What did everyone think?

I thought it was good, but anyone can say something. Whether they do it is another question.

It seemed he touched on all the current issues affecting us though.

I did think it was good. The US will be a good place IF everything he said actually happens.

yea, what did all of you think? i try not to get into political debates on the net, although i sure have fun reading them.:D

i didn't get to see all of it because i wasn't around a tv for the whole thing.. what i say seemed pretty decent. almost sounds like they are going to release some previously unknown info about iraq. i liked his referal to inheriting the economy.

I think it was rediculous. The address is supposed to be focused on the economy and it's progress, not "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Bush is a horrible public speaker. He didn't make one significant, factual point throughout the entire speech. Not to mention his creative use (and creation) of diction.

On the contrary I thought it was a fine speech and it was very appropriate. I really don't think he is that bad. Anyone who gets in front of millions of people to speak is going to be nervous and stumble a bit. I think he covered the bases and I like his ideas. If he executes, I am voting Bush next election (assuming he is a canidate).
-----Nate

nucular weapons... nucular weapons... nucular weapons.

its "nuclear" dumb-butt!! lol

BTW, i am not saying that it was a bad speech.

Originally posted by KEbert
I think it was rediculous. The address is supposed to be focused on the economy and it's progress, not "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

well i think war and terrorism affect the union pretty solidly. they also affect the economy.

I think it was appropriate. Yes, he needed to talk about the economy, and he did, but what everyone's mind is on right now is other things.

EDIT: And the hard evidence against Iraq it sounds like will be told later this week.

Yall rip on him all you want, us Texans are just waiting for him to come back to Texas so we can secede from the US and be our own country.

If you do that I am moving to texas. Hell being its own country with bush, and there has to be some good 4wheeling there! IM THERE! (And I'm bringing the bucs with me.)

Overall I thought it was a decent speech and I still like Bush for the most part. I'm sure it wasn't enough to sway the peacenicks, but really, what would be? Maybe if Saddam cut the head off a playful puppy, clubbed a baby seal and ate a rare steak on live TV, but other than that...

One thing that did strike me about the speech was, with all these proposals for new/additional spending (hydro-powered cars research, African AIDS meds, etc.), how the hell are we going to PAY FOR IT??? Especially when he's proposing more tax CUTS! Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like taxes any more than the next guy; and I agree that cutting some taxes can spur the economy. However, when you cut taxes and increase spending...um...does anybody else see a potential problem???

So far, I give Bush high marks for his handling of Iraq and providing for our national security. On the domestic front, however, I think he and his economic staff might want to delve into their strategy (or is it strategery ;)) a bit more...

I thought it was an excellent speech, and each time I hear him speak I'm struck by how much better he is at public speaking than he used to be.

And hey, not everyone can be John F Kennedy at the podium, and who really cares how he pronounces nuclear?

I'm not an avid bush fan, I'm not against him, but I wasn't overly confident in his ability to lead this country, but I am growing more and more confident with the passage of time.

As for the spending and the tax cuts, I wondered where the money was going to come from too.

I loved the first democratic response with the governer guy, I was wondering if it was supposed to be a reaction speech or a campaign speech, he talked more about himself, his state, and his family's triumph over adversity more than anything else. I suppose he mistook the American people as giving a damn...I shut it off.

Nuclear weapons. N. Korea has nuclear capabilities without a doubt. Iraq "might" have weapons of mass destruction and even if they did they have no method of delivery.

We placed an oil embargo on Korea. We placed an oil embargo on Japan and that is what caused them to attack Pearl Harbor....

