JT: State of the Union
- Thread starter newbie_0
- Start date
There is a lot of ways to interpret what Titor meant that the next president tried to be the next Lincoln.
One interpretation goes like this.
Titor was on the side of the "country" in the "city" versus "country" civil war.
So Titor would be more supportive of "red" politicians than "blue" politicians. After whatever "event" happens that starts the civil war (Ka-BOOM is what I think) the next president (GWB) tries to keep the country together, as viewed from someone supportive of "red" politicians.
He later says the next president was only interested in his/her power base. I interpret that to mean that the next president after GWB is democrat and maybe a woman, maybe Clinton.
One interpretation goes like this.
Titor was on the side of the "country" in the "city" versus "country" civil war.
So Titor would be more supportive of "red" politicians than "blue" politicians. After whatever "event" happens that starts the civil war (Ka-BOOM is what I think) the next president (GWB) tries to keep the country together, as viewed from someone supportive of "red" politicians.
He later says the next president was only interested in his/her power base. I interpret that to mean that the next president after GWB is democrat and maybe a woman, maybe Clinton.
Cryomaniac
Chrono Cadet
Yeah, I'll be interested to hear what Bush says, but what would he have to say to make him sound like he's "trying to be the next Lincoln"?
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Uh, now which State of The Union Address were YOU watching, and what nationality are you? Might tend to shade your view of this speech, I'd say. I saw several themes in his speech of both bringing-together and holding-together. I could point a few out for you, if you like. But that doesn't mean I believe the Titor story.
So I assume you are Canadian? There are probably some other laws we can find that are different. My personal feeling is it is wrong to try to pass any constitutional amendment that would restrict a personal choice freedom. I am confident that no such amendment worded in that way (as specifically denying marriage status to a group) would ever pass either Congress, and would certainly not be ratified by the States.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Well I would suggest that this is because you were only looking for the things in his speech that would reinforce the fact that you don't like George Bush.
I can point out plenty of quotes from Bush's SOTU address where he demonstrated how recent events in our world have resulted in an INTERNATIONAL "bringing together" of people who love freedom and democracy. In fact, just look at the facts behind one of his opening remarks:
"As a new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of government share a great privilege: we have been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq."
I can continue to quote, but what's the point? You obviously only want to see the "bad" in Bush, and don't seem willing to even admit that some of the things he has done have been good, at least for the American people. I can honestly say that I have never had any kind of deep-seated, seething hatred for ANY President of my country since I have been alive. The fact that I may not have liked something that some Presidents have done, does not make us anywhere close to an "Evil Empire".
You know what? I didn't really like Clinton all that much when he was in office, but I didn't always go ACTIVELY looking for reasons to hate him. He was our Prez, and he pretty much did his job. The extremists on both the left and the right always want to demonize a sitting Prez who is from the other side. The success of the USA is that progressive, CENTRIST thinkers understand that the concept of our US Presidency rises above the level of extremist party policies.
George Bush and his administration may not be perfect, but neither was Clinton, nor Bush Sr., nor even the highly venerated Ronald Reagan. I think the blooming democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly even a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians may very well solidify Bush's legacy for the GOOD he has done in the world. And those who only seek to trash Bush will just get that much more upset at him, and hate him even more when history shows the results of the good things he has done.
We don't elect "evil" Presidents here in the US, no matter how much people in other countries want to tell us that we do.
RMT
see rainman u the problem about everything u say is that... u seem to think ur talking for all of america... as far as i know half of us just about are thinking the opposite on just about everything u said. Now i will say that the state of the union was teh best by bush thus far, and that it sounded the most resonable. But their were still many many things that was disturbing... for 1 fact the social security stuff is utter bs. take your 1/3 of your money outta of your taxes to start a privatized account... then when u hit reitrement the gov't takes back all ur money and hands little bit's to u while taking some out too at the same time. their is no diff besides the fact that we'll end up getting less money and that we will be paying the gov't more.