PDA

View Full Version : The State of the Union Address


Hitokiri
February 2nd, 2006, 01:20 PM
Not sure if this goes here but, oh well ^.^. If it's in the wrong spot, feel free to move, mods XD!

So what did you guys think of George W. Bush's State of the Union Address? Did you think he hit all the major points? How well do you think he delievered it all? If you don't live in the US, what do you think he could have done better in your opinion?

John Denver
February 2nd, 2006, 03:07 PM
I didn't see it, and neither did half the kids that go to this site, unfortunately.

They'll still have the same reaction to it though..."BUSH IS TEH SUXXORZ"

oni flygon
February 2nd, 2006, 03:21 PM
"America is addicted to oil"

It's amazing that he just found that out right now...and my first reaction to that was "NO CRAP SHERLOCK!" (replace "crap" with another word...>>)

John Denver
February 2nd, 2006, 03:23 PM
Two admins in here already? Man that was fast.

Does anyone have a link to a site that can give a good summary of what was said during the address?

Ryoutarou
February 2nd, 2006, 03:26 PM
Two admins in here already? Man that was fast.

Does anyone have a link to a site that can give a good summary of what was said during the address?
Click. (http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2006)

Transcript of the entire thing, kinda long.

22sa
February 2nd, 2006, 03:51 PM
Basically, Bush is preparing for war. I don't know what to say about that.

John Denver
February 2nd, 2006, 03:53 PM
Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

Kinda Long? HA! That mutha was 9 pages long...

Otter Mii-kun
February 2nd, 2006, 06:42 PM
This'll be a long, and heated rant. Hang on!

"America is addicted to oil"
Yet he and his cronies are trying what he can to stop development of alternative fuels because they have at least some involvement with oil companies. (especially Cheney/Halliburton)

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (Applause.)
NCLB is a joke. I know somebody from the Michigan Buzzboard who IS a teacher. NCLU is bull@#%!! FORCED programs at the FEDERAL level with no funding from the government that demands implementation of them are clearly unconstitutional. (Hell, the federal government shouldn't be involved in education period-violation of the 10th amendment)
If we are to truly fix/reform/overhaul/whatever education, we need to shut down the U.S. Department of Education, strike down NCLB under the 10th Amendment, repeal compulsory school attendance laws, abolish federal and state curriculum guidelines, as well as separate unions from politics.

Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.
I just can't emphazise this enough... THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO "COMPETE WITH THE GLOBAL ECONOMY". We need to focus ON OUR OWN ECONOMY, which is very close to being into ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION! Just going along with this globalization agenda will only allow inflation and outsourcing to continue, and leave our borders wide open to terrorists!

America is a great force for freedom and prosperity.
Not anymore thanks to big-government clownwipes like both Bushes, Kerry, Clinton, FDR, Gray Davis, Granhole, and Manndatory.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well.The only reason why there are many more democracies is because of our interventionist foreign policy. If some of those countries were smart enough, they'd form their own democracies by themselves without our help. Once (if) we pull out of Iraq, we'd better STAY OUT OF MIDDLE EAST NATION BUILDING AND PUPPET GOVERNMENTS! Nowhere in the Constituion does it require for our military to be roaming around the world acting as globocops let alone nation builders.

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores.While we have tens-possibly hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world, our borders are still wide open to terrorists and illegal immigrants. The reason our enemies will not leave us alone is because we stepped into our territory for no good reason in the first place! It is our first and foremost duty to secure our on borders, not screw around playing globocop like I said earlier.

By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage.It's been happening since 6th Century AD. Now that they've been provoked, they're trying everything they can to destroy us all.

Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.
That doesn't mean we need to go into every dictatorship we can find to overthrow them just to install new puppet regimes.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom.
If Iraq really needed liberation, they (the Iraqis) could've done it with some other countries' help other than us, or even on their own and wage civil war (which they're already in as it is)

so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot ActThe Patriot Act is the worst thing to come down the pike since the Holocaust in Nazi Germany! I'm not trading over freedom and liberty just for "security and safety".

This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities.Yet new, even bigger programs will be passed to replace those abolished. Typical Republican and Democrat hypocrisy.

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy.There was CLEAR forewarning prior to the attacks. Yet Bush was too busy planning to invade Iraq, so he ignored those warnings.

