Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Who The Hell Are they Catering the...

Bush State of the Union Speech 2004

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#81 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 12:28 AM

Quote

I'm gonna actually praise George W Bush for a minute. I think that for the first several months after 9/11 (not including the rather uninspiring performance on the day itself), he did a great job of rallying the nation's spirits to fight back against terror.

I actually said something to this effect -- that I was impressed with him post-9/11 for a couple of months. But I think this positive note was ignored in light of all the rest of the commentary. ;)
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#82 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 12:47 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 21 2004, 08:59 PM, said:

Allow me to play amateur psychologist.

Lemme preface it with a big huggle to LOP because he is certainly NOT someone I think this about.  But I really thing that,whether you're talking politics or television that there ARE people out there that  need to feel that there are others who agree with them in order to feel good about their opinions.  I ran in to it in Xena Fandom.  I still run into it in Andromeda Fandom. And I think the phenomenom exists is politics too.  Again I am specifically stating that I absolutely do NOT think LOP is among these people.  I just think that he's an extraordinarily fair minded man whose priorities differ *in some respects* from mine and that's why we disagree about this.

Erm...and attack him on my watch at your own peril.  Not a threat.  A fact.

Lil
Thanks Lil!!!!

And you are right, I don't need anyone to agree with my opinions. You and I don't see many things the same, but I respect and love the heck out of you. We respect each others opinions and feelings, even when we don't agree.

Anakam, no problem with using me, I'm not upset really. It did start new dialogue though.

Edited by Lover of Purple, 22 January 2004 - 12:56 AM.


#83 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 01:06 AM

{{{{{{{{{{{LOP}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}  I will *always* have your back!
Posted Image

#84 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 09:06 AM

Quote

Best photo from the State of the Union ever. Example of CNN's liberal bias or merely a wonderful coincidence?

atrios.blogspot.com/2004_01_18_atrios_archive.html#107465941557233868



LOL  :p  

:elf:

Edited by aphrael, 22 January 2004 - 09:08 AM.


#85 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,645 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 11:26 AM

"weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" = someone doodling designs on a napkin of how something might work.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#86 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 11:50 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 21 2004, 11:59 PM, said:

there ARE people out there that  need to feel that there are others who agree with them in order to feel good about their opinions.
Borrowing that "amateur shrink" hat from Lil for a moment....

It boils down to self-esteem. If you're a Lil or an LoP or a Zack or a Rov, and you're perfectly comfortable with what you think, then you can stand alone. Then you can respect other ideas. Then you can see both sides, with eyes wide open. You don't need to run for an illusory safety in numbers-- you're out simply for a conversation. Not an argument.

Having confidence in yourself doesn't require you to have to use an idea as a shield in a perceived attack on yourself. And that's where others come in. It's a lot easier to use an idea as a shield if you can get a phalanx going.

And really, nothing annoys me quite as much as seeing a perfectly good argument on the matter of one topic or another turn into a bastion of self-defense.

The very first essential for an exchange of ideas is for all parties to set themselves aside and make it about thoughts, about concepts, about ideals, and not about personalities. It's the moment the line is crossed into making it personal --in any form-- that communication suffers, and the exchange is halted.

I personally have to applaud LoP for simply saying "I don't appreciate this, and I'm backin' off now" rather than coming in with guns blazing. He declared and defused instead of detonated. And that's why he still garners such a high degree of respect from myself, from Lil, and from countless others among the Isle.

But --to remain on-topic, yeah, that's it-- I can respect President Bush for the same reason. He's a President pursuing his policy as he perceives it to be in the best interests of the country. Agree or disagree with him all you'd like, but never make the mistake of thinking he doesn't believe what he's saying.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#87 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 11:57 AM

Well, in all fairness, even the Democrats are also against Gay Marriage.  There has been a lot of talk, or should I say hedging, on the subject all through the last few months.  Polls say that 8 out of 10 Americans are against it. I think that's high, but who knows. So Democrats, as well as Republicans, have hedged by saying things like "Marriage is a religous institution" and maybe there can be some civil equivalent.