Just food for thought.

they have no method of delivery.
Sure they would. An ICBM isn't the only way to get a nuke into the US. Look at the sum of all fears. There are endless possibilities, and with these guys thinking of them 24/7 I'm sure they have ways.
Good riddance of N. Korea's oil. The less oil we import the better. I buy Sunoco gas because NONE of the oil used in their gas is imported, they pledge to import 0 barrels from the middle east, so that is the best I can do to keep myself from suppourting terrorism.
More food for thought... what if Iraq doesn't attack but does attack an allie like England or France. Won't they be pointing the finger then and saying 'Why didn't you go in and help us sooner?! You had this information... ' etc. I think it is too tough of a call, but the solution with the best possible outcome is to remove Saddam from power, and the most tangible way of doing that would be to go to war.
-----Nate

Originally posted by nweibley
Sure they would. An ICBM isn't the only way to get a nuke into the US.

They could bring in a suitcase bomb or something, but so could terrorists from any number of countries. There are terrorists all over the Middle East and Europe that would love to get a hold of some Russian plutonium, not just in Iraq.

I still think Bushs emphasis on Saddam goes back to his fathers inability to finish the job in the first place.

I took detailed notes because my media & society class is having a big discussion.

One of my biggest problems with it was his half-second mentioning of 'secure borders' when our border with Mexico is open like a screen door.
Call me an isolationist, but forget about AIDS in Africa, it sounds like another Somalia circa '93 if you get me. We have our own issues for the moment and even if we help people in Africa, we'll just be puting ourselves in a more vulnerable position for kidnappings and bombings over there and just be hated by the people we're trying to help.
Until our at home issues get resolves, until Iraq and North Korea and maybe israel get solved, forget about stretching our reach over to Africa.

[falling of the soapbox]

Wow, I am gonna get huge flaming for this one, but although the AIDS problem is a problem, I think the reason it gets so much attention is because if you don't address and sympathize with it, the extreme bleeding heart liberals will chew you up and spit you out to the media, pretty much totally defacing your character as a monster. I agree about mexico, we have problems closer to home than fixing a bunch of STDs.
Rick: Could be, but couldn't it also be because the gov't knows something we don't? And why must it be Bush's father's job? I believe I know a certain democrat who was in office for 8 years that was commander and chief too! I personally think that the war is happening because if it doesn't happen now, it will be too late. Just seems like the persistance that the white house has behing this war makes it seem like even if it is going to make them look like war monguls, it has to be done for some reason or another. I really don't know... only time will tell!
-----Nate

Bush was IN Iraq already and instead of finishing the job he took Saddams word that he would be a good boy and comply with the USs demands.

If you think GW is having trouble gathering support after 3000 Americans were killed how do you think Clinton would have been able to drum up support for no apparent reason at all? Besides violating no fly zone restriction which isn't something that involves your average American Iraq was quiet during Clintons terms.

Originally posted by Rick
I still think Bushs emphasis on Saddam goes back to his fathers inability to finish the job in the first place.

Yup... I fully agree with this... Although I'm guessing there are a few ways Iraq could be dealt with, I'm guessing some form of war will happen, but for who? Us? George W? George Sr.? I think George Sr.... He didn't finish and Dubya is continuing Sr. 's fight
Pete

I've got some differing opinions on it... some of the things he said I thought were very good but some I wasn't sure what he was thinking...

Fuel cell cars, love the idea personally... I think if the government really got behind them and the oil companies quit sending em money to stop working so hard on them, we could have them in a matter of years.

The idea of Iraq... well... I dont think when original bush was in office saddam was quite the threat he is now... though I like hearing bush say "nucular" over and over, lol.
As far as the state of the union, I think a lot of it was bologna... I'm sorry but the president can't come on every year and say the state of the union is strong when evidence suggests otherwise. Granted I think some people make too big a deal out of jobless rates and stock market (i.e. there were a lot of people employeed by business that had no reason to be in business, i.e. many of the .com's, etc., and the stock market was way overvalued for many years and it is just now correcting itself, but the fact its going down is freaking people out).
I think nukes are something that definately need to be addressed... I think its funny how the political ideals of people can change within a few years. After september 11th, people were saying "lets just level the whole middle east and that will take care of terrorism" but now they are freaking out because we are trying to defend ourselves from the possibility of nukes in the hands of those such as iraq and other terrorist nations.

