Presidential Address
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:17 amDid anyone other than me watch the Presidential Adress to congress? THere was a bit of interesting stuff in there...
Illuminati-R-Us
A Cozy Living Room of an Internet Board
http://illuminati-r-us.com/forums/
Presidential Address
Page 1 of 3
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:17 amPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:33 amNope, what was interesting? I would like to know...
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:32 amI thought the presidents' address was 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? :wink:
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 2:18 amYou're right, as is your right.
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 8:07 pmWell, it was mainly focused on trying to get congress to create and pass new immigration laws. The ideas were outrageous! Bush wants to send the National Guard in addition to 5,000 more border patrol officers to watch the Mexico-US border. He wants to install video cameras, Infared cameras, new watch towers, and a bunch of other stuff on the Mexico-US border.
He also talked about the illegal immigrants that are currently in the US. He said that they must pay a fine, and then after passing some sort of test, they can stay in the country and do work chosen by the gov't, BUT they still won't be legal US citizens! Then must go back to their country. So basically he's saying as long as illegal immigrants pay us some money, they can stay here.
Then Bush decided to tell some stary about how this illegal mexican immigrant was in the army for 22 years, went to Iraq, and The guy asked Bush if he could become a legal citizen, Bush told the guy he could!!!!! WTF! Yes, after all this new, more secure immigrantion policy ideas, he goes and contradicts himself with a story about an illegal immigrant, that somehow forged papers to get into the army, was allowed to be an american citizen! Bush is stupid....
He said some other stuff, but the above where the main points and ideas of the Presidential Address to Congress.
He also talked about the illegal immigrants that are currently in the US. He said that they must pay a fine, and then after passing some sort of test, they can stay in the country and do work chosen by the gov't, BUT they still won't be legal US citizens! Then must go back to their country. So basically he's saying as long as illegal immigrants pay us some money, they can stay here.
Then Bush decided to tell some stary about how this illegal mexican immigrant was in the army for 22 years, went to Iraq, and The guy asked Bush if he could become a legal citizen, Bush told the guy he could!!!!! WTF! Yes, after all this new, more secure immigrantion policy ideas, he goes and contradicts himself with a story about an illegal immigrant, that somehow forged papers to get into the army, was allowed to be an american citizen! Bush is stupid....
He said some other stuff, but the above where the main points and ideas of the Presidential Address to Congress.
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 9:28 pmWell for one, the Canadian border is MUCH more dangerous then the Mexico border, but as to your assumptions about not doing anything is incorrect, something has to be done.
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:27 pmI agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:14 pmSt. Jimmy wrote:I agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Ok then, lets hear your detailed proposal on defending out country.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:01 amDragon Star wrote:St. Jimmy wrote:I agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Ok then, lets hear your detailed proposal on defending out country.
Just put up big signs saying NO VACANCY
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:08 amDoe, John wrote:Dragon Star wrote:St. Jimmy wrote:I agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Ok then, lets hear your detailed proposal on defending out country.
Just put up big signs saying NO VACANCY
Yea, that will work. :wink:
Seriously, he thinks he is so much better then the president he needs to step up and prove it. Because he has no idea just how difficult it is to pull something like that off, and mostly wants to poke Bush with a stick instead of being rational.
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:59 amYou gotta admit, Jimmy's post makes a good point for the Prez being self contradictory. ;)
(I didn't actually see the address myself, except for a clip they showed on the news where Bush said something about "dudes and dudesses". :P )
(I didn't actually see the address myself, except for a clip they showed on the news where Bush said something about "dudes and dudesses". :P )
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:00 pmHe screwed up my sit-coms.
I recored "How I Met Your Mother", "Two and a Half Men" and "The New Adventures of Old Christine" which are on back to back after "The King of Queens", which I don't record. CBS pushed their entire schedule back, so I had the first half of something I couldn't care less about and missed the last half of something I did want.
ABC and NBC adjusted their schedules differently, so everything I record from those channels recorded fine.
I'm not sure if I blame President Bush or CBS more for this travisty, but I think it's easier to blame Bush. Everything else bad in the world is his fault already.
