Bush's State of the Union Address

Well I must give Bush some credit for this one, I was pleasantly surprised by the succinctness of his speech. I felt as if it was well recited, with many well made points including staying the course in Iraq, homeland security, taxes, and he evened ventured into talking about ethenol power automobiles. I am the type of person who would typically rather eat grass and or brussel sprouts before listening to our bumbling ape-like president speak for an hour plus, but this... this was relatively pain free. I have one huge objection to the fact that he glossed over gay marraige rights and basically said that activist judges should not be permitted to make such unconstitutional rulings. Can I say UGH? How conservative, closeminded and Republican of you Bush... with the whole good speaking skills and positive and well written State of the Union Address I had almost forgotten the idiocy of our president. But then with a flash - one glossed over issue sent me back into my previous... eh it could be worse at least Bush tries his darndest state of mind. All in all, despite half hearted and half of the auditorium standing ovations and a few little bumbles, Bush presented a classy State of hte Union Address, which I didn't mind [too terribly much] watching, although it might be just because I kept busy counting applauses and standing ovations.

GAY RIGHTS

So whats the big deal? Homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as any other citizen of the United States? It seems ridiculous to single out one group of people and place restrictions on their lifestyles, I thought that America was focusing on taking great strides against prejudice and hatred.... I guess gay people are an acception. Who is it really hurting if two gay men get married? Who's to say that two lesbian women wouldn't be a more loving and devoted couple than the half hearted eloping heterosexual couples in Vegas? They probably would, so why not restrict idiots who barely know each other from getting married if we are being picky? The point comes down to the fact that gay or straight, Americans should be free to marry whomever they please, and live a fulfilling life with their significant other without having to relocate to different states in order to get marraige rights and the privelage to have tax cuts with their spouses. Ignorance and prejudice are limiting these people from being happy. How can straight conservatives see it as their right to hold back two people from joining in holy matrimony when it not only doesn't effect them personally, but is also violating our constitutional rights. People should worry about the things that have a direct correlation with their own lives and stop trying to inflict their power and rules on innocent people who deserve much better. If Virginia bans Gay marraige, I will have lost all hope in our system. Just accept people for the way they are and allow them to live happily the way they see fit. No law should restrict two consenting adults from marrying one another. End of story.

appologizing doesnt qualify as admitting guilt

in the 1982 rape case that has just come out into the public, the defense attorney for the rapist who clearly appologized for rape claims that by appologizing for rape in no way is he admitting to his guilt of this crime. HOW is that not admitting to having done this? basically i hope this guy does a lot of time for this. rape is rape, regardless of how long ago it happened, where it happened, whether or not there was alcohal involved, or whether or not the rapist appologizes for a AA exercise. some related sites include:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128769162983&path=!news

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128769381265&path=!news

another issue that comes up in this case is the fact that the University of Virginia has screwy rules in regards to sexual assault and rape cases. they try to keep them secret, when really if someone is guilty of rape it should be well known. the university should set an example to other institutions and its own students that rape will not be tolerated. C'ville weekly came out with an article about another woman who was shushed up years ago about a rape that happened at UVA, now people are coming forward years later to testify. its a shame they were scared out of getting justice for so long.

Bush on Immigrants

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html

I read Bush's speech. I was pleasantly surprised. If this isnt a positive and rational step, Bush did a really nice job of making it sound so. It sounds as if without causing any problems with national security Bush wants to help more immigrants come to America legally to work for us. His temporary job ideas seem to be pretty decent, since there are seasonal jobs that immigrants can certainly help fill in America. He did a nice job of representing a positive image for immigrants and their important role in the American economy. He made a diplomatic speech, that sounded like he knew what he was talking about. I think that reading it was better than if i had listened to it given by him, because it seemed official and intelligent... but I want to give him credit when he is due it. So far as I can tell this seems like a positive step for immigration and the things seem like reasonable and possible ideas to make into laws. I didn't really expect to say this but... nice going Bush.

to torchure or not to torchure that is the question...

So if Congress is trying to pass a law making torchuring illegal, AND Bush claims that 'we do not torchure,' WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? Why, if Bush is so adament that we don't torchure people, shouldn't there be a law forbidding creul and unusual punishments? I don't see where the issue is here unless in fact Bush is trying to sugar coat CIA prison and punishment policies.

Is it ever okay to torchure people? Is the ban on creul and unusual punishment NOT considered to be an important part of our constitutional rights? If we wouldn't torchure our own, why would be sink to a different level of terrorism with citizens of different countries. I tried to think of the possible reasons that torchure might be considered acceptable. I understand where people are coming from when they claim that by torchuring detainees we can find out new information about possible terrorist attacks ... but how do we know which detainees have information? it's a needle in a haystack game and it just doesn't seem right to potentially torchure innocent people who happened to be the wrong ethnicity, in the wrong place, in the wrong time.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1849286
-some pictures and some very honest blogger opinions [not censored, but i found it to be a good radical bush hating liberal source.]

narrow escape from the clutches of evil

so i don't know about everyone else in this class, but for me personally i am exstatic about the election results. THANK goodness that the people of Virginia had enough sense not to elect shifty sketchy Kilgore. yikes. i feel like this goes to show that i negative campaign like the one Kilgore used in running for governor does not work. a successful campaign cannot be only about bashing your opponent. also about this whole support from bush thing... well i dont know that it persuaded people that much, but obviously Bush's approval rating is dipping lower and lower these days so i cannot for the life of me understand why Kilgore would associate himself with an unpopular president. i guess he thought it might draw more votes, and that seems to have backfired nicely.

so im pleasantly surprised that Kaine pulled out a victory. but really why fix whats not broken? Kaine helped Warner pull our state together and by balancing VA's budget and by acting with good bipartisanship as well. i feel that Kaine is well aware of what he needs to continue to do for our state and will be more than capable and dedicated to fulfilling all his campaign promises and he will indeed continue to keep Virginia moving forward.

response to scooters indictment and shenanigans

soooo this is one complicated case. it shouldnt be as complex as everyone is making it out to be. did scooter give away a CIA agents identity or did he not? the second question should be did he lie under oath in court or when talking to police officials... or did he NOT? hmmm tricky tricky.... it just seems like its yes or no answers... and we are not focusing our attention enough.

a whole other side of the case is why someone would disclose an undercover agent's identity? could it be to get back at the govt. for unfavorable editorials? possibly. what sucks is that if that is the actual reason we are looking at a much bigger issue here: the govt. trying to sneakily punish people that are reporting things that go against their actions.. no matter how TRUE the information may be. the war in Iraq was started for a lot of reasons according the the preseident, but it seems that the most important reason - weapons of mass destruction, were not really ever a threat... and that is what mr wilson reported.... and then he was punished by the outing of his CIA agent wife. now thats screwed up.

also.... is bush trying to landslide this bad news with the new nominee for supreme court justice? i think so.... thats all i got for now.