FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


State of the Union





mschnell
George Bush himself just said "We have a clear plan for victory... [in Iraq]". In effect, Bush himself undid his "Victory in Iraq" speech from long ago.
What do you all think about this?

What do you think about the State of the Union overall?
Jeslyn
I made a parody video forhis 2001 address a few years ago, and I had to pay close attention to everything he said in order to make the video come out correctly, I was watching the first few minutes of this address, and I'm noticing that he's saying - and like you're stating, "unsaying" a lot of the things he said in the 2001 edition.

The line that stuck out to me the most was in the 2001 address he said "the state of the union has never been stronger" in this address he says the same thing again (sort of) by saying "the state of the union is strong, and will only get stronger". Whoever is writing his speech seems to be doing a bit of recycling.

It's nothing really out of the ordinary, just something that stuck out to me.
JonesThe42nd
The things that stuck out to me about the SotU Address were that, first of all, Bush asked for congress to improve the Line Item Veto power for the presidency. This strictly unconstitutional request perfectly illustrates the problem with the presidency today: that the president is trying to legislate, when his job is really just to enforce legislation.
He was also trying to re-approve the PATRIOT Act, which is invasive, Big Brother bullcrap.

One of the things that stuck out most to me, and i'm sure to anyone who watched it, was that the Democrat side of the room hardly ever stood, yet the Republican side stood at nearly every applause. The division was appauling, and if the president would do his job, instead of trying to do Congress's, we wouldn't have this.
ocalhoun
Millitary commanders alone are in charge of troop reductions...
This is the best possible withdraw plan.

Also, I wish I could hear that speech without the media's commentary...
Soulfire
There was a victory in Iraq. We did free the people, hence Operation Iraqi Freedom was a success. Now we're just in the aftermath, getting them stable and back on their feet again. Uncle Sam is holding a little baby in his arms right now, if you perfer a visual. If we completely pull out now they will collapse, and another tyrannical dictator will come to power. Then the Iraqi's will use that as an excuse to hate us even more and we'll have to start a way again to find more weapons. They never said the weapons didn't exist, only that they haven't been found. There is a HUGE difference between found and non existant.

As for the Patriot Act. If you have nothing to hide, then why do you oppose it? It's put in place for the safety of America, and if they have to tap my phone wires to catch some terrorists, then so be it, because that could stop thousands of innocent people from dying. I highly doubt my phone conversations are at all interesting to the gov't.

If you people would stop being so selfish, and start being PATRIOTIC, and start loving your country. But no, we seem to have lost that. In a time of war there is nothing but disgust, and all the president gets is grief from the liberals.

I have yet to see anything valuable come from the liberals, all they seem to be doing is trying to find third grade ways to poke fun at the president and harass him everytime he takes a breath.

Lay off.
S3nd K3ys
JonesThe42nd wrote:
The things that stuck out to me about the SotU Address were that, first of all, Bush asked for congress to improve the Line Item Veto power for the presidency. This strictly unconstitutional request perfectly illustrates the problem with the presidency today: that the president is trying to legislate, when his job is really just to enforce legislation.
He was also trying to re-approve the PATRIOT Act, which is invasive, Big Brother bullcrap.


If the Dems would quit trying to slide bad legislation thru with good bills, there wouldn't be a need.

Most of the bad things happening to the Dems (and there's a LOT), are brought on by thier own actions and lack there-of.

BTW, it's the JUDGES job to 'enforce' legislation. They're not supposed to legislate from the bench, which the liberals have been doing for a long time. Please educate yourself on the President's power.

Take a good look at the Patriot Act and tell me what's invasive about it compared to the good that will come from it, instead of taking Ted Kennedy's word that it's bad.
Sappho
Soulfire wrote:
There was a victory in Iraq. We did free the people, hence Operation Iraqi Freedom was a success.


Yea and u can say that crusades in holy war done a good job spreading Christianity. Rofl.

Soulfire wrote:
Now we're just in the aftermath, getting them stable and back on their feet again. Uncle Sam is holding a little baby in his arms right now, if you perfer a visual.


Yea and stealing oil behind the baby's back. Smile

Soulfire wrote:
If we completely pull out now they will collapse, and another tyrannical dictator will come to power.


Why the hell do u care in the first place? Did China invade USA couse there is democracy there? Nope. ITS NON OF UR BUSINESS. Especially when everybody knows that "freeing ppl" was just an excuse for invading Iraq, there are many similar countries with tyrants that u just dont see, or dont wanna couse there is no oil. Laughing

Soulfire wrote:
Then the Iraqi's will use that as an excuse to hate us even more and we'll have to start a way again to find more weapons.


