← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Happy Hacker
Thread ID: 4725 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-01-31
2003-01-31 22:34 | User Profile
While listening to talk radio I've heard several people over the past few days exclaim something similiar to "I've never been so proud to be an American as I was when I was listening to Bush..."
There are three main catagories that Bush addressed:
1) Tax cuts. That's good news. But, unless there are spending cuts, the tax cuts are fraudulent. We'll be stuck with the bill for all the government spending, plus we are stuck paying massive amounts of interest to all those rich people who loan money to the government.
2) More spending and more and bigger government programs. What does it take to get a neocon to recognize that their leadership is for bigger government?
3) War with Iraq. Bush lied through his teeth here. He told about all the WMDs Saddam had and that there's no evidence any of it has been destroyed. Weapon's inspectors oversaw the destruction of a lot of it after the gulf war and the US has bombed suspected locations after the gulf war, as well. He lied about Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the current inspectors. And, the evidence he gave that Saddam was still trying to build WMDs was a lie as well, such as those aluminum tubs which experts say are not suitable for nuclear production but do have other legitimate uses. And, if Bush has all this evidence he hasn't revealed, why is he so desperate to score points with a few old and empty battlefield shells? Bush told the American people that Saddam has nearly 30,000 of these things.
I'm sure a lot, even most people, thought it was a great speech. These people are unthinking animals else they would clearly see such things as Bush has no interest in smaller government and that his evidence against Saddam is extremely small. Leftests, of course, will say it was a bad speech -- but that's only because Bush is a Republican and he didn't promise to promote abortion and homosexuality. Bush used powerful, colorful, and patriotic words but underneath the surface it was filth.
2003-02-01 15:02 | User Profile
Happy,
I suppose the reason that no one has posted anything on this is because most of us knew this would be a dog and pony show and weren`t surprised that it turned out so.
I can sum up my thought about Bush`s speech succinctly:
I heard the same stupid remarks that you did on the radio. One guy called in Hannity and pointed out all the nonsense in terms of faux conservatism spoken of that is well known to the members of this board.
Hannity seized upon his complaint about wasting $15 bil; among other things, on AIDS treatment in Africa and said "thats all? Thats not much of a complaint," ignoring everything else the guy said. It was a great speech for a lemming or a flag waving idiot.
2003-02-01 15:36 | User Profile
The President seems concerned with going to war, giving $$ to Africa and Israel, and continuing anti-white immigration policies in America.
Why would I want to watch him? I can't even look at his face w/o vomiting.
-Jay
2003-02-02 16:21 | User Profile
Concerning Bush's speech, this was posted by NMC-EXP over at Liberty Post and had me laughing my ass off:
The U.S. knows Iraq has the materials to make nuclear and biological weapons.....and we have the receipts to prove it.
2003-02-02 16:55 | User Profile
I'm surprised Boosh didn't mention "Black History Month" in his speech--or did he?? I don't like to watch him on televitz.
2003-02-02 17:15 | User Profile
**I don't like to watch him on televitz. **
A seldom-mentioned, more-prevalent-than-you'd-think truism.
People become nervous - even ill -watching speeches by Maximum Leaders they know they're smarter than. Even monkeys in zoos get restless during televised Bush addresses.
2003-02-02 17:52 | User Profile
I do not think Bush betrays the conservative movement by not calling for lower-spending. It is political suicide to call for lower-government spending during a bad economy. Likewise, his failure to call for a true end to affirmative action does not show real support for racial gerrymanding, but is just pure politics.
Bush's failure lies above all else in his un-willingness to address the issue of mass immigration. He loves those Mexican immigrants. Given that most Americans think immigration is way out control--and this is even more true of conservatives--it is on the issue of immigration that Bush is revealed as a radical whose ideology is designed to destroy the historical American nation.
Agreed, lower spending is what counts in the end, not lower taxes. If you spend the money, you are going to pay for it someway, either through taxes now, or higher interest rates and taxes later. But the GOP desire to cut taxes has some possibility of leading to smaller government down the line. Once taxes are cut massively, it might be more politically difficult to raise them than it is to cut spending.
2003-02-02 19:28 | User Profile
Even as Ronald Reagan's State of the Union was punctuated by blood-sacrifice spattered in the sky by machines of human invention -- pressing the envelope a little too hard for the Gipper -- so, this president's lying reversals:
"I say to the Iraqi people...." (as if they were his flock)
"Your enemy is not surrounding you" (remove "not" by Freud's rule: the unconscious recognizes no negatives)
"Your enemy is ruling you" (as if he, their enemy, knew who ruled)
"You will be liberated when he is removed from power"--
subtext: the coming assault is all for you.
This carefully (you can tell) crafted presidential SOTU item is so twisted, it brought a response from the Tarot God. Remember that one? IT's GOD, man. GOD! Don't you get it? Its an act of God rebuking Bush, just like He rebuked Reagan. That president lasted out two years or billowing hatred for his bumbling, crumbling, Hollywood produced national neglect ... leaving peoples's minds so progressively bam-buzzled, bum-fuddled, and historically unstuck, he got by with the entire Nicaraguan deal -- forever disgracing America by hiring mercenaries to kill their own people, and calling it liberty ... got by with the Savings & Loan plundering (Republicans will always find a way to destroy wealth in the name of saving it) ... got by ... but just barely....