I recored "How I Met Your Mother", "Two and a Half Men" and "The New Adventures of Old Christine" which are on back to back after "The King of Queens", which I don't record. CBS pushed their entire schedule back, so I had the first half of something I couldn't care less about and missed the last half of something I did want.
ABC and NBC adjusted their schedules differently, so everything I record from those channels recorded fine.
I'm not sure if I blame President Bush or CBS more for this travisty, but I think it's easier to blame Bush. Everything else bad in the world is his fault already.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:40 amDragon Star wrote:Doe, John wrote:Dragon Star wrote:St. Jimmy wrote:I agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Ok then, lets hear your detailed proposal on defending out country.
Just put up big signs saying NO VACANCY
Seriously, he thinks he is so much better then the president he needs to step up and prove it. Because he has no idea just how difficult it is to pull something like that off, and mostly wants to poke Bush with a stick instead of being rational.
I don't think that i am better than the president, but I do think that he has some ideas that just piss me off.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:48 amSt. Jimmy wrote:Dragon Star wrote:Doe, John wrote:Dragon Star wrote:St. Jimmy wrote:I agree that something must be done to prtect our borders, but some of Bush's ideas on how to do this are kinda stupid.
Ok then, lets hear your detailed proposal on defending out country.
Just put up big signs saying NO VACANCY
Seriously, he thinks he is so much better then the president he needs to step up and prove it. Because he has no idea just how difficult it is to pull something like that off, and mostly wants to poke Bush with a stick instead of being rational.
I don't think that i am better than the president, but I do think that he has some ideas that just piss me off.
So you are saying that you have no other organized ideas for defending our country?
If you do, please share, I would love to hear them.
If not, don't criticize those that do.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:58 amIs it really unfair to criticize someone if you don't know how to do the job yourself? If there's a show on television full of lousy actors, one can change the channel. If there's an incompetent doctor or lawyer who is running a substandard practice, one can find another. So if the country's administration is saying or doing things that don't make sense, why should the people have to sit back and say nothing?
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 amNot at all...
But he goes as far as to make the claim that "Bush has terrible ideas" pertaining to defending America when he knows nothing involved with doing so, the time, the effort, the criticism, the money, the cause and effects.....instead he wants the easy way out to say that Bush is an idiot, and I just don't stand for that crap. He says Bush has bad ideas, I say prove it. What exactly is bad about it? And if you know so much about it what would you do differently? If you can't answer that then you don't need to be saying much of anything about the subject.
But he goes as far as to make the claim that "Bush has terrible ideas" pertaining to defending America when he knows nothing involved with doing so, the time, the effort, the criticism, the money, the cause and effects.....instead he wants the easy way out to say that Bush is an idiot, and I just don't stand for that crap. He says Bush has bad ideas, I say prove it. What exactly is bad about it? And if you know so much about it what would you do differently? If you can't answer that then you don't need to be saying much of anything about the subject.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:33 amThat is quite a high-falutin standard you've cooked up there. The bottom line is that you don't have to be a chef to know the meat loaf tastes bad. Nor do you need to have alternative recipes for meatloaf. If I think attacking Iraq was a bad idea, it is not incumbent upon me to come up with the alternative plan. Let's hear what alternative the president was given to chose from and see which ones we might have liked better.
If the Detroit Lions have a qyarterback who throws a lot of interceptions, fumbles the ball a lot, has poor scrambling ability, is often blind sided, etc. I don't have to be an NFL talent scout to say the team needs a better quarterback. I don't have to know who would be a better draft pick to say that, all I have to know is the one we have is not succeeding.
When we see a president who tells us our borders are crucial to our security, but he has hired only 210 of the 10,000 border patrol officers the congress told him to hire, I'd say that is a wrong choice. When he says, as he often does, that he supports the troops and that AMerica supports the troops, etc, and at the same time cuts veteran benefits, closes VA hospitals, imposes fees on soldiers and their families, and so on, I'd say he has made a bad choice. I could go on at great length. DO I know how to be president? No. But I can see that the way the current one is doing it is wrong.