Also, regarding tax cuts, its been proven that in eras such as Reagen when taxes were cut, the actual money going to the government went UP. Why? Because people had more money to spend, and spent it. And if I hear one more democrat saying "but the tax cuts only benefit the rich" well bull ****! Who do you think employs your sorry ass? You got it, the rich! That's how they pay your salary because they are rich! And they buy stuff that only rich people can afford like Ferrarri's etc. which allow the ferrari employees to go out and buy a house, or a ford, or groceries, or gasoline, stuff at home depot, and it keeps the economy rolling. I'd like to see a tax cut that benefits the poorer folks as well, but why should they be given special treatment because they decided not to finish high school and are doomed to working their whole life as grocery clerks, etc.? Granted there are some people that can't help but be poor due to loosing a job that paid well and now they can't find another, etc. but there a lot of people that have been poor there whole lives, never tried to make it better for themselves, and expect handouts from the government for everything. Why should the rich not get tax cuts, while the poor people do? It doesn't make sense. And everything is percentage based, if you give a man that makes a million a year a 2% tax cut, weand the difference will be much more then if you give a person that makes a $10,000 salary the same cut. Once again, why shouldn't the wealthy person get more of a tax cut? Should he get a $50 tax cut same as the poor person does?

Allright well now I better get off my soap box before I piss off even more people, LOL.

Originally posted by Rick

I still think Bushs emphasis on Saddam goes back to his fathers inability to finish the job in the first place.

Well, I don't care who finishes the job. Saddam is a threat to my freedom, and as long as somebody takes Saddam out of power, I don't care who it is or who their father is. Just do it now, dammit. Screw the cheese-eating surrender monkeys like France and Ted Kennedy and Susan Sarandon. If they want to live in fear, all the power to them. Stupid idiots. Hate to admit it, but I'm slightly French. Aggh.

For anyone that still mocks the President's public speaking, I offer the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Well done, is better than well said."

Hmmm. Could you imagine Reagen going into Russia to "disarm" them??? They had and probably still have ICBMs aimed at all of our major cities, they have oppressed their own people for generations, they have practiced cruel and unusual punishment upon their people for generations and have commited mass murder of their own people. They have had and probably still have agents working in our country. Does that kinda sound like Iraq?

Long term diplomacy is what prevailed in the case of Russia and it finally ended the cold war. I'm talking LONG TERM not just a single decade.

You know... it wasn't Iraqi's who flew into the WTC it was Saudi Arabians. Why is it that we don't go after them?

Could it be we didn't go into Russian because they could have destroyed our nation and the world at the same time? Could it be we only take on countries who have no way to invade our homeland such as Afghanistan and Iraq??

Ya know... they didn't have to launch any missles or fly an airforce to us. They just STOLE our own planes and used them as weapons against us. That is a technique ANY country or group of individuals could have pulled off and even with our new heightend security they could probably do it again.

It's been proven that it doesn't take a multi billion dollar military budget to inflict billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths.

Remember Cuba and Fidel Castro... we tried to remove him from office countless times and failed miserably. Yet even though he is only 90 miles from our coast he has never attacked us.

I'll tell you what though... Even if I don't agree with going to war in Iraq I support those who are sent there to fight 100%!

Originally posted by Rick
I still think Bushs emphasis on Saddam goes back to his fathers inability to finish the job in the first place.

Bush Sr. did finish the job, At the time they were not looking to remove Saddam from power, they just wanted to disarm him and to liberate Kuwait.

The military has been patroling the no fly zone since 91, Iraq has been shooting at our aircraft and we have continually been shooting anti aircraft positions in both no fly zones.

Now with the war on terror, It seems GW has info that Saddam has ties with terrorist. Knowing what WMD he could possibly have and those ties, he is now considered a Terrorist, but the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

Another thing, the countries opposed to war with Iraq, I think are afraid because even though all the middle eastern countries have been at war with each other for thousands of years, if a non muslim country attack's, it will be considered an attack on there religion not the country, so they will all stand together for that time. If they do that, where will the oil come from?

