Let's talk about the State of the Union

[Shake]

Here's a transcript of the President's speech last night.

He gets off to a great start:

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all.
(emphasis mine)

Unless you're a homosexual, of course.

... we must be good stewards of this economy ...

Losing jobs, turning a surplus into a deficit, and running record trade deficits ... yeah, good job, W.

I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation ...

'Cause there's no way we'd actually decrease spending!

...the No Child Left Behind Act

Oh, boy. Here we go again!

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy.

Says the man who wants to drill in the arctic preserves.

We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take,...

Yeah, let's send more money out of the country! I know the issue isn't that simple, but I think if people don't want to be deported, they ought to seek legal ways to enter the country.

It's interesting that the following is all he said about marriage:

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Values ... right. Like the value of discriminating against someone on the basis of who they're attracted to. Forget about the idea of love, since certain folks' choice of who to love prevents them from being with those people at the times of their greatest needs.

I'll say it again, an "activist judge" is someone who rules in opposition to your beliefs. You don't hear -- except among certain small circles -- Roy Moore being called an activist judge, even though that's what he was being when he decided he was above the law.

Mr. President, if you were really looking to protect the "institution of marriage", you wouldn't be harassing committed couples who would stay together for the right reasons. A child who has a set of loving, supportive parents -- no matter what gender -- will be better off in life than one coming from a broken, dysfunctional home. (This in no way is meant to imply that children can't overcome such obstacles and become well-adjusted adults. But the odds are stacked against them if they are not raised with love and support).

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.

But you're still going to push for that amendment, aren't you?

The al Qaeda terror network that attacked our country still has leaders -- but many of its top commanders have been removed.

We'd probably have gotten more of them had forces not been diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, but we don't need to mention that.

The volunteers of our military are unrelenting in battle, unwavering in loyalty, unmatched in honor and decency, and every day they're making our nation more secure.

I agree with this, and I salute the job that our troops are doing, even if they shouldn't really be there. That's not their fault. They were sent there to do a job and I believe they're doing it to the best of their ability.

I didn't touch on the Social Security issue, because that could be a whole thread of its own -- one that I'm not going to start.

As some reporters said, the SotU is about big ideas, not details. Also, for as much as I took issue with some parts, others weren't that bad. Anyone else watch it? Have comments?

[Dingfod]

Didn't watch it, ain't gonna read it. Pure propaganda and pandering, that's all the State of the Union address is, ever. There are no details because, well, most likely because there are no details.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Didn't watch it, ain't gonna read it. Pure propaganda and pandering, that's all the State of the Union address is, ever. There are no details because, well, most likely because there are no details.

I'm with Warren on this. It's pablum for the public.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

I watched it and it was the first speech of GWB's I've seen. It was as substanceless and uneventful as I expected.

[Shake]

The SotU is rarely full of much substance. The page I got the transcript from, has others going back to the Truman administration. Now, I haven't read any of them, but most of those that I have heard over the last few years would support my opening sentence of this post.

I could see why one might start to watch it and then turn away later, but I won't understand why one would flatly refuse to even begin to watch/listen to it. If you never listen to SotU's regardless of who's giving it, I can understand. I'm no political analyst, but I've learned a lot over the past few years. So while I might disagree with much of what he said, I still got something out of watching it.

OK, so anyone with any interesting comments?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Shake

I could see why one might start to watch it and then turn away later, but I won't understand why one would flatly refuse to even begin to watch/listen to it. If you never listen to SotU's regardless of who's giving it, I can understand. I'm no political analyst, but I've learned a lot over the past few years. So while I might disagree with much of what he said, I still got something out of watching it.

OK, so anyone with any interesting comments?

Sorry, Shake, no interesting comments. I didn't watch it. I've found from experience that watching Bushette induces a spike in my blood pressure and nausea. If I watch too long, it induces emesis.

It's bad for my health.

godfry

[Dingfod]

I never intentionally watch the SotU address. There was a time, way back when I could only get three or less channels on television, that I would be forced to watch it, but I'd always cry out like Jeff Foxworthy, "The President is on teevee and he's on all the channels. Waaaaaah!"