This meatloaf in the WHite House tastes bad, and it strikes me as a bit arrogant to claim someone has to have a better recipe to complain of the taste. WHat's next? Perhaps no one should comment that he finds a woman beautiful unless he can define exactly why that is so. Or if she is not beautiful, then what exactly is wrong with her appearance. And no one should say they don't like a piece of music unless they can play it better themselves or at least define exactly how it needs to be changed to be good. Maybe you find Adam Sandler funny. Well, there is no excuse for that either. I don't like the look of the bew Cadillac CTS - a slab sided thing with creases instead of curves. DO I need to be an auto designer to say that? DO I have to have my own car design to say I don't like the CTS?
When you are a chef, you can tell someone how to improve their meatloaf. That is what an election campaign is all about. Until then, feel free to say you don't think the present meatloaf tastes good. Ultimately that is what voting is about.
If the Detroit Lions have a qyarterback who throws a lot of interceptions, fumbles the ball a lot, has poor scrambling ability, is often blind sided, etc. I don't have to be an NFL talent scout to say the team needs a better quarterback. I don't have to know who would be a better draft pick to say that, all I have to know is the one we have is not succeeding.
When we see a president who tells us our borders are crucial to our security, but he has hired only 210 of the 10,000 border patrol officers the congress told him to hire, I'd say that is a wrong choice. When he says, as he often does, that he supports the troops and that AMerica supports the troops, etc, and at the same time cuts veteran benefits, closes VA hospitals, imposes fees on soldiers and their families, and so on, I'd say he has made a bad choice. I could go on at great length. DO I know how to be president? No. But I can see that the way the current one is doing it is wrong.
This meatloaf in the WHite House tastes bad, and it strikes me as a bit arrogant to claim someone has to have a better recipe to complain of the taste. WHat's next? Perhaps no one should comment that he finds a woman beautiful unless he can define exactly why that is so. Or if she is not beautiful, then what exactly is wrong with her appearance. And no one should say they don't like a piece of music unless they can play it better themselves or at least define exactly how it needs to be changed to be good. Maybe you find Adam Sandler funny. Well, there is no excuse for that either. I don't like the look of the bew Cadillac CTS - a slab sided thing with creases instead of curves. DO I need to be an auto designer to say that? DO I have to have my own car design to say I don't like the CTS?
When you are a chef, you can tell someone how to improve their meatloaf. That is what an election campaign is all about. Until then, feel free to say you don't think the present meatloaf tastes good. Ultimately that is what voting is about.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:42 amSheesh your on a whole different topic man, we are talking about defending America and your going on about hating Bush.
If I don't know physics and you do, I have second grade math, and I tell you that you don't have a fucking clue what your talking about, when I am the one that doesn't have a clue, should I go about saying that? No.
And don't use analogies that don't work, the taste of food is the taste of food, it doesn't have anything else to it. At least use something that is at least as complicated.
If I don't know physics and you do, I have second grade math, and I tell you that you don't have a fucking clue what your talking about, when I am the one that doesn't have a clue, should I go about saying that? No.
And don't use analogies that don't work, the taste of food is the taste of food, it doesn't have anything else to it. At least use something that is at least as complicated.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:07 amDragon Star wrote:If I don't know physics and you do, I have second grade math, and I tell you that you don't have a fucking clue what your talking about, when I am the one that doesn't have a clue, should I go about saying that? No.
Would only be valid if Enzo does know physics.
Which hasn't been demonstrated.
In a democracy the freedom to criticise the government and
politicians is essential.
As is the freedom to criticise other people's criticisms.
It is however improper, if not impassible, and certainly very dangerous,
to exclude people from discussion a priori, on the basis that they
allegedly 'don't know what they're talking about'.
What's next, a college degree requirement for the right to vote?
Also, in the real world, government and politicians quite often do
not have a fucking clue.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:43 pmDragon Star wrote:Sheesh your on a whole different topic man, we are talking about defending America and your going on about hating Bush.
Actually, I think the current topic is "is it necessary to provide a better solution before having the right to criticize an existing one", and it is a topic you brought up.
If Bush presents a bad idea it is our right to call it as it is. There is no requirement that we have a better idea first.