Even most conservatives think gay partners should have say over things like hospitalization.  The thing is, to me that's what marriage is.  It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion, which is why people get married at Town Hall, or by the Justice of the Peace, or a judge, or whatever.  And I would say a large number of people who get married in a church or synagogue do so out of tradition, not necessarily religous belief. It only has religious implications if you want it to.  I actually know someone who had the religious ceremony but didn't sign a marriage certificate (for what reason I'm still unclear), so legally they aren't married even though they consider themselves to be married.  It's a civil institution giving people rights to each other, that's it.  

However, even Dean was dancing around the issue saying he didn't believe in Gay Marriage.  He thought there should be a seperate civil union type of thing.

So if you're going villify Bush for it, you should villify all of them for it.

I've actually found it rather amusing that the democrats, who are supposedly all liberal and anything goes, backing off of the subject so they can get elected. It's also rather sad.

For the record I'm for Gay Marriage. I don't see what it hurts and I don't believe in using Religious beliefs to determine law.

Edited by StarDust, 22 January 2004 - 01:15 PM.


#88 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 12:32 PM

StarDust, on Jan 22 2004, 10:57 AM, said:

even Dean was dancing around the issue saying he didn't believe in Gary Marriage.
My sister once dated a Gary, but decided she didn't believe in Gary marriage either. Now she might be getting close to a Joe marriage though...

#89 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 01:12 PM

^ I was thinkin' of playing on the same pun. ;)

But I already got Rov on that "Iowae" post before, so I've made quota on this thread. :lol:

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#90 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 01:16 PM

^Okay  :lol:

My bad  :p  It's fixed

#91 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 02:12 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 20 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

I'm listening.  Lord almighty, WHAT world is this man living in?  NuTrance's bansai tree place?
Nah.

I tried to watch. He makes me cringe. I tried to listen, and that didn't work. So we switched to In Harm's Way, the great Otto Preminger war film with John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Kirk Douglas, and pretty much everybody and their brother. And here's a quote that seems apropos from the movie (picture John Wayne saying this): "Battles are usually fought by scared men who'd rather be somewhere else."

I did what I usually do and read the text, and as best I can tell this is my take:

1. The war in Iraq was a Good Thing and is a resounding success  :blink:
2. The tax cuts should be permanent (good move, when we're more in debt than ever  :sarcasm: )
3. If the some of the states persist in their pesky stance of legalizing same sex marriages, Bush will press for a constitutional amendment forbidding them (and for the life of me, I still don't see why it would be the federal government's business). Personally I'm in favor of it because I can't see a cogent argument against it that isn't religiously motivated. However, I think each state should decide for themselves and their voters how they handle it. IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO LEGISLATE ANYTHING BASED ON ANYONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Edited by Rhea, 22 January 2004 - 02:25 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#92 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 02:13 PM

StarDust, on Jan 22 2004, 11:57 AM, said:

Well, in all fairness, even the Democrats are also against Gay Marriage.  There has been a lot of talk, or should I say hedging, on the subject all through the last few months.  Polls say that 8 out of 10 Americans are against it. I think that's high, but who knows. So Democrats, as well as Republicans, have hedged by saying things like "Marriage is a religous institution" and maybe there can be some civil equivalent.

Even most conservatives think gay partners should have say over things like hospitalization.  The thing is, to me that's what marriage is.  It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion, which is why people get married at Town Hall, or by the Justice of the Peace, or a judge, or whatever.  And I would say a large number of people who get married in a church or synagogue do so out of tradition, not necessarily religous belief. It only has religious implications if you want it to.  I actually know someone who had the religious ceremony but didn't sign a marriage certificate (for what reason I'm still unclear), so legally they aren't married even though they consider themselves to be married.  It's a civil institution giving people rights to each other, that's it. 

However, even Dean was dancing around the issue saying he didn't believe in Gay Marriage.  He thought there should be a seperate civil union type of thing.

So if you're going villify Bush for it, you should villify all of them for it.

I've actually found it rather amusing that the democrats, who are supposedly all liberal and anything goes, backing off of the subject so they can get elected. It's also rather sad.

For the record I'm for Gay Marriage. I don't see what it hurts and I don't believe in using Religious beliefs to determine law.

The difference is though, only Bush was hinting at constitutional amendment to bar it from happening.  Also, at least Kerry (I believe it was him, but I'm not 100% sure) said it was about "equal protection under the law," and that gays should have the same legal rights as straight couples.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#93 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 02:31 PM

I think I figured it out.

All the gays who want to get married have to do is form a sect of Protestant Christianity that allows for gay marriage!