Back to the State of the Union Address, I thought it was pretty good jut not the right forum, the SotUA is supposed to be about the state of the country, he seemed to just highlight that part and spent more time on Iraq, WMD and helping Africa with AIDS(like we have time or money for that)
I to am wondering where all this money is going to come from.

Missed bush's, caught the democratic response. What a bunch of losers. if I drank their coolaid, I'd just as well kill myself. What doom and gloom....

Originally posted by poconosms1
Missed bush's, caught the democratic response. What a bunch of losers. if I drank their coolaid, I'd just as well kill myself. What doom and gloom....

Haha. And that was before he even said anything! :D

makes me wonder how many young ones on the board know what drinking the coolaid means.

Bush snubbed states in crisis, Napolitano says

Chip Scutari
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 29, 2003 12:00 AM

Gov. Janet Napolitano said President Bush on Tuesday night ignored the fiscal nightmare and the repercussions of unfunded federal programs that are falling on the backs of average Arizonans.

Napolitano, appearing on NBC with Tom Brokaw after Bush's State of the Union speech, said she sees a big disconnect between the White House's priorities and what Arizona needs most: jobs.

"The most disappointing part of the speech was the failure to recognize the plight of the states," Napolitano told The Arizona Republic late Tuesday night. "I bet you that when we see his budget, we're going to see some more federal programs that will roll down to the states."

Napolitano criticized Bush's call for more tax cuts as illogical, saying it would exacerbate Arizona's burgeoning deficit, which stands at $1.4 billion. And Napolitano continued her drumbeat against the federal government's not paying its fair share for crucial things, such as homeland security. The governor urged Arizona's congressional delegation to "step up to the plate."

"We don't have a secure border in Arizona; we're not getting the federal resources we need," Napolitano said. "The Arizona delegation has to realize that their constituents live in Arizona. Their constituents are the ones that are experiencing a border that is not yet secure."

Former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire agreed with Napolitano that there's a need for "substantial increases in federal funding for homeland security for the states."

Republican strategist Chuck Coughlin praised Napolitano for her tough talk to the federal government, but he said Bush's tax cut would revive Arizona's sluggish economy.

"She's right on the money on the border issue and that unfunded care for illegals falls on the backs of taxpayers," Coughlin said. "But the tax cuts will put more money in the pockets of Arizonans. Government is not a job creator."

Mostly Napolitano said she's disappointed that Bush, as a former governor of Texas, isn't remembering his former colleagues.

"I didn't hear the word 'state' mentioned the entire hour of his speech," Napolitano said. "I was listening. I didn't hear anything about a partnership with the states. The notion that you're going to stimulate the economy with a federal tax cut, when the states may have to raise taxes or lay off workers, will not work."

Originally posted by Rick

Long term diplomacy is what prevailed in the case of Russia and it finally ended the cold war. I'm talking LONG TERM not just a single decade.

You know... it wasn't Iraqi's who flew into the WTC it was Saudi Arabians. Why is it that we don't go after them?

It's been proven that it doesn't take a multi billion dollar military budget to inflict billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths.



Okay, to sum it all up, you:
1) suggest we just wait until Saddam dies of old age to get him out of power

2) would have been opposed to US action against Hitler since he wasn't actually attacking the US mainland

3) suggest we use the same tactics that terrorists use for our own military

Except all the states want is more money but less accountablity. Personally, let California and the rest of the states get the fiscal house in order before they stick out their hands.

Most of these states are the ones making the decision to provide government services to illegal aliens or non residents.

Someone needs to tell these crying governors that if they don't have the nuts to raise taxes on their own taxpayers, then cut services...

Interesting Fact: Prior to 1930's the largest succesfuly supplier of social services were religious organizations. These organizations required a "minimum" work effort on recipients. By 1970, the Government was the largest supplier. Doesn't take much to figure out who did the better job.

Originally posted by poconosms1
makes me wonder how many young ones on the board know what drinking the coolaid means.