So to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.Totally foolish! The domestic spying program violates 4th Amemdment protections by granting unauthorized search and seizures to anyone who is least bit suspect. The current implementation of the spy program was NOT, I repeat NOT authorized by the Constitution, FISA, by any court that I know of. Not even the Commander In Chief function specifically authorizes this spy program.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate.
Screw the two party system! Thanks to the big-government backing media, the majority of voters (and most other citizens alike) are indoctrinated into thinking with this mentality-
Republicans & Democrats = Good
Libertarians and other thrid parties = Total Morons

Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For 24 years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.It's getting ever closer to the entire judcial system being neo-con...

-ottermi619-
I somehow feel good when venting out political anger publicly.

Overlord IX
February 2nd, 2006, 06:48 PM
We need better patriots here. Bush did pretty well despite many rant n' ravers. I have my doubts myself sometimes. But then again.

John Denver
February 2nd, 2006, 06:59 PM
I don't think Iraq could have been liberated if we hadn't stepped in.

jasonresno
February 2nd, 2006, 07:49 PM
And I agree. Bush gets a bad rep because of his inane ability to screw up public speaking, and it even seems a fad now to hate on Bush. Kiddies, hating on the president doesn't make you a punxr0cker and it doesnt make you cool.

Bomberman
February 2nd, 2006, 07:53 PM
And I agree. Bush gets a bad rep because of his inane ability to screw up public speaking, and it even seems a fad now to hate on Bush. Kiddies, hating on the president doesn't make you a punxr0cker and it doesnt make you cool.
Well said.
Another thing: Dems, stop saying it's not fair that you don't get your say in things.
You lost, we won, it is OUR turn to run government.
America chose Bush as the best-suited leader, and now we must do what he thinks is best.

Personally, I think Bush is doing great, not execllent.
Think of how screwed up this country would be if Kerry would have won... lol.

Ryoutarou
February 2nd, 2006, 08:37 PM
I don't think Iraq could have been liberated if we hadn't stepped in.
But hey, you know most Americans could care less about a country that "has nothing to do with America aside from killing our soldiers". Too many Americans take the liberties we have for granted, it's almost sickening to see how ignorant Americans have become.

Kiddies, hating on the president doesn't make you a punxr0cker and it doesnt make you cool.Yeah it does, and that's what's sad about it. Bush isn't a bad leader, not the best we've had, but not as bad as he's made out to be. I can only imagine the trouble this country would be in had Kerry won.

Otter Mii-kun
February 3rd, 2006, 04:13 AM
I don't think Iraq could have been liberated if we hadn't stepped in.It wasn't our duty to do so, so @#$%(*@#(%!#%(!

Well said.
Another thing: Dems, stop saying it's not fair that you don't get your say in things.
You lost, we won, it is OUR turn to run government.
America chose Bush as the best-suited leader, and now we must do what he thinks is best.

Personally, I think Bush is doing great, not execllent.
Think of how screwed up this country would be if Kerry would have won... lol.
We need to get a few things straight...

One, I am NOT A LIBERAL. I am LIBERTARIAN. There is a difference. My positions are very simple:

Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles

TWO, I used to be Democrat. That was until Jennifer Granholm decided to just go off on the economic reservation. It runs in my family.


Here's a list of what Neo-cons believe. Those in bold show those who've posted in this thread exactly what they are for posting pro-war mentality.

1- They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2- They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3-They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4-They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.

5- They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6-They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7-They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8-They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9-They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10-They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.

11-They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12-They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13- Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.

14- Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

15-9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

16-They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

17-They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

But hey, you know most Americans could care less about a country that "has nothing to do with America aside from killing our soldiers". Too many Americans take the liberties we have for granted, it's almost sickening to see how ignorant Americans have become.

Kiddies, hating on the president doesn't make you a punxr0cker and it doesnt make you cool.
Yeah it does, and that's what's sad about it. Bush isn't a bad leader, not the best we've had, but not as bad as he's made out to be. I can only imagine the trouble this country would be in had Kerry won.I wasn't looking forward to a Kerry administration either. That's why I supported Badnarik (L) in 2004. Just because were supposedly "ignorant" doesn't mean we need to fool around in countries we're not welcome in.
Thanks to Bush and bi-partisan state leaders like Ahnold, Granhole, and others, jobs are leaving in droves, we have more illiteracy, there's more crime, and we're about to face another Holocaust. Thanks a lot!

America chose Bush as the best-suited leader, and now we must do what he thinks is best.He CHEATED his way through electoral votes, and we were LIED to about Iraq having WMDs. Need I say more?

-ottermi619-
I don't care what you think, pro-war mentality such as this doesn't fly with me.

