I only quote this by Jeff to illustrate why I wish politics would not show up on the bbs. I am reminded how left so many of you, my friends, are. We see things so differently. I wonder why...? I know that I have met Jeff. I know that I truly like Jeff. I know that I want to nuture and develop my fiendship with Jeff. But sometimes I want to put his head on a tee and swing. G-Dub made an excellent speech, cautious to avoid seeming too right to please the Green party people, yet maintained the bulk of his campaigning stances. He is a great president. He has control of both houses so theoretically he could be a total dick. (in left eyes). He is not. He is finding neutral ground on many issues. Ease up. When I say Jeff please freely substitute any of you guys that are card carrying tree huggers. And when I say that Jeff can attest that I say it with a smile. I am the rare right winged thumper that believes wholly that both sides of the political line must be present for this system to work. I may disagree on virtually every issue but if you were not there to b**** and fight then my side would ruin everything. and vice versa
You are either being disingenuous or ignorant here. Eliminating the tax on dividends will affect dividend policy in the larger companies. When your 401(k) holds these stocks, more dividends are a good thing, because they will be reinvested and YOUR account will grow. Put down the gold Robin Hood.
I had a big *snore* with this speech. I really did like the line about not leaving problems for the next congress, the next president, etc. when I was just thinking opposite, damn look at all the crap the next guy is going to have to clean up. lol Also kind of amusing that when Bush was running for office he said how much he was against nation building and how he'd bring the troops home and here he is trying to lead a "coalition of the willing" (yeah, whatever 3 countries he can find) to continue nation building.
Even when given the opportunity to correct yourself....oh well. The vast majority of HMOs (today, not 20 years ago) are IPA and/or nonexclusive-Group model. These contract with a network of independent providers or independent physician groups...the same providers you select from under FFS. The larger the HMO, the more likely a Senior's doctor will be in their network. Out of the top 25 HMOs, Only the 2 Kaisers (exclusive-Group model) fall into your antiquated view of reality (only about 20% of the membership of the top 25). Until the Clinton administration, there were generally multiple HMOs to choose from in each urban market, making it likely that a Senior could find at least one that their own Doctor contracted with (most Doctors contracted with many so they would not lose patients). Maybe you should be more concerned with all of the additional benefits the Seniors who were signed up with an HMO lost when many shut their doors under Clinton.
With all due respect Chance, garbage. George Bush may have an agenda that you like (didn't you say that you are repulsed by poor people?), but to call him a great president is simply wrong. Bush came into power with a strong economy, roaring stock market and a budget surplus and now the US is in recession, stocks are down almost 2000 points and federal and state governments are operating under record annual debts. Before you mention 9-11 remember that Bush busted the federal budget before 9-11 with the tax sop to the rich and your big, fat $300.00 check. Once. Rather than adequately deal with Al-Queda and Osama Bin-Laden (remember him?) we are now about to invade Iraq without the support of most of the rest of the world or even the majority of the American people. It's not like Afghanistan is stabilized, either (read today's news about the renewed fighting there). The Bush Administration has yet to make a persuasive case that Hussein actually has a significant and ongoing program of weapons of mass destruction enough to get the world community on board. His stupid cowboy "axis of evil" rhetoric pushed a country *with* nuclear (nuke-you-lur in W-speak) weapons, North Korea, into a position of bargaining power. Are we invading North Korea? Of course not...might get messy... Bush failed tonight to prepare the country for what it will mean to invade and occupy Iraq with little, or no international support. In a time where the economy is teetering on the edge of recession, Bush is asking for sacrifices from the entire country except the wealthiest Americans. Even many Republicans are opposed to Bush's newest call to cut taxes for the rich while we are in deficit, about to go to war and a possible recession. If Bush were for tax fairness he would also call to cut payroll taxes which effect the poor and middle class a lot more than the dividend tax, but those people aren't his priorities.
A great President? If great means... -never elected -acts as if he has a mandate when he clearly does not -is hell bent on eliminating the middle class through tax cuts that clearly favor the wealthiest Americans -doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment, despite the rhetoric -stripping away civil rights while hiding behind 9/11 -overturning Roe vs. Wade then, yes, he is a great President. This is not my definition of great, and I believe it is not most American's definition of great, either. Now that I've given my two cents, I'll give you a wooden nickel... I agree with my colleague from the other side of the spectrum, Chance. I wish politics wasn't part of this board. I remember the bad old days during Junior's "selection" process in 2000, and I wouldn't want to go back there again.
