Steroid Use in State of Union Address

January 20, 2004 9:35 PM

Steroid use by football players?Huh?? Why is Bush wasting time talking about pro athletes in the State of the Union address? Oh, yeah, so the cameras will have to zoom in this guy. They're goooood, these guys.
posted by jamsterdam (67 comments total)

$23 million for drug testing of students, but not more money for education? Huh? Leave no urine sample behind.
posted by drezdn at 9:40 PM on January 20, 2004

Remember kids, don't use steroids. Just look at what they did to this poor man.
posted by homunculus at 9:52 PM on January 20, 2004

Why you gotta mess with Tom Brady?
posted by xmutex at 10:00 PM on January 20, 2004

Well, we must have solved the sex tourism issue already.
posted by Argyle at 10:10 PM on January 20, 2004

This is a photoshop contest waiting to happen.
posted by homunculus at 10:36 PM on January 20, 2004

I was wishing the networks would have showed Ted Kennedy in a little picture-in-picture box while President Bush spoke. Whenever the camera did cut to him he was shaking his head and rolling his eyes and looking really pained. It would be a better Democratic Response than the boring Pelosi/Daschle thing they had afterward.
posted by stevis at 10:43 PM on January 20, 2004

So, is steroid use that bad? I know people whom have taken it responsibly (cycled once or twice) and seem fine. I mean there's the possibility of liver damage, etc., but doing it *just* once doesn't seem that bad. Arnold's a prime example of someone who can use steroids and not be a twitching mass of muscle (well ok bad example).

Really though, would it be bad if steroid use were highly regulated so non-professional athletes could acheive results, but prevent abuse? Forgive my ignorance, I just don't think steroids are the primary threat to youngsters out there (though coke is now cheap and esay to get).
posted by geoff. at 11:00 PM on January 20, 2004

he was preaching.
posted by Hackworth at 11:10 PM on January 20, 2004

the cameras will have to zoom in this guy.

I learned long ago to make C-span the channel of choice when all the networks are covering the same event. Lots of long shots of the chamber, no ugly closeups of Dubya, and no gratuitous shots of invited dignitaries. At least one network is not taking direction from the White House communications office.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:29 PM on January 20, 2004

geoff:
I agree with the principle - regulation reduces harmful side-effects like wrong dosages, wrong usage and the associated criminality - but on the other hand I've seen people use it and turn into violent unpredictable psychopaths long before reaching the 'twitching mass of muscle' stage.

Also, if it's illegal for pros but legal for others, how do you prevent people from using it and then going pro?

Finally, I can't believe the prez is wasting the collective time of the american people on pro sports...
posted by spazzm at 11:30 PM on January 20, 2004

Finally, I can't believe the prez is wasting the collective time of the american people on pro sports...

My guess (if you believe in shrewd moves) is that he thinks this is the sort of talk that would appeal to the common man.
posted by drezdn at 11:35 PM on January 20, 2004

The common man is all up in arms about steroids? Am I missing something?
posted by raysmj at 12:24 AM on January 21, 2004

he thinks this is the sort of talk that would appeal to the common man

I think I would term this more cynical than shrewd. This is the basic problem I have with this Administration. It seems they don't think the American public is really smart enough to get it, so a little Joe Six Pack pandering is required to keep the audience's attention. Who cares that this was perhaps the most partisan, divisive SOTU address ever delivered (well, in my lifetime, at least), if we can pan to Tom Brady, recent hero of the AFC Championship game?

Did anyone count how many times he mentioned God, religion or faith in the speech last night? Perhaps we can harness the energy of the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
posted by psmealey at 3:50 AM on January 21, 2004

This is a photoshop contest waiting to happen.

He's obviously gotten the emails about increasing his penis size. Hey, maybe that's what those "WMD development labs" were really working on ... increasing the size of Iraqi missiles. We better get working on it .... add another $10 billion to the budget, wouldn't want to fall behind!
posted by ElvisJesus at 5:33 AM on January 21, 2004

the most partisan, divisive SOTU address ever delivered

Does Bush even understand the words that are written for him? He is so completely out of touch with reality that it is disgraceful.

I had to pick my jaw up off the floor listening to him babble on and on about steroids. Steroids???

A tax relief will allow poor families to pay for health insurance? Does he have any idea how expensive private insurance is? Because I do.