Chairman Kaga
February 3rd, 2006, 09:03 AM
Nobody, nobody realizes the truth behind all presidencies. It's ignorant to assume that George Walker Bush, all by his self, without any sort of help, assistance, advice, or direction, could bring upon the world all the evils purported by so many people who hate him because it's convenient to do so. The president, for the most part, is a figurehead, and anyone with grade-school knowledge of our government should know that the executive branch is not a one-person operation (despite the widely-held belief by the OMBLOLZ BUSH R NATZY crowd, who, for the most part, are in it just to revel in the populist mob mentality), and that there is a little thing called the cabinet, each branch having legions of subdivisions, each subdivision working with state and local officials, controlling thousands of civic organizations, the military, dealing diplomatically with foreign states, not to mention the influence exerted by the congress, judiciary, citizens, and lobbyists. When you think about it, the executive branch has many tens of thousands more people, all with diversified and specific purposes, than either the congress, who have a handful of senators and representatives, or the supreme court, with a mere nine members. Any president is just the person who vocalizes the policies created by the people who are hired and appointed when they are elected; basically the embodiment of the largest and most expansive branch of government in one person so Americans have a better sense of what's happening in the government, what the stances of the administration are, etc; than if they had to refer to many, many executives, each controlling a specific branch of oversight. The battle in elections between personality and policy is always difficult, as people who have no real reason to be president can easily attempt to do so through the force of their charm, and those who have all the policy ideas in the world are prone to failing miserably because of the peoples' tendency to become bored with people they perceive as dull. Usually the candidate with the best balance of personality and policy wins, as the citizenry will not entirely reject their own opinions when considering a candidate, although the average uninformed American will look for a sense of comfort and security in a candidate as well. George Walker Bush is by no means eloquent, thoughtful, inventive, reserved, or anything else that tends to signify a good leader, but he is not the one who makes the decisions. He doesn't sign off on something unless his legions of advisors tell him to, nor does he say anything he hasn't been coached to say. He is by no means the best figurehead for his own party, and I by no means agree with all of his policies, but I refuse to blame him for everything his administration does.

Hitokiri
February 3rd, 2006, 11:00 AM
Ok guys lets calm down ^.^;;;

I agree with some of the things that some people said. I also agree with the beginning of what Chairman Kaga said (I didn't read the whole post, too long XD). People think that everything that goes on in the government is run solely by Bush and that Bush makes every decision. People don't realize that if Bush wants to initiate something, he has to propose it and Congress has to look at it and it has to be OK'd by the Judicial Branch and everything (I don't know is that's exactly how it goes, but it's something like that). It's not a one man show like the media and everything want you to believe.

And my Political Science teacher told me that only 25% of the American Public is heavily political (meaning they vote for more than just president, and know about the 3 branches, the checks and balances, etc etc.) I bet 90% of the people that hate George Bush don't even know what for XD!

Otter Mii-kun
February 3rd, 2006, 12:27 PM
People don't realize that if Bush wants to initiate something, he has to propose it and Congress has to look at it and it has to be OK'd by the Judicial Branch and everything (I don't know is that's exactly how it goes, but it's something like that). It's not a one man show like the media and everything want you to believe.Since the Republicans have all three branches of the government under their control, the ideas of Bush become law very fast. Where are the checks and balances people!? Plus, you're forgetting that the President has authority to recommend legislation to Congress.

-ottermi619-
Maybe things won't be so bad when the Republicans lose majority in Congress this November. Or will they?

Bomberman
February 3rd, 2006, 02:40 PM
He CHEATED his way through electoral votes

Republicans cheat, democrats cheat massively.

Chairman Kaga
February 3rd, 2006, 02:46 PM
Since the Republicans have all three branches of the government under their control, the ideas of Bush become law very fast. Where are the checks and balances people!? Plus, you're forgetting that the President has authority to recommend legislation to Congress.

-ottermi619-
Maybe things won't be so bad when the Republicans lose majority in Congress this November. Or will they?

You can complain about that all that you want, but you can't accuse the Republicans of violating checks and balances for having a substantial majority. That's nothing more than misdirected anger toward the mere fact that they're in power, and it's not like they've been able to instate their oh-so-contemptable backwards facist hillbilly klansman bourgeois radical fundamentalist reactionary nazi uptight uncool inhuman agenda yet; there are more obstructionists in congress than there are people who want to do the peoples' business so you're never going to have to worry about that. You're still accusing Bush of coming up with all his own ideas which is absolutely absurd; it seems you skimmed what I said just to look for something to disagree with. You accuse the man of being completely stupid yet contradict yourself by believing in a grandiose master plan of his own devising that is slowly working toward its ultimate goal of inflicting worldwide misery under his iron yoke.

