Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 27, 2012
2012 Mitt Romney Says It's No Fair to Bring Up the Killing-Osama-bin-Laden Thing
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Here's the new Obama ad:
In response, the Romney team says ixnay on the in-Laden-bay, because it's unfair:
The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President,” Saul said in a statement. “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad.
Shorter statement: "Come on, Obama! Play fair and let us call you a failed president with a shitty foreign policy like the good loser we know you are." My heart bleeds for them.
1
Fuck off, Romney. If Bush had done this five or six years ago, the GOP and their super-PAC's would have been running an endless stream of "Brought to you by the Party that Killed Bin Laden" spots 24/7 from the beginning of primary season all the way through the general election, and he knows it.
2
Well, then, Romney can't bring up any of his great accomplishments as a leader. Oh, right! There aren't any!
4
He could just say that assassinating bin Laden, in addition to being morally reprehensible, was also friggin' stupid, because:
1. bin Laden had, like, 7 wives, 20 brothers and sisters and 30 kids, all of whom we gave a reason to hate us and follow in his footsteps.
2. As a member of the Saudi Royal Family (who was found in a mansion he couldn't possibly be paying for himself, given that we froze all his accounts years prior), he likely had several accomplices who are also part of the same Saudi Royal Family, and some of them may have access to the president (or other high ranking members of our government).
I'm not a huge Romney fan (read - NOT AT ALL), but this should be an easy spin for him. Maybe he is too stupid to be president...or, his staff is too stupid to be his staff...one of the two.
1. bin Laden had, like, 7 wives, 20 brothers and sisters and 30 kids, all of whom we gave a reason to hate us and follow in his footsteps.
2. As a member of the Saudi Royal Family (who was found in a mansion he couldn't possibly be paying for himself, given that we froze all his accounts years prior), he likely had several accomplices who are also part of the same Saudi Royal Family, and some of them may have access to the president (or other high ranking members of our government).
I'm not a huge Romney fan (read - NOT AT ALL), but this should be an easy spin for him. Maybe he is too stupid to be president...or, his staff is too stupid to be his staff...one of the two.
5
I can't wait until the debates. Obama is going to crush Mittens, and all he will have as a retort is that the economy is not recovering faster.
6
@4: So you would have preferred Bin Laden just keep living in Pakistan free from any prosecution or punishment for the thousands of murders he committed? Because maybe there might be some vague retaliation for it years later?
My god man, terrorist groups don't need a reason to attack someone. They already have justified any action.
And if you are going to argue that we should have arrested and jailed him for the rest of his life, do you really believe that this would not hypothetically cause his family to hate the U.S.?
Call me crazy, but I remember reading that most of his family wants nothing to do with him, I have a feeling Bin Laden already taught his children to hate America, and I am not particularly scared of his seven rogue wives.
My god man, terrorist groups don't need a reason to attack someone. They already have justified any action.
And if you are going to argue that we should have arrested and jailed him for the rest of his life, do you really believe that this would not hypothetically cause his family to hate the U.S.?
Call me crazy, but I remember reading that most of his family wants nothing to do with him, I have a feeling Bin Laden already taught his children to hate America, and I am not particularly scared of his seven rogue wives.
8
While I’m still uneasy with the whole killing of bin laden thing I think this ad is about character and who we want making these sort of decisions. That said, Romney is unable to stand his ground and make a decision if he thinks or perhaps if someone tells him it will be unpopular with someone/a group he might need. I’m sure Obama considers this at times but I trust his character and don’t trust Romney’s at all.
9
Maybe Romney can next attack Obama as destroying families, because Osama had a really big family and now they're without a father.
10
Face it, when faced with the decision to serve his country or go live in a French Castle speaking French for a few years, Comrade "Frenchie" Mitt Romney chose France.
Stick a yellow badge of French courage on him.
Coward.
Stick a yellow badge of French courage on him.
Coward.
11
Whaaaaaa, it's no fair! Obama has actual accomplishments he can brag about!
Says whiny titty baby/spoiled silver spoon in mouth Mitt Romney.
Says whiny titty baby/spoiled silver spoon in mouth Mitt Romney.
13
It's so much fun to spin hypotheticals. Still, its a shining star in Obama's presidency.
Days to election: 193
Days to election: 193
14
So, to be clear, assassination is the strong point of Obama's foreign policy?
Liberals are now pro-assassination… Okay.
Liberals are now pro-assassination… Okay.
15
@6
No, I prefer for bin Laden, naked and offering no resistance to the SEaL Team who assassinated him, to have been apprehended, questioned, tried and sentenced for his crimes (and, I prefer that his sentence be death, if he was found guilty).
I also don't mind that you are out for his blood. People are supposed to get pissed when other people do shitty things to them or their loved ones.
Governments are not. The moment we sanction vigilante justice by our government is the moment we lose all our high minded moral justifications for anything we do as a country.
I'm sure regular folk in Nazi Germany thought killing Jews was cool as well, because of the threat they posed to the Reichland (and, if you don't think the same propaganda was happening then as is now, replacing Jews for Muslims, then you're not paying enough attention). It doesn't mean it was right then, and it isn't right now.
Regardless, even if you are just concerned about safety, and especially the safety of our elected leaders, apprehending and questioning bin Laden prior to trying and sentencing him would have been a much smarter move from that standpoint.
You can't re-kill a martyr (unless they're a zombie martyr, but those are really rare...)
No, I prefer for bin Laden, naked and offering no resistance to the SEaL Team who assassinated him, to have been apprehended, questioned, tried and sentenced for his crimes (and, I prefer that his sentence be death, if he was found guilty).
I also don't mind that you are out for his blood. People are supposed to get pissed when other people do shitty things to them or their loved ones.
Governments are not. The moment we sanction vigilante justice by our government is the moment we lose all our high minded moral justifications for anything we do as a country.
I'm sure regular folk in Nazi Germany thought killing Jews was cool as well, because of the threat they posed to the Reichland (and, if you don't think the same propaganda was happening then as is now, replacing Jews for Muslims, then you're not paying enough attention). It doesn't mean it was right then, and it isn't right now.
