Bush touts broadband initiative?

[JesseJames]

Well, well, well. Looks like he isn't too much of a blockhead after all.
Link at drudge report site.

http://drudgereport.com/

[wdlove]

Bush also urged that broadband access be tax free. "The Congress must not tax access to broadband technology if we want to spread it around," he said.

I sounds like a great start. Looking forward to increasing speed, better service, and lower cost. Ending fees and taxes will certainly help. Hopefully not too far into the future dialup will come to an end. The lowering of prices will certainly bring it about.

[KC9AIC]

It's important that broadband be available in all areas. I've got a friend, who, after living in Japan, the land of cheap broadband access, is stuck on dialup in rural Iowa. Despite his many websites (he knows a number of web languages) and online hobbies, he can only go on the internet at painful speed. Once broadband becomes available in all places, many more people will be online, as they won't have to be stuck at slow speeds.

[MrMacMan]

eccch

Drudge report...

Anyway I like broadband and I use cable...


What I want is competitive pricing ... they are charging waayy too much for something like Cable.

I look at S.Korea or Japan... I can get 10x faster for half the price... what gives? :confused: :eek:

[wdlove]

eccch

Drudge report...

Anyway I like broadband and I use cable...


What I want is competitive pricing ... they are charging waayy too much for something like Cable.

I look at S.Korea or Japan... I can get 10x faster for half the price... what gives? :confused: :eek:

What company do you use? What kind of price do you pay? What are they paying in Asia?

Hopefully the initiative of President Bush will increase competition, options and decrease price! :)

[Les Kern]

Well, well, well. Looks like he isn't too much of a blockhead after all.

No, no... he's a blockhead. Wait, I think that does injustice to the blockheads of the world. Bush is just mouthing what some of the smarter folks around him tell him to say.
And quoting Drudge is like quoting Goebbels.

[solvs]

I don't want to start a flame war, but I'll believe it when I see it. He's promised a lot of things that we have yet to see. :Caveat: Not that I think Kerry is much better.

I hate all politicians equally.

[Sayhey]

I afraid I have to agree with Kevin Drum's comments over at the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/) when he says:

HOORAY FOR BROADBAND!....Another bold policy initiative from President Bush:

"We ought to have universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007," Bush said. "And then we ought to make sure as soon as possible thereafter consumers have plenty of choices."

"It's important that we stay on the cutting edge of technological change, and one way to do so is to have a bold plan for broadband," he said. Bush did not elaborate on how he would accomplish the 2007 goal.

I'll just bet he didn't elaborate, especially since somebody in the White House obviously pulled that date out of their ass without even bothering to pick up the phone and find out if it was possible. Hell, South Korea's been working toward this goal for nearly a decade and they still aren't quite there yet. And that's in a country 1% our size.

These guys really don't even pretend to care about whether stuff is possible before they start yapping about it, do they? Besides, I thought Republicans were in favor of the free market handling this kind of stuff. What's with the "bold plan"?

On the other hand, it is bold. Did I mention that?

POSTSCRIPT: I should make clear that I actually think having universal broadband access is a worthy goal. Maybe it requires a government program, maybe it doesn't, but it sure isn't going to happen by 2007. And frankly, with this gang in charge, I'd just as soon keep the free market in charge in any case.

[pseudobrit]

After he's reelected and the economy continues to slide, unemployment swells and manufacturing flees, another nation will be invaded for no good reason and what will the press be talking about in 2007?

Bush unveils "flying car" initiative in State of the Union address!

"We were promised the flying car decades ago. It's time America should have it. We're going to get them in the air by the year 2015 with this bold new plan," the president said. Unknown was whether said cars would run on hydrogen or plutonium pellets, two new fuel sources Bush promised to deliver in previous State of the Union addresses.

[zimv20]

"We ought to have universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007," Bush said. "And then we ought to make sure as soon as possible thereafter consumers have plenty of choices."

for you unix fans, i'll use this construct to suggest a better idea:
^broadband technology^health care

[Juventuz]

After he's reelected and the economy continues to slide, unemployment swells and manufacturing flees, another nation will be invaded for no good reason and what will the press be talking about in 2007?

Too bad for you, and those that hate Bush, that the first two events are going in the opposite direction.