And can u really blame em? Sure u cant, many ppl feel threatened by USA same way u feel by Iraq why shouldnt they hate u. Especially when u bomb innocent civilians and say "OOPS we ****** missed, AGAIN."

Soulfire wrote:
They never said the weapons didn't exist, only that they haven't been found. There is a HUGE difference between found and non existant.


HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. OMG they should arrest u couse of holding illegal firearm, u can defend that u have none but they will oppose with "we didnt find it but that doesnt mean u dont have one."
SunburnedCactus
Sappho wrote:


And can u really blame em? Sure u cant, many ppl feel threatened by USA same way u feel by Iraq why shouldnt they hate u. Especially when u bomb innocent civilians and say "OOPS we **** missed, AGAIN."

...

HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. "


You just had to go and better him didn't you, you big show off. Rolling Eyes
Sappho
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Sappho wrote:


And can u really blame em? Sure u cant, many ppl feel threatened by USA same way u feel by Iraq why shouldnt they hate u. Especially when u bomb innocent civilians and say "OOPS we **** missed, AGAIN."

...

HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. "


You just had to go and better him didn't you, you big show off. Rolling Eyes


Tell me where did i show off? And also tell me if that argument of his wasnt stupid, pls. I have no problem to appologize if u prove me wrong. Wink
S3nd K3ys
I was gonna take jabs at most of your spun/dodging replies, but I don't have time so I'll just poke at the funniest one...

Sappho wrote:

...
HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. OMG they should arrest u couse of holding illegal firearm, u can defend that u have none but they will oppose with "we didnt find it but that doesnt mean u dont have one."



Your ignorance to see the truth, (or your simple refusal to see it,) are nearly commical. WMDs have been proven over and over and we're finding more evidence as to their location.

The left has continually tried to turn "we didn't find any" into "they didn't have any", among other lies.

It's getting pathetic.
Sappho
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I was gonna take jabs at most of your spun/dodging replies, but I don't have time so I'll just poke at the funniest one...

Sappho wrote:

...
HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. OMG they should arrest u couse of holding illegal firearm, u can defend that u have none but they will oppose with "we didnt find it but that doesnt mean u dont have one."



Your ignorance to see the truth, (or your simple refusal to see it,) are nearly commical. WMDs have been proven over and over and we're finding more evidence as to their location.


Yet he just said it like it was a fact that those weapons are there 100% with a lame excuse that u just cant find it. Finding more evidence may and may not mean anything at the end. Each of us can be accused of ignorance to see the truth by the other side, thats just about the different point of view. At the end one of us will apologize but what i am afraid of is that some ppl will never accept that there are no weapons, yet if u find some all of us saying that there were none will accept it. Sad

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The left has continually tried to turn "we didn't find any" into "they didn't have any", among other lies.


Thats just semantics. Smile

S3nd K3ys wrote:
It's getting pathetic.


Indeed i completely agree on this one with u. Wink
S3nd K3ys
Sappho wrote:
[

Yet he just said it like it was a fact that those weapons are there 100% with a lame excuse that u just cant find it. Finding more evidence may and may not mean anything at the end. Each of us can be accused of ignorance to see the truth by the other side, thats just about the different point of view. At the end one of us will apologize but what i am afraid of is that some ppl will never accept that there are no weapons, yet if u find some all of us saying that there were none will accept it. Sad


What part of 'he had WMD' do you not understand? The evidence is all over the place. Now there's evidence (again) coming up that they were moved just before the invasion. No, he may not have had them when we invaded, but yes, he had them just prior to it.

You're making yourself look foolish by trying to use these old and busted lies that have been repeatedly debunked. Hell, even all the major lefty political heads admitted it.

Yes, pathetic.
Sappho
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Sappho wrote:

Yet he just said it like it was a fact that those weapons are there 100% with a lame excuse that u just cant find it. Finding more evidence may and may not mean anything at the end. Each of us can be accused of ignorance to see the truth by the other side, thats just about the different point of view. At the end one of us will apologize but what i am afraid of is that some ppl will never accept that there are no weapons, yet if u find some all of us saying that there were none will accept it. Sad


What part of 'he had WMD' do you not understand? The evidence is all over the place. Now there's evidence (again) coming up that they were moved just before the invasion. No, he may not have had them when we invaded, but yes, he had them just prior to it.