Regardless, even if you are just concerned about safety, and especially the safety of our elected leaders, apprehending and questioning bin Laden prior to trying and sentencing him would have been a much smarter move from that standpoint.
You can't re-kill a martyr (unless they're a zombie martyr, but those are really rare...)
17
Some of you complain that the republicans are too black-and-white when it comes to things they should be more flexible on, like abortion, marriage equality, etc.
Then you turn around and complain that the president and liberals are "pro-assassination" because two people were assasinated.
The world is a complex place. Idealism is nice, but not realistic. I hope you understand that when you make complaints like "Bin Laden was assassinated by Obama's administration, and liberals support Obama, thus, liberals are pro-assassination." Thing like that sound just as out of touch with reality as anti-abortionists claiming doctors are murderers, or homophobes claiming gay marriage will destroy all marriage.
Then you turn around and complain that the president and liberals are "pro-assassination" because two people were assasinated.
The world is a complex place. Idealism is nice, but not realistic. I hope you understand that when you make complaints like "Bin Laden was assassinated by Obama's administration, and liberals support Obama, thus, liberals are pro-assassination." Thing like that sound just as out of touch with reality as anti-abortionists claiming doctors are murderers, or homophobes claiming gay marriage will destroy all marriage.
18
@14
I don't think they understand. We've become a nation who defines itself by who it hates. The right hate fags. The left hates the right for hating fags, and all of them hate Muslims (er..."terrorists").
The hate blinds people to what is right and what is wrong and makes them do stupid shit like criticize each other for doing, in essence, the same thing. Meanwhile, JP Morgan Chase/Coca Cola/et al fleeces what's left of their wealth and dignity.
It's a time tested plan, and unfortunately, we're not smart enough as a populace to stop it. At this point, the best you can do is sit back, watch and try to get some entertainment value out of it.
I don't think they understand. We've become a nation who defines itself by who it hates. The right hate fags. The left hates the right for hating fags, and all of them hate Muslims (er..."terrorists").
The hate blinds people to what is right and what is wrong and makes them do stupid shit like criticize each other for doing, in essence, the same thing. Meanwhile, JP Morgan Chase/Coca Cola/et al fleeces what's left of their wealth and dignity.
It's a time tested plan, and unfortunately, we're not smart enough as a populace to stop it. At this point, the best you can do is sit back, watch and try to get some entertainment value out of it.
19
bin Laden might have been personally unarmed, but how were those SEALs to know he didn't have a couple of 747s ready to crash into them at any moment?
21
It was a great day. Of course, all you cocksuckers are more worried about the 'rights' of terrorists.
24
America, Fuck Yeah!
so lick my ass & suck on my balls
Thanks Obama. Felt good to be an American that day.
so lick my ass & suck on my balls
Thanks Obama. Felt good to be an American that day.
25
@15: I would have also preferred an arrest and trial, but this was not a raid on a small time drug den...it was a military operation against a military target. Your personal feelings do not change this fact.
A carefully planned, surgical military operation against an aggressive and known military target is not "vigilante justice."
I am unsure how you know for a fact he was offering no resistance at all. You should also keep in mind that in a military operation, seconds of hesitation can equate to individual death, or the complete failure of the mission.
Reality is not an ideal place, especially not on a battlefield.
Also, it is staggeringly hypocritical for you to accuse me of being "out for his blood" when you yourself said you would have wanted him executed after his arrest.
A carefully planned, surgical military operation against an aggressive and known military target is not "vigilante justice."
I am unsure how you know for a fact he was offering no resistance at all. You should also keep in mind that in a military operation, seconds of hesitation can equate to individual death, or the complete failure of the mission.
Reality is not an ideal place, especially not on a battlefield.
Also, it is staggeringly hypocritical for you to accuse me of being "out for his blood" when you yourself said you would have wanted him executed after his arrest.
26
The right will, of course, sympathize with Mittens on this. Anyone with any right-wing friends or anyone that even casually glances at wingnut hangouts like RedState knows that the wingnuts deny that Obama had anything to do with or has any right whatever to take credit for getting OBL.
Romney plays right to his nutjob base with this.
Romney plays right to his nutjob base with this.
27
@17: "two people were assassinated"? In the years since Obama massively ramped up usage of drone strikes we've likely murdered hundreds of innocent people, so fuck off, Urgutha. Guess the fuck what, Obama supports assassination (of a lot more than two people), so liberals that support Obama are supporting assassination.
28
@4 - Not a member of Saudi royalty. His dad was a Yemeni donkey herder who became hugely wealthy through his intelligence and drive (he rebuilt Mecca) and his mother was a Jordanian. OBL probably did have support from various Saudis but the Saudi royal family aren't supporters (except for a petulant prince or so who's mad at daddy.) And he wasn't living in any gilded mansion. It was a big house for Pakistan but nothing a Saudi prince would live in. Further, it looks like the martyr issue isn't playing out at all. His siblings have publically denounced him as have a few of his children. OBL was on the way out as Al Quaeda big dog. He spent his last days watching old clips of himself, reliving his glory days.
The Saudi royal family knows that OBL was intent on destroying the Sauds as the rulers of Saudia Arabia because he was furious they'd allowed Americans to have a temporary presence their during the Gulf War, thus, in his mind, defiling Islam by allowing non muslim Americans so close to Mecca.
So ain't no Saudi royal with their fat cat life mad at Obama about capping Bin Laden. President Obama made a grand slam homerun with this one and there's no way for Romney to spin it more than just saying it's not fair for Barack to brag.
The Saudi royal family knows that OBL was intent on destroying the Sauds as the rulers of Saudia Arabia because he was furious they'd allowed Americans to have a temporary presence their during the Gulf War, thus, in his mind, defiling Islam by allowing non muslim Americans so close to Mecca.
So ain't no Saudi royal with their fat cat life mad at Obama about capping Bin Laden. President Obama made a grand slam homerun with this one and there's no way for Romney to spin it more than just saying it's not fair for Barack to brag.
29
@27,
Yep, that's the world we live in. It's a tough place and if you think any other president would have done anything different, you're completely ignorant to reality. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but the world is what it is... not what you wish it would be. If you want to change it, you should start by doing something more productive than complaining on a meaningless blog comment page. Just a suggestion.