And you forget that a judge appointed to the Supreme Court is not a puppet of the person who appointed them. Only two current members of the supreme court have been appointed by a Democrat, but you don't see all decisions falling 7-2. In fact, most decisions involving politically-charged topics fall 6-3 in favor of the arguments of Clinton's two appointees.

Executive power and congressional law do not become instantly evil for Bush having such power in his hands. Any president can suggest laws to the congress, not all take the initiative. This leads back to Bush not being the creator of his own policies, but I believe I've mentioned that enough.

Otter Mii-kun
February 3rd, 2006, 06:08 PM
You can complain about that all that you want, but you can't accuse the Republicans of violating checks and balances for having a substantial majority. That's nothing more than misdirected anger toward the mere fact that they're in power, and it's not like they've been able to instate their oh-so-contemptable backwards facist hillbilly klansman bourgeois radical fundamentalist reactionary nazi uptight uncool inhuman agenda yet; there are more obstructionists in congress than there are people who want to do the peoples' business so you're never going to have to worry about that. You're still accusing Bush of coming up with all his own ideas which is absolutely absurd; it seems you skimmed what I said just to look for something to disagree with. You accuse the man of being completely stupid yet contradict yourself by believing in a grandiose master plan of his own devising that is slowly working toward its ultimate goal of inflicting worldwide misery under his iron yoke.

And you forget that a judge appointed to the Supreme Court is not a puppet of the person who appointed them. Only two current members of the supreme court have been appointed by a Democrat, but you don't see all decisions falling 7-2. In fact, most decisions involving politically-charged topics fall 6-3 in favor of the arguments of Clinton's two appointees.

Executive power and congressional law do not become instantly evil for Bush having such power in his hands. Any president can suggest laws to the congress, not all take the initiative. This leads back to Bush not being the creator of his own policies, but I believe I've mentioned that enough.
Whatever. I'm tired of submitting to the Neo-Kon agenda of bigger government, perversion of family values, hypocrisy on pro-life stances, and general overall nastiness. Same goes for the Democrats and their far left/socialist ideas.

Republicans (and Demoncrats) have given me:
A Bigger Federal Government

Screwed Up Educational Policies

Confusing Abortion Policy

A Bullpoop Tax Code

A Social(ist) Security System Disaster In Waiting

A War On False Pretense

2,300+ Dead US Soliders

10-times more Wounded US Soliders

Highest Deficit Ever

Outsourcing And Even More, thanks to CAFTA

Decrease In Consututuional Rights Courtsey Of The Patriot Act

As if I wanted any of it...
Got news for yous, I want NONE OF IT. NOT ONE THING FROM THIS REPUBLICAN PREZ AND PARTY. NOT ONE.

I LOATHE THE REPUBLICANS AS MUCH AS I NOW LOATHE THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR SOCIALIST IDEAS.

-ottermi619-
It's seriously time to move on from our failed two party system which yous all admire so much.

Jack O'Neill
February 3rd, 2006, 06:18 PM
Saw Bush's State of the Union address, didn't pay much attention to it, don't care much about it.

America's pretty much screwed no matter what course it takes, so it won't matter who's president or which party is in control. But then again, this is a jaded centrist talking here.

Chairman Kaga
February 3rd, 2006, 06:21 PM
Ottermi, screaming just makes you sound like a moonbat. Either try and make yourself sound rational or be quiet. Everyone else is making an effort except for you. And that's all I have to say on the matter, because you're becoming irrational.

Chairman Kaga
February 4th, 2006, 05:06 PM
One having to shout just to get his point across doesn't automaticlly make one a moonbat. We need to have balances, you know.

A balance between calmness and anger? Certainly not! That's when a debate crosses the line to argument.

Samurai X
February 4th, 2006, 08:53 PM
I agree that Bush is not entirely at fault for what his administration did, people just seem to hate him because he is in fact our president. I also agree that Iraq would not have been liberated if it wasn't for the US stepping in. Ottermi said that it was none of our business but we had to step in to stop Hussein's dictatorship. If we hadn't stepped in Saddam would be killing innocent people in Iraq right now, some people might say"who cares as long as they're not Americans, right?" I think it's wrong to say that because the US is a nation that believes in freedom to all people. Say we would have never steeped in, years later Saddam's dictatorship starts to rise(like Hitlers did) and they start mass producing nuclear weapons and they start a war, more lives would be lost in a war of that magnitude than in this one. Then guess what people would do? Thats right, blame the president and say, "We should have stepped in sooner."

Ryoutarou
February 4th, 2006, 09:48 PM
Only hitting a few of these because I'm tired and it's late.


A Social(ist) Security System Disaster In WaitingThis problem is easily fixable. The immigrants that people want to keep out of this country so much is what can save social security. Guest worker visas and allowing people to naturalize would immensely improve the condition of the system. And this may seem like an archaic argument, but the United States itself was founded by immigrants. Hell, they STOLE land from Native Americans, land that they'll never get back. The government in itself is a hypocritial system in that sense, this country was founded because people came from another country looking for better opportunities. If the government let amnesty and other things of the sort pass, solving the SS problem would be easy.


2,300+ Dead US Soliders

10-times more Wounded US Soliders Okay, I've always hated this complaint. Do you people think someone joins the armed forces without knowing the inherent risks? No, and it's stupid to think otherwise. It's made absolutely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that by joining the armed forces, you are putting your life on the line. It's made clear when you sign up, and even during basic training, these people know the risks and if they didn't want to face them, do you really think they would stay in the forces? If you don't believe me, just go and sign up yourself, I was there when my friend signed up, I was there when my brother signed up, I saw the papers they had to sign and I heard what the risks where. Eventually my brother got out, another friend didn't and he knows the risks, but he stays in because he knew that conditions wouldn't be good from the start of it. Because it's something he can deal with and he doesn't want people to fight a war they don't have to. It's the pure incompetence of the American public to think that we're sending helpless soldiers over to die. This war's death count is small, minuscule compared to WWII, the Vietnam war and so many others. Even then, people knew the risks involved with joining the armed forces, and they joined because they wanted to protect their country. They know what they're putting on the line and that there is a very real chance of them coming home in a body bag or a casket, but they still do it because they believe it's the right thing to do.

Highest Deficit EverThe great depression.

Outsourcing And Even More, thanks to CAFTA.Labor is cheap, other people are willing to do it for less just to make ends meat. A lot of Americans somehow can't get that through their heads, a job, no matter how bad, is a job and if you have to, you'll take what little pay that lets you live. A lot of times this is taken advantage of by other countries, that's why there's so much outsourcing. Jobs are there to be taken because a lot of Americans don't take advantage of certain opportunities.

~snip~No offense, but you really are immature in the way you think a country works.

John Denver
February 5th, 2006, 06:53 AM
Ottermi is gonna get this thread closed. There's always one radical somewhere...

Since the Republicans have all three branches of the government under their control, the ideas of Bush become law very fast. Where are the checks and balances people!? Plus, you're forgetting that the President has authority to recommend legislation to Congress.

Actually, they don't have all three branches. You're acting like Bush has taken total control of the white house, which he hasn't. The Executive branch does have a lot of power right now, but it's been like that ever since WW2. Presidential power goes in a sin wave. One branch or party will have all or most the power on term then the next term it changes then visa versa.

American's will always hate their president, simply because he's the president. There has not been a single president in the history of the united states that hasn't been insulted or ridiculed or protested or hated. It's the most basic anti-authority that ignorant people feel.

jasonresno
February 5th, 2006, 07:20 AM
"There's always one radical somewhere..."
Unfortunately.

Otter Mii-kun
February 5th, 2006, 07:57 AM
I'm so sick of people (especially closed-minded Neocons) who think that just because I dont' support Bush, I'm automatically liberal. Got news for yous-It doesn't always work that way. I know some real conservatives on the Michigan Buzzboard who don't support Bush or his horse!@#$ agenda either.

-ottermi619-
And I thought SPPf's Debate section was too liberal. This is even worse... If only Kevin1971, All Digital Wedding DJ, zzand, El Mongo, and others were on here, you'd all be silenced like no other.

Chairman Kaga
February 5th, 2006, 10:07 AM
I'm so sick of people (especially closed-minded Neocons) who think that just because I dont' support Bush, I'm automatically liberal. Got news for yous-It doesn't always work that way. I know some real conservatives on the Michigan Buzzboard who don't support Bush or his horse!@#$ agenda either.

-ottermi619-
And I thought SPPf's Debate section was too liberal. This is even worse... If only Kevin1971, All Digital Wedding DJ, zzand, El Mongo, and others were on here, you'd all be silenced like no other.

None of us care where you stand as long as you're so acidic with everything you say; I'm basically repeating what I said in my last post but everyone is making an effort to be calm about this except for you, and because of this, no responsible debate can happen here.

These people you mention are completely irrelevant in this situation; of course anyone who doesn't have a leash on what they'll allow themselves to say and what lengths they'll go to to "win" an argument will always outdo people who set standards for themselves in a war of words. PC is a haven from this type of bullying, and this topic is just going to have to be made an example of.

*closed*