Before or after I get sick at what he commits?
Well, you've already done the before so I would say after is pretty much now in order.
Hold on to your wallets.
How about not at all ?
BUSH HATES TROUT...
I don't care what he has to say, the speech is an unnecessary concession.
Geez, you sound like the DEMS, give the President a break.
Let's see what he has to say before we condemn The Man!
Now that it's over, tell me what you REALLY think. LOL Cha Ching, Cha Chang, my money trees are bare. :o)
Well, I had to shut Bush off before I saw the whole speech. Bush said, among others:
1] that Mayor Nagin will be part of the planning of the reconstruction.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Oh George, you are soooooo funny!
2] and Bush did NOT say that foreign aid will be stopped until we can pay (WE TAXPAYERS) for this stuff.
3] Bush did not say that many pork projects will be stopped, that he will ask for elinination or drastic reductions in many other programs to pay for this.
4] Bush said we taxpayers will pay for free transportation to reunite families, instead of asking local cities, counties, individuals, relatives or charities or churches to do transport families.
5] We will pay for this, we will by those people that, we will waste $$$ on this, we will waste dollars on that, blah blah blah ....
6] Oh yea, Bush proposed more racial discrimination by saying minority owned businesses will get special treatment. This is really odd since most minorities in NO got in trouble in the first place because they got used to favoritism and handouts, etc.
What did I miss? Anybody care to add to this?
Thus it is that what we are attempting to do in this rapid survey of the historical progress of certain ideas, is to trace the genesis of an attitude of mind, a set of terms in which now practically everyone thinks of the State; and then to consider the conclusions towards which this psychical phenomenon unmistakably points. Instead of recognizing the State as "the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men," the run of mankind, with rare exceptions, regards it not only as a final and indispensable entity, but also as, in the main, beneficent. The mass-man, ignorant of its history, regards its character and intentions as social rather than anti-social; and in that faith he is willing to put at its disposal an indefinite credit of knavery, mendacity and chicane, upon which its administrators may draw at will. Instead of looking upon the State's progressive absorption of social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel towards the activities of a professional-criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the belief that he is somehow identified with the State, and that therefore, in consenting to its indefinite aggrandizement, he consents to something in which he has a share - he is, pro tanto, aggrandizing himself. Professor Ortega y Gasset analyzes this state of mind extremely well. The mass-man, he says, confronting the phenomenon of the State,
"sees it, admires it, knows that there it is. . . . Furthermore, the mass-man sees in the State an anonymous power, and feeling himself, like it, anonymous, he believes that the State is something of his own. Suppose that in the public life of a country some difficulty, conflict, or problem, presents itself, the mass-man will tend to demand that the State intervene immediately and undertake a solution directly with its immense and unassailable resources. . . . When the mass suffers any ill-fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent sure possibility of obtaining everything, without effort, struggle, doubt, or risk, merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion."
It is the genesis of this attitude, this state of mind, and the conclusions which inexorably follow from its predominance, that we are attempting to get at through our present survey. These conclusions may perhaps be briefly forecast here, in order that the reader who is for any reason indisposed to entertain them may take warning of them at this point, and close the book.
The unquestioning, determined, even truculent maintenance of the attitude which Professor Ortega y Gasset so admirably describes, is obviously the life and strength of the State; and obviously too, it is now so inveterate and so widespread - one may freely call it universal - that no direct effort could overcome its inveteracy or modify it, and least of all hope to enlighten it. This attitude can only be sapped and mined by uncountable generations of experience, in a course marked by recurrent calamity of a most appalling character. When once the predominance of this attitude in any given civilization has become inveterate, as so plainly it has become in the civilization of America, all that can be done is to leave it to work its own way out to its appointed end. The philosophic historian may content himself with pointing out and clearly elucidating its consequences, as Professor Ortega y Gasset has done, aware that after this there is no more that one can do.
"The result of this tendency," he says, "will be fatal. Spontaneous social action will be broken up over and over again by State intervention; no new seed will be able to fructify.[2] Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine. And as after all it is only a machine, whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital supports around it,[3] the State, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism. Such was the lamentable fate of ancient civilization."
Our Enemy, The State
by Albert J. Nock - 1935
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html