Republican Response

[UNTflyer]

VERY interesting format. The governor of Virginia is delivering the GOP response to the State of the Union Address in front of a live audience in the Virginia Statehouse. It's usually delivered to a camera in a studio.

[Keith7]

what a sad pitiful group of babies

[Green Guy Bass]

I don't mean to cause another politcal debate here, but was that really a response to the issues that Obama discussed, or a glorified GOP pep rally? Most State of the Union speeches give me tired head because of all the standing and clapping, but the Governor didn't really bring a counter point to much at all. I heard more criticism this morning on CNN from Rudy Giuliani. Thought last night was kinda weak and a bit of dog and pony show. Good idea that didn't really leave me with anything.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Green Guy Bass

[UNTFan23]

I don't mean to cause another politcal debate here, but was that really a response to the issues that Obama discussed, or a glorified GOP pep rally? Most State of the Union speeches give me tired head because of all the standing and clapping, but the Governor didn't really bring a counter point to much at all. I heard more criticism this morning on CNN from Rudy Giuliani. Thought last night was kinda weak and a bit of dog and pony show. Good idea that didn't really leave me with anything.

I think there was more symbolism in the fact that he represented one of the Governor seats lost to the Democratic Party.

[hickoryhouse]

I don't mean to cause another politcal debate here, but was that really a response to the issues that Obama discussed, or a glorified GOP pep rally? Most State of the Union speeches give me tired head because of all the standing and clapping, but the Governor didn't really bring a counter point to much at all. I heard more criticism this morning on CNN from Rudy Giuliani. Thought last night was kinda weak and a bit of dog and pony show. Good idea that didn't really leave me with anything.

I don't really disagree with you there. The GOP response was very nebulous and seemingly more directed at the feelings of the audience than it was on direct policy and agenda. That isn't to say that there was none of that there but I don't think that was his goal in the probably 1-2 page speech.

I don't mind that though, with the drastic minorities currently held by the GOP what kind of policy information do you really expect them to offer up during a 6 minute rebuttal? I like the fact that he appealed to the audiences emotions and pride. That seems to me like the most effective use of that limited air time, this way he leaves the audience with something that they can hold onto longer than inane details of policy agendas that were proposed without enough time to accurately explain them, or pointless attacks that, while good sound bites, do nothing to eliminate the overly partisan atmosphere currently in our national government.

I did like the forum much better this year and I am much more pleased this year with the response that I was with Bobby Jindal last year.... wow....

[UNTflyer]

do nothing to eliminate the overly partisan atmosphere currently in our national government.

I don't want want the partisan atmosphere eliminated. Like Lewis Black once said, "If there's anything worse than Democrats and Republicans fighting, it's when these pr!cks work together."

[UNT90]

I don't want want the partisan atmosphere eliminated. Like Lewis Black once said, "If there's anything worse than Democrats and Republicans fighting, it's when these pr!cks work together."

Agree. And I don't think that a party whose leader believes that government is the answer to everything can work with a Republican Party that (quite suddenly, by the way) believes that government is the problem, not the solution. I do think this is a belief of convienance by the Republican party. Either that, or they have finally decided to listen to a conservative base that is furious over the Dems and Repubs spending over the last 9 years.

Anyway, there is no room for 2 parties with such fundamental differences on the purpose of government to work together (thank God). That is why you saw Pres. Obama basically double down on his agenda, and that is why you will see Republicans repudiate that agenda in the coming days.

Pres. Obama's message was basically "You need to come over to our side and pass my legislation". The Republican message was "See you at the mid-terms".

Gridlock in Washington is good for America.

Edited January 28, 2010 by UNT90

[hickoryhouse]

I don't want want the partisan atmosphere eliminated. Like Lewis Black once said, "If there's anything worse than Democrats and Republicans fighting, it's when these pr!cks work together."

Thats very fair and very logical. I do remember hearing, but don't have time to look up, that the founding fathers specifically penned the Congressional rules so that progress would be slow and so that one administration,or congress etc couldn't do to much damage to quickly. That definitely makes sense if that is the case.