I'll count myself as a young one. Why don't you fill me in on what "drinking the coolaid" means? I'm speculating it's got some historical significance, or it's a mild reference to narcotics of some sort. I went to public schools and I never did drugs, so either way, I'm not up to par on the lingo.

At any rate, I think I understand your lack of "connection" with democrats. Join the club.

During the 1970's a cult leader named Jim Jones led his flock down to Mexico (i think). Anyway, his flock of men women and children willingly drank cool aid that was laced with cyanide. Approx 300 people died. These people blindly accepted Jim Jones words of salvation. It was claimed some tried to escape, but they were killed by his enforcers.

drinking the cool aid is actually an insult to people who willingly and blindly follow anyone's word to the death.

The conservative movement apply the phrase to liberals because most liberals, when you debate them, cannot substantiated their claims and often resort to personal attacks.

i find it somewhat ironic that we, as American citizens, cry year after year for tax relief. yet, when someone proposes a tax cut, we cry it cant be done. i hear the same people b!tch about current taxes/tax raises also bi!tch about tax cuts. "Where will the money come from?" you cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by tripleoption
Okay, to sum it all up, you:
1) suggest we just wait until Saddam dies of old age to get him out of power

That's what we have been doing with Castro.

2) would have been opposed to US action against Hitler since he wasn't actually attacking the US mainland

They did however attack our allies and were kicking some serious ally butt before we got involved.

Iraq isn't attacking anyone outside of their own country. When they did we fought them. Bush knew Saddam couldn't be trusted yet left him in power. Our generals wanted to kick butt all the way to Baghdad.

3) suggest we use the same tactics that terrorists use for our own military

Not sure what you are implying there.

Originally posted by poconosms1

drinking the cool aid is...

Thanks. I've heard of that massacre before, but it's been so long and so vague that I didn't make the connection to your post. I think I have alzheimers, too, so that probably doesn't help.

Hey, stop misquoting me. You'd think the admin could at least edit a bit before he posts something.

Originally posted by mattadams
Also, regarding tax cuts, ......
about that whole paragraph by matt..

you are an evil rich b@stard who hates poor folks and got everything you have because you were fortunate (btw.. heavy sarcasm there, meant to sound like a liberal)
seriously.. i couldn't agree with matt more on the tax issue. you are right on with what i think on that situation. that makes us both right! i get so pissed when i hear the dems saying it benefits the rich more... no sh!t! the economy also benefits FROM them more. they act like these rich people don't deserve anything. i would love to see the top 1% take 1 year off from work and move to europe or something and basically shut their operations down for a year. then lets see what happens. maybe then all these idiots would see what an impact the rich have on the economy and this country.

and tripleoption... dude.. you and i think so similarly (is that a word?) its scary...

Originally posted by hornz2000
Yall rip on him all you want, us Texans are just waiting for him to come back to Texas so we can secede from the US and be our own country.

lol...No more coming to Colorado to ruin the ski slopes and endanger us with those flailing poles. lol. Just joking...

Isn't the main reason for Texas joining the States in the first place is that it was about to be lost to it's original native country, Mexico?

Missed the address alltogether.

"Yall rip on him all you want, us Texans are just waiting for him to come back to Texas so we can secede from the US and be our own country. "


NO NO, We want to keep Texas, we need to let New England secede and nuke california. Then we'll have the problems solved.

Originally posted by jasonb

and tripleoption... dude.. you and i think so similarly (is that a word?) its scary...

Well, I was told my brother died before I was conceived. But I do know he was born in '77....???

