State of the Union Address LIVE THREAD 9:01pm EST.

White House .gov ^

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

President Bush will deliver the annual State of the Union this evening at 9:01pm (Eastern Time). The speech will be webcast live on the White House web site. The President will discuss the extraordinary challenges our country has faced and the historic achievements we have made. Yet he will also stress that there.s much more for our country to do: "America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them…" "We have not come all this way – through tragedy, and trial, and war – only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same of us." He will also remind the American people that we are a Nation still at war, and our government is meeting its responsibility to protect the American people: "Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11, 2001 – over two years without an attack on American soil – and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting – and false." "...America is on the offensive against the terrorists..." "As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons…" "...Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better…" He will discuss the progress we’re making in Afghanistan and Iraq, and renew our commitment to ensuring those countries are free and peaceful: "The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror…" "The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right." On priorities here at home, the President will discuss why he’s optimistic about our growing economy, and call on Congress to take action that will help turn our economic recovery into a lasting recovery. He will call on them to help train Americans for the jobs of the 21st Century: "America’s growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills… We must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy." President Bush will also discuss the importance of health care and the major cause for why Americans lack health insurance: the rising costs of health care. "On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs. To make insurance more affordable, Congress must act to address rapidly rising health care costs." Finally, the President will argue that in a time of great change in our country and world, the things that make our country strong should never change: "We are living in a time of great change… Yet some things endure – courage and compassion, reverence and integrity, respect for differences of faith and race. The values we try to live by never change. And they are instilled in us by fundamental institutions, such as families, and schools, and religious congregations. These institutions – the unseen pillars of civilization – must remain strong in America…" "All of us – parents, schools, government – must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children."

"The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Article II, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution • History • State of the Union History Quiz • State of the Union - 2003 • State of the Union - 2002 Q1. What President delivered the first State of the Union Address?  George Washington  John Adams  Thomas Jefferson  James Madison  Franco Harris

January 20, 2004
Communications Director Dan Bartlett discussed this year's State of the Union.

January 19, 2004
Author/Historian Richard Norton Smith discussed the history of the State of the Union address.

[Wait4Truth]

I'm so sorry to hear about your daughter! You must have been a little scared and I bet she was, too. Please tell her your freeper friends send prayers - and you get some rest. God bless, friend.

[ArneFufkin]

It's not an amnesty. In any honest way.

Don't ever pay attention to people who extrapolate every policy increment out to it's worst possible outcome. Especially when the worst possible outcome is predicated on some inherent dishonesty or corruption that they project onto George W. Bush's motives, or the integrity of his process. Because, they themselves, are corrupt and dishonest.

The proposal is what it is at this point. Not an amnesty. An adult response to a set of real world challenges. This "betrayal" is going to Congress. What comes out is anybody's guess, if anything comes out at all. Big Freeping Deal.

I've never, in my six years here, seen such a disgraceful selfish campaign like a relatively small number of very very profligate malcontent Anti-Bush Freepers are waging right now. Ugly, ugly sentiments being amplified and enabled thread after thread. They are on a mission to destroy this forum, because they HATE George W. Bush as much as the DUmmies do.

As demonstrated over the last few weeks ... I'm not pleased nor particularly compliant in their sabotage.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I think that the main issue here was whether or not President Bush would support a policy of blanket amnesty. That clearly was not the case here.

This wasn't his main issue. He avoided it the best way he could. Didn't work. Slow motion, incrementaly amnesty is no different than blanket amnesty....Just a bit slower.......

[clamper1797]

This was his very first post to me ... ever ...

clamper1797 said : I had the wonderful pleasure of training my Red Chinese H1B replacement

Texasforever said : Forgive me but I don't believe you. 2,105 posted on 01/20/2004 7:08:07 PM PST by Texasforever

I have never talked with him before and this was completely out of the blue ...

Funny thing is that another poster said that I was trying to pick a fight with him

[BigSkyFreeper]

That is such a wonderful post MM :-)

[Torie]

All things being equal as to qualifications of the citizen vs the H1B the citizen will be kept because it is more expensive to lay-off the H1B than the citizen but law does not require it. The law only requires that when there are two qualified new Applicants for a job, one a citizen and the other an H1B, the citizen gets the job.

OF course, all of this is impossible to micro-manage, and thus it cannot be done. America just needs to have a cold shower, and wake up to the reality, that we live in global marketplace, and that includes labor. All we can to is try to ride the tiger, and marginally direct it towards America's interests. But it cannot be stopped, and will not be stopped, even by a government as mighty as the US, assuming it ever had a will to do so, which it will not. The economic imperatives are simply too strong.

[Valentine_W]

I guess that I have already done my share bashing him over the Patriot Act and various other policy decisions. I need to be more willing to believe that he can do this right. This time, I think he hit an even balance, and a good one at that.

[Sabertooth]

I think that the main issue here was whether or not President Bush would support a policy of blanket amnesty.

You thought wrong.

