Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Democratic response to State of the Union

  1. #1

    Democratic response to State of the Union

    Wow, that guy just seems like a bitter jack-ass

  2. #2
    :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    Lot of whining and not a lot of real solutions, that's not surprising. He also alluded to the theory that the "majority" of the military is NOT behind their President, and that a swift recall of troops is in order. What a counter-productive waste of time that speech was.

  4. #4
    Are you kidding me? What powerful stuff from a true man of substance. Do you guys remember he was in Ronald Reagan's cabinet? Bitter? Jackass? You guys are so out of the main stream of this country. This guy totally nailed it.

    Brilliant move by the Dems putting him up to give the reply.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Are you kidding me? What powerful stuff from a true man of substance. Do you guys remember he was in Ronald Reagan's cabinet? Bitter? Jackass? You guys are so out of the main stream of this country. This guy totally nailed it.

    Brilliant move by the Dems putting him up to give the reply.[/QUOTE]


    You say he was powerful, I thought his emotions clouded his message. I wouldn't say bitter, but he seemed to come off as slightly angry.

    How do you think he nailed it? I don't think he introduced anything new, and if anything he seemed to assume that the armed forces do not trust their Commander-in-Chief. Yet, he offered no reason to support this assertion.

    He relied too much on his own family's military history and I don't think he was convincing enough.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=pauliec]You say he was powerful, I thought his emotions clouded his message. I wouldn't say bitter, but he seemed to come off as slightly angry.

    How do you think he nailed it? I don't think he introduced anything new, and if anything he seemed to assume that the armed forces do not trust their Commander-in-Chief. Yet, he offered no reason to support this assertion.

    He relied too much on his own family's military history and I don't think he was convincing enough.[/QUOTE]
    He was saying that this President recklessly took us to war and that this was not the right battle in the War on Terrorism and it was wrong to put our soldiers live's in jeopardy in this manner. How do you say that kindly? These are tough and powerful words and all very true. They were very forcefully delivered. Slightly angry? Of course saying that is not powder puff stuff.

    And yes our armed forces do not trust the Commander in Chief. How many retired Generals have to come out and say that? He listed all the military people against the Presidents operation of this war.

    He was telling it like it is and that's why he nailed the speech. Polls don't tell a whole story but I would bet you anything that the polling on the response will have a much highter positive rating then the President's speech.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 01-24-2007 at 10:33 AM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]He was saying that this President recklessly took us to war and that this was not the right battle in the War on Terrorism and it was wrong to put our soldiers live's in vein in this manner. How do you say that kindly? These are tough and powerful words and all very true. They were very forcefully delivered. Slightly angry? Of course saying that is not powder puff stuff.

    And yes our armed forces do not trust the Commander in Chief. How many retired Generals have to come out and say that? He listed all the military people against the Presidents operation of this war.

    He was telling it like it is and that's why he nailed the speech. Polls don't tell a whole story but I would bet you anything that the polling on the response will have a much highter positive rating then the President's speech.[/QUOTE]


    I would be interested to see some polls tomorrow. As Warner Wolf would say, "Let's go to the videotape."

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    This is the same jerk that snubbed the President at a White House event, wouldn't shake his hand. Also refused to respond when Bush asked him about his son in Iraq.

  9. #9
    I only caught the end tonight, the Dem Speech. Seemed like alot of the same partisan "Boy, Doesn't Bush Suck, We Should Oppose Anything He Does" stuff we've come to expect. He didn't exactly make me proud to be a Virginian.

    With that said, I read soem saying ol' GWB "nailed" the SotU......and while I admit I didn't see it, I cannot imagine he nailed much of anything at this late stage of the game. He is an embarassingly bad public speaker.........but as I said, I missed the SotU, so you tell me, eh.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I only caught the end tonight, the Dem Speech. Seemed like alot of the same partisan "Boy, Doesn't Bush Suck, We Should Oppose Anything He Does" stuff we've come to expect. He didn't exactly make me proud to be a Virginian.

    With that said, I read soem saying ol' GWB "nailed" the SotU......and while I admit I didn't see it, I cannot imagine he nailed much of anything at this late stage of the game. He is an embarassingly bad public speaker.........but as I said, I missed the SotU, so you tell me, eh.[/QUOTE]


    He is an embarrassingly bad public speaker, and tonight he was in his prime. He was relaxed, cool, and confident. It was a sight to see.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,818
    [QUOTE=pauliec]I would be interested to see some polls tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/09/03/PH2005090301066.jpg[/IMG]

    [B]Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): [/B] get a ruler and measure it for me
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 01-24-2007 at 12:12 AM.

  12. #12
    His family has fought in wars for three generations, he was the Sec. of the Navy and his emotions are clouding his message? His son has already did a tour in Iraq and is waiting to go back.
    He is dealing with it better than most people would in his position. His speech started off slow and then he let everyone hear it loud and clear. The war is not getting any better and enough is enough.

    Man, I can't stand listening to Hillary.


    [QUOTE=pauliec]You say he was powerful, I thought his emotions clouded his message. I wouldn't say bitter, but he seemed to come off as slightly angry.

    How do you think he nailed it? I don't think he introduced anything new, and if anything he seemed to assume that the armed forces do not trust their Commander-in-Chief. Yet, he offered no reason to support this assertion.

    He relied too much on his own family's military history and I don't think he was convincing enough.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Are you kidding me? What powerful stuff from a true man of substance. Do you guys remember he was in Ronald Reagan's cabinet? Bitter? Jackass? You guys are so out of the main stream of this country. This guy totally nailed it.