It's fun to be right, isn't it? :D

jason, I'm glad you corrected yourself there, LOL. Actually I'm what is considered "middle class", I make between 40 and 50 a year. I realize that if I worked my ass off, lived up to all my potential bla bla bla I could probably be working 2-3 jobs a year, making $75 grand or more. But why? A lot of rich people got to where they are by inhereting it from there parents who work hard (example is that onassis chick that just today inhereted 2.7 billion dollars when she turned 18), but a lot of them got there by their own hard work, coming from poverty line with a good idea or good business sense, they were able to crawl there way up and make a successful business, and now there sitting on accounts worth millions or billions. Hell theres a chinese grocery store owner I heard about here in COlorado that started out with a tiny stand selling soda and stuff but he had good business sense, treated his customers well, always had what they wanted etc. eventually got his own grocery store, then expanded to multiple stores and now hes worth something like $60 million. Go figure! Back to the story I also realize that the man that owns my company is a millionare. I have no problems with that. my job as an employee is to make him lots of money. In return, I'll make more, it works out well that way :).

I missed the beginning, picked it up at the Aids part.
I had my doubts about Bush when he came to office- I didnt think he would do much but take up space. I was wrong. He seems to have stepped up and has a vision - and it is BIG. Texas sized big. I know that the points he put forward are starting points and he most likley won't get everything he asked for, but so far I support everything hes asking for.
I am also worried about the deficit , but I would rather incur a deficit by sending money back to the citizens rather than sending it off to the states to piss away- I can piss it away better than they can. The dividend tax cut is long over due and will go along way towards corporate reform with an emphasis on equity financing rather than debt, and a better transparency in earnings statements for companies- they will actually want to show us they made money now rather than spend it on dubious future growth without a return for x years. I doubt Bush will get the whole package though - maybe a 5000 exclusion to the tax payer. Too bad he couldnt take it on the corporate side- then you would really have heard the cries about big business and rich bashing.
I was disappointed Bush hasnt stressed the reforming nature of the div cut. Irks me that the dems are all over how much "rich" people will get- SO WHAT, still doesn't take away from what my Mom and Pop will get when their IBM divs come in and they get a 25% increase in spending power. Im with you Matt.

The liability awards issue is about time. Not only for doctors, but Class Action awards in general. Its a start.

The USA feeds the World now, and we will cure the world too- the generous nature of the America spirit can not be denied. I wish someday the world would just say thanks. Instead we have our flags burned. I say **** em- but send out the grain and meds IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

The Hydrogen funding is good- maybe the next area of the technological revolution - energy.

Iraq was expected- good news about the additional information on the 5th. But I do think that Iraq has a great deal to do with the state of the union, I am glad the admin is moving forward with the plan they set out back in Nov or Dec?

Also heard some things that were left out of the speech that will be announced in the next few weeks, which were hinted at in his address in Chicago - personal savings accounts, and retirement accounts that bring everything under one larger limit.

Hope some of what hes laid out will make it through congress before summer.

I am middle class myself 56K and wife telecommutes 8 hours a day. I don't want to be rich. I don't want a big house. I want my 40 hour work week, my wife to stay at home with the kids, I want to go home and play with my kids at the end of the day, I want sit down dinners and play time.

I use to work 3 jobs, killing my self. All that happend was my hair fell out from all the stress. My folks worked 60+hours a week and often on weekends (medical). I envied the other kids whose parents actively partipated in the kids lives.

Let the rich be rich. At least I know I'll die happy.:)

Originally posted by tripleoption
Well, I was told my brother died before I was conceived. But I do know he was born in '77....???

It's fun to be right, isn't it? :D

hmm... i was born in 77... freaky! :eek:


hope my earlier post wasn't read the wrong way.. i edited it so as to not confuse. i meant i agree with matt.. not the sarcastic little part i wrote first. doh!

Originally posted by poconosms1

I use to work 3 jobs, killing my self. All that happend was my hair fell out from all the stress. My folks worked 60+hours a week and often on weekends (medical). I envied the other kids whose parents actively partipated in the kids lives.


yeah I know what you mean... I try telling that to my boss all the time, he loves his job and often spends at least some time, 7 days a week there, sometime working until 8 or 9, and for what? Nothing, he gets no overtime, he just loves his job. He's got two girls at home that would probably love to spend some time with him.

I forgot the best one

My son (age4), upon hearing its bed time, asking me to read him a story. Then going to his room climbing in bed with him and reading his pick of the night.