I love politics, and I've found every single State of the Union addresses boring...I'm guessing Jeff feels the same way. Just because he's a liberal doesn't mean he found the address boring because of who was giving it.
In regards to the Speech, I hear alot of you using words like sincere ....you're kidding, right? ("right", get it..."right"... as in wing...get it?...)
My only comment about the speech is that I think a law should be passed that bars everyone from clapping until the end. Listening to the speech was like watching a movie on TNT - every 2 minutes you have an interruption (commerical/applause). This crap encourages sound bites rather than substance and makes the speech way longer than it needs to be.
I thought the speech was excellent. I only wish they would hold the applause until the very end instead of after every sentence.
What? I really DID watch the dog show. I watched about 5 minutes of the SOTU and got so freakin' bored, I changed the channel. I got bored watching Clinton's too. I NEVER made it through one of his SOTU's or any other president's for that matter. I flipped on Fox when it was over because I thought they would be at least mildly interesting and they're as right-slanted as they come. I was wrong. Analysis is even worse. Oy. It's like getting your teeth cleaned - torture. I used to fall asleep during sermons when I went to church as a kid too. Hearing people speak about politics is like an instant trigger for either my remote control finger or whatever power it is that pulls my eyelids shut. All and all, I found everything I did during the SOTU (dog show, surf the net, talk with my wife) much more interesting than watching ANY president speak and seeing a bunch of glad-handing politicians stand up and clap or NOT stand up and clap like 5-year-olds. It's so easy to get them to clap too. Cut taxes! - All GOP, please rise Fuel efficient cars - All Dems, please rise Down with homework! - All 5-year olds....you get the point It's like going to an insurance seminar, watching paint dry, long drives at 3am...it just makes me sleepy. I spent two entire political campaigns watching people speak - one for the arena the other for Mayor Brown. I saw all kinds of people stand up and talk about politics. They were ALL boring (except for me, of course ). It was always the same blah, blah, blah. Over and over. I did them for one of two reasons: a. I believed in the cause. b. I was getting paid. You figure out which campaign was which. I don't mind discussing politics. I don't even mind disagreements. I have a good friend who is very conservative and we have great conversations about all sorts of things. I just like those because they are TWO-WAY. Listening to ANY blowhard politician get in front of a mic and try to convince me they own all the answers is like listening to my boss go on for an hour about how to improve "the business." It's precisely why I work for myself. Another thing that is annoying as hell is the "listen to all the great things I have to say." Whoopdee-damn-doo. The way you win my freakin' approval is not by placating me with pretty little words and statements that make me want to stand up and cheer. You show me what kind of person you are through your actions. I hold the president (and congress and they mayor and Rudy T) to the same standards I hold my friends. I don't care WHAT you believe as long as you do right by me. If you don't, no speech will make up for my dissatisfaction. If you do, it would be tough for a speech to damage that feeling. Because, in this life, we earn respect through action, not a bunch of happy little words, especially words written by someone else designed to bring about the best response possible. It reminds me of that Simpson's episode: <i>Kodos (as Bob Dole): Abortions for all! Crowd: BOOO!!! BOOO!! Dole: Very well, no abortions for anyone! Crowd: BOOO!!! BOO!!!! Dole: Hmmmmmm.....ok, abortions for some....miniature American flags for others! Crowd: YEAY!!!!</i> But back to my comment...it had absolutely NOTHING to do with politics, Bush or any liberal or conservative cause or agenda. It had to do with my personal preference for dog shows over the dog and pony show that is political gatherings like this and long-winded boring ass speeches. I have ALWAYS hated them. I think they suck. I think they are boring. That's just my preference. Well, ok, I guess I did listen to a political person speak last night since Ron Reagan, gay son of the former president, was the commentator for the dog show. Does that count?
From Biden: Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration "has evidence now that can change people's minds," though its unlikely to produce a single piece of dramatic evidence, such as recent photos of banned weapons. But he added: "I know there's enough circumstantial evidence that if this were a jury trial, I could convict you." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_52