You're making yourself look foolish by trying to use these old and busted lies that have been repeatedly debunked. Hell, even all the major lefty political heads admitted it.

Yes, pathetic.


You answered it "he HAD", i think i have enough of this find some, show em and then i will accept till then its just flame as i see it. I am not a lefty political head, i can even say that i dont give a damn about politic, but thats just another story about our country politics. Call me an ignorant if it helps. Smile

So lets just end here, otherwise it will get just more and more pathetical.
S3nd K3ys
Sappho wrote:

You answered it "he HAD"


You forgot part of what I said, or just dismissed it...

Quote:
that they were moved just before the invasion. No, he may not have had them when we invaded, but yes, he had them just prior to it.


In fact, I said it twice in the same paragraph. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
So lets just end here, otherwise it will get just more and more pathetical.


Yeah, lets just end it there where you (again) side-stepped the truth in order to justify your bad intentions, or ignorance. (I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt with 'ignorance'.)
mschnell
I meant to post this a few hours ago but the forums went down I think...

Soulfire wrote:

If you people would stop being so selfish, and start being PATRIOTIC, and start loving your country. But no, we seem to have lost that. In a time of war there is nothing but disgust, and all the president gets is grief from the liberals.

I have yet to see anything valuable come from the liberals, all they seem to be doing is trying to find third grade ways to poke fun at the president and harass him everytime he takes a breath.

Lay off.


How about when Clinton got rid of the deficit? Is that not something good that a liberal has done? Well, George's tax cuts have gotten rid of that completely and now we have a huge deficit again. And about being "PATRIOTIC", how about start by paying higher taxes. You made your money in this market, because of this country's rules, why not give back to it? I think that's patriotic. You might want to look up the definition of nationalizm. It's a bit different.

Quote:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

-Hermann Goering

Don't mix love for your country with love for war. They are NOT the same.
ocalhoun
mschnell wrote:
Don't mix love for your country with love for war. They are NOT the same.


What if your country is at war?
mschnell
ocalhoun wrote:
mschnell wrote:
Don't mix love for your country with love for war. They are NOT the same.


What if your country is at war?


Love for war?! Are you barbaric?
ocalhoun
Better than the fanatical hate for war that is so previlant.
That is mere cowardice.
saiyeek
I think Bush sucks and so does his international policies.
Jeslyn
saiyeek wrote:
I think Bush sucks


The first theory mentioned in this thread that I actually agree with.
Soulfire
Sappho wrote:
Yea and u can say that crusades in holy war done a good job spreading Christianity. Rofl.

Christianity has nothing to do with the way in Iraq and is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Sappho wrote:

Yea and stealing oil behind the baby's back. Smile

Well, then you agree with me. And it's not stealing oil, we're still buying it. To say oil is an issue is complete ignorance, and we are the worls most oil-dependent country so we're not going to let it sit and go to waste.

Sappho wrote:
Why the hell do u care in the first place? Did China invade USA couse there is democracy there? Nope. ITS NON OF UR BUSINESS. Especially when everybody knows that "freeing ppl" was just an excuse for invading Iraq, there are many similar countries with tyrants that u just dont see, or dont wanna couse there is no oil.

Why shouldn't I care? It's hard to ignore the presecution of people (it does happen though, we can't save everyone. Superheo United States can't hold every countries hand). Why the hell did the world care about the holocaust? I dunno, maybe cuz people were being tortured and dying.

Democracy is completely different than a tyrannical dictatorship. You don't see president Bush whipping people and torturing them do you? I didn't think so.

We did free the people, "excuse" or not.

Again, oil isn't an issue. Yeah, we need it, and there are plenty of countries with tyrannical governments. People like you are raping President Bush so much about Iraq, you think he is going to try and help people again? Not to mention, our army is spread thin as it is.

Sappho wrote:
And can u really blame em? Sure u cant, many ppl feel threatened by USA same way u feel by Iraq why shouldnt they hate u. Especially when u bomb innocent civilians and say "OOPS we **** missed, AGAIN."

They were ecstatic when president Bush removed Saddam! The Al Jazeera and arab television is just brainwashing them, and besides, we aren't purposely missing targets or whatever. That's not an argument, that's a completely blind and stupid statement.

Sappho wrote:
HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. OMG they should arrest u couse of holding illegal firearm, u can defend that u have none but they will oppose with "we didnt find it but that doesnt mean u dont have one."

