Responses to the "State of the Union Speech 2005" Article
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005 article:
The big mystery is why is ANYONE OF SOUND MIND giving credence to ANYTHING that Bush says? He stole two elections to take the White House. Many people are aware if Al Gore were president (he did win the 2000 election) there would have been no 911 attacks! It has been proven many times over that the 911 attacks were an inside job. (SEE 911Truth.org)America would have continued on a prosperous path and hundreds of thousands would be alive that Bush has murdered. WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP?
--Elaine N. Ramey
Florida
Saturday March 5, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
Exactly! Young people, arm yourself with the facts. Don't let anyone undermine your freedom of choice. This is the United States of America.
--Irene K. Tron
Irene_t74@hotmail.com
Wednesday February 16, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
I think your views are right on the mark.
Our country is going downhill quickly and people dont seem to care. Anyone can talk the talk but when people see they're not walking the walk, why dont they wake up?
--Margie
Oklahoma
Thursday February 10, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
Generally speaking I am not politically active. I favored Bush over Kerry in the elections and that very well could have been because of the media. Basically I didn't trust Kerry because of his military background and his ultra-liberal dealings post Viet Nam.
My reason for writing is this; you mentioned the tsunami several times in this article. I have to say that while I agree it is a horrible tragedy that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died, since when did this become America's issue. For years we have been chided by the UN and EU for overstepping our boundaries in countries but the first time there is a disaster these same countries insist we help.
I have been to Sri Lanka and distinctly remember an anti-American feeling while there. There was a time in American History that the government was kept out of disaster relief, specifically denied from helping because common people felt to receive help would to be a subject to the Federal Government. Communities bound themselves together to make repairs and return lives to normal.
I say America has no Social Obligation to any country which cannot or does not help itself first. Bush could have left this from his speech intentionally because he feels, and I think rightly so, that we don't belong. Further he labored on Social Security for similiar reasons. It is time the American public stopped sucking on the teet of the Federal Government and took responsibility for their own actions, their own future and their own retirement.
--Daryn P. Bartlett
d.bartlett@charter.net
Friday February 4, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
Hanno,
Good, thoughtful, thorough analysis.
Allow me to suggest a minor correction to your last paragraph: The speech was about trying to create a lasting Republican majority, something comparable to the Democratic majorities that began with the New Deal. Attacking Social Security and praising America are a means to that end.
--Steve Shafarman
steve@CitizenPolicies.org
Friday February 4, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
Re absence of religious references in Bush's speech -- its's simple. He has a new speechwriter. The previous was "born-again." This one is a hard-line conservative, not a "compassionate" one. It's been in the papers. Knowing that would have made your commentary better -- would have resulted in your not adding comments that diminished your other quite good ones, with which I pretty much agree.
--Joe Burgess (aka The Green-Dog Democrat)
jwburgess@fewpb.net
The publisher replies:
Thanks for the news, but I think you may be overestimating the role that any single speechwriter plays. Bush's speeches go through a lot of people before he is given the script. I don't think for one minute that a single person's preferred style would have such a big influence on the language used in the State of the Union speech unless the idea was discussed, reviewed and "strategized" over for quite a while.
Thursday February 3, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
"Why is it that running a $300 billion deficit is terrible in 2033, but running a $500 billion deficit in federal spending is perfectly all right for Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005?"
Thats a damn good question. The only possible answer is that the distant future 300 is spinning faster. Its a dizzying concept, but then thats the point.
--Nathaniel Foote
no@spam.com
Thursday February 3, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
Lets face it, who bankrupted Social Security? Congress and the President. Both are very similar to Enron. The National debt almost doubled under the first Bush and will do the same under this one. To be honest, Social Security won’t mean anything if the United States of America goes bankrupt. Bush was correct but he didn’t tell the whole truth. The United States, not Social Security is near bankruptcy. The last surplus we had was in 1960. Under the first Bush our Debt went from 2.5 trillion to 4.1 trillion. Under his son it went from 5.5 trillion to 8 trillion and still counting. Interest on the national debt is at 3 percent or about 250 billion per year. At the rate Bush is going the debt will reach 11 trillion before he is out of office. Someone should remind him that the United States is not Enron. Keep in mind it takes 2.2 trillion to run this country each year. If the debt reaches 11 trillion and inflation goes to 10 or 15 percent, how much of the taxes collected will go to pay just the interest? (unlike Bush these are numbers I can prove if you would like to see them). How would you like to wake up one day and find out that your whole paycheck only pays the interest on what you owe. Would this be a problem? Sure it would and that is exactly where the United States is heading.