The main issue has been whether or not the President would diligently enforce our immigration laws against Illegals, and if not, whether he'd propose any more Amnesties of any kind after trying to get Clinton's Section 245(i) Amnesty extended by way of a midnight rider on a Homeland Defnese bill in the Spring of 2002.

Most of us knew that there was going to be an amnesty of some sorts, what many of us didn't support (including myself) was the notion of blanket amnesty.

No, most knew there would be an Amnesty of some sort, and that promises against "blanket" Amnesty were meaningless, as even Reagan's broad 1986 Amnesty wasn't "blanket," as it didn't apply to convicted felons.

Some believed that the "no 'blanket' Amnesty" promise had meaning, and have been scrambling to revise their stories and excuses over the past few weeks.

I think it is perfectly fine to keep those immigrants here who are already productive members of society, meaning that they have a job.

Most Americans, Republicans, and Freepers disagree.

[longtermmemmory]

A law will never ever ever ever work. This is what the 1996 federal Doma was supposed to be. However, the Human Rights Coalition (a homsexual rights special interest group) IS going to challenge the Fed DOMA based on Full faith and credit.

The ONLY way to prevent universally is with a constitutional amendment. Constitution trumps laws, trumps activist judges, trumps special interest groups.


GWBush's declaration today may have been lukewarm support for the FMA but it was mention and it is there.

I am 100% behind it. With 38 states with DOMA laws and constitutional amendments. It is VERY strong to happen. This is one that is truly for children.

[Wait4Truth]

Ok, you're trying to get your point across. That's acceptable. But exactly how many times and on how many threads are you going to do so? You know, the rest of us can read your throughts the FIRST time you post them. You don't need to do it day after day after day. THAT is what we are all sick of. And you are not the only one that does it but we are just plain sick of hearing it 24/7. Ok?

[Texasforever]

Oh I agree. It is just irritating to see all the myths about a very insignificant program it the context of immigration/world economics. Some folks that are laid-off refuse to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they may be the reason they got on the list.

[CyberAnt]

Karen was on LKL .. she's joining the campaign after the convention and will stay with it until election day.

[Valentine_W]

As for the subject of government and marriage, I have recently been somewhat mulling that over too. On one hand, I generally abhor the idea of government getting into the business of marriage, especially since I view marriage to be a religious sacrament. On the other, I believe that society should be orderly, and that lines ought to be drawn somewhere. Social norms act as a stablizing force upon society, and seeing society chuck social norms out the window leaves me with an uneasy feeling.

By nature, I am not an unusually nosy person and tend to be very apathetic when it comes to the private lives of people. At the same time, I can't help but get bothered when I see traditional family values flown out the window, as if they do not matter.

However, people will ultimately act in the way which best pleases them, regardless of what the government condones or not. I believe that people ulitmately decide their own fate in life, and perhaps this is a consequence of man's having the ability of free will.

[MJY1288]

IMHO Pat Buchanan is an enemy of what this country stands for. Isolationism has never worked as long as history has been recorded, and PJB is same type of isolationist that gave birth to the all the failed nations that reside in the ash heap of history.

In all my life I have never seen a more pessimistic, negative doom and gloomer than Pat Buchanan and the best thing that ever happened in the struggle against the liberals who controlled this country since the days of Harry Truman, was the day Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party. The plain and simple fact is that Pat Buchanan is a stain and the ideology he aspires supports and promotes mediocrity and reminds me of Soviet Union Railroad worker who said "They think we are working and we think they're paying us"

[tpaine]

Ah yes, -- a tough job..

But made easier by their friendly sychophants, busily pushing those abuse buttons, ever vigilant that no one posts the wrong 'damn' word.. Gotta love that hypocrisy.

[used2BDem]

THIS wasn't tonight? My husband said she looked stoned, drunk or something. I was unable to see it first time around; hoping Fox will rerun before I crash and burn.

[Torie]

I am honored and flattered that you would think of me even as a mere opaque chimera of that shining light, even though it is far too generous an appraisal for even as much as that.

[sdk7x7]

Well, tonight's SOTU speech erased any doubt in my mind that I'll be working for the Bush campaign. I'm already a Team Leader... hopefully the local NY GOP office here will have some stuff for me to do. I'll be calling later this week.

-sdk
PS: Found out today that at least 6 or 7 of my peers registered Republican among the 75-100 or so taking AP Government in school.

[My Favorite Headache]

Pelosi Galore!!!! LMFAO

[Valentine_W]

"No, most knew there would be an Amnesty of some sort, and that promises against "blanket" Amnesty were meaningless, as even Reagan's broad 1986 Amnesty wasn't "blanket," as it didn't apply to convicted felons."

Bush was very clear that temporary legal alien status would only be given to select people--I hardly believe that convicted felons would be part of this group of select individuals.

People need cheap labor in this country. At least we will be able to document more people, get our cheap labor with a guilt-free conscience, and hopefully deport those who aren't contributing to our economy.