It's likely a fool's errand though, because I'd venture to say that nobody in existence will ever live up to your, or the average Slogger's, ideals of ethical purity.
Yep, that's the world we live in. It's a tough place and if you think any other president would have done anything different, you're completely ignorant to reality. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but the world is what it is... not what you wish it would be. If you want to change it, you should start by doing something more productive than complaining on a meaningless blog comment page. Just a suggestion.
It's likely a fool's errand though, because I'd venture to say that nobody in existence will ever live up to your, or the average Slogger's, ideals of ethical purity.
30
@25
The UCMJ prohibits assassination, as does international law. If you saw Leon Panetta on Meet The Press (or some other NBC show...now that Russert is gone, I can't keep them all straight), he noted that SEaL Team 6 practiced for that mission and that it had an expected time to completion of 20 minutes.
The actual mission took 25 minutes. There was no time to even consider capturing bin Laden because this was a planned assassination mission. It was illegal and the fact that you're using Bush-era defenses to justify it is as ridiculous as the circular logic you employ therein.
If he was fighting back, yeah...smoke the mother fucker, but he was naked and hiding behind a woman when they murdered him...in a mansion...that he had no possible way to pay for himself...in Pakistan, not Afghanistan...Pakistan, who is our supposed ally in the region...and so on and so on.
He could have answered a shit-ton of questions and he was infinitely more valuable alive than dead, if you're so damned safety conscious.
As far as the ties to the Saudi Royal Family goes, his father (the poor goat herder) was crowned a Shiek by the King, which is the equivalent of British nobility. So, if Lord Huffinpuff is part of the British Monarchy, then so are the bin Ladens part of the Saudi one (and, his mother was born in Jordan, but she was Saudi).
The two families are inexorably tied together through money, religion and now blood. If you don't want to find out exactly how much, in the case of Osama, then that's like asking for another large scale attack.
And, assassinating him makes us no better than he was. That you think otherwise is repugnant to me.
The UCMJ prohibits assassination, as does international law. If you saw Leon Panetta on Meet The Press (or some other NBC show...now that Russert is gone, I can't keep them all straight), he noted that SEaL Team 6 practiced for that mission and that it had an expected time to completion of 20 minutes.
The actual mission took 25 minutes. There was no time to even consider capturing bin Laden because this was a planned assassination mission. It was illegal and the fact that you're using Bush-era defenses to justify it is as ridiculous as the circular logic you employ therein.
If he was fighting back, yeah...smoke the mother fucker, but he was naked and hiding behind a woman when they murdered him...in a mansion...that he had no possible way to pay for himself...in Pakistan, not Afghanistan...Pakistan, who is our supposed ally in the region...and so on and so on.
He could have answered a shit-ton of questions and he was infinitely more valuable alive than dead, if you're so damned safety conscious.
As far as the ties to the Saudi Royal Family goes, his father (the poor goat herder) was crowned a Shiek by the King, which is the equivalent of British nobility. So, if Lord Huffinpuff is part of the British Monarchy, then so are the bin Ladens part of the Saudi one (and, his mother was born in Jordan, but she was Saudi).
The two families are inexorably tied together through money, religion and now blood. If you don't want to find out exactly how much, in the case of Osama, then that's like asking for another large scale attack.
And, assassinating him makes us no better than he was. That you think otherwise is repugnant to me.
31
@29
The world is what it is because the US controls the world and we have allowed ourselves to allow the world to be what it is.
“Far better to risk a war of possible annihilation than grasp a peace which would be the certain extinction of free man’s ideas and ideals.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower
The world is what it is because the US controls the world and we have allowed ourselves to allow the world to be what it is.
“Far better to risk a war of possible annihilation than grasp a peace which would be the certain extinction of free man’s ideas and ideals.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower
32
PS - Romney is a douchebag (there...happy now? I don't like him either, but if there's not difference in what he would do in situation X and what Obama would do in the same situation, then what's the fuckin' difference and why are you do high on Obama and so down on Romney? They're two flavors of the same shitty, store brand ice cream, if ya ask me. I want Baskin Robbins, dammit.)
33
@27 ( OuterCow )
"Guess the fuck what, Obama supports assassination (of a lot more than two people), so liberals that support Obama are supporting assassination."
Nope. It is possible to support Obama as the "lesser of two evils" (imagine a McCain/Palin presidency) and still not support his use of assassination.
Or many other things he has done.
And still support him as best alternative to a Romney/whomever presidency.
It is the Right wing that cannot understand less than 100% support for any and all actions by an elected representative. Or even unelected representatives.
Which is why Romney could not denounce Limbaugh's comments about what a slut Fluke was.
"Guess the fuck what, Obama supports assassination (of a lot more than two people), so liberals that support Obama are supporting assassination."
Nope. It is possible to support Obama as the "lesser of two evils" (imagine a McCain/Palin presidency) and still not support his use of assassination.
Or many other things he has done.
And still support him as best alternative to a Romney/whomever presidency.
It is the Right wing that cannot understand less than 100% support for any and all actions by an elected representative. Or even unelected representatives.
Which is why Romney could not denounce Limbaugh's comments about what a slut Fluke was.
34
@29 There exists somewhere in the multiverse a president who when confronted with the same issues Obama was, took a different approach besides that of assassinating hundreds of innocent people from the sky, there's literally an infinite number of different ways this administration could've played out given a different president. But with the pressures of the office and the people that you still have to answer to if you want to do more with your administration than make one idealistic stand, it is incredibly unlikely that a career politician would make a stand like that, yes, I understand this, it would be a very rare event indeed. But why the hell should that stop us from asking for better from our politicians? It doesn't have to stay this way. And so I do other things with my time than just try to win arguments on Slog, I donate my time and money to causes I agree with, I protest, I try to get others caring about and involved with issues I care about and am involved in. And yes, part of the time I try to poke a hole in the Obama lovefest that is Slog because I want to show those that read the comments that not every liberal is on board with Obama, to talk with people and hopefully plant some seeds and maybe (though granted unlikely) change some minds, but mainly I post here because I feel part of this lil online community and I enjoy shoving my 2 cents out there. I don't challenge your reasoning for posting here, Urgutha. You post here because you want to for some reason, same for me. I never deluded myself into thinking my Slog comments would in and of themselves change the world.
