State of the Union Address 2004

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ruinel, I think JD did understand you... that's why he says "though". I brought up the committees after you brought up the re-districting because I thought I saw some similarities... both in the total control held by the majority party - and in the fairly recent 'broo-ha-hahs' about each after the change in which party was the majority party.

Exactly - I'm glad you understand.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
Anyway, partisanship aside, I really don't think it was at all right for the Texas Democrats to do their little "border cross / hang out at hotel" thing. For one, it was obstructionist and kept their state government from functioning, so it was a violation of the trust of the people of Texas. For another, I'm sure they continued to draw their salaries while not fulfilling the office to which they were elected. For another, I suspect their hotel bill went to the taxpayers of Texas.

Imagine a 'real world' scenario: Suppose I worked for a large company, and me and a whole bunch of co-workers didn't like something that was going to happen there. So we didn't report in to work, continued to expect our pay, and to top it off, we all holed up in a hotel - and charged the bill to our company!

I dont think that analogy works though. Remember that they arent there to make widgets. they are there to best serve and represent their democratic constituancy and they unanomously felt that by high tailing it to Oklahoma and thereby keeping the repubs from rigging the state to their favor that they were doing the only thing they could do to avoid disaster for their constituancy. are you saying they should allow the republicans to marginalize all democrats in texas just because they are getting paid? I know they tried everything else before this and the republicans wouldnt budge so I guess they saw this as a last resort. Sometimes you gotta upset the apple cart to get your point accross. Would you have been up in arms about those damn colonists because they dumped good tea in the harbor? how rude and uncivil! if the king is in power he can jack up tarrifs on tea as much as he feels like. deal with it.

But yer right that it made BOTH sides look pitiful and chaotic. Which tells us something about how the system works now. we need to fix it.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I dont think that analogy works though. Remember that they arent there to make widgets. they are there to best serve and represent their democratic constituancy and they unanomously felt that by high tailing it to Oklahoma and thereby keeping the repubs from rigging the state to their favor that they were doing the only thing they could do to avoid disaster for their constituancy. are you saying they should allow the republicans to marginalize all democrats in texas just because they are getting paid? I know they tried everything else before this and the republicans wouldnt budge so I guess they saw this as a last resort. Sometimes you gotta upset the apple cart to get your point accross. Would you have been up in arms about those damn colonists because they dumped good tea in the harbor? how rude and uncivil! if the king is in power he can jack up tarrifs on tea as much as he feels like. deal with it.

Again - I think I could predict the Democrats response if the Republicans would pull such a stunt. Plus - the media would be all over the Republicans for leaving! Remember that those Republican legislators were also elected by the voters of Texas. Since they Democrats were the minority party, they should bow to the will of the people and cooperate (sorry - the Republicans had to for years!). Pulling that stunt places the interests of their party over the interests of the state.

Boston Tea Party was a whole different thing. Those Democrats weren't being patriotic by any stretch... they were showing self-interest and party-interest... not Texas-interest.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
Remember that those Republican legislators were also elected by the voters of Texas. Since they Democrats were the minority party, they should bow to the will of the people and cooperate

cooperate? they were being told to shut up and let us rig the game. they had no role to play in that. they could vote if they wanted or they could just sit on their hands. it wouldnt have mattered to the repubs. and i have my doubts that all the "voters of texas" really want a long term guaranteed one party state. if i was a texan and a democrat i certainly wouldnt want my representative to simply "bow down" to the republicans and allow them to change the rules just because they have the muscle. im not a big fan of legal corruption nor of ANY politician who would ever "bow down" and be subservient to another when there is a legitimate beef involved.

Boston Tea Party was a whole different thing. Those Democrats weren't being patriotic by any stretch... they were showing self-interest and party-interest... not Texas-interest.

they were showing that the system is broken and rediculous. why do you keep defending it? do you think it works just fine as it is?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
cooperate? they were being told to shut up and let us rig the game. they had no role to play in that. they could vote if they wanted or they could just sit on their hands. it wouldnt have mattered to the repubs. and i have my doubts that all the "voters of texas" really want a long term guaranteed one party state. if i was a texan and a democrat i certainly wouldnt want my representative to simply "bow down" to the republicans and allow them to change the rules just because they have the muscle. im not a big fan of legal corruption nor of ANY politician who would ever "bow down" and be subservient to another when there is a legitimate beef involved.

they were showing that the system is broken and rediculous. why do you keep defending it? do you think it works just fine as it is?

I'm not expecting subservience... but like I said, those have been the rules, and the Democrats didn't mind making the Republicans play by them when they ran things. Bad system? You bet! I just don't see how we can make it much better. Somebody has to draw the map... and that person is going to have some interests - OR someone is going to offer him something that will get his interest real quick.