Originally posted by tripleoption
Hey, stop misquoting me. You'd think the admin could at least edit a bit before he posts something.

I didn't misquote you I added my comments under each of yours.

Originally posted by mattadams
yeah I know what you mean... I try telling that to my boss all the time, he loves his job and often spends at least some time, 7 days a week there, sometime working until 8 or 9, and for what? Nothing, he gets no overtime, he just loves his job. He's got two girls at home that would probably love to spend some time with him.

Some of us are just like that Matt.

Hell, I go into work when the office is closed as long as at least one of my customers is open. I've taken calls as late as 3-4 in the morning and had to head over to the warehouse because of some shipping info. You've heard me joke about how I havent taken a vacation without my cell phone since I got one. Hey, at least I can sit on the beach now with it instead of having to go sit in the car and work for an hour every few hours because it was built in. I used to literally enjoy the beach with my family, then go sit in the car for an hour on the phone, come back for a while, go back and get on the phone etc. As of next month I'll be spending 2-3 days each week in NY.

Its not so much that I love my job, I'm just obsessive about it. I have to know things are being done right...

Where is the beef!
Unless I see something of substance on what that Middle East Wacko has in his arsenal:

I can only assume we're just in bed with big business interests and can't wait to set up MacDonald's and Burger Kings all over the region.
Let's not forget "the Colonel"

The address? You can only watch those things for so many years to know its all "spin"

Originally posted by IgotTwo
Where is the beef!
Unless I see something of substance on what that Middle East Wacko has in his arsenal:


You obviously missed the part where he said Mr. Powell will be addressing the UN in early February with that info.


I can only assume we're just in bed with big business interests and can't wait to set up MacDonald's and Burger Kings all over the region.
Let's not forget "the Colonel"


Don't have to invade a country to spam it with fast food chains. Look at Europe and Russia for example.

Originally posted by KEbert
I think it was rediculous. The address is supposed to be focused on the economy and it's progress, not "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Bush is a horrible public speaker. He didn't make one significant, factual point throughout the entire speech. Not to mention his creative use (and creation) of diction.
Hater.

Bush's speech was right on. I don't know how old you are or how many state of the union speeches you've seen, but his speech was exactly how a state of the union address is supposed to be. He commented on the state of our union noting problems and offering solutions. A state of the union address is not solely about the "economy and it's progress". You are completely wrong on that. Think back to any of Clinton's speeches and you'll notice he did the same, only with more bullsh*t than usual. I also don't remember "accomplished public speaker" being on the application for the job of President of the United States even though he is a fine public speaker. You haven't made one significant, factual point in your comments. You are obviously a left-wing liberal Democrat hater. That's it. It's ok, though. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone elses. It's just that your opinion is that of only 30 percent of this country as the polls after his speech indicated.

Originally posted by Rick
I still think Bushs emphasis on Saddam goes back to his fathers inability to finish the job in the first place.
Regardless, should we continue to allow Saddam to be threat or finish the job now, that THE UNITED NATIONS didn't allow us to finish in 1991? Everybody keeps saying it was the elder Bush's fault we didn't end it then. What you fail to realize, though, is that there were no less than 6 UN resolutions that called for UN forces, including the US, to remove Iraq from Kuwait only, not to remove him from power. Stop blaming Bush Sr. for the inadequacies of the United Nations. They are, after all, a communist organization that we are forced to be a part of.

You know... it wasn't Iraqi's who flew into the WTC it was Saudi Arabians. Why is it that we don't go after them?

I've asked many times why we are still allied with the Saudi's. Bin Laden is (was) Saudi, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, there has been proof that the Saudi's have funneled money to Al Qaeda, and many other examples. I think something should be done about them.

BTW, all you people that think we should leave Saddam alone should consider this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-18-israel_x.htm
Since the start of the most recent Palestinian uprising against Israel, Saddam has paid millions to Palestinians, most notably the families of suicide bombers
I thought we were fighting a war on terrorism? If so, I certainly think it includes Saddam.