change technology as we know it probably every field. I think such a discovery is a long way off. In the meantime, I'm sure there are easier ways to get hydrogen than from water - H2O has very strong bonds; other compounds would surely be easier to utilize (which ones specifically, I don't know - I'm not a chemist).

Zander - Well, Germany comes to mind. The Allies' ol' Weimar Republic didn't do so well, did it? And I don't think many of the central American countries we messed around with came out too well for it.

It would be far more effective to simply work at being a paragon of freedom ourselves and set a visible example of the benefits of freedom.
 
Environmentalist should live in tents and live off the land.
Click to expand...

That would be about as environmentally damaging as we could get. A bunch of folks scrounging for whever food the wild land affords. I suppose it could support a few hundred tribes until we all started killing each other for more land.

The way we live now is very efficient. Most environmentalists have good, if not excellent intentions. However they rarely see the unintended consequences and their good intentions are coopted by those who would control us all.
 
Hmmm...

If someone did find a way to produce energy that was more cost effective, I would think that it would come out of a free market rather than government funding.
Click to expand...
Kind of a mixed blessing, I'd suggest.

Nuclear-fired power plants are among the cleanest and safest sources of energy we currently use. And it is proven technology...beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Of course, we'll have to ignore the histrionics of the members of the Chicken Little Society to expand them and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Can you say 'Iraq', 'Venezuela', or 'Mexico'? :cool:
 
I was out of town, and had a chance to watch the tape last night.

Just to reply to the initial question (and keep my post count up): it was one of the best speeches Bush has given. I cringed every time he mentioned money. Politically, I understand the constituencies he's courting, but it's my pocketbook that's paying for it.

On the tax cut issue, he definitely put the Democrats on the defensive. Watching Nancy Pelosi squirm and frown might well be worth the money I'll be paying for the programs he proposed.

If I had any doubt about Iraq, GW brought me 100% into his camp. That was the best section of the speech.

Watching the front row of presidential wannabes (Lieberman, Kerry, Hillary and Edwards) was like watching the expression of a chess player as his opponent moves his piece into check position. That was priceless.

GW may not have the same convictions as, say, Teddy Roosevelt, but he certainly has the courage of his convictions.

And, unlike most state of the union speeches since '92, Sarah Brady wasn't in the room. :)
 
Quoting Ian:
Zander - Well, Germany comes to mind. The Allies' ol' Weimar Republic didn't do so well, did it?
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't the "Allies" Weimar Republic. The Germans did that one to themselves... it was a product of domestic revolution. I'd suggest reading a history book for details. :rolleyes:

http://dmorgan.web.wesleyan.edu/materials/weimar.htm

Meanwhile, the regimes that we DID establish in Japan and (then West) Germany have somehow managed to stick around without descending into barbarism, etc. :D
 
Overall good, but if he can't learn to correctly say NUCLEAR instead of NUCULER I'm gonna scream!:banghead:
 
Having only read about 1/2 the replies & not seeing this mentioned .....

I'd bet that most of the pork he threw out was just to make Hillary have to stand & clap. Worth the price of admission. ;)

He can propose all he wants, but legislation's gotta be presented by a legislator, go through committe, get to floor/s, back 'n forth. Sly in my book & mostly not a snowball's chance to get through.

Although no huge fan of 43's, he stuffed the Dems a good one.

Works for me.
 
I know people who watch the same movie rental two nights in a row, but I don't know anyone who watches a president's SOU speech twice.

I did. (We need a "no life" smilie here).

It was better tonight than it was last night. Bush just did everything right to knock his opponents off-balance. Take a look at John Kerry: he looks like he's beaten from the get-go. And Tom Daschle looked like a really tired junkyard dog.

Polling numbers are coming in showing that the speech increased the support for the war on Iraq by a significant amount.

Look for poll numbers later this week that show that most people think Marty Feldman is more attractive than Hillary Clinton. Then watch for Matt Drudge reporting that Bill is having an affair with Marty Feldman.
 
P.I. & Ian,

You are both correct and perhaps I am too optimistic in mankind's ability to solve problems. To liberate Hydrogen from water , lwet alone containment would mean dramatic breakthroughs in science from where we are.

There are so many things we "mankind" just doesn't really know at this point. We work off theories until a better one comes along. I don't expect to see any of this stuff while I am alive and it may never happen. Cold fusion would be better but I don't see that happening in the near future despite the claim of some "scitentists" (Ponds, etc.).

I think as time goes by, there will be some amazing discoveries made in pyhsics and chemistry. I look at Newton and Einstien. Their theories and discoveries were revolutionary. Newton to me was the greatest.

Maybe I'm crazy but I have hope that mankind may well solve these problems someday. What's next? travel at greater than the speed of light? Who knows. Some say it can't be done. From Copernicus, to Kepler to Newton to Einstien, we have come a long, long way. Most of their contemporaries thought they were fill of it. I think there is more out there for us to discover and understand.

During my lifetime, I have seen so many theories, that we thought we absolutes, go down the drain. Now we find a Black hole in the center of every galaxy. We didn't know that a couple of years ago.

However, you are correct that the energy stuff will not happen soon and maybe never. I am optimistic it may eventually. I am not a Physisist or a Chemist but my father was, and he did not rule out that someday someone would come up with something that will blow the lid off of this. Something amazing or perhaps Newtonian. He used to say that if cold fusion became a reality someday, that that would be the greatest discovery of all time. Hopefully, it will. If not, I'm not real worried because I will probably be long dead.

I don't have the technical knowledge to go further with this but thanks for the interesting discussion.

Russ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top