Meanwhile, I think the whole thing demonstrated the double standard the press has for the two parties. The Democrats are portrayed as heroic... but the Republicans would not be if they were playing that role (remember how the media jumped on the US congressional Republicans and backed Clinton when the Republicans tried the 'government shut-down' to force Clinton to reduce spending??). There's a real double-standard there. If a Republican senator like Trent Lott says some kind things about an old man who's retiring, who used to be a segregationist, he's excorciated - and it quickly becomes only a matter of when he's out of office. If a Democratic senator like Hillary Clinton says that Muhatma Ghandi runs a gas station in East St. Louis, everyone gives her a free pass - and it's written off as just being human and saying something stupid. I don't have a problem with the latter reasoning, but lets apply it consistently. Same thing with the Texas government.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
...Boston Tea Party was a whole different thing. Those Democrats weren't being patriotic by any stretch... they were showing self-interest and party-interest... not Texas-interest.

You think it was self-interest to divide up Austin and make me vote with people all the way to the Mexican border? I have different needs than they do. How are my interests going to be served in this way?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You think it was self-interest to divide up Austin and make me vote with people all the way to the Mexican border? I have different needs than they do. How are my interests going to be served in this way?

Well then Texas should demand a change in the way the redistricting will occur. No one is ever happy with redistricting. Think about how the polititicians feel when all of a sudden - they lose their seat simply because their state has lost a representative.

By estimates this year - NJ has dropped to the 10th most populated state - Georgia took our place as number 9. This is the first time in NJ history where we have moved out of single digits. If we don't get the number 9 spot back by 2010 - we will lose a representative most likely.

[Valandil]

OK... for my part I promise to refrain from further posts in this thread having to do with other than President Bush's State of the Union Address and issues closely related thereto.

Scout's Honor!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
OK... for my part I promise to refrain from further posts in this thread having to do with other than President Bush's State of the Union Address and issues closely related thereto.

Scout's Honor!

Now let's see how long that lasts.

Did you ever get yoru avatar?

[jerseydevil]

This was brought up in the democratic debate thread.

It seems as if Bush will make clear his views against gay marriages and unions. I had forgotten - Clinton had also come out and said that this was reserved for men and women.

Washington is under tight security of course - because the full house, senate and executive branch are all under one roof. There is always one government official (cabinet member)- who is NOT at Capitol Hill in case something terrible does happen. We need our government to continue on some how. But I seriously doubt ONE person would be able to handle the problems that would arise if something happened and the executive and legislative branch destroyed at one time.

[jerseydevil]

Just to answer a question here. CNN said that this is the 71st time that the president has delivered the State of the Union Address as a speech to Congress. Also, this is the 215th State of the Union Address.

I'll be watching this on ABC though - just flipped to CNN to get some information ahead of time.

One of the First Lady's guest is the President of Iraqi Governing Council. He was in NY with Bremer to discuss the Iraqi elections with Koffi Annan at the UN.

There are 2 Senators and 2 Representatives at undisclosed locations - for protection - in case anything happens while the two branches of government are under one roof.

[sun-star]

Apologies for going back a few pages...

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is filtering it - because they take things out of context or only show you one thing but not another. Filtering is anything they don't show in it's entirety.

Depends who's doing the filtering. One man's sensible editing is another man's media manipulation. News programmes are limited for time, and focus on news which has more to do with their viewers. I don't suppose many people would watch if they did show the whole thing - it is, after all, of little interest to foreigners. I can't imagine many people outside Britain watching the Queen's Speech

[brownjenkins]

The Barbarians was great!

i prefer tv with some basis in reality... not a political pep-rally... though i did find it amusing when i heard this morning about the applause gwb got when he mentioned that parts of the patriot act would be expiring next year... other than that it sounded like more of the usual no-tax and spend line... at least he dropped the axis of evil stuff

[azalea]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


By estimates this year - NJ has dropped to the 10th most populated state - Georgia took our place as number 9. This is the first time in NJ history where we have moved out of single digits. If we don't get the number 9 spot back by 2010 - we will lose a representative most likely.

That's because everyone in NJ moved down to GA -- y'all need to get some better weather up there!

What did GWB say when a lot of people started clapping when he said "the emergency powers are set to expire next year?" I accidentally hit the channel button at that moment, and when I got it turned back, people were chuckling and he went on w/ the speech ("we have to pass it, yada yada").

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
Depends who's doing the filtering. One man's sensible editing is another man's media manipulation. News programmes are limited for time, and focus on news which has more to do with their viewers. I don't suppose many people would watch if they did show the whole thing - it is, after all, of little interest to foreigners. I can't imagine many people outside Britain watching the Queen's Speech

Well the reason I was wondering how much of the speech do they show in other countries is because of the amount of times that people from other counrties on this board have acted like they should have a say in who our president is or have a say in whtat our couintry does. Go back tio the thread from six months to a year ago for examples of how many people act and the things peopla said in these regards, I would think that if people felt that we had such an influence on your way of life - that they would be showing the State of the Union Address speech in it entirety.

As for us watching the Queen's speech - we don't act like your PM or Queen has anything to do with our country - like many people out side the US act toward our president.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
The Barbarians was great!

i prefer tv with some basis in reality... not a political pep-rally...