Do people honestly believe that Kerry will keep the manufacturing jobs here and create more like he says? Fat chance!

Vote 3rd party!

[pseudobrit]

Too bad for you, and those that hate Bush, that the first two events are going in the opposite direction.

At the current rate of "job growth" we're having, it will take longer than another four years to recoup the jobs already lost.

And the economic "recovery" that's occuring is not a very strong one.

Do people honestly believe that Kerry will keep the manufacturing jobs here and create more like he says? Fat chance!

I don't like it when an administration openly praises outsourcing as a good thing!

And at the very least, Kerry won't be starting any fresh unnecessary wars.

[G4scott]

And at the very least, Kerry won't be starting any fresh unnecessary wars.

Ok, so you've outlined what kerry won't do, now what will he do?
Go skiing? Exercise his ability to use foul language? Tell everyone how much of a war hero he was? Raise taxes (effectively driving a stake through our economy's heart)? Or will he flip flop when he gets into office and proclaim he's going to invade Iran and N. Korea?

[IJ Reilly]

Newest Bush campaign promise:

Broadband on Mars by 2010!

[Les Kern]

Ok, so you've outlined what kerry won't do, now what will he do?
Not sure, but I doubt he'd send kids to die for oil. (and no cracks about "it ain't the oil!" cause it IS)
Go skiing?
Hope so. Rest is important. I guess that's why bush spent 40% of his first year in office in Texas.
Exercise his ability to use foul language?
I recall that Bush, upset with an individual, ranted with F-that and F-this in front of a 4-year old boy.
Tell everyone how much of a war hero he was?
He was, and Bush was a rich-boy who used his name to get out of it.
Raise taxes (effectively driving a stake through our economy's heart)?
Cancelling tax breaks to the wealth is NOT raising taxes. I see you bought Rush's line. Actually he said he would CUT corporate taxes. I just hope he nails the "patriots" who use tax shelters overseas that make me and YOU pay more.
Or will he flip flop when he gets into office and proclaim he's going to invade Iran and N. Korea?
Bought the flip-flop line too I see. I would have voted with Bush too. Kerry and the rest of us found out just how much of a lying sack of **** Bush is.
And changing one's mind is fine. Here's a SHORT list of Bush' flip-flops:

Said gay marriage was an issue for the states during the campaign. Once the states started doing something, it's a federal issue.

Opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department. Then favored creation of a Homeland Security Department.
Posted by: J.B. Howard at March 5, 2004 11:41 AM

Was definitely going to call for a second U.N. vote and let the chips fall where they may. Didn't call for a second U.N. vote.

Negotiating with North Korea was a failed Clinton tactic.
Negotiated with North Korea.

Opposed increasing SEC scrutiny. Then flopped.

Preached keeping his hands off the Social Security lockbox. Then decided it would be too profitable to do so.

Opposed creation of independent 9/11 commission. Then flopped.

Will intervene militarily to "end" states that knowingly harbor terrorists and allow the spread of WMDs. Let Musharraf off with a pat on the back.

Economic Report of the President for 2004--the economy will add 2.6 million jobs this year Um, never mind.

Said he was a Uniter, not a Divider. Then divided the country by saying the constituion was the proper place to exlude rights from American citizens.

Opposed creation of independent 9/11 commission. Then flopped.

Then flipped back and refused to cooperate with the commission he appointed. That one counts double!


"In his State of the Union speech this year, Bush proclaimed: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America." What? He said what?" came the world's reaction. But the president was simply following the Bush formula for dealing with a credibility problem: State the opposite and pretend it's true.

Bush reversed his campaign pleddge on carbon dioxide emissions within months of taking office. Then flipped back and refused to cooperate with the commission he appointed. Then said he supported giving the commission a 60 day extension while getting Hastert to oppose the extension. TRIPLE FLIP!

[zimv20]

couple more:

- as governor, bush signed a state bill allowing people to sue their HMOs. now he's supporting a federal bill to make that impossible.

- that whole "nation building" thing

- promised AIDS money to africa; it never materialized

- promised reconstruction money to NYC; about 10% was delivered

- promised more money for local responders; that budget item has been cut

- didn't fund No Child Left Behind

yeah, he comes from a real strong position calling kerry a flip-flopper. thanks for buying into the rhetoric; the GOP pays a lot of money to figure out how to fool you.

[pseudobrit]

yeah, he comes from a real strong position calling kerry a flip-flopper. thanks for buying into the rhetoric; the GOP pays a lot of money to figure out how to fool you.

It can't be wasted in this instance; they're only preaching to the choir with G4scott.

Bush could nuke France in September and he'd buy the GOP party-line reasoning and support it, with generous doses of Rush Limbaugh spin to make it clear to him why he supports it. I find it's typical of Rush listeners.

[Doctor Q]

Macworld's report (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/29/broadband/).

[Les Kern]

...the GOP pays a lot of money to figure out how to fool you.

You got that right. It began with Gingrich and GoPac. They actually had/have a lexicon of the words you should use when describing Dems including:
-- bureaucracy
-- cheat
-- corruption
-- decay
-- hypocrisy
-- ideological
-- liberal
-- radical
-- spend
-- taxes
-- welfare
And a separate list describing the GOP:
-- family
-- freedom
-- hard work
-- liberty
-- moral
-- opportunity
-- protect
-- rights
A LOT of these phrases are STILL in the minds of the GOP faithful, no matter how much they are proven wrong. I'm sure a lot of you have used the phrase "politically correct". Yep, from Gingrich and GoPac. Think of all the DAMAGE him and folks like Coulter, Limbaugh and all the other knee-jerk neo-cons have done. And for what? Their own gain. The GOP power-base is INCAPABLE of admitting that their ideas are wrong, so we must fight them and ultimately destroy them.
The power of a "meme" (mind virus) is awesome, and used in the wrong hands (like Goebbels) can shape a nation, and ultimately destroy it. Don't think it can't happen to us.

[kgarner]

the GOP pays a lot of money to figure out how to fool you.

Let's be reasonable now. The DNC spends a lot of money to get their message out too. Just because someone's view is different than yours doesn't necessarily mean they "bought the party line." Unless of course it applies across the board, in which case those that feel like you "bought the DNC party line" too. Not trying to insult anybody, I just get tired of the near religous zeal of politacal debates. Let's face it. No one party has all the right answers.

edit: typos

[Les Kern]

Let's be reasonable now. The DNC spends a lot of money to get their message out too.

I agree, and I also think that Terry McAulliffe should be canned. But back on the differences between the GOP and the DEMS. As an ex-republican, I truly not only believe, but actually see, that character assasination has been honed to a fine edge by the GOP; that they stop at NOTHING to destroy good people. As an example, take the assault on Max Clelland in Georgia. Or, look at what the GP said about Kerry and the Vietnam war, and all the planted stories and doctored pictures with Jane Fonda. And George? The Dems called him a deserter, or AWOL, or a rich brat who used his name and daddy to get him out of war. But it's true, isn't it? What's Bush's answer? "I had more important things to do."
Look around and ask yourself "Is this true?"... that's all I ask. In time, if you are truly a moderate free-thinker, there is only one answer.
Back on the thread subject: They are also good at changing topics to diffuse others.

[zimv20]

Let's be reasonable now. The DNC spends a lot of money to get their message out too. Just because someone's view is different than yours doesn't necessarily mean they "bought the party line."

i think i'm being quite reasonable. your point is well-taken. i was responding specifically to g4scott's assertion that kerry is a flip-flopper. this is a message the RNC is desperate to get out. upon easy examination, it's a position revealed to be highly hypocritical.

therefore, i concluded that g4scott performed no due diligence on his opinion forming and got it straight from the RNC, as was their intention.

at no point do i claim that the DNC is free from this stuff.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's be reasonable now. The DNC spends a lot of money to get their message out too.

The Democrats have never mastered the technique of controlling the debate by controlling the language. The was the Machiavellian GOP master-stroke of the 1980s. They even went so far as to change the name of the Democratic Party.

[wwworry]

Bush just throws out these "bold iniativess" to look like he has some sort of "vision" thing.

Hydrogen cars
man on mars
broadband

What it means is usually nothing. What did we get?:
tax cuts for the super-wealthy (over 50% of tax cuts went to the upper 5% or 1% - i'd have to look it up.)
2 wars - 1 legit and unfinished, unfunded and the other promoted with lies
a corrupt medicare law
lower clean air and water standards
huge deficits
no net new jobs created

How can someone run on this record?