Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What did you think of the 'State of the Union' address last night

  1. Feb 1, 2006 #1

    I saw very little of the address. From the little I watched he made plenty of 'this or that' statements, I believe were designed to garner bipartisan support to get 'things' done in his waning time left in office.

    Maybe its me but his demeanor seemed disingenuous, the substance of his opening remarks were somewhat vague and it appeared like he was whining/complaining. I wish I could have watched more.

    What or how did you guys and gals take it? :cool:
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 1, 2006 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought it was pretty good, but hey - that's what he pays speechwriters for.

    As far as the content, a lot was just as expected. I was glad to hear about him pushing R&D and energy issues, but we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens. Mostly these speeches are just fluff. Cheerleading.
  4. Feb 1, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I've never gotten the impression of Bush as disingenuous from his speeches. He seems to really believe what he says as much as anyone out there (heck, the one thing his supporters really love him for is his conviction). Tim Kaine, on the other hand, who gave the democratic response, kept looking like he was about to laugh and never once took his eyes off the teleprompter and looked quite disingenuous. Part of that was probably just the fact that he was talking to a camera and Bush was talking to a packed room, but I was still heavily disappointed by his delivery. That said, neither gave me any kind of hope or made me believe that they would actually do any of what they said (aside from Bush saying he would continue with his foreign policy the way he has - that I believe). Most of Bush's and all of Kaine's speech I could have written for them, based on the same damn talking points you hear every single day from somewhere or other. They may as well simply issue press releases and have an agent read it, the way sports stars do. Why bother with a speech if you're almost never going to say anything your audience doesn't already know you're going to say?
  5. Feb 1, 2006 #4
    Full of broad vague terms and generalities.

    I loved how he wants to improve this countries education to compete better with the tech economy, yet he did not state that he wanted to reinstate the 12 billion he cut from student loans.

    I loved what he said about primary education, but a lot of good that will do when the poor and middle class cannot afford to send their kids to school.
  6. Feb 1, 2006 #5


    User Avatar

    I thought it lacked any substance. He spoke in generalities about 'liberation' and 'freedom' (whatever they mean??), the usual 'fighting terrorists in someone else's country means we don't have to fight them at home' (which I am sure the Iraqis will be eternally grateful for :rolleyes: ), the need to address social security, health and education whilst reducing taxes.

    Where he was specific he was misleading. He spoke of reducing "America's addiction to oil" and went on to say how he wanted to reduce oil imports from the unstable countries of the ME by 75% suggesting a massive decrease in oil consumption whereas in reality the US only gets 20% of it's oil from the ME anyway and many of it's other suppliers are considered by the US gov't to be equally unstable e.g. Nigeria, Venezuela.

    He also provided no specifics on how this goal was to be achieved other than express a desire to see more clean coal and nuclear power plants; a little like Nixon who stated during his presidency that he wanted the US to be energy independent within 7 years but without any real idea on how to achieve it.

    The only other area he was specific about was in threatening Iran over her nuclear program.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2006
  7. Feb 1, 2006 #6
    To me what was scary was his echoing of Tony Blair's assessment of the British empire. What's important is what you leave behind. As in the U.S. no longer being the only superpower to not being a superpower. The President is aware that probably before his term in office is over, the United States will not be the biggest economy in the world anymore. If you'll check out the CIA world factbook, China's real purchasing power GDP is around $8 trillion, compared to around $10 trillion in the U.S.; so at a growth rate of 9% or 10%, it will be a very short time before the U.S. is in 2nd place.
  8. Feb 1, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think I made a wise choice by not watching a minute of it. The one thing I've learned about this administration is that talk counts for squat...other than to help the poll numbers in the short term.

    LYN : When you say you think Bush is never disingenuous, I take it you mean when he talks about plans for the future. When it comes to talking about things already happened, you can't not be disingenuous when you are lying.
  9. Feb 1, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    State of the Bubble?

    Here's the assessment on Bush:

    1) He continues to claim that things are going wonderfully in Iraq.