Preachin' morality and shit and then turning around and preachin' hate. Judicial activists not acting for the people? And here I was thinking that Mass. supports gay marriage because the voice of the people was heard.

Values never change? If that were true we'd all be out back whipping our slaves into submission.
posted by archimago at 6:01 AM on January 21, 2004

At least he didn't mention Pete Rose or the proposed Alex Rodriguez trade the Texas Rangers are looking to swing.
And, hey, if the New england Patriots lose, we can now call it the State of the Union Curse (a la the fabled Sports Illustrated Curse).
On the bright side, it was really welcome news to learn that we still won't be bullied by thugs, bullies and ideologues (unless of course, oh, nevermind, you know...)
posted by chandy72 at 6:25 AM on January 21, 2004

I was wishing the networks would have showed Ted Kennedy in a little picture-in-picture box while President Bush spoke. Whenever the camera did cut to him he was shaking his head and rolling his eyes and looking really pained.

That would be cause of Bushmills, not Bush.
posted by jonmc at 6:36 AM on January 21, 2004

I had to pick my jaw up off the floor listening to him babble on and on about steroids. Steroids???

I was expecting the Republicans to frame the election around fear, gays, and abortion.

But steroids, now this is a true American woe.
posted by the fire you left me at 6:36 AM on January 21, 2004

Steroid abuse is so 90s.
posted by archimago at 6:49 AM on January 21, 2004

For the vast majority of the time, I was alternating between stunned silence and uncontrollable giggling. $23 million for drug testing in schools? Okay, Mr. President... whatever you say.
posted by elf_baby at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2004

At least he didn't mention ... the proposed Alex Rodriguez trade the Texas Rangers are looking to swing.

hah! "We must look to the future... when a players' union does not impede on the free will of a millionaire ball player."
posted by jerseygirl at 7:02 AM on January 21, 2004

It's standard Rove. Big sweeping proposals. No money.

As for the steroids - look at it this way : there was an awful lot the Prez couldn't talk about (for too long, anyway), such as the US economy, or Iraq.

So Rove needed some non-nutrititive filler.

I used to have a bottle or two of "Diet Aids" from the 50's. The stuff was cellulose that would expand in your stomach and fill you up (unless you happened to have termites in your intestinal tract). But no calories.

But I'd rather gnaw on chunks of wood than listen to George W. Bush.
posted by troutfishing at 7:11 AM on January 21, 2004

$23 million for drug testing in schools

I liked Jon Stewart's reply to that: "that'll just about cover the cost of the dixie cups." How about $23MM for new textbooks instead? I realize it won't go far, but it would do more good.

Also, teaching abstinence to teens? WHAT. THE. FUCK. Why must we continue to pay lip service to real problems with bury-our-heads-in-the-sand policies while the social and other costs of teen pregnancy and STD's rise unabated?

Apologies in advance for derailing this thread about the very serious and far-reaching problem of multimillion dollar athletes abusing steriods.
posted by psmealey at 7:23 AM on January 21, 2004

Also, teaching abstinence to teens? WHAT. THE. FUCK. Why must we continue to pay lip service to real problems with bury-our-heads-in-the-sand policies while the social and other costs of teen pregnancy and STD's rise unabated?

Because sex is a tool of the devil, and you youngins best not be practicing it in MY country.
posted by elf_baby at 7:25 AM on January 21, 2004

"permission slip"????!!!!

what an asshole.

I don't get why Bush's arrogance get such a free pass by the media, while Dean is being lambasted for showing the slightest bit of spine.
posted by jpoulos at 7:31 AM on January 21, 2004

Because "spine" is disapproved and adherence to what the overlords (media and otherwise) dictate is everything. The "culture war" in this country is between eager sheep and those who would be free, and the latter are losing badly on every front.
posted by rushmc at 8:38 AM on January 21, 2004

While we're on various topics...

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"! I hadn't heard that one before. I mean, damn! How long does it take to come up with something like that?

So... No weapons. No programs. But activities about programs related to weapons. Good thing we nipped that in the bud.
posted by whatnotever at 8:39 AM on January 21, 2004

Serious question about the drug testing. Does anyone know exactly how this will work?

"In my budget, I proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I proposed an additional $23 million for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we don't want to lose you."

