The State of the Union...

my2hands wrote:

they think that they have to make an example of them... if you dont get in line like a good little client state then you will be cut off or bombed... and we cant have non conformist countires in our own hemisphere... thats where the problems with venezuela are coming from... their current leadership does not suck the big red, white, and blue cock of uncle sam


it is all about control and influence... anyone that resists is destroyed

Or it could also be all the oil that was recently discovered in the Northern Cuban Basin.

I think that the most important thing about this State of the Union is that it is the last for Bush. Things can only get better from here. Hell, I'd take Huckabee over Bush.

I tried, for the first time in a long while, to watch this speech. But it was like listening to a sales pitch from a used car salesman when you already know the car is a hunk of junk. I just couldn't stand it. This country needs a new direction. For the sake of everyone.

Sludge Factory wrote:

Yeah, but didn't the initial embargoes on Cuba originally originate from the fact that Cuba wouldn't play the game with our corporations?

I dont know if it was Cuba, so much as Fidel Castro.....I guess Castro IS Cuba in a sense.......

Sludge Factory wrote:

Yeah, but didn't the initial embargoes on Cuba originally originate from the fact that Cuba wouldn't play the game with our corporations?

The embargo was enacted because of Castro's relationship with the Soviet Union. Now one has to look into why Castro turned to the Soviets for help. Initially the Eisenhower administration was receptive to Castro simply because they had tired of Batista. Special interest groups, specifically United Fruit and Cuban American constituents in Southern Florida, pursueded the US government to turn it's back on Castro. This was followed by hostel actions by the US towards the Castro regime. Acts of terrorism where perpetrated against the Cuban government and it's people by US backed groups and the CIA itself. Castro had no choice but to turn to the only other country that could aid them. The Soviets saw this as a golden opportunity to have a country under it's influence so close to US soil.

Sludge Factory wrote:

So, essentially, even though you say it was enacted because of Castro's relationship with the Soviet Union, the United States was responsible for that relationship turning out the way it did with their giving in to the demands of the special interest groups. Because Castro had refused to play the game of those special interest groups and the corporations they represented, right?

Correct. Castro did not want to continue Batista's policy of letting US corporate interest supersede that of the Cuban people. Unfortunetly though because of Castro's relationship with the Soviets the interest of the Cuban people eventually took a back seat to that of the Soviets.

brokendave wrote:

Does anyone else wish Nancy Pelosi would reach over and rip Cheney's throat out, and then run up to Bush and bite him in the jugular?

That would make an hour of this bullshit almost worth it.

Fuck this liar... he does it with such confidence... and the Democrats compliantly take it up the ass.

We need to start running for office ourselves as real Americans, and we need to act irreverently, with much disrespect and dissent.

I would be booing and giving the finger to the President if I were a Senator up there right now...

Random thoughts which all come down to this-

"You can't fix a problem with the kind of thinking that started the problem." - Albert Einstein

So... You can have your petty election... but those people you are voting for are using the same thinking that started the problem...

It's time for a township rebellion.

I agree.


Smirk of the Union
By Rick Perlstein, TomPaine.com
Posted on January 29, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/75340/

A small and beaten man spoke to Congress and the nation last night, convinced in his own mind he's a hero. Snoopy battling the Red Baron. Walter Mitty, imagining himself dying bravely before a firing squad.

For those who missed it, here's the Big Con run-down. Let me start with the facial expressions. Because, more than any of the words, they told the sad story.

The entrance: He raises both eyebrows puckishly, like the frat boy he is. Introduced by Speaker Pelosi, he reacts curiously to the wave of applause: he blushes. He actually thinks this applause is for him--they love me!!--and not a perfunctory gesture of respect for the office. He still thinks he is a great man, and that others think he is a great man. He looks about a thousand years old. He begins: "Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum." Or that's what the transcript says he said. If you missed it live, what he actually said was, "...stood before yuh at this rostr'm...."

John Wayne taking on the desperadoes.

Then, the arrogant bastard, he makes a joke: "These issues"--he's named "peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens"--"deserve vigorous debate. And I think history will show we've answered the call." He gives the chamber that famous smirk, to let them know it's OK to laugh, even amid all the pomp: get it? These people keep insisting on debatin' with me. Washington! Bicker, bicker, bicker.

Then, he obliquely announces the speech's theme, also with a smirk: Bush's greatest hits. A golden trip down memory lane. He says, of public servants' job to "carry out the people's business," that "it remains our charge to keep." Dog whistle: this is the Methodist hymn that by which entitled his campaign book. Because remember: George Bush is a Christian Unleashing the "armies of compassion." Or it it this "army of compassion"?

Which brings up one of the creepiest features of the speech: "more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our Nation's Capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other non-public school. Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities." I didn't know--and perhaps the Constitution has something to say on this--it was the job of the U.S. government to fret over the disappearance of "faith-based" institutions. Well, our president now proposes we shore them up with "Pell Grants for Kids." Senator Clayborn Pell, a great man, now unfortunately suffers from Parkinson's disease, and probably lacks the wherewithal to slap the president in the face for the insult to his great progressive legacy.

I suppose we should also attend to the words, because this pathetic washout happens to be the most powerful man in the world, so the words he uses are important.

He repeated the Great Republican Lie of 2007, implying that the Democrats in the 110th Congress is obstructionist--"Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time," he piously intoned.--when it's really himself and the Republican minority who are willfully obstructing, with an aggressiveness unmatched in modern history. He still trumpets his own disastrous Ownership Society rhetoric (How disastrous? See here) and barely acknowledges the massive economic pain Americans are feeling and our about to feel -- and only then to issue one more obstructionist threat, on the stimulus package: "The temptation will be to load up the bill. That would delay it or derail it." Mafia words: my way, or else.

But back, again, to the facial expressions. The most fulsome smirk came, I think, winding up to his promise, "If any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it." He said something interesting, perhaps referring to the remarkable poll results consistently showing a majority of Americans believe Bush's tax cuts were not worth it, or that they would be glad to pay higher taxes if it meant healthcare for all Americans. Such national maturity--indeed any occasion to call Americans to some higher sacrifice--can only but be mocked by the smug bastard running our country. He said this: "Others have said they'd be happier to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS accepts both checks and money owners."

Cheney joins his smirk.



What else? There was his promise of an executive order canceling earmarks not voted out in the open--because, of course, now that the Democrats run Congress, procedural irregularity and pork-barrel spending has suddenly become a national crisis.

There was some fairy dust about making "health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control." The Republicans' barks of approval at that one are guttural. He add that medical decisions must be "made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not in the halls of Congress."

About medical decisions made in callous insurance company cubicles, of course--which is to say, most medical decisions--he has nothing to say.

"Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results." No one can deny they suck. Read this.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow"? Only if those breakthroughs accord with conservative dogma. Read this.

Perhaps later, I'll give you more on the fairy tales he's propounding our nation on its place in the world. I'll leave you with this one peace of jargon: "protective overwatch mission." That's the new Bushism for "We're staying in Iraq for ever." You'll be hearing it much more in the days ahead.