Taking it to the extreme, if Bush proposed defending America by arming 14 year old ballerinas, it would be clear that is a bad idea. If I am required to have a better idea before commenting on that bad idea, fine. My "better" idea is simply "don't do that, it's stupid". The same applies here.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:00 pmLance wrote:Dragon Star wrote:Sheesh your on a whole different topic man, we are talking about defending America and your going on about hating Bush.
Actually, I think the current topic is "is it necessary to provide a better solution before having the right to criticize an existing one", and it is a topic you brought up.
If Bush presents a bad idea it is our right to call it as it is. There is no requirement that we have a better idea first.
Thats not what I meant at all people, I meant that if you don't understand the fist idea to begin with, then talking about it is useless. I only used the "give me an alternate idea" to prove to him he doesn't know what he is even talking about, and all of the problems, costs, supplies, exc...that is involved.
Using experience alone here is a very bad idea people, just because someone has made bad decisions before doesn't mean that every new idea is jank. Don't judge a book by it's cover just because...
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:04 pmHalcyon Dayz wrote:Dragon Star wrote:If I don't know physics and you do, I have second grade math, and I tell you that you don't have a fucking clue what your talking about, when I am the one that doesn't have a clue, should I go about saying that? No.
Would only be valid if Enzo does know physics.
Which hasn't been demonstrated..
WHAT??/1?! AM I BEING CRYPTIC HERE PEOPLE? I will say it again, I am talking to everyone that is reading, I never mentioned any names in the post above, and certainly not Enzo. I WAS USING AN ANALOGY...crypes.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:17 pmOkay, I get it now. Sorry.
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:21 pmLance wrote:Okay, I get it now. Sorry.
Your cool, you actually read the thread, so I have no beef with you. You just misunderstood me.
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:10 amI think the administration doesn't have a clue and Bush's televised address was in response to the hullabaloo re:immigrants, not some sudden realization that we have "easy" borders.
Regarding the border issue, it doesn't go far enough IMO and I sure as hell wouldn't have waited this long to do anything. It's what, 2006 and now we decide to send a token group of National Guardsmen and add some sections of barrier? Our northern/southern borders have been a joke for as long as I can remember and if our national leaders couldn't comprehend the potential ramifications of these two sieves pre-9/11, there is no excuse after that day. We need total coverage of both borders.. end of story. The Canadian border would be a particular pain in the ass but effective coverage of our borders is doable. First, you'd need a effective barrier (I'd prefer tiered fencing), electronic/aerial surveillance, and a rapid reaction force to respond to any infiltration attempt. This force would need to be large, yet mobile, have teeth, and should be one that is created solely for this kind of endeavor. Whether it's military or civilian I don't care as long as they were allowed to do their jobs.
Immigrants? Bring them on, but make them legal immigrants. If border-control was maintained, the people entering the country could be properly screened. It wouldn't be foolproof, but nothing ever is.
BTW, I can count off many things I would do differently if I was in the White House and am willing to bore y'all with them if the various subjects come up in other threads. :wink:
Regarding the border issue, it doesn't go far enough IMO and I sure as hell wouldn't have waited this long to do anything. It's what, 2006 and now we decide to send a token group of National Guardsmen and add some sections of barrier?
Our northern/southern borders have been a joke for as long as I can remember and if our national leaders couldn't comprehend the potential ramifications of these two sieves pre-9/11, there is no excuse after that day. We need total coverage of both borders.. end of story. The Canadian border would be a particular pain in the ass but effective coverage of our borders is doable. First, you'd need a effective barrier (I'd prefer tiered fencing), electronic/aerial surveillance, and a rapid reaction force to respond to any infiltration attempt. This force would need to be large, yet mobile, have teeth, and should be one that is created solely for this kind of endeavor. Whether it's military or civilian I don't care as long as they were allowed to do their jobs.
Immigrants? Bring them on, but make them legal immigrants. If border-control was maintained, the people entering the country could be properly screened. It wouldn't be foolproof, but nothing ever is.
BTW, I can count off many things I would do differently if I was in the White House and am willing to bore y'all with them if the various subjects come up in other threads. :wink: