State of the Union Address 2005

[Sunnywindo]

So, I'm a little new at this "State of the Union" address thing. Part of it is being still a bit youngish (under 30) and part is because I've just not been interested in such things until the last few years. I've watched a few from Clinton and a few from Bush... maybe actually tried to really pay attention for three, perhaps four such speeches, the last two in paticular.

Something does strike me as odd. This is supposed to be a "State of the Union" address. So why is there so little about "the state of the Union" and instead an endless series of "promises"? "We the governement are going to make your lives and the whole world better by doing ABC though XYZ and then top it off with 1-2-3... 4-5-6-7-8-9..... " Is this historically typical for State of the Union addresses? Promise everything including the kitchen sink? (Though this year didn't seem quite as bad as last year in that regard.) Then the clapping after each little thing just seems so, so patronizing (is that the right word?) to me. Just kinda fake and showy (not to mention annoying). *gag*

On some of it I thought "that could be nice/okay or good point" yet so much more of it fell into the catagory of "bad idea/please no/have you lost your mind/what exactly do you mean by that".

My hubby's response was "that's a little scary".

I can't help but feel a bit sick tonight.



What did you all think?



Sara (who wonders when she became so cynical)

[OnTheMoor]

I thought Mrs. Clinton was looking very sick.

[Jack]

Republicans suck. Democrats suck. Therefore, the state of the union address sucked.

[Walden]

I think that George W. will continue waging wars and junk, but will cater less to the Moral Majority crowd now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. He has to build a "legacy" now.

[peeplj]

I fear for our country and it's place in the wider world; our government is corrupt and is lead in part by right-wing fanatics, and in the other part by left-wing fanatics, making it uniquely blind to the real world, of which its leaders seem to partake of as little as possible.

--James

[dwinterfield]

Sara:

I skipped this one. Whistle practice seemed more rewarding. Bush did spend 15 seconds, I assume at the start saying the State of the Union is strong. I heard it on the radio this morning. These are always polical speeches serving the Pres agenda.

What I find scary about Bush right now is the total disconnect from spending reality. He wants to keep increasing spending in defense and homeland security; make a change in social security that will cost $1-2 trillion; make the biggest tax cut in history permenant and he says he'll reduce the annual deficit by half! I thought he'd stopped smoking the funny stuff.

The small government, financial conservative republicans are convincing Bush implement the "starve the beast" theory the beast being the Federal Government. The idea is that it's impossible to pass laws reducing Federal participation in things like disease research, education, environmental protection, highways, water infrastructure, cops, agriculture etc. etc. - everything that isn't defense and homeland security and running the mint. Rather than have a debate about all these "domestic discretionary programs", they'll run up huge deficits and say "we don't want to reduce CDC, the FBI, VA etc, by half, but we can't afford them".

Walden - I disagree about Bush and the "Moral Majority crowd". I think now he doesn't care about being preceived as a centrist moderate, so he'll try to give them everything they want.

I disagree

[Doug_Tipple]

I avoided listening to W's speech to Congress and the American people. In the past every time I have heard him speak (or try to), I have come away feeling depressed, thinking to myself, "This man isn't qualified to be president." I agreed with the Democrat opposition to C. Rice for Secretary of State, when a prominent member said, "I am tired of being lied to." Ditto for much what W and members of his administration have said and continue to say. Rather than having to up my dose of anti-depressant medication, I have decided that the best thing for me is to always keep the remote handy so that I can change stations when W appears and tries to talk.

[avanutria]

For those who couldn't watch it and wanted to (like me), here's a link to the speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4231571.stm

Reading this thread, I can't help but be reminded of one of my engineering professors. We typically called all of our professors by their last name when speaking to fellow students. "Nielson did such and such today" or "You should ask Gupta about that". But there was one professor who was an exceptionally bad teacher, and none of us understood or enjoyed those lectures. This general disapproval was visible in our discussions - we always referred to this instructor by their first name only.

An interesting correlation, I thought. But as has been established in another thread, I'm a bit nutty.

[susnfx]

I didn't watch or listen to it and won't read it - an hour of complete b.s. That said, however, I would like to note that as chilly as it is in Washington, D.C., Dick Cheney was dressed appropriately.

Susan

[Martin Milner]

"safe, clean nuclear energy"

I am of the opinion that nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean, and by it's nature can never be.

Solar, wind and wave power are both safe and clean.

Bush is talking a lot of rot here, I can't bear to read any more.

[Lorenzo]

I like to listen to ideas with which I may disagree. I think it's important to understand the other point of view as well as my own. It certainly wouldn't be fair to trash a speech without listening to it first, although it's easy to understand why some people would do such a thing. Interestingly enough, the Democrats seemed interested in, and agreed with, much what he had to say, standing and applauding about half the time, although not at all with his ideas on privatizing SS.

[ifire]

"safe, clean nuclear energy"

I am of the opinion that nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean, and by it's nature can never be.

Solar, wind and wave power are both safe and clean.

Bush is talking a lot of rot here, I can't bear to read any more.

At the present time solar power is very inefficient and wind power (in the amounts needed to generate sufficent power) could disrupt the jet stream. (I wish I could find the study that showed that) Nuclear power is very safe and clean, the number of accidents is remarkable how few there are. The only problem is when something does go wrong its really bad and while in use it is clean, only byproduct is steam, but then you have the cores which is another story. What we need to do is step up research in fusion reactors, and begin phasing in hydrogen-powered automobiles. (Can't do it all at once becase it would absolutely devistate the economy, but we do need to actiually start.)



Edited to add the quote for clear refrence.

[glauber]

I like to listen to ideas with which I may disagree. I think it's important to understand the other point of view as well as my own. It certainly wouldn't be fair to trash a speech without listening to it first, although it's easy to understand why some people would do such a thing. Interestingly enough, the Democrats seemed interested in, and agreed with, much what he had to say, standing and applauding about half the time, although not at all with his ideas on privatizing SS.

Who'd think the Republicans would want to privatize the Schutzstaffel?


(the SS in prouder times)

Anyway, State of the Union addresses are, mainly, opportunities for the US president to tell the country what a great job he's doing and will continue to do for them. Nothing to worry too much about.

It's actually specified in the constitution, and that's where the name comes from too.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article.

[Lorenzo]

glauber, now you cause me to wonder if there are some similarities.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

I didn't watch it, for the first time in many years, since I now know that I have no voice.

Robin