*LIVE Discussion During State of the Union Address

Hmm... Well I am NOT a Republican - I am also NOT a Huge Fan of Bush - BUT I thought that it was a
Pretty Good Speech! Idealistic yes (as usual) - but you have to admit that what has been going on in the World for a LONG TIME IS the Battle between Tyranny & Fascism vs. Freedom & Liberty!

Hey this was pretty good: "We Prosecuted Corporate Criminals & raised Home Ownership to the highest level in history"!

I believe that he was PRETTY SERIOUS & Sincere when he said that we need to get off of FOREIGN SOURCES of Energy - because he is quite aware of the National Security Risk that it poses.

I know a lot of people like to Rag on President Bush - I do it myself sometimes - but EXCUSE ME, Come On Guys Seriously - I am a little more Concerned about the ABSOLUTE INSANITY which IS the
Iranian & North Korean Regimes! They already have the Nukes - but they BETTER Understand that if they even THINK about Using or Selling them then they will be HAMMERED by Yours Truly!

It looks like he sums up the BIG PICTURE quite well HERE:

"In the long term, the Peace we seek will only be achieved by *Eliminating the Conditions that feed Radicalism* and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in Hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the **Terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of Democracy.* And we have declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to *Support Democratic Movements* in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending Tyranny in our World.

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to Peace."



Interesting Side Note - did anyone Catch the Pattern of the Embroidery that was on the Blue Cushioned Seats all the way up were the First Lady was Sitting? Ironic no? These things are SUBCONCIOUS these Symbols have been with us for a Very Long Time. They are neither Good nor Evil in themselves. Political Correctness is a waste of time. It is only the Actions of Man that can be classified as Good or Evil!


[edit on 2-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Interesting Side Note - did anyone Catch the Pattern of the Embroidery that was on the Blue Cushioned Seats all the way up were the First Lady was Sitting? Ironic no? These things are SUBCONCIOUS these Symbols have been with us for a Very Long Time. They are neither Good nor Evil in themselves. Political Correctness is a waste of time. It is only the Actions of Man that can be classified as Good or Evil!

Great Post by the way! Good work, . I'm voting for you on the above top secret thing.

What were the symbols your referring too? I've sat in those seats and didn't notice anything besides them being unusually comfortable considering they were made of wood but had cushioning on the back and bottom. It was so long ago though. Presidential Classroom Alumni's get to visit there during they're stay in D.C.

I sat in the bottom rows when I was there in 2003.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by The Division Bell]

Thank You Division Bell - If you have Tivo I recommend that you Rewind/Replay back to the Part that I am talking about. If you look you can Clearly see that on the Blue Cushion is a Gold Swastik Pattern! This is in the U.S. House of Reps correct? I believe I also saw a Hexagram on a Wooden Chair & Heck you have Pentacles all over our Flag!

Prince Harry of the U.K. Royal House got in trouble recently for wearing a Nazi Band at a Costume party. Now European leaders are talking about BANNING this symbol in all European Public Places.

We already had a debate about this topic on ATS Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not believe that Censorship is the Solution - when ever I run into Nazi's online I always try to debate them - their Ignorance usually shows Right away. Besides it is NOT FAIR. The Swastik is a 5000 YEAR OLD
Solar Symbol that is Used in the Hindu & Buddhist Religions. Hitler & the
Nazi Party Corrupted & Perverted this symbol 70 years ago along with the idea of "Aryan" (which means Nobel/Righteous - being a
Genocidal Murderer is Not Righteous). This topic also made the
Daily Show with Jon Stewart recently - if you watch "Stoner Slacker" shows like this that is!

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

It's probably just an Egyptian key design like on this jewelry:

No it was an actual Swastik Pattern - nothing to be ashamed of however - Its ALL OVER Greco-Roman ART TOO!

In Hindu it is believed to help protect fortified positions.....Learned that while studying cultural anthropology and the Tamil culture of Tamil Nadu in India. Yes, i'm bragging now.

There is something omnious about your avatar, is there a reason you chose it? I just get a strange feeling when I see it.



[edit on 2-2-2005 by The Division Bell]

Yes - that is Jesus (My third Jesus Avatar on ATS) - Or at least what I believe he looked like - It is a VERY OLD Fresco Painting. I had a Buddha up there Before - I like to Switch it up every now & then!

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Yes - that is Jesus - Or at least what I believe he looked like - It is a
VERY OLD Fresco Painting.

Maybe it is the eyes but it is gives me an eerie feeling.

Yes - if you were alive in Palestine/Judeah 2000 years ago & you ran into him - I am sure you would have that same feeling again!

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Yes - if you were alive in Palestine/Judeah 2000 years ago & you ran into him - I am sure you would have that same feeling again!

Perhaps in a past life. I forgot about that being a feature that scared people back then, I remember hearing his eyes scared people.

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

Just in case anybody missed the oppression of homosexuals and the possibility of an unconstitutional amendment. I thought we were over trying to oppress members of our society by only granting rights to individuals based on their sex.

Originally posted by swintersVT
"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

Just in case anybody missed the oppression of homosexuals and the possibility of an unconstitutional amendment. I thought we were over trying to oppress members of our society by only granting rights to individuals based on their sex.

Good Post. Yeah, it is a contradiction. If past Presidents had been like Bush then we'd still have segragation. He guides his policies based on political and social pressures not what is best for his nation.

Originally posted by swintersVT
Just in case anybody missed the oppression of homosexuals and the possibility of an unconstitutional amendment. I thought we were over trying to oppress members of our society by only granting rights to individuals based on their sex.

This is a meaningless statement. Nobody is advocating discrimination against anyone based on their sex. He only advocates protection of the Clinton-era Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Also an amendment such as this is by definition constitutional since it would become part of the constitution properly under Article V.

[edit on 2/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Hmm... Well I am NOT a Republican - I am also NOT a Huge Fan of Bush - BUT..........

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

You are fan of Jesus, that alone already puts you and Bush on the same line already. No matter what he says, -----"that is just damn good!"

Alright. I'll concede the comment based on the constitutionality of such an amendment. The action would still be discrimination based on sex for the sole reason that you indicate specifically a male and female. And if both conditions are not met you discriminate against one of the two individuals based on their sex.

Also people are mainly against the idea of homosexuals getting married for religious reasons. Basing a definition on religion has no place in government. Yes, individuals do not have to have any particular religion to get married; which puts the case stronger in favor of allowing homosexuals to get married.

Added: Another argument for discrimination against homosexuals is because you are denying certain rights granted to other citizens marrying for the same reasons.



[edit on 2/3/2005 by swintersVT]

It may be discrimination based on sexual orientation but not sex.

Marriage has always been handled by the states, and states such as Massachusetts if it so desires can legalize gay marriage. A Federal amendment would just protect states that don't want to recognize such "marriages" from having to do so.

I'm just trying a differrent slant than the typical sexual orientation discrimination rhetoric. Thanks for the discussion.

Does anyone here actually believe a 10 year old boy spontaneously came up to Harry Reid in a diner carrying a skateboard and said that he wanted to grow up to be just like him? I surely don't.

Quote: "You are fan of Jesus, that alone already puts you and Bush on the same line already."

I am Sorry - I didn't Realize that I wasn't allowed to be a Christian - what Communist Fascist Country do you live in? I Believe that the President is CORRECT in his statements about FREEDOM & LIBERTY & DEMOCRACY! These are Rights that ALL PEOPLE feel a need for!

Listen - Bush might make a “Bushism” every now & then & we all have a Good Laugh - he might Mis-Pronounce the word Nuclear - But he is still the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - try showing a little Respect!

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]