What does one do with the results of drug tests if not punish? How will drug tests without punishment "reduce demand for illegal drugs"? And I'm not saying there should be punishment, because I don't think that would help much. I just don't understand how this "tool" will be used.
posted by whatnotever at 8:49 AM on January 21, 2004

I don't get why Bush's arrogance get such a free pass by the media, while Dean is being lambasted for showing the slightest bit of spine.

Seems simple enough to me: The media is in the hands of conservatives who wish to maintain the status quo as long as they're benefitting from it.

Also, there seems to be a fundemental misunderstanding of the concept of "fair air-time". As a network/newspaper executive, you do not have to feel the need to put counterpoints to statements of fact, "for fairness sake". There's a reason you don't see too many KKK Grand Wizards arguing about affirmative action on Larry King Live or Meet the Press. It's because the executives know that, while they may provide a contrast to any salient points made, most viewers regard them as nutjobs. Unfortunately, the media know all too well that most Americans are rubes when it comes to Bush's policies, so in order to appear "Fair and Balanced", they have to give the Republicans a voice even if they're lying through their teeth.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:53 AM on January 21, 2004

The "culture war" in this country is between eager sheep and those who would be free, and the latter are losing badly on every front.

And calling people you disagree with (or merely dislike) "sheep" is sure to bring them around to the age of glorious enlightenment. Please give the Junior Ubermensch routine a rest. Arrogance and condescension do not help make any point. In fact it makes me wanna tune you out.
posted by jonmc at 8:55 AM on January 21, 2004

He lost votes in the Carolinas. Wonder who he wants to win the Super Bowl?
posted by Macboy at 9:00 AM on January 21, 2004

Jesus, jon. I thought you tuned us out months ago.
posted by jpoulos at 9:02 AM on January 21, 2004

"In my budget, I proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I proposed an additional $23 million for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we don't want to lose you."

Don't want to punish? What about the fact that anyone convicted of a drug offense loses any and all eligibility for student loans? What a fucker.
posted by Atom12 at 9:04 AM on January 21, 2004

Jesus, jon. I thought you tuned us out months ago.

That was directed at rushmc, not at everyone here in general. But the fact is that there's an awful lot of people on the fence politically, and hearing themselves and their concerns dismissed as "sheep" or "hysterics" or "stupid" or whatever is not only not gonna change anyone's mind, but it'll probably make 'em wanna run in the other direction.

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would decide everything based on cold, hard facts. But that's not the way it is. Presentation of ideas counts for something. And I'm sick and tired of watching the anti-war movement and the left in general shoot itself in the foot with dumbass condescending rhetoric.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2004

The "culture war" in this country is between eager sheep and those who would be free, and the latter are losing badly on every front.

rushmc is right about this, but I'd like to stress that this is a profound cultural shift that transcends party affiliation. I think Americans really do value safety more than freedom now, and what's more, I think this shift happened about 15 years ago. 9/11 may have brought this out but it is not new. That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

I don't take rushmc's statement to be about tarring his opponents as "sheep" and from what I know about him I don't believe he meant it that way either.
posted by furiousthought at 9:25 AM on January 21, 2004

jonmc - I agree. In persuasion, respect comes first.
posted by troutfishing at 9:26 AM on January 21, 2004

Even propagandists use respectful public language and, though they may air grotesquely demeaning attitudes towards common folk in private - they make sure that there are not microphones present to capture the ugliness of these attitudes.

Many American politicians - on both sides of the political fence - hold their constituents in contempt these days. They know better than to ever say it.

That said, rushmc is neither of these things and probably is just very frustrated. But - rushmc - think of it this way : even highly intelligent people can be led to and fro, as sheep, if their opinions are molded by blizzards of disinformation and propaganda.

So - I'm a would be sheep and probably am more than a bit sheepish in certain areas as well.

Baaah ! Baaaah ! Bah !

Just don't try any "sheep pushing", now....I've got quick, sharp hoofs.
posted by troutfishing at 9:42 AM on January 21, 2004

Damn, I didn't intend that as such a derail.

How about - "I've got quick, sharp hoofs that are attached to powerfull hindquarters bulked up by illegal steroids which have been inexplicably condemned by George W. Bush in his recent State of the Union Address !"

There now, we're back on track.
posted by troutfishing at 10:09 AM on January 21, 2004

I definitely agree with the recent points made by troutfishing and jonmc. I'll take it one step further. I was raised and educated to believe that politics was about compromise and working out the best deal for the greatest number of people, all the while protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". When I look at it from that perspective, everyone in public service today seems to be falling down on the job, and the mainstream media is letting them get away with it, reporting on style points rather than content.