    Brilliant move by the Dems putting him up to give the reply.[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely. He set out the differences between the democrats and republicans, and made his case.

    Truth is, I think they have a better case on domestic policy than foreign policy, but that doesn't mean its an unreasoned position.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I only caught the end tonight, the Dem Speech. Seemed like alot of the same partisan "Boy, Doesn't Bush Suck, We Should Oppose Anything He Does" stuff we've come to expect. He didn't exactly make me proud to be a Virginian.

    With that said, [b]I read soem saying ol' GWB "nailed" the SotU[/b]......and while I admit I didn't see it, I cannot imagine he nailed much of anything at this late stage of the game. He is an embarassingly bad public speaker.........but as I said, I missed the SotU, so you tell me, eh.[/QUOTE]

    That was me. Oddly enough, the democrats winning in November made Bush's speech much better. without a party-line majority to rely on, Bush, for the first time, delivered a measured, mostly realistic assessment. He didn't sugarcoat the measure of progress in Iraq, was blunt in saying "this wasn't the fight we decided to enter, but it is the fight we're in", and made a logical, powerful presentation of the reasons why redeployment out of Iraq is untenable as a matter of policy. On the domestic agenda, he pulled some Democratic proposals out from under them (suggesting health care reform by tax cuts to allow purchase of private medical insurance rather
    than via a government program, for example) without seeming to be overly partisan.

    The sad part is, if he had this attitude four years ago, we'd likely be in a much better situation both domestically and internationally. As it is, claiming a mandate to govern a narrowly divided country by party discipline and slim majorities may make this "lets cross the aisle" appeal too little too late. Unfortunately, the democrats (and their supporters, like Jetdawgg on this board) appear grimly committed to making the same mistake.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,818
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]...if he had this attitude four years ago, we'd likely be in a much better situation both domestically and internationally. As it is, claiming a mandate to govern a narrowly divided country by party discipline and slim majorities may make this "lets cross the aisle" appeal too little too late. Unfortunately, the democrats (and their supporters, like Jetdawgg on this board) appear grimly committed to making the same mistake.[/QUOTE]


    I agree w/ you 100%, Doggin. I always felt that Bush's political handlers pushed the partisan envelope a little bit too much, and that if he had just done a little bit more to include the then minority party, he might of been able to shave off a few voters and "unite" instead of "divide". And of course the Dems are gonna try to do the same thing now. The saw that "Rovian" version of political wedge issues and subterfuge works great in this day and age. Unfortunately for them, Rove is a political genius...and I have yet to see anybody on their side who would be able to pull it off. Amateurs....

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan][IMG]http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/09/03/PH2005090301066.jpg[/IMG]

    [B]Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): [/B] get a ruler and measure it for me[/QUOTE]
    lol!

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Absolutely. He set out the differences between the democrats and republicans, and made his case.

    [B]Truth is, I think they have a better case on domestic policy[/B] than foreign policy, but that doesn't mean its an unreasoned position.[/QUOTE]


    Democrats usually are better at addressing domestic issues than foreign policy.

    I thought the Iraq criticism, while valid, was the same stuff we've been hearing from them for a while. I think he brought up some good points on stuff like outsourcing and medical insurance.

    I'd hardly say his response was lousy or weak.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I only caught the end tonight, the Dem Speech. Seemed like alot of the same partisan "Boy, Doesn't Bush Suck, We Should Oppose Anything He Does" stuff we've come to expect. He didn't exactly make me proud to be a Virginian.

    With that said, I read soem saying ol' GWB "nailed" the SotU......and while I admit I didn't see it, I cannot imagine he nailed much of anything at this late stage of the game. He is an embarassingly bad public speaker.........but as I said, I missed the SotU, so you tell me, eh.[/QUOTE]
    Are you sure you listened to Webb? That is not what he said at all. As a matter of fact he said they looked forward to working with Bush on several issues. He was just very blunt in reference to the war which he should be.

    As a Virginian you should be proud of him. He seems to be a very up front man. Rare for a poltician - but then again you said you would have voted for George Allen if you could have so your feelings for Webb were made up before his speech.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]This is the same jerk that snubbed the President at a White House event, wouldn't shake his hand. Also refused to respond when Bush asked him about his son in Iraq.[/QUOTE]
    No he did not snub the President at the White House reception. He just said that we should bring our boys home from Iraq and Bush got peeved. Peggy Noonan a Conservative commentator said that Webb was not out of line at all and Bush was the one who lost his cool.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 01-24-2007 at 10:59 AM.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=pauliec]You say he was powerful, I thought his emotions clouded his message. I wouldn't say bitter, but he seemed to come off as slightly angry.

    How do you think he nailed it? I don't think he introduced anything new, and if anything he seemed to assume that the armed forces do not trust their Commander-in-Chief. Yet, he offered no reason to support this assertion.

    He relied too much on his own family's military history and I don't think he was convincing enough.[/QUOTE]

    Jim Webb is an ex-Marine. He gave straight, tough talk about a tough subject.
    Marines are angry. And when they feel and injustice has been done like the war in Iraq it does not make us any happier...

    He nailed Bush. He hit the bullseye. Bush did not mention Katrina at all. Last year in the SSOTU (Sorry State) he said that he would follow up on Katrina.

    When Mr. Webb first introduced himself he stated that he would not have enough time to really address all that Mr. Bush (did/did not) speak about.

    He was very convincing in my eyes. And from a few emails I got this AM quite a few others. You need to cathc up to the rest of the country. It is passing you by.

    Don't be surprised if Jim Webb is the VP choice for the democrats.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us