However there are issues in the country that do need to be looked at such as health care, over regulation (or lack thereof) of business both small and large, intentional deficit spending in the budget, the national debt and energy policy. These things, especially energy, budget deficits and the debt , are issues that we can't afford to slow play for to much longer. At some point these guys are going to have to do something together and accomplish something so we don't drown in our debt to China and others, so we can continue to have ample energy at rates American's can afford and so we don't end up saddling future generations with bills that they will never be able to pay. Perhaps the difference in party numbers is to great to overcome currently and leaves one party thinking they have a public mandate mandate so they are inflexible and the other party constantly on the defensive. That sort of atmosphere would not be a good incubator for cooperation or open minded thinking from leadership. Everything reaches a tipping point though, hopefully when it does we will have logical and patriotic individuals in legislative positions that can make decisions for the betterment of the entire union.

[FirefightnRick]

I think there was more symbolism in the fact that he represented one of the Governor seats lost to the Democratic Party.

Yes, and I liked the quote by senator elect Scott Brown being referred to in the response as well: ““In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

[EagleD]

Yes, and I liked the quote by senator elect Scott Brown being referred to in the response as well: ““In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

Really? I want these guys tried in an open court so there can be no backlash of it being a "kangaroo court". As a matter of fact shortly after 9/11 I heard the same thing from the White House. Holding them in a cell with no hope of a trial is only fueling the fire. If they are guilty, what do you have to hide? Vengeance is not justice.

[UNT90]

Really? I want these guys tried in an open court so there can be no backlash of it being a "kangaroo court". As a matter of fact shortly after 9/11 I heard the same thing from the White House. Holding them in a cell with no hope of a trial is only fueling the fire. If they are guilty, what do you have to hide? Vengeance is not justice.

So, you want to spend our tax dollars on terrorists who have no legal right to our judical system? Do you have any idea what the bill will be for the security of these trials alone? Much less the bill that the government (read: TAXPAYER) would have to pay to provide legal counsel for the terrorists?

As to the highlighted portion, I just find it amazing that people think permenant detainment of enemy combatants who are violating the Geneva Convention Treaty will somehow motivate the big, bad terrorist to come and hurt us all. We are doing exactly what is allowed by international law. Terrorists captured on Foreign soil do not get the benefits of an American citizen. Jeez.

Seriously, why don't we just surrender now, since any little action except for bowing at their feet may make them really, really, really mad at us. (Hyperbole, but I think you get my point)

[EagleD]

So, you want to spend our tax dollars on terrorists who have no legal right to our judical system? Do you have any idea what the bill will be for the security of these trials alone? Much less the bill that the government (read: TAXPAYER) would have to pay to provide legal counsel for the terrorists?

As to the highlighted portion, I just find it amazing that people think permenant detainment of enemy combatants who are violating the Geneva Convention Treaty will somehow motivate the big, bad terrorist to come and hurt us all. We are doing exactly what is allowed by international law. Terrorists captured on Foreign soil do not get the benefits of an American citizen. Jeez.

Seriously, why don't we just surrender now, since any little action except for bowing at their feet may make them really, really, really mad at us. (Hyperbole, but I think you get my point)

B/C we are a nation of laws. By your standard we can go all over the world and with little or no evidence detain people, hold them in a cell and torture them. Hell, we HAVE done that! If the German military came here and took your best friend, held him on an island in the mediterranean and said, "We have evidence he is supporting a terrorist organization, but we're not going to tell you what that information is, nor are we going to try him for these crimes", you'd be at the least, a bit skeptical.

Didn't we succesfully try the shoe bomber? I've heard no outrage about that trial.

A founding principle of this country is a fair trial.

Again, vengeance is NOT justice!

[FirefightnRick]

This great new website isn’t currently working for me right now so I can’t use the link system, but it’s just been reported on Drudge that the New York Daily News is reporting that the white house has ordered the justice department to move the trial. Here’s the address below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

It says at the bottom that this doesn’t secure the fact of whether the trial will actually be moved out of the city or not.

Rick

[UNT90]

B/C we are a nation of laws. By your standard we can go all over the world and with little or no evidence detain people, hold them in a cell and torture them. Hell, we HAVE done that! If the German military came here and took your best friend, held him on an island in the mediterranean and said, "We have evidence he is supporting a terrorist organization, but we're not going to tell you what that information is, nor are we going to try him for these crimes", you'd be at the least, a bit skeptical.

Didn't we succesfully try the shoe bomber? I've heard no outrage about that trial.

A founding principle of this country is a fair trial.

Again, vengeance is NOT justice!

Legally, Reid could have been treated as an emeny combatant and held in Quantanamo. I'm sure there was political pressure from Brittian to treat Reid as a criminal, not a terrorist. Also, there was compelling physical evidence that would ensure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The advantage to treating Reid (or the bomber over Detroit) as enemy combatants is the fact that the don't have miranda rights, therefore the interrogation process to identify their contact in the Terrorist organization and start working back up the food chain is a lot easier, AND PERFECTLY LEGAL. They are not American Citizens, they are comitting an attack on America through terrorism, and they are not in a uniform of a foreign country. They have no Constitutional rights in this country, and they have no rights under Geneva.

You may have personal beliefs on how they should be treated, but that is all they are, your own personal beliefs.

What bothers me is a lot of people seem to worry so much about "creating more enemys" or "empowering the terrorists by showing that we are religious". The people that are going to blow themselves up in a crowded venue or ram planes into buildings causing 3000 civilian deaths can not be changed. Nothing you can do will pursuade them that we are "good". Realize that they are your enemy and want to kill you, and then choose your course of action.

[EagleD]

What bothers me is a lot of people seem to worry so much about "creating more enemys" or "empowering the terrorists by showing that we are religious". The people that are going to blow themselves up in a crowded venue or ram planes into buildings causing 3000 civilian deaths can not be changed. Nothing you can do will pursuade them that we are "good". Realize that they are your enemy and want to kill you, and then choose your course of action.

Granted.

But, as to prisoners at Guantanamo, or any other facility for that matter, fundamentally they deserve a trial. They've been accused of being terrorists. OK, prove that accusation. It's an accusation, not a fact. Let us see the evidence!

[EagleD]

This great new website isn’t currently working for me right now so I can’t use the link system, but it’s just been reported on Drudge that the New York Daily News is reporting that the white house has ordered the justice department to move the trial. Here’s the address below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

It says at the bottom that this doesn’t secure the fact of whether the trial will actually be moved out of the city or not.

Rick

I thought Reid had already been convicted.

[UNT90]

Granted.

But, as to prisoners at Guantanamo, or any other facility for that matter, fundamentally they deserve a trial. They've been accused of being terrorists. OK, prove that accusation. It's an accusation, not a fact. Let us see the evidence!

No, they don't. They are not criminals being charged with a crime. They are prisoners of war. They can be held until this war is completed. Yes, that does mean indefinitely. Yes, that means without a trial. Completely legal and done in every preceeding war.

For those that are accused of terrorist acts, they are receiving military tribunals. Those that were simple captured out of uniform and attempting to attack or harm US troops (for example, caught attempting to set up a roadside bomb), they are held as prisoners of war with no Geneva protection.

Maybe we should just release those that don't meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt". You know, like the Leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, who we had in custody at Gitmo, but released to Yemen for "reconditioning". Seems it didn't take, since he almost engineered a plot to blow up an airplane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

[KRAM1]

We are a country at WAR! Until we start acting like it, and stop giving these terrorists rights of US citizens we will keep struggling to gain the upper hand. The idea that these guys have Miranda rights is simply wrong! They are not citizens, they do not deserve Miranda rights of citizens...they deserve to be treated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention (perhaps...that might be for another debate), but to be tried in civil court at the cost of over $1billion and to do it in NYC is simply wrong. If you want to bring these guys to the US, bring them to a military base and try them in a military court! That's one heck of a lot better than the treatment the coalition forces receive and many civilians that have fallen into these terrorists hands.

Yes, we are a country of laws...that's why we should apply the laws correctly in this case and not have some public "show trial" that the current administration thinks might up their poll numbers!

Good Grief!