I can safely say that we live in one of the absolute dumbest epochs in our history: polarizing rhetoric from the government's highest public officals; attention to issues of "values" and religion that government has absolutely no place in; not accountability or admission when plans lead to less than desirable results; childish namecalling and poorly researched screeds from "satirists" and pundits on both the left and the right... the list goes on and on.

Who was it that said that every nation gets the government it deserves?
posted by psmealey at 10:34 AM on January 21, 2004

Sheep On Steroids.

Sounds like a hardcore band.
posted by jonmc at 10:39 AM on January 21, 2004

Andrew Sullivan: "Whatever else this president is, he is no believer in individuals' running their own lives without government regulation, control or aid. If you're a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am."
posted by homunculus at 10:41 AM on January 21, 2004

"Whatever else this president is, he is no believer in individuals' running their own lives without government regulation, control or aid. If you're a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am."

Which is why I think whoever runs against Bush should emphasize fiscal conservativism and social liberalism.
posted by drezdn at 10:49 AM on January 21, 2004

The common man is all up in arms about steroids? Am I missing something?

the common man is easily distracted by sports and spectacle, reality tv, matrix sequels, disney animations, and cheesy jingoist pitches. the public opinion is awash in a sea of cheap, easy entertainment and bedazzled by 'technology'. the "common man" has become an amorphous mass of ignorance. yeah, i'd say you are missing something.
posted by quonsar at 10:52 AM on January 21, 2004

Sheep are sheep. If you are still on the fence, you haven't been paying attention.
posted by MetalDog at 10:52 AM on January 21, 2004

amen. if you still require 'persuasion', you're probably too stupid or afraid to be persuaded at all.
posted by quonsar at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2004

unlike you higher beings, right?

Maybe "on the fence" is the wrong phrase. How about "conflicted"? ie: worried about casualties in Iraq but also worried about (or understandably wanting payback) for 9/11 (I realize Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's almost beside the point) worried about the economy but skittish about new programs. NTM, after coming home from a long degrading day at work, coming home and hearing that as a white, middle-class American male you are the source of all the worlds problems, would anger anyone short of a masochist.

But, if I was someone who was investigating alternatives and someone referred to me as an amorphous blob of ignorance, I'd be inclined to ignore them as well. But hey, it makes for a cute bumper sticker, right?

the common man is easily distracted by sports and spectacle, reality tv, matrix sequels, disney animations, and cheesy jingoist pitches. the public opinion is awash in a sea of cheap, easy entertainment and bedazzled by 'technology'.

I'm confused. Are you angry because they don't share your opinions or because their tastes aren't as "cool" as yours?

amen. if you still require 'persuasion', you're probably too stupid or afraid to be persuaded at all.

This is the epitome of self-congratulatory rhetoric. The reason we want to persuade people is because we need as many bodies and votes on ur side to get someone in the white house who might actually get something done.

I was discussing this with a co-worker and when i asked him (a hard-line leftist) whether the Dems should pander to the lowest common denominator, he said "Fuck yeah. Pander to whatever denominator you need to get the right man in there."

Or is our sense of intellectual superiority more important to us than actual action?
posted by jonmc at 11:19 AM on January 21, 2004

I really like Doritos.
posted by xmutex at 11:21 AM on January 21, 2004

you know you can't change shit by ridin the fence
posted by madamjujujive at 11:38 AM on January 21, 2004

I'm not advocating riding the fence, for crying out loud, but how to reach those that are. But since nobody seems to be listening, I'll assume you don't actually care as much as you think you do about the ideas you espouse. Or at least not enough to do what it takes to put them into action.

And thanks for reminding me why I need to avoid political threads here, if only for my own sanity.
posted by jonmc at 11:46 AM on January 21, 2004

but how to reach those that are

You Super Bowl-ify the SOTU address by 12%.
posted by archimago at 12:16 PM on January 21, 2004

I like how he said that the Patriot Act was about to expire, and all the Democrats started clapping. It looked like he didn't expect that response. This election will be the first one that I vote Democrat for in a long time, and last night's speach made me feel a little better about that.

Here's a little observation that I made...

"Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America. (Applause.)"

None of these things are protecting America, they only serve to remove rights from Americans.

Law enforcement personnel are using new anti-terrorism laws to investigate and imprison people on non-terrorism related charges. Law enforcement personnel are harassing American citizens for exercising their lawful freedom of speech.

The examination of airline passenger lists border on criminal, with airlines submitting private passenger information, including credit card numbers to NASA.

The CAPSII program seeks to run intrusive and invasive searches on every person flying. The paperwork that people fill out in association with flight wouldn't stop anyone. These programs do nothing to insure our safety, and in fact only make it worse. By making the average person feel threatened (and rightfully so) you reduce cooperation, creating an evironment where EVERYONE has something to hide. If everyone is a criminal, how do you sort out the really bad criminals from people who just want to protect their privacy?

The true evil of the Homeland Security department has yet to be revealed, but it's going to be serious when it is.
posted by severed at 12:23 PM on January 21, 2004

"Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"! I hadn't heard that one before. I mean, damn! How long does it take to come up with something like that?

This long.
posted by homunculus at 12:59 PM on January 21, 2004

And calling people you disagree with (or merely dislike) "sheep"

It has nothing to do with whether I agree with their views or like them. It has everything to do with whether they are consciously choosing to ignore reality because it scares them and they feel it will overwhelm them—so they abdicate their responsibilities as citizens and as human beings and open the door for the carnivores (which are legion, and always waiting in the wings for an opportunity) to take over. If someone makes the effort to familiarize themselves with the facts and uses them to reach a different conclusion than I do, I have no problem with that.

In fact it makes me wanna tune you out.

You are more than welcome to do so. In fact, I would argue that you are already doing so, given the nature of your reply. Your knee-jerk anti-"elitist" response has gotten tired long since, given that it is rarely justified by what you take to be triggers. What you apparently seek to do is to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator, not just pander to those already there, and I am opposed to this.

I'd like to stress that this is a profound cultural shift that transcends party affiliation

I completely agree.

Even propagandists use respectful public language and, though they may air grotesquely demeaning attitudes towards common folk in private - they make sure that there are not microphones present to capture the ugliness of these attitudes.

Yes, this is called hypocrisy, and I am opposed to it. The inclination of the left to extend politeness to crippling patronization is part of the reason that those who speak and act directly and assertively—albeit in appalling ways—have taken over.

even highly intelligent people can be led to and fro, as sheep, if their opinions are molded by blizzards of disinformation and propaganda

I couldn't agree more, and would go on to say that each and every one of us is the victim of this to some degree. But acknowledging that should not lead to "giving up" and claiming that all knowledge is impossible and all effort expended to understand the complexities of the world around one—political and otherwise—wasted.

if I was someone who was investigating alternatives and someone referred to me as an amorphous blob of ignorance, I'd be inclined to ignore them as well.

Hey, that's your hangup; don't wave it around at the rest of us. If someone called me ignorant, and I had the least respect for their sense and knowledge, I would be motivated to discover what led them to believe I was ignorant and if, in fact, I was, so that I might correct the problem. But please, continue lashing out defensively from your feelings of insecurity and persecution by "all the smart people" who live to deride your value and intelligence.

Sheesh.
posted by rushmc at 2:06 PM on January 21, 2004

(Which is not to say that your fundamental point about more-flies-with-honey-than-vinegar does not contain some validity; it's the rest of what you're saying that I strongly disagree with.)
posted by rushmc at 2:08 PM on January 21, 2004

Your knee-jerk anti-"elitist" response has gotten tired long since, given that it is rarely justified by what you take to be triggers.

I'd still maintain that "amorphous blob of ignorance" is contemtpuous enough to warrant being labeled a trigger.

But please, continue lashing out defensively from your feelings of insecurity and persecution by "all the smart people" who live to deride your value and intelligence.

My hangups are what they are, and I'll admit that being dismissed or condescended to raises my ire, but we all have our own and they in no way negate the point I was trying to make, which is this: even if you do consider most people to be ignoramuses or lazy or whatever, in situations such as elections, where every vote is a priority, you still have to make an effort to reach them. It's a tactical thing more than anything else. And being paternalistic and condescending will not do it. It's just a simple fact of human nature, nobody enjoys being talked down to.

Think about it. If your teacher walked into class on the first day and said "Hi, I'm hear to teach you morons algebra, but it doesn't really matter since you'll never amount to anything anyway..." you'd probably switch to another class. Even if the teacher was a Nobel Prize winner. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Nobody likes being insulted. So regardless of how "right" it makes you feel, it's counterproductive.
posted by jonmc at 2:24 PM on January 21, 2004

Sheep On Steroids.

Sounds like a hardcore band.

Funny coincidence, that...
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:33 PM on January 21, 2004

what about drug abuse by blowhard talk radio djs?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:41 PM on January 21, 2004

Bush chose wrong enemy
posted by homunculus at 3:54 PM on January 21, 2004

I realize Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's almost beside the point


Hey, stupid is stupid.


Being offended by being called out on it is your fucking problem.
posted by sic at 3:56 PM on January 21, 2004

I'd still maintain that "amorphous blob of ignorance" is contemtpuous enough to warrant being labeled a trigger.

Please note that I never used the phrase, and nothing that I said is really comparable.

Nobody likes being insulted.

The problem is, that most people in our society today have no tolerance for being told that they are wrong, either. Many people would rather simply believe that they are right on faith rather than investigate the facts that might prove them mistaken. Look how strongly (even violently) people will defend almost any opinion they hold, even on trivial matters in which they are not expert. It's as though they feel if they ever admit to being wrong, they will be marked as weak and inferior. This is a very bizarre and unhealthy attitude toward both error and self.

Where I disagree with you is with the idea that telling someone they are wrong is inherently insulting. To me it is far worse (and far, far more insulting) to shield someone from the truth because you have somehow assessed that they are "too sensitive" or "too bigoted" or "too dumb" to get it if you give it to them straight. Certainly there are better and worse ways of presenting oneself or arguing one's case, but coddling someone or treating them like a child is not the same thing as refraining from yelling invective at them.

When I used the term "sheep" above, I used it in a very literal (albeit metaphorical) sense: that some people choose behaviors which meet the criteria of the definition. I did not say "Joe, you are a mindless sheep." If I had, I would agree with you that I was perversely lowering my chances of persuading him to my way of seeing things. But it is perfectly appropriate to characterize a group of unnamed people in the context of an assessment made about them within a discussion forum. Would they be unhappy to know that I'd called them "sheep?" No doubt. But they ARE sheep, by definition, because that is how I defined the parameters of the particular group of which I was speaking! Given these things, I don't see how your complaint that people who believe differently than I do will be turned off of my message by the manner of its delivery, because I was not attempting to deliver it to them!

I will say, though, that there does come a point where it is unrealistic to expect someone to not lose patience with someone who is blind only because he chooses not to see. If you were an employer and had an employee who refused to do his work, you would eventually fire him. Alas, we have no mechanism for firing citizens who won't do their work (and a very poor mechanism for firing politicians who won't).
posted by rushmc at 4:32 PM on January 21, 2004

A tax relief will allow poor families to pay for health insurance? Does he have any idea how expensive private insurance is? Because I do.


A tax CUT not tax RELIEF. Relief is the republican term. Democrats must say tax "cut". Or even better "Tax cuts for the richest 1%".


But yeah, the tax-free medical savings account is the most ridiculous idea evar. In fact, all it is is another tax break. Rich people can put in lots of money, and then spend it on optional medicine, rather then spending after-tax money.
posted by delmoi at 4:34 PM on January 21, 2004

9/11 is low on White House priority list
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on January 21, 2004

rushmc:

I've met you in person and you seemed like a nice guy, but I was shit-hammered at the time so who knows?

Anyway , what I'm trying to say is that looking back on this thread after stepping back I realized that my original point was buried in invective that surfaced for the exact reasons you mentioned. I still respectfully disagree with you, but I shouldn't've been so vehement, so sorry 'bout that.
posted by jonmc at 5:57 PM on January 21, 2004

No worries, jonmc. You made your point, I've made mine, let's shake and move on to other frays (but enough with the "nice guy" comments, eh? You are SO gonna ruin my image around here).
posted by rushmc at 12:11 AM on January 22, 2004

jonmc, just for the record - I didn't post that clip as a personal jab at you. The discussion about on/off the fence just made me think of it - it's great animation, great music, and seemed to be on topic.

Also, for what it's worth, I think your last comment shows a lot of class.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:55 AM on January 22, 2004

Updater 3.0
posted by homunculus at 12:47 PM on January 22, 2004

George Lakoff: The Hidden State of the Union
posted by homunculus at 10:56 PM on January 22, 2004