Now the punctuation of this son of a son of Reagan is five American lives splattered in the sky, the never-to-be-silenced sound of boom - boom boom boom boom boom boom -- some said for 45 seconds --
"jay" on these boards posted up on another thread somewhere, substitute "America" for "Iraq" in the above carefully (you can tell) worded statement of Bush, to make the true meaning -- which he was trying to reverse, unconsciously -- emerge.
As for the "shared blood" of American/Indian/Israeli astranauts, inside the symbolic womb-surround of the space shuttle unable to make "re-entry" -- that was the rebuke this act of God punctuated.
2003-02-02 20:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Feb 2 2003, 08:55 I don't like to watch him on televitz.
Robbie, your line reminds of the the Peter Seller's movie "Being There".
Sellers plays Chance, a simple-minded gardener who rises to the presidency because people mistake his inane truisms for genius. Chance is addicted to television and when befuddled by a question he sometimes simply answers "I like to watch television".
Before the Y2K elections, the official World Series magazine asked Gore and Bush some questions about baseball including, "What do you think of domed stadiums?" Gore gave a rather detailed answer about the construction of stadiums, referenced specific stadiums and so on.
Bush's complete answer was: "I like to go to baseball games outdoors."
Whenever I see Bush on TV I feel like I'm watching Chance the Gardener live.
2003-02-02 22:48 | User Profile
While not directly related to the State of the Union, I think that the mere fact that one man's speech should be of such importance to 250 million people is ammazing. It occured to me that most Americans do not think they live in a free country, or that most are irrational. My reasoning is this. Most Americans think that the President should be held responsible for the economy. Their main criteria for judging a president is the economy. How can a rational person hold someone responsible for something if they have little to no control over the matter? They cant. If a sole man is to be held responsible for the state of our economy then we do not live in a free economy. That is not to say that there is no freedom within our economy. But if its success or failure can be so closely linked to a man then he must have control. I'm sure that Stalin was held responsible for the Soviet economy. And with good reason. But did the founders of this country hold G. Washington responsible for their economy? I cant imagine that they did.
Although I think the first option has plenty of merit, I would not discount the second, that most Americans are irrational. We are witnessing increasing occassions where people are held responsible for things that are entirely out of their control. The courts are full of lawsuits which suggest that American's blame everyone but themselves for what happens to them. As DC's negro mayor Marion Barey once said 'Ive had a lot of bad decisions happen to me lately.'
Most Americans do not think we have a free country despite their frequent claims to the contrary, or they are crazy. Either way I'm not too enthusiastic about our future.
2003-02-03 02:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by amundsen@Feb 2 2003, 17:48 ** While not directly related to the State of the Union, I think that the mere fact that one man's speech should be of such importance to 250 million people is ammazing. It occured to me that most Americans do not think they live in a free country, or that most are irrational. My reasoning is this. Most Americans think that the President should be held responsible for the economy. Their main criteria for judging a president is the economy. How can a rational person hold someone responsible for something if they have little to no control over the matter? They cant. If a sole man is to be held responsible for the state of our economy then we do not live in a free economy. That is not to say that there is no freedom within our economy. But if its success or failure can be so closely linked to a man then he must have control. I'm sure that Stalin was held responsible for the Soviet economy. And with good reason. But did the founders of this country hold G. Washington responsible for their economy? I cant imagine that they did.
Although I think the first option has plenty of merit, I would not discount the second, that most Americans are irrational. We are witnessing increasing occassions where people are held responsible for things that are entirely out of their control. The courts are full of lawsuits which suggest that American's blame everyone but themselves for what happens to them. As DC's negro mayor Marion Barey once said 'Ive had a lot of bad decisions happen to me lately.'
Most Americans do not think we have a free country despite their frequent claims to the contrary, or they are crazy. Either way I'm not too enthusiastic about our future. **
Excellent post Amundsen. You know, also, that as soon as Bush was "selected" back in Dec 2000, the economy was all of the sudden tanking. Interesting, right. Just like that, Bush was doomed from the start, forever linked to bad economic mojo. I'm not too enthusiastic about the future either and I did find Shrub's SOTU speech to be completely empty of anything good.
2003-02-04 03:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Feb 2 2003, 21:59 ** You know, also, that as soon as Bush was "selected" back in Dec 2000, the economy was all of the sudden tanking. Interesting, right. Just like that, Bush was doomed from the start, forever linked to bad economic mojo. **
I remember in college a poli-sci course that discussed the problem of Republican presidencies which seemed always to bring about the end of good economic times. I'll have to see if I still have one of the books. As I recall the explanation was some sort of Keynesian nonsense about cutting back on the 'real' driver of our economy, state spending. Of course seeing as how Bush is spending like mad that argument would now seem rather baseless.
2003-02-04 04:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 3 2003, 22:57 ** Good Lord! Did he really say this, or is it a coinage from some anonymous wit? **
Well, I remember years ago when he got busted my father said he read that quote in the paper. I've tried to find it cited online, but have never been successful. Whether or not that is the actual quote, that is certainly a close paraphrasing.