Easy on the personal attacks, and it's the TRUTH. Just because the weapons haven't been found does not mean they are non-existant. That is a completely true statement. You think every square inch of that country has been combed? No. So you can't say that they don't exist, nor can you disprove this argument. It makes it legit to me. How about you go search the desert and TRY to prove me wrong.

Your whole scenario is again irrelevant, and I highly doubt that a statement like that would get the illegal firearm holder in trouble.

As for the "I think President Bush sucks" people. You know what? Our candidate won. At the end of the day, he's still president isn't he? Nothing you can say can change that, so go be angry and pout and cross your arms about something else... I'm sure you can put your energy in other places.
mschnell
You're right, no amount of complaining can get rid of Bush. His approval rating of around 40% is pretty sweet, though. I believe Clinton's approval rating remained between 60-70% even with his whole ordeal. Also, check out the Downing Street Memos if you are still defending the weapons of mass destruction justification of the war.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/
Sappho
Soulfire wrote:
Sappho wrote:
Yea and u can say that crusades in holy war done a good job spreading Christianity. Rofl.

Christianity has nothing to do with the way in Iraq and is COMPLETELY irrelevant.


It was a parable, not attacking the Christianity dont take everything too literally.

Soulfire wrote:

Sappho wrote:
HAHAHAHA This is one of the stupidest arguments i heard. OMG they should arrest u couse of holding illegal firearm, u can defend that u have none but they will oppose with "we didnt find it but that doesnt mean u dont have one."

Easy on the personal attacks, and it's the TRUTH.


It wasnt personal attack, i just mock his argument not him thats difference sorry if u took it that way. He can be a great guy, why should i hate ppl at the other side of the "opinion barrier" maybe there are dozens of other topics that would put us at the same side Wink

As for the other things u said i am not goin to respond since as i said we will prolly never agree on something and i would again and again repeat myself. Wink
Soulfire
Good arguments though, it was fun. Laughing
mschnell
Soulfire wrote:
Good arguments though, it was fun. Laughing


Why doesn't anyone argue with me? I like to argue too!
ocalhoun
mschnell wrote:
Why doesn't anyone argue with me? I like to argue too!

Just start flailing out with cotraversial statments like "Guns are good for society"
Then people will argue with you.
muzikashqip
bush is not a good president in my opinion. i think he just went to war wit iraq to finish wat his dad started. he wanted 2 b a great presidnet nd thought it wuld b ez to go nd win the war in iraq nd then get all the credit 4 it. i think he shuldnt of won the 1st election he was in but u kno wat hapened in wit his bro in florida so yea. Al gore wuld of been a better president for this country nd its people. any1 else here agrrree wit me. POSt????
Soulfire
muzikashqip wrote:
bush is not a good president in my opinion. i think he just went to war wit iraq to finish wat his dad started. he wanted 2 b a great presidnet nd thought it wuld b ez to go nd win the war in iraq nd then get all the credit 4 it. i think he shuldnt of won the 1st election he was in but u kno wat hapened in wit his bro in florida so yea. Al gore wuld of been a better president for this country nd its people. any1 else here agrrree wit me. POSt????

If Al Gore were president... Well... I don't know if I should go there. We would be in shambles right now. I don't think that he is just going to finish what his dad started. CIA and other intelligence told him there were dangerous weapons there, and Saddam had recently been labelled a threat. He decided to go to war on those thoughts.
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
If Al Gore were president... Well... I don't know if I should go there. We would be in shambles right now. I don't think that he is just going to finish what his dad started. CIA and other intelligence told him there were dangerous weapons there, and Saddam had recently been labelled a threat. He decided to go to war on those thoughts.

The question remains if the intelligence told him there were dangerous weapons or he told the intelligence to report dangerous weapons? I would rather think the second case is true. Weren't there a few people fired for these kind of things?
soulman
I really think all of these is a excuse, a excuse for a invasion... maybe people do not think the war is a invasion war because the war destroyed a bad Iraq govenment. So there is no "victory" at all... the "victory" for bush's govenment is to rule Iraq, not to help Iraq People~
Related topics
From Egypt to Wisconsin? Anti-Tea Party Protest in WISCONSIN
Obama's State of the Union 2012
State of the Union '06
President's next state of the union address
State of the Union fact check....
Australian state to ban workplace e-mail spying
Separation of church and state: my ideal solution.
EU and China to Reinforce Sci-Tech Cooperation
Site Nav Suggestions...
A soldier's rant
SMU:A signature makers union
That's so amazing, the news about ukraine
Eliminate California from USA?
Shenzhou 6 Safely Returns Taikonauts
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.