That way they get First Amendment protection! There's no way Bush can do an end-run around them that way!

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#94 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 02:39 PM

Gaiate, on Jan 22 2004, 11:13 AM, said:

The difference is though, only Bush was hinting at constitutional amendment to bar it from happening.  Also, at least Kerry (I believe it was him, but I'm not 100% sure) said it was about "equal protection under the law," and that gays should have the same legal rights as straight couples.

--Te
Thank you.  

Lil
Posted Image

#95 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 04:11 PM

the'Hawk, on Jan 22 2004, 02:31 PM, said:

I think I figured it out.

All the gays who want to get married have to do is form a sect of Protestant Christianity that allows for gay marriage!

That way they get First Amendment protection! There's no way Bush can do an end-run around them that way!

:cool:
Sure he can.  Anything's possible w/ a constitutional amendment.  Remember the 18th amendment?  Prohibition is still in the constitution, and it took another amendment to repeal it (the 21st).  If an amendment is ratified that bans gay marriages, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the constitution says or doesn't say on the issue.

But I'm reasonably confident that no matter how much drum-beating Bush does about the amendment, it won't get enough support to pass.

By the way, with the elevation of an openly gay Bishop into the American Episcopalian church, gay marriages are well on their way to being officially recognized by a major Christian church--tho there are a number of smaller churches that already recognize same-sex marriages.

-Nick

Edited by Nick, 22 January 2004 - 04:13 PM.


#96 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 04:15 PM

^The very least he *might* be able to get is an amendment saying that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. But even that's dicey.



Random non-political note:

Anyone else notice that at the end of the speech, when Bush reached up to shake Cheney's hand, Bush knocked over the Vice President's water glass? If you looked carefully, there was a scene of the leaders of the Executive and Legislative branches furiously mopping up water off the dais... And when Bush was walking out of the chamber? There was the Speaker and the VP still mopping up.

For some reason, I found that hilarious.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#97 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 10:45 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 22 2004, 04:59 AM, said:

Allow me to play amateur psychologist.

Lemme preface it with a big huggle to LOP because he is certainly NOT someone I think this about.  But I really thing that,whether you're talking politics or television that there ARE people out there that  need to feel that there are others who agree with them in order to feel good about their opinions.  I ran in to it in Xena Fandom.  I still run into it in Andromeda Fandom. And I think the phenomenom exists is politics too.  Again I am specifically stating that I absolutely do NOT think LOP is among these people.  I just think that he's an extraordinarily fair minded man whose priorities differ *in some respects* from mine and that's why we disagree about this.

Erm...and attack him on my watch at your own peril.  Not a threat.  A fact.

Lil
Yep, I have that 'agreement syndrome' sometimes too.  (There's no other shorter phrase for it I can come up with... )

However, what I've noticed *more* in politically-based threads is that the upset doesn't happen after someone posts their opinion and it gets directly disagreed with.  Instead, it happens before the random poster even says what their opinion is, and *that* is what I'm having more trouble understanding.  I've seen it in religious-based threads too.   Not saying, of course, that it only occurs in those two specific kinds of threads, but it just seems vastly more common for opposing opinions to be taken personally by somebody before somebody has posted.

I'm not explaining that very well. :wacko:  I mean, I understand it just fine when poster B posts their opinion after poster A has started a thread with an opposing opinion and posters C, D, E, F, etc come in and disagree quite strongly with poster B and poster B posts and says something like I'm outta here.

I think if I try to explain what I don't understand anymore that I'll wind up tripping over the keyboard or something, so I'll stop on that now.

Quote

Erm...and attack him on my watch at your own peril.  Not a threat.  A fact.

Yes, Lil, I know that. ;)

{{{{{{{{{LoP}}}}}}}}}  Glad you didn't mind. :)

Jon-- LOLOL.  That's really funny. :lol: :D
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#98 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 January 2004 - 10:51 PM

Anakam, on Jan 22 2004, 07:45 PM, said:

However, what I've noticed *more* in politically-based threads is that the upset doesn't happen after someone posts their opinion and it gets directly disagreed with.  Instead, it happens before the random poster even says what their opinion is, and *that* is what I'm having more trouble understanding.
It's called "knee jerk" reaction syndrome™

And I'll just leave it at that lest I get further roasted for hating Dubbaya.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, State of the Union Speech, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users