    In view of the polls, I can’t believe he would say such an outright lie in his speech. And of course, it was more of the same with no mention of an exit strategy. There are ways we can bring troops home without disgrace, such as having other countries in the area assist. (Of course since Bush has so austrosized Iran, it would be impossible for them to be a player, though it would be justified.) Americans want an end in sight, where is it?

    2) He spoke of the neocon agenda to end tyranny in the world (except his own, of course).

    I like what Tucker Carlson said on this, that democracy is merely a mechanism—not a means to an end. Anyway, you can read many publications on how the exportation of democracy has failed. Stability, I repeat stability is what makes the world peaceful and prosperous, often under leaders like Bashar Al-Assad of Syria, or Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. If Bush thinks it’s a good idea to replace leaders such as these, we will end up with even more Islamic governments in the Middle East!

    3) He spoke of solving America’s addiction to oil with technology.

    He has said this every year, but where are the hydrogen vehicles, where? And doesn’t he know Americans know he and Cheney are oilmen? It’s more than ridiculous, it is imperative to our country and they do nothing but try to BS everyone!

    4) He spoke of education, health care, and the environment.

    His record has been so pitiful in regard to these domestic issues, how dare he even mention these?

    5) And last but not least?! he devoted all of a sentence at the end of his speech to Katrina.

    He still doesn’t know that an entire city was destroyed? I mean an entire city, not just the WTC, an entire city, and this is all he has to say about it?

    BTW, he mentioned Iraq 35 times, and I think it was 5 times for Iran.

    I can’t even think about the domestic spying. Rove has thrown out even more straw men of “terrorist surveillance’ or “isolationist” placing Dems on the defensive, painting them as not caring about national security. If only Americans had basic math skills. They could figure out that an average of 500 calls a day means THEY are being unjustly monitored by NSA spying. Laws have been broken, and they either don't get it or don't care (even worse--disgusting).

    So moving on to the Tim who ever he is counter speech. Once again, a missed opportunity. The Dems platform for 2006 and 2008 is:

    1) Real security – homeland security (i.e., protecting our borders), focusing on the capture of Osama bin Laden, and real nuclear threats, not imagined ones.

    2) Honest leadership and open government.

    3) Economic prosperity -- working to keep jobs in the U.S., balancing the budget, and having a fair tax code.

    4) Health care that is affordable and more accessible by removing corruption and inefficiency.

    5) Energy – treating independence as what it is, a national security issue.

    6) Retirement security – fixing social security.

    This is what Americans want. Why can’t the Dems come out and say it clearly? I realize their "minority" voice is drowned out, but they need to be more united, and show leadership, and get this message out.

    I say BS to Bush about second guessing him. We all said we were against the invasion before he rushed our country into this meaningless war. He knew damn good and well -- he is the one who doesn't care about our troops and our country. I say BS to him and presidential hopeful, Guiliani, who continue to claim that Iraq is a part of the bigger war on terroism. They are full of it.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2006
  10. Feb 2, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This part of the speech probably wasn't that meaningful. For one thing, we cut funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory by 13%. Part of this isn't Bush's fault. The "earmarking" that goes on in the budget process, when combined with budget cuts, results in money being stolen from one program for another to make sure no Congressman's district gets hit too hard.

    The 75% figure was just "pulled out of a barrel" to make a more dramatic point. What it really means is that the goal is to reduce oil dependence by 15% over the projected levels of usage (i.e. we hope to slow the rate of increase in oil usage). Since we get 20% of our oil from the Middle East, the savings are equivalent to 75% of the oil we import from the Middle East (if it were possible to target our imports how we saw fit instead of responding to the market).

    By the way, how much oil does it take to produce ethanol? Some researchers include the amount of fuel required to manufacture the machinery used to farm the fields and some just include the fuel used in farming, havesting, and refining the ethanol. One gives a net loss while the other gives a net gain. Ethanol additives to fuel are a good deal if you're talking about finding a way to absorb surplus corn since it keeps farms working at full capacity, but it isn't nearly as great a deal if you're farming corn just for ethanol production.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook