• 03-07-2004, 05:13 PM
    jeskibuff
    C'mon...TAKE your medicine!
    Some people hate Bush with a passion, as if he's done them the greatest harm. According to this article, Bush received just 16% of San Francisco's vote in 11/2000. I guess they didn't think Bush had their best interests in mind, did they?? So, of course, Bush should give them a little retribution, shouldn't he?

    The author asks: "is the president's agenda so desperately out of touch with 415-ers as to merit rejection by 6 out of 7 voters, plus thousands of angry protesters taking to streets anytime the president comes within driving distance of the Bay Area?" (415 is SF's area code)

    Well, here's a few things he did that affected San Franciscans:

    • Mayor Newsom's fifth day on the job included a meeting with Philip Mangano, who heads the federal Interagency Council on Homelessness, which the Bush administration brought back to life to better coordinate federal outlays for the various pieces of the homeless puzzle
    • Under Bush, overall federal spending on HIV/AIDS has grown 28%...Bush has pledged to spend $15 billion over five years on global AIDS relief to prevent new infections, provide antiretroviral treatment and care for the sick and orphans. That's a tripling of the nation's global AIDS relief since 2001...HIV/AIDS wasn't part of the Bush agenda or the party platform when he ran for office and he's the first president to give more than lip service to the human tragedy in Africa..
    • Last December, Bush signed into law a National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). His latest budget proposal includes nearly $1 billion, twice 2001 levels. ..If Bush didn't care about the Bay Area and a rejuvenated tech sector, he wouldn't give nanotechnology a nanosecond of thought...Silicon Valley sees it as part of its economic recovery.
    • The Democratic presidential field hammers away at Bush on trade...But in the Bay Area, the consequences of higher tariffs, protectionism and trade wars would be tragic
    • Though roundly criticized in the Bay Area as anti-green, the Bush administration's has called for $105 million in habitat restoration and water improvements for the Klamath River Basin...Mr. Bush also earmarked $760 million for his Healthy Forests Initiative
    • The Bush budget also includes Muni's proposed $764 million Central Subway, extending the Third Street light rail line from SBC Park and China Basin to Clay Street and Chinatown.
    • As for the tech sector, Mr. Bush signed an extension of the federal Internet tax moratorium


    ...the city that demands tolerance should practice what it preaches. That begins with learning to better tolerate a president whose record doesn't merit the overblown rhetorical attacks and abject rejection.

    Hmmm...San Francisco is like a microcosm for the liberal half of our nation, isn't it? They just don't know what's good for them!
  • 03-07-2004, 07:43 PM
    bturk667
    Hmmm... But the Conservatives always know what is good for everyone, don't they?
    Both sides are full of it, Liberal and Conservative,Democrat and Republican. Most politicians only do things that are in their best interest and their parties-not those that are in the best interest of the country-most of the time. People like you will never understand why the otherside thinks like they do. You do not seemed interested in finding out. You would rather ***** about them and their lack of support for the politicans that you support. Me, I've disliked the last two Presidents. Both were about as usefull as tits on a bull.

    Know, if you could give me a President that had Clinton's domestic strenghts, and Bush foreign policies,(except for the Iraq War), know I might get excited over him. Until that that day, I guess I will be left to choose between the lesser of two evils!

    Have a nice day!
  • 03-08-2004, 10:01 AM
    Chris
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    Bush received just 16% of San Francisco's vote in 11/2000. I guess they didn't think Bush had their best interests in mind, did they?? So, of course, Bush should give them a little retribution, shouldn't he?
    I would hope not - a president giving retribution to a state/area that didn't vote for him? Sounds a little mafia-ish to me. Why should there be any negative impact on a state/person which didn't vote for the guy who won? That would only further alienate the people and enrage voters... I don't think Bush has done that, but his fixation on the gay marriage ammendment shows he isn't really counting on California/San Francisco's support too much - a state which isn't critical for him to win anyway.
  • 03-08-2004, 10:04 AM
    Widowmaker
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris
    I would hope not - a president giving retribution to a state/area that didn't vote for him? Sounds a little mafia-ish to me. Why should there be any negative impact on a state/person which didn't vote for the guy who won? That would only further alienate the people and enrage voters... I don't think Bush has done that, but his fixation on the gay marriage ammendment shows he isn't really counting on California/San Francisco's support too much - a state which isn't critical for him to win anyway.
    Are you kidding me? California not critical? California is critical for every presidential candidate because it has the most electoral votes and for image reasons also. It's kind of a rub to Democrats for a Republican to win a traditionally Democratic state.
  • 03-08-2004, 07:59 PM
    jeskibuff
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bturk667
    Hmmm... But the Conservatives always know what is good for everyone, don't they?
    So, you're saying that none of those many things that Bush did was any benefit to San Franciscans?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris
    I would hope not - a president giving retribution to a state/area that didn't vote for him?
    I was just being a bit sarcastic and drawing a bit of a contrast. It seems like the world is full of retribution for lack of loyalty or failure to "get in line". Bush COULD'VE axed some of those things, but he passed them for the betterment of the region and for the overall good of the country.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris
    his fixation on the gay marriage ammendment shows he isn't really counting on California/San Francisco's support too much
    Or maybe he's just following what he believes to be the right thing to do according to his moral standards. He's done that many times before - not leading by taking opinion polls, but rather following his moral compass. I think there's a lot to admire in a politician who chooses the road which is least politically expedient. We all say that we want such leaders, but when one is staring us in the face, we find all sorts of excuses to hate him.
  • 07-21-2020, 04:17 AM
    Boluker
    I agree that medicine is important!
  • 07-21-2020, 04:18 AM
    bubbagump
    I work as a nurse in a public hospital and I, like no one else, know that medicine is one of the most important parts of our life, and even more so it cannot be abandoned. When we advise people to buy something, they refuse to buy because they feel sorry for the money, For example, recently we advised a patient to buy a Choicemmed electronic pulse stimulator, which we find here so that he would always have medicines at hand, but to my great regret, he refused calling it a waste of time, which later resulted in not very good consequences.