So why is Bush doing this? I’m afraid Bush was elected on morality and not ability. Speaking of ability where is Osama? What about the WMD? Is the war on terror finished? I didn’t know the terrorists were all in Iraq. Why does Iraq need a democracy more than Cuba? Why don’t we help Colombia, S.A. get rid of their terrorists? After all Colombia is a democracy.
Most of my red-necked friends are pro-pro-pro Bush. If I say anything about him they tell me I should leave the country. I ask them if they would leave if Kerry got elected and they say I’m crazy.
Those same pro-pro Bushites also can’t understand why the Iraq people keep killing Americans. So I said just suppose:
Say Kerry won and he was a terrible President (they all agreed that would be the case). And suppose he gave jobs to all of his friends in big companies and let all of our jobs go over seas to India(they became angry and yelled hostilities at me). We had work but not much. Our freedoms were almost gone because Kerry enforced the Patriot Act and anybody saying something against him was arrested. They were but in jail for years with out contact or trials. That was because they were enemy combatants (Yeah, what a scumbag my friends echoed).
But we were lucky and the two biggest militaries in the world, France and China formed a coalition and saved America by invading, destroying our military and putting Kerry in prison. While they did this, they leveled Washington DC and killed 100,000 Americans but said it was okay that is just part of war and besides they were terrorists. At the same time all the banks were looted and museums destroyed.
China and France promised to give jobs to America but the gave a multi billion dollar contract to a France company that hired people from every country but America. They hired thousands from Mexico and Canada.
China and France promised stability but there were no jobs, electricity, food or water. Eventually after a year and a half they promised free elections. In South America they found former CEO’s from Global Crossing and Enron, who had avoided prosecution, called them saviors and put them up as candidates for President of the United States. Then the French and Chinese military filled all the cities of the United States. Wearing their finest military gear and weapons they passed out fliers telling Americans of the coming democratic elections—
That was when one of my red-necked friends interrupted and snarled, “I’d kill ‘em.”
Imagine that.
--Joe Barfield
joebarfield@gmail.com
Thursday February 3, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
I have one footnote to Hanno's superb analysis. Bush proposed immigration reform, to allow temporary workers into the country to do jobs that "Americans will not take". That is one of the only true things he has ever said, and it indicates an astoundingly callous view of basic human rights. As he "stands" with those fighting for their "liberty", he'd do well to remember those transitory workers right here in the USA, for whom basic rights are ambiguous at best. (And his Republican base opposes the idea, thinking he's beeing too "compassionate"!) Bah.
--Lindy Davies
lindy@henrygeorge.org
Thursday February 3, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech 2005
article:
This American's agenda begins with alternative/renewable energy as THE critical issue that must be advanced over all others.
A conversion away from oil will give us an option to avoid foreign wars.
The "problems" supposedly besetting our Social Security program do not even belong on the same page with energy. Energy is the hub. All the other things are spokes in the wheel that America "rolls" on.
I did not watch the speech. I am already
down with a stomach virus.
--Warren Faulk
PersimmonXing@aol.com
The publisher replies:
Bush did mention energy in his speech, but his view is the opposite of yours and mine. As his administration has done in the past, Bush repeated some good phrases such as "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" while pushing only one policy idea -- the same corrupt, oil-based, corporate-welfare filled energy bill that didn't even pass in the Republican-controlled Congress last year. (It's hypocrisy, of course, but the mainstream wimpmedia don't report that.)
Once again it seems to be the Republican panacea -- no matter what the problem, let's just give more and more taxpayer dollars to big corporations. This time it's the big oil corporations.
Instead of looking to the future, Bush is clinging to the past and thinks that he can avoid a modern energy policy just by shoveling more money to his campaign contributors. And, so far, that has worked well for him and badly for America.
Thursday February 3, 2005
Concerning the State of the Union Speech Leaves Truth Behind
article:
Ah, thank you so much. Living in the UK, one does not get a favorable view of our American neighbors. Thank you for being a voice of wisdom in these turbulent times.
--Robert Langhley
crankj92@yahoo.co.uk
What's your opinion? Tell your views to The Progress Report:
| Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