And btw, billions of people have lived up to the high bar I set for ethical purity in this thread, that of not assassinating innocent people. Turns out it's really not that hard not to do if you really don't want to do it.
More...
And btw, billions of people have lived up to the high bar I set for ethical purity in this thread, that of not assassinating innocent people. Turns out it's really not that hard not to do if you really don't want to do it.
35
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
36
@33
Wanna know what the difference between a McCain Presidency and an Obama one would have been?
They'd be virtually the same except with McCain as president, we wouldn't be torturing anyone or assassinating people (DADT was on the way out and perhaps we wouldn't be saddled with Obama's shitty health care compromise, but other than that, the Bush Tax Cuts would have continued just like they were and The Patriot Act would have been extended just like it was, and so on and so on and so on...)
When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, and when you continue to compromise, all you do is compromise yourself.
Wanna know what the difference between a McCain Presidency and an Obama one would have been?
They'd be virtually the same except with McCain as president, we wouldn't be torturing anyone or assassinating people (DADT was on the way out and perhaps we wouldn't be saddled with Obama's shitty health care compromise, but other than that, the Bush Tax Cuts would have continued just like they were and The Patriot Act would have been extended just like it was, and so on and so on and so on...)
When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, and when you continue to compromise, all you do is compromise yourself.
37
The world is what it is because the US controls the world and we have allowed ourselves to allow the world to be what it is.
And here we have the distillation of all of your hypocrisy. On one hand, you argue,
The moment we sanction vigilante justice by our government is the moment we lose all our high minded moral justifications for anything we do as a country.
and yet in the next breath you're asserting that we shouldn't allow the rest of the world to be a place where assassinations are a necessary foreign policy. Which, of course, would require us to project power and stage invasions and wars the likes of which haven't been seen since World War II, all to bring the rest of the world to conform to your shining ideals about how nobody should ever kill another. Brilliant.
A nation that can't defend itself, that can't punish attacks upon it, won't survive long.
38
I'll add the FBI did not include 9/11 on Bin Laden’s “most wanted” profile because there was no hard evidence connecting him to the crime. And yet within the first minute of TV coverage of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was named as the likely perpetrator of the event. This idea solidified into a near certainty within hours, and the 24/7 news coverage shifted almost immediately to the question of when the US would invade Afghanistan.
39
@36
"Wanna know what the difference between a McCain Presidency and an Obama one would have been?"
Sure! I'd also be very interested in whatever device you used to find what a McCain/Palin presidency would be like.
But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you'll, instead, just claim that your imagination is the same as Reality.
"They'd be virtually the ..."
Yep. You're substituting your imagination for Reality. How would I possibly have guessed that?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, and when you continue to compromise, all you do is compromise yourself."
Again, that is Right wing "logic". Because supporting the "lesser of two evils" means that you must support EVERYTHING that that person does.
No it does not. It is possible to support the person as better than the alternative and still oppose certain actions by that person.
"Wanna know what the difference between a McCain Presidency and an Obama one would have been?"
Sure! I'd also be very interested in whatever device you used to find what a McCain/Palin presidency would be like.
But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you'll, instead, just claim that your imagination is the same as Reality.
"They'd be virtually the ..."
Yep. You're substituting your imagination for Reality. How would I possibly have guessed that?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, and when you continue to compromise, all you do is compromise yourself."
Again, that is Right wing "logic". Because supporting the "lesser of two evils" means that you must support EVERYTHING that that person does.
No it does not. It is possible to support the person as better than the alternative and still oppose certain actions by that person.
40
@31,
That's a mouthful.
But yeah, we've allowed the world to be what it is (or perhaps more accurately, we've not worked to allow it to be something different).
The point is still the same. It is what it is. Complaining on a blog certainly isn't going to change anything.
As for Romney and Obama and anyone else doing the same thing so why bother with either? What #33 said. They don't act exactly the same thing every time in every circumstance, but on the issue of killing people, I think the last president who didn't kill someone or get involved in a war of some kind was Carter. And before him? I don't know?
Humans are barely-evolved, selfish, savage, animals.
Why even put bin Laden on trial? What's done is done, right? We should be looking to the future, not dwelling on the past. Why didn't we just talk to him and talk to the Taliban and see if we couldn't work out our differences peacefully instead of killing each other? But no. Most everyone wanted him dead. Even you. Yeah, yeah... give him his "day in court" like the "civilized" society we are, right? But we're definitely going to find him guilty and then execute him, no doubt about it.
Yep, civilized.
Like I said, humans are barely evolved. Barely. But keep talking about human rights and laws and justice (being honest there, not sarcastic). It's worthwhile to be reminded of it, even if we don't practice it.
That's a mouthful.
But yeah, we've allowed the world to be what it is (or perhaps more accurately, we've not worked to allow it to be something different).
The point is still the same. It is what it is. Complaining on a blog certainly isn't going to change anything.
As for Romney and Obama and anyone else doing the same thing so why bother with either? What #33 said. They don't act exactly the same thing every time in every circumstance, but on the issue of killing people, I think the last president who didn't kill someone or get involved in a war of some kind was Carter. And before him? I don't know?
Humans are barely-evolved, selfish, savage, animals.
Why even put bin Laden on trial? What's done is done, right? We should be looking to the future, not dwelling on the past. Why didn't we just talk to him and talk to the Taliban and see if we couldn't work out our differences peacefully instead of killing each other? But no. Most everyone wanted him dead. Even you. Yeah, yeah... give him his "day in court" like the "civilized" society we are, right? But we're definitely going to find him guilty and then execute him, no doubt about it.
Yep, civilized.
Like I said, humans are barely evolved. Barely. But keep talking about human rights and laws and justice (being honest there, not sarcastic). It's worthwhile to be reminded of it, even if we don't practice it.
41
@37
What other nations do is their business, but since the USA is the people of the USA, then a president sanctioning assassination, and even the assassination of one of the nation's own citizens (you realize that this is the 1st time in US History that this has ever happened, right?), then that reflects on me because I am America (as is every other citizen of this country).