Too bad it's not a pep rally. For one things - it lays out his ideas for the year. The clapping and so forth tell you how easy or hard it will be for him to get things passed or where compromises will be made. But then again - you have to listen to the WHOLE thing to get to see that. You can't just get snippets and sound bites.

though i did find it amusing when i heard this morning about the applause gwb got when he mentioned that parts of the patriot act would be expiring next year...

Yeah - from the from extreme liberals - there was scattered clapping. I don't agree with all of the Patriot Act andI don't like the name - but the majority of it is good and important to be able to fight terrorism. People around the country seem to forget 9/11 WAY too easily.

other than that it sounded like more of the usual no-tax and spend line...

We shouldn't have more taxes. One of the main reasons for the deficit has to do with the economic downturn, 9/11 and it's aftermath of having to spend billions on security, etc. People like to say that Bush just spent spent spent - but we had a choice - either not increase our security or risk another attack.

at least he dropped the axis of evil stuff

I feel he had a point in calling those countries part of the axis of evil. You disagree with them being called that? Reagan called the Soviet Union - the Evil Empire - people were outraged by that too. I agreed ith all the countries he put on notice - except maybe Iran, but the hardliners there have just banned thousands of reformist candidates from running, it is felt by the world community that they are attempting to get nuclear weapons, etc. Sometimes you have to use harsh words.

[brownjenkins]

i'm not talking about 9/11 spending... though that has it's own problems

read this article:

discretionary spending

gwb and the republican congress have been pushing through spending bills at a historically unprecented rate for the past few years... some security oriented, some corporate welfare, some even general welfare, to help buy votes for the upcoming elections (read some conservative websites if you don't believe me on this)

he's the most fiscally irresponisible president we've had, maybe in history... even many in his own party realize this

i'm mostly in the middle on politics... free markets, free elections, freedom of speech... whichever party is closer on these ideas is the one i vote for... gwb seems to oppose all three

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well the reason I was wondering how much of the speech do they show in other countries is because of the amount of times that people from other counrties on this board have acted like they should have a say in who our president is or have a say in whtat our couintry does. Go back tio the thread from six months to a year ago for examples of how many people act and the things peopla said in these regards, I would think that if people felt that we had such an influence on your way of life - that they would be showing the State of the Union Address speech in it entirety.

I've read all those threads. You have a strong argument that I actually partially agree with - you don't need to reduce everything to international arguments all the time. I was just saying that editing a speech is not the same as censoring it.

As for us watching the Queen's speech - we don't act like your PM or Queen has anything to do with our country - like many people out side the US act toward our president.

Americans have plenty of opinions on what other countries should do. (That's meant to be a compliment by the way ) They often comment on what the next steps of the EU should be, for example.

By the way, the Queen's Speech is little to do with the Queen

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
discretionary spending

gwb and the republican congress have been pushing through spending bills at a historically unprecented rate for the past few years... some security oriented, some corporate welfare, some even general welfare, to help buy votes for the upcoming elections (read some conservative websites if you don't believe me on this)

I know spending has increased. it's funny how with him it's "buying votes" but if it was a democrat it would be perfectly acceptable.

he's the most fiscally irresponisible president we've had, maybe in history... even many in his own party realize this

He's not the most fiscally irresponsible president. Liberals said that about Reagan too. Except for a TINY recession under the first George Bush - Clinton inherited Reagan's economy.

i'm mostly in the middle on politics... free markets, free elections, freedom of speech... whichever party is closer on these ideas is the one i vote for... gwb seems to oppose all three

Where is he against free elections? No where has he infringed on freedom of speech. Free Markets are still going strong - where are they not?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
I've read all those threads. You have a strong argument that I actually partially agree with - you don't need to reduce everything to international arguments all the time. I was just saying that editing a speech is not the same as censoring it.

I didn't say it was - but when it is filtered in a particular way - it is. I found this to be definelty the case when it comes to the French news. I don't know what the rest of Europe is like right now - but I have seen similar tactics done on the BBC also.

And I'm not reducing this down to na international argument - I'm just stating things I have observed on this board and other places.

Americans have plenty of opinions on what other countries should do. (That's meant to be a compliment by the way ) They often comment on what the next steps of the EU should be, for example.

yes - we do sometimes. We were outraged and very nervous when Le Pen was "nearly" voted in. We don't criticize your internal affairs as much - although I have started to now - because I have seen how much the outside world likes to criticize us.

For example - I don't personally care if France made boys wear dresses to school - but because of their hypocracy - I am outraged by their "secularity in schools" law that bars students from wearing conspicuous religious items. I found it very interesting when on French news they mocked us as having no understanding of them - and therefore could not make a statement regarding this law. They however make plenty of statements about us, yet it seems very few Europeans understand us or our government. And contrary to popular opinion - Europeans seem just as disinterested in learning about us as they think we are disinteresed in learning about them. I'm not saying all Europeans are like this of course - just like not all Americans are. But I don't see much of a difference in the ignorance between Europeans and Americans.

By the way, the Queen's Speech is little to do with the Queen

I know it doesn't - and I have watched her speech before in Parliament.