Man did anyone watch the State of the Union address? I saw most of it. I'm not usually into politics so much, but when a crazy cowboy has the power to irrationally kill lots of people, I start to take notice. I thought it was pretty general and vague. He glazed over the most important issue: alternative fuel sources. If we didn't rely on oil so much, we wouldn't get so antsy when the middle east doesn't give it up so freely. Anyways, the highlight of the night for me was this quote:

"More than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested. And many others have met a different fate." Then he hunched over the mic a bit and got this little smirk on his face and continued, "Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States." Haha, man, it was like a tough cop from an action movie.

God, he is such a freak that I don't even know where to begin. It would be funny if he wasn't in a position of power and the face of America to the rest of the world. It's so weird to me that anyone can think he's sincere with that smartass way of talking & signature smirk you mentioned. Everything he says comes across as either sarcastic or stupid.

Thank goodness South Park came on so I only felt compelled to watch it during the commercial breaks. The only thing that was interesting when watching it was when the camera switched to audience members- Hilary Clinton rolling her eyes, puffing her cheeks & whispering to Leiberman, two confused old people looking scared as he talked about Medicare, the head of the EPA nudging her seatmate to clap about drilling for oil in the U.S., some poor guy who fell asleep, etc, etc.

Yeah on ABC, the camera would switch to a person related to what he was talking about.. but it was kind of stereotypical. Black person if he was talking about Africa, Asian person if he was talking about Korea, FBI director when he talked about the FBI. Well, that last one makes sense, but the rest were silly.

I watched it on Fox and they showed a shot of Ted Kennedy sleeping during the speech.....

I watched a Real World rerun and a hysterical episode of Match Game PM. I'm not down with politics, even though I'm sure I should be.

No, I enjoy being aloof regarding politics. I used to be a political nut, but then I realized that its too easy to get angry about things that you have no control over. I don't need that stress in my life.

Plus, it sucks when you're affiliated with the beliefs of a third party and you agree with each of the two major parties only half of the time.

Will

I went and saw Two Towers again last night. Good flick.

You want my opinion? Both major parties are bullshit and will continue to be bullshit. They are slaves to the organizations that contribute money to them, their priorities are completely determined by money, and they ultimately care little about the people that they "represent." The sooner we wake up and start electing unbribed and unaffiliated third party candidates, the sooner we can get around to making some real, positive changes in this country.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 4:15 am on Jan. 30, 2003)

Amen. Everyone should vote for Harry Browne if he runs again. Hell, I did in 2000 BEFORE I knew he was from Franklin, TN.

Oh no, I've blown my libertarian cover...

Will

Sorry, but our system is set up to only accommodate two (2) parties. There is a reason we haven't had another in power since the whigs. If another party was to come into power, they would also eventually hug the middle as tightly as our current parties if they wanted to last more than a few years. Just the way it is.

i share your outlook on that keith. thinking about that has made me totally apathetic towards politics. when i worked at domino's there were a great number of right-wing political experts that would slag me for being indifferent towards everything. some of the guy's beliefs were pretty nazi-ish. some people are content with whatever the media gives them though. i saw plenty of bumper stickers with messages like, "aim high, them sunsabitches are ridin' camels!". which can make you laugh at the person who's stupid enough to display that, until you realise how sad and scary it is.

My rebuttal to you, Keith, is that maybe these are unprecedented times that call for unprecedented changes. Just take a look around! Where would we be in this world if we gave up on something just because it hadn't been done before?

By the way, I couldn't care less if a third party "hugged the middle," if it was the right position to take, and it was what the constituants wanted.

Is you is, or is you isn't my constituancy?

For a third party to prove itself they would need to infiltrate the government on all fronts, which will take one hell of a platform. I think too many people are content to watch (and believe) generic, feel-good, somewhat fictitious speeches, like the one the other night, and vote without research.

(Edited by deevol at 7:52 am on Jan. 30, 2003)

I think the scary thing is that the politicians are doing what Americans want. Sure, there are some young, idealistic people like us who want to see changes. But what about Joe Sixpack who doesn't even care to vote? He's pretty happy right now because his life is OK. Maybe there is some great injustice in the world, but he's got his SUV and the Super Bowl. He's happy; he doesn't want change because change is scary.

When politicians maintain the status quo, they're doing what their constituents want.

Ah, JC, I knew there was a reason that you're my idol. The whole purpose of a third party is to reinvent the system in a way conducive to real democracy, or at least in a way that opens up real debate. Therefore, 3rd parties are inherently anti-status quo, whatever their persuasion. But anti-status quo doesn't have to mean extremist. Like Jamie says, it means accurately representing the people, which I refuse to believe means embracing football & SUVs. I've met too many thoughtful, dynamic people in my life to believe that the majority consists of selfish slugs. I think it's more like the current system WANTS us to believe that the slugs are in majority, in order to overwhelm us so much that we give up.

jamiecarroll for president, 2004! Any takers for VP?

(Edited by Lauren at 1:49 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

hippies

haha- if I had a nickel for everytime I'd been called that in my life...

One time I was at a show at the End (I wish I could remember what show- maybe Isotope 217 or something?) and this weird old guy said "What are you doing here? This ain't a hippie show". It was scary because it was like he knew me & his hostility seemed genuine. And I remember wondering when I would be free of whatever mark tells people that I used to listen to Phish.

you'll never be free of the dreaded mark.......bwahhahahahahaha.....

(Edited by ray davies at 2:14 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

So true.

Well, the Libertarian party pretty much is hugging the middle, at least in that they have conservative economic policy and liberal social policy. Which is great. Sure they also have some extremist views (especially those among us that lobby for the legalization of all drugs) but not eveyone supports that and it certainly isn't something that a libertarian could do if s/he came into power.

The two party system simply sucks because it doesn't even begin to offer all of the options in terms of policy. If you look at all issues as fitting into economics or social issues, then you have two extremes, and those extremes need outlets in more than one party. We have a party for conservative social and economic policy (the Republicans) and for liberal social and economic policy (the Democrats), but no major party that offers conservative and liberal policies depending on the issues. And that's the real crime. People are left deciding whether they favor economic or social issues, and voting for the party that alligns with that. Do all Republicans feel that abortion should be abolished and that gay marriage should remain illegal? No. Do all Democrats feel that social security needs to be saved or that tax cuts are uniformly a bad idea? No. But they side with a party that does because other issues are more important to them. It shouldn't need to be that way.

This is the most disjointed, poorly written post I've had in awhile, but I'm out of practice talking politics.

Will

I think it made sense & I'm not even a libertarian.

Getting back to the State of the Union address, did anyone else find it EXTREMELY annoying whenever Dubya would so much as sneeze, and everyone would rip into a standing ovation???

And, by the way, whatever happened to that guy...oh what's his name...Osama bin Laden?!?!?!!! We KNOW he did something. Dumbya is just picking a fight b/c his daddy had a beef w/ Hussein. Granted, Hussein isn't a good guy, but we have enough to worry about here at home and with al-Queda that we shouldn't go picking fights with 3rd-world countries and looking like assholes to the rest of the free world.

Ok, my 2 cents.

that's par for the course for a State of the Union address, usually some newscaster will count ovations and compare them to previous years and presidents. Most of the time the only people standing are those in the same political party as the president.