And, since when have we lost the ability to defend ourselves? If it wasn't for our shitty foreign policy in the Middle East, these people wouldn't be so damn pissed at us in the first place. Also, I think we got our pound of flesh for 9/11. They killed 3,500 people and we have killed 1.3 million in retaliation.
The US has been the leader of the free world in the past because we always respected freedom, but our allies in the Middle East are either emirates, dictatorships, monarchies or Turkey (a country that randomly slaughters Kurds...kinda like what we got all up in arms about Hussein doing...)
I have no idea how I've been a hypocrite in all of this. I supported Obama when he ran and promised to end the Bush era policies of tyranny and when he failed to do so, I discontinued my support.
Now, I get to hear so-called liberals make the same justification arguments for him that the GOP apologists made for Bush.
I'm pretty sure one of the people in this exchange is a hypocrite, so I'll agree with you there, but I'm also pretty sure it's not me.
What other nations do is their business, but since the USA is the people of the USA, then a president sanctioning assassination, and even the assassination of one of the nation's own citizens (you realize that this is the 1st time in US History that this has ever happened, right?), then that reflects on me because I am America (as is every other citizen of this country).
And, since when have we lost the ability to defend ourselves? If it wasn't for our shitty foreign policy in the Middle East, these people wouldn't be so damn pissed at us in the first place. Also, I think we got our pound of flesh for 9/11. They killed 3,500 people and we have killed 1.3 million in retaliation.
The US has been the leader of the free world in the past because we always respected freedom, but our allies in the Middle East are either emirates, dictatorships, monarchies or Turkey (a country that randomly slaughters Kurds...kinda like what we got all up in arms about Hussein doing...)
I have no idea how I've been a hypocrite in all of this. I supported Obama when he ran and promised to end the Bush era policies of tyranny and when he failed to do so, I discontinued my support.
Now, I get to hear so-called liberals make the same justification arguments for him that the GOP apologists made for Bush.
I'm pretty sure one of the people in this exchange is a hypocrite, so I'll agree with you there, but I'm also pretty sure it's not me.
43
@39
Or, you could support someone who isn't evil at all. Change only happens when people are willing to change. Regardless, as has been pointed out, words written in the interwebz change nothing. All I'm trying to do is to get people to ask the questions and quit making the bullshit justification arguments for a president who has failed us in nearly every aspect that we were all so excited about when he promised us otherwise.
Next time, I'll take Bob Hope and Michael Chang (tennis pro/French Open Champ...). At least then I get everything Obama promised, less one letter. That's the compromise I'm willing to make. (Hope and Chang in '12!!!!)
Or, you could support someone who isn't evil at all. Change only happens when people are willing to change. Regardless, as has been pointed out, words written in the interwebz change nothing. All I'm trying to do is to get people to ask the questions and quit making the bullshit justification arguments for a president who has failed us in nearly every aspect that we were all so excited about when he promised us otherwise.
Next time, I'll take Bob Hope and Michael Chang (tennis pro/French Open Champ...). At least then I get everything Obama promised, less one letter. That's the compromise I'm willing to make. (Hope and Chang in '12!!!!)
44
@41 ( malcolmxy )
"The US has been the leader of the free world in the past because we always respected freedom, ..."
Really?
I always love when people like you post because you have not concept of history.
Vietnam
Korea
You'd have to go back to WWII to get a time when we were defending freedom.
And WWII? That was before our own Civil Rights marches.
"The US has been the leader of the free world in the past because we always respected freedom, ..."
Really?
I always love when people like you post because you have not concept of history.
Vietnam
Korea
You'd have to go back to WWII to get a time when we were defending freedom.
And WWII? That was before our own Civil Rights marches.
45
@18: "[A]ll of [the left and the right] hate Muslims. . . ." OK, I stopped reading your inane posts right there.
46
Care to cite your source? Kurds are not treated well in Turkey, their culture and language are banned, but I've never seen evidence that Turks "randomly slaughter" them. Are you confusing Kurds with Armenians? The Armenian genocide happened almost a century ago.
Turkey (a country that randomly slaughters Kurds...kinda like what we got all up in arms about Hussein doing
Care to cite your source? Kurds are not treated well in Turkey, their culture and language are banned, but I've never seen evidence that Turks "randomly slaughter" them. Are you confusing Kurds with Armenians? The Armenian genocide happened almost a century ago.
47
@34,
This though:
But why the hell should that stop us from asking for better from our politicians?I agree, so long as that idealism doesn't lead to abandoning the process altogether if it doesn't succeed in making better politicians. Fight the good fight, but also realize that we have to make do with the best we have at the moment as well. Because I guarantee, there are hordes of fearful, ignorant, bigots who will vote for whatever pile of filth the republicans put on the stage, and won't question his ethics one iota. I'm not in love with Obama, but he's going to be the only viable choice next election. BTW, I don't want you to stop posting, I often like reading your posts.
This though:
billions of people have lived up to the high bar I set for ethical purity in this thread, that of not assassinating innocent people.Innocent? I hope you're not talking about Bin Laden.
49
@44
There was at least a plausible belief that communism was a threat to freedom and liberty, and have you seen North Korea lately? In that instance, at least, we were right.
We could have done a lot more and we could have gone about it better, and Southeast Asia was strategic as was the Korean Peninsula, but at least we were trying to proliferate the cause of freedom in these conflicts (well, Korea, anyway, if not Vietnam). What are we doing now? Killing people so we can install a puppet government and put an oil pipeline in so we can exploit the natural resources of the Caspian Sea.
No nation is perfect, and you cannot judge the morals of the past against the morals of the present, but there were always lines that we were unwilling to cross. Obama crossed them (right after Bush crossed the other ones).
I love when people think they know more than I do and assume things about me and then expose their own hypocrisy in doing so. It makes this little exercise that much more entertaining for me as I laugh uncontrollably at them.
There was at least a plausible belief that communism was a threat to freedom and liberty, and have you seen North Korea lately? In that instance, at least, we were right.
We could have done a lot more and we could have gone about it better, and Southeast Asia was strategic as was the Korean Peninsula, but at least we were trying to proliferate the cause of freedom in these conflicts (well, Korea, anyway, if not Vietnam). What are we doing now? Killing people so we can install a puppet government and put an oil pipeline in so we can exploit the natural resources of the Caspian Sea.
No nation is perfect, and you cannot judge the morals of the past against the morals of the present, but there were always lines that we were unwilling to cross. Obama crossed them (right after Bush crossed the other ones).
I love when people think they know more than I do and assume things about me and then expose their own hypocrisy in doing so. It makes this little exercise that much more entertaining for me as I laugh uncontrollably at them.
50
That McCain/Palin administration is gonna be without justices Sotomayor and Kagan appointed, and two nutjobs in their place. Good luck with that. Not to mention the absolute farce that an attempted trial of Bin Laden would amount to.
51
@48
We're gonna get there eventually with Obama as well if we continue on this course.
Look at a map and then mark off the recent wars, air raids, etc we've been involved in and then mark off our allies. We've got Persia surrounded. If we can't get an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, we're definitely not stupid enough to fuck with the Russians (because those mutha fuckers do not quit when you go to war with them...and they're super smart and strong), so the only other route to get the oil to port is through Iran.
Everyone thinks I'm wrong until they realize I'm right. It'll happen for you eventually as well.
(Turkmenistan is the only exception, but while they're not allies, they're not an obstacle to our goals either.)
We're gonna get there eventually with Obama as well if we continue on this course.
Look at a map and then mark off the recent wars, air raids, etc we've been involved in and then mark off our allies. We've got Persia surrounded. If we can't get an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, we're definitely not stupid enough to fuck with the Russians (because those mutha fuckers do not quit when you go to war with them...and they're super smart and strong), so the only other route to get the oil to port is through Iran.
Everyone thinks I'm wrong until they realize I'm right. It'll happen for you eventually as well.
(Turkmenistan is the only exception, but while they're not allies, they're not an obstacle to our goals either.)
52
@50
I love Sotomayor, and I'm so-so on Kagan, but what good have they done? 5-4 loses the same as 7-2.
I love Sotomayor, and I'm so-so on Kagan, but what good have they done? 5-4 loses the same as 7-2.
53
I have no idea how I've been a hypocrite in all of this.
By suggesting that a government is only as good as its ideals, and then suggesting that our government should export those ideals by force (realpolitik is only necessary because we allow it to be).
since the USA is the people of the USA...then that reflects on me because I am America
Uh, ok. I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I wrote.
since when have we lost the ability to defend ourselves?
I didn't say we had. I merely pointed out that if a nation stops defending itself, whether it can or not, it gets into trouble very quickly.
The US has been the leader of the free world in the past because we always respected freedom
Oh. I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood the situation. I imagine you're quite young, aren't you? In any event, I can see that there isn't much point in continuing with this discussion. If you think the US has always "respected freedom," then you and I have fundamental disagreements about either what has happened in the past or what words mean, and coming to common ground on these things via Slog comments is beyond my capacity. Good luck.
54
@46
Is 4 months ago recent enough for you?
http://www.france24.com/en/20111229-turk…
@53
I never suggested that we should export our ideals by force. In fact, I have stated exactly the opposite.
At the very least, for the people we considered to be citizens (which, I admit, wasn't as comprehensive as it should have been, but again, this was a different era and you can't judge the ideas of the past on the ideals of the present), we were a nation that believed in freedom and liberty.
I don't think our government has always respected freedom and liberty, but I believe that the people, by and large, have. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, but what we are doing now is not only killing people in other countries, but also paving the way for our own civil liberties to be eroded into oblivion.
I don't care if you agree with me. I only care that you care enough to care about this shit. Do YOU respect freedom and liberty? If so, you're cool. If not, you're an asshole and I needn't engage with you further anyway.
Is 4 months ago recent enough for you?
http://www.france24.com/en/20111229-turk…
@53
I never suggested that we should export our ideals by force. In fact, I have stated exactly the opposite.
At the very least, for the people we considered to be citizens (which, I admit, wasn't as comprehensive as it should have been, but again, this was a different era and you can't judge the ideas of the past on the ideals of the present), we were a nation that believed in freedom and liberty.
I don't think our government has always respected freedom and liberty, but I believe that the people, by and large, have. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, but what we are doing now is not only killing people in other countries, but also paving the way for our own civil liberties to be eroded into oblivion.
I don't care if you agree with me. I only care that you care enough to care about this shit. Do YOU respect freedom and liberty? If so, you're cool. If not, you're an asshole and I needn't engage with you further anyway.
55
@49
"There was at least a plausible belief that communism was a threat to freedom and liberty, and have you seen North Korea lately? In that instance, at least, we were right."
And so begins the rationalizations of the former opponent of hypocrisy.
But it is always difficult when your ideals run head first into Reality.
"... Southeast Asia was strategic as was the Korean Peninsula ..."
Strange how that never became an issue AFTER the wars.
"... but at least we were trying to proliferate the cause of freedom in these conflicts (well, Korea, anyway, if not Vietnam)."
Okay, so we've established that we haven't fought for "freedom" since Vietnam. That's a start. That gets us back to 1955. So now from 1945 to 1955.
Korea was more about stopping "Communism" from expanding. So it was more a proxy war between the US and China/Soviet Russia.
"No nation is perfect, and you cannot judge the morals of the past ..."
What was that you had just posted?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
It seems that your two statements contradict each other.
"I love when people think they know more than I do and assume things about me and then expose their own hypocrisy in doing so."
I'm sure you do. But right now it is your own ignorance of history that is being demonstrated.
And your own hypocrisy when you try to rationalize your idealized ignorance of history with historical facts.
"There was at least a plausible belief that communism was a threat to freedom and liberty, and have you seen North Korea lately? In that instance, at least, we were right."
And so begins the rationalizations of the former opponent of hypocrisy.
But it is always difficult when your ideals run head first into Reality.
"... Southeast Asia was strategic as was the Korean Peninsula ..."
Strange how that never became an issue AFTER the wars.
"... but at least we were trying to proliferate the cause of freedom in these conflicts (well, Korea, anyway, if not Vietnam)."
Okay, so we've established that we haven't fought for "freedom" since Vietnam. That's a start. That gets us back to 1955. So now from 1945 to 1955.
Korea was more about stopping "Communism" from expanding. So it was more a proxy war between the US and China/Soviet Russia.
"No nation is perfect, and you cannot judge the morals of the past ..."
What was that you had just posted?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
It seems that your two statements contradict each other.
"I love when people think they know more than I do and assume things about me and then expose their own hypocrisy in doing so."
I'm sure you do. But right now it is your own ignorance of history that is being demonstrated.
And your own hypocrisy when you try to rationalize your idealized ignorance of history with historical facts.
56
@46
if 4 months ago isn't recent enough, here's last month where they killed a dozen Kurdish women - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/201…
here's a hundred in August of '11
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-says-killed…
and google turkey kurdish massacre. that's the biggie, though it was 80 years ago.
Everyone fucks with the Kurds, but when we're allies with them, it's OK or we "don't recall" it, but when we're at war with them, it's justification for annihilation (it's the internet...if I'm being a bit hyperbolic, it's simply to drive the point home).
if 4 months ago isn't recent enough, here's last month where they killed a dozen Kurdish women - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/201…
here's a hundred in August of '11
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-says-killed…
and google turkey kurdish massacre. that's the biggie, though it was 80 years ago.
Everyone fucks with the Kurds, but when we're allies with them, it's OK or we "don't recall" it, but when we're at war with them, it's justification for annihilation (it's the internet...if I'm being a bit hyperbolic, it's simply to drive the point home).
57
Whatever, Romney. Good ad! Also, it didn't mention that only one of his advisers, and it wasn't Biden or Hillary, agreed with Obama's call. (Don't remember who it was. Might have been Pannetta.) Obama was essentially alone on this one. I, for sure, would have played it safe, but I'm not the President. That was the riskiest call of any president that I can remember. It could have destroyed his presidency. He's earned the bragging rights. If a Republican had done it, I super-guarantee it you would never hear the end of it for a hundred years. He'd be the second coming of Reagan. They would have put him in every magazine cover for a year, spent hours of primetime TV lauding his achievement, and built him a statue. But since a Democrat pulled it off, the messaging is, "Let's move on, everybody."
58
@55
I am not perfect and I assume that you are not either, so how can I expect an entire nation to be perfect as well, and how can I expect people of the past to be as socially aware as their counterparts in the future?
I can't, but I can expect them to strive toward it, and I do now and I always will.
There was an honest belief, during the Cold War Era, that Soviet-style commu-fascism was a worldwide threat to freedom. Was it a correct belief? Fuck if I know, but at least it was a legit one.
What is the belief around "terrorism"? Does anyone think that a group of dudes in sandals meeting in a coffee shop in Kandahar are a threat to our National Security? If not, then how can you justify destroying entire generations of people in those countries under the auspice of "securing the freedom of the citizens of _____________________ ?"
It is precisely because of the mistakes of the past, however well-intended they may have been, that we should be weary of making those same mistakes in the future.
If you are such a great student of history, then why are you not pointing out that we are making the same mistakes as opposed to justifying making them, because as Bush said, "fool me once, shame...fool me twice, not gonna fool me..."
If this wasn't a comment section, I'd take you through each of the 3 ages of American history (Revolution to Civil War, Civil War through WW2 and WW2 to the present), but since it is, I will say that the modern era of American history has not been anything to be particularly proud of, but that's because we have forgotten that we, the people, are this country, and not the land on which we stand, nor those who represent us in our government (or, they are no more America than we are). In doing so, we have let our government slip further and further into being the tyrannical force our forefathers originally opposed, and as we do, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Continuing to allow it and then mocking those who strive for more shows that you support this, and choosing to use a straw man argument to support your position is an ugly means to an ugly goal.
In essence, you're either part of the problem or your part of the solution. Congrats - you're definitely one of those.
More...
I am not perfect and I assume that you are not either, so how can I expect an entire nation to be perfect as well, and how can I expect people of the past to be as socially aware as their counterparts in the future?
I can't, but I can expect them to strive toward it, and I do now and I always will.
There was an honest belief, during the Cold War Era, that Soviet-style commu-fascism was a worldwide threat to freedom. Was it a correct belief? Fuck if I know, but at least it was a legit one.
What is the belief around "terrorism"? Does anyone think that a group of dudes in sandals meeting in a coffee shop in Kandahar are a threat to our National Security? If not, then how can you justify destroying entire generations of people in those countries under the auspice of "securing the freedom of the citizens of _____________________ ?"
It is precisely because of the mistakes of the past, however well-intended they may have been, that we should be weary of making those same mistakes in the future.
If you are such a great student of history, then why are you not pointing out that we are making the same mistakes as opposed to justifying making them, because as Bush said, "fool me once, shame...fool me twice, not gonna fool me..."
If this wasn't a comment section, I'd take you through each of the 3 ages of American history (Revolution to Civil War, Civil War through WW2 and WW2 to the present), but since it is, I will say that the modern era of American history has not been anything to be particularly proud of, but that's because we have forgotten that we, the people, are this country, and not the land on which we stand, nor those who represent us in our government (or, they are no more America than we are). In doing so, we have let our government slip further and further into being the tyrannical force our forefathers originally opposed, and as we do, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Continuing to allow it and then mocking those who strive for more shows that you support this, and choosing to use a straw man argument to support your position is an ugly means to an ugly goal.
In essence, you're either part of the problem or your part of the solution. Congrats - you're definitely one of those.
59
@53
Ignore this guy. He's a troll or almost as bad as one. Rarely do I think someone on Slog is just totally incompetent and not worth talking to.
But earlier, in another post, when he claimed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act hadn't done anything for blacks... well, I decided he's just not smart enough to waste my time on.
Ignore this guy. He's a troll or almost as bad as one. Rarely do I think someone on Slog is just totally incompetent and not worth talking to.
But earlier, in another post, when he claimed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act hadn't done anything for blacks... well, I decided he's just not smart enough to waste my time on.
60
@59
blacks are 5X more likely to be convicted of a crime, 4X more likely to be sentenced to death and when they are convicted, face 61X (that's not a typo, it's SIXTY-ONE) longer jail sentences.
Black males,18-35, are the only demographic in America whose most likely cause of death is not heart disease. It's murder.
You tell me what the '64 legislation has done for blacks, would ya? I'm obviously too stupid to figure it out myself. (I guess Dr. Cornell West is too stupid as well...neo-liberals...almost as bad as neo-cons...)
blacks are 5X more likely to be convicted of a crime, 4X more likely to be sentenced to death and when they are convicted, face 61X (that's not a typo, it's SIXTY-ONE) longer jail sentences.
Black males,18-35, are the only demographic in America whose most likely cause of death is not heart disease. It's murder.
You tell me what the '64 legislation has done for blacks, would ya? I'm obviously too stupid to figure it out myself. (I guess Dr. Cornell West is too stupid as well...neo-liberals...almost as bad as neo-cons...)
61
So I guess you think that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is the reason for blacks' high incarceration rate?
Tell me something,
DO YOU VOTE?
Tell me something,
DO YOU VOTE?
62
@54,
Killing combatants does not equal random massacres. I had a feeling you would equate military action against guerrillas with legitimate crimes against humanity given that you're an Osama apologist. Fuck off.
Killing combatants does not equal random massacres. I had a feeling you would equate military action against guerrillas with legitimate crimes against humanity given that you're an Osama apologist. Fuck off.
63
@62
I didn't say that the legislation is the cause. I simply implied that it has been useless in preventing any of the many civil injustices against the black community, because...IT HAS (been useless).
How 'bout this - I'll answer your question if you answer mine - can you read? (and if so, can you comprehend the words that you do know how to read, especially when they are arranged into what are called sentences?)
If you think my assertion is ridiculous, I'd be happy to list out all the PhDs of color who agree with me if that would assuage your white guilt a bit more (because, you're obviously white).
@62
The 1st article I listed detailed the killing of civilians and the 2nd was all women. If the 3rd was combatants, it's because I didn't read it as there are so many examples of the Turks killing Kurds that I don't have time to read them all, though I will say that if a government was killing my people like that, I'd fight back as well, but as you say, fuck me. I'm just an idiot like that, I guess.
I didn't say that the legislation is the cause. I simply implied that it has been useless in preventing any of the many civil injustices against the black community, because...IT HAS (been useless).
How 'bout this - I'll answer your question if you answer mine - can you read? (and if so, can you comprehend the words that you do know how to read, especially when they are arranged into what are called sentences?)
If you think my assertion is ridiculous, I'd be happy to list out all the PhDs of color who agree with me if that would assuage your white guilt a bit more (because, you're obviously white).
@62
The 1st article I listed detailed the killing of civilians and the 2nd was all women. If the 3rd was combatants, it's because I didn't read it as there are so many examples of the Turks killing Kurds that I don't have time to read them all, though I will say that if a government was killing my people like that, I'd fight back as well, but as you say, fuck me. I'm just an idiot like that, I guess.
64
The 1st candidate in the presidential race this year (last, actually) was a Republican, and he was gay (Fred Kargle...something like that). Not only that, but he was the 1st openly gay candidate in US Presidential history (not the 1st gay candidate, but the first openly gay candidate). The 2nd candidate was a Democrat and he was an ex-con, running on a pro-life platform (I can't remember his name, but you all have the googles...look it up).
What do you do when something you love becomes something you hate? Do you just ignore it and say, "he only hits me because he loves me", or do you find a new lover?
I'm lookin' for a new love, baby (a new love...yeah, yeah, yeah)
What do you do when something you love becomes something you hate? Do you just ignore it and say, "he only hits me because he loves me", or do you find a new lover?
I'm lookin' for a new love, baby (a new love...yeah, yeah, yeah)
65
@58 ( malcolmxy )
"I am not perfect and I assume that you are not either, so how can I expect an entire nation to be perfect as well, and how can I expect people of the past to be as socially aware as their counterparts in the future?"
Again, that seems to contradict your previous statement of:
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
Which then contradicts your statement that:
"I can't, but I can expect them to strive toward it, and I do now and I always will."
So voting for Obama means that you have to support everything he does that you do not agree with except for the things that you do not agree with that he does because no one is perfect.
It seems that every time I give you a fact from history your claim changes.
Almost as if your political philosophy was based off of some Disneyfied "history" taught to children.
You know, instead of the real history of the real world.
"If this wasn't a comment section, I'd take you through each of the 3 ages of American history ..."
As I've stated before:
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
"Continuing to allow it and then mocking those who strive for more shows that you support this, and choosing to use a straw man argument to support your position is an ugly means to an ugly goal."
Nice. So when you are shown to be wrong it is because you are not perfect.
But if someone disagrees with your exclusivity claims then that person supports tyranny.
Extremism much?
And not even informed extremism.
All you have is extremism based on a Disneyfied "history" that you don't understand.
But you feel that are capable of commenting because you can read Wikipedia.
More...
"I am not perfect and I assume that you are not either, so how can I expect an entire nation to be perfect as well, and how can I expect people of the past to be as socially aware as their counterparts in the future?"
Again, that seems to contradict your previous statement of:
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
Which then contradicts your statement that:
"I can't, but I can expect them to strive toward it, and I do now and I always will."
So voting for Obama means that you have to support everything he does that you do not agree with except for the things that you do not agree with that he does because no one is perfect.
It seems that every time I give you a fact from history your claim changes.
Almost as if your political philosophy was based off of some Disneyfied "history" taught to children.
You know, instead of the real history of the real world.
"If this wasn't a comment section, I'd take you through each of the 3 ages of American history ..."
As I've stated before:
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
"Continuing to allow it and then mocking those who strive for more shows that you support this, and choosing to use a straw man argument to support your position is an ugly means to an ugly goal."
Nice. So when you are shown to be wrong it is because you are not perfect.
But if someone disagrees with your exclusivity claims then that person supports tyranny.
Extremism much?
And not even informed extremism.
All you have is extremism based on a Disneyfied "history" that you don't understand.
But you feel that are capable of commenting because you can read Wikipedia.
66
A. I don't have a romanticized view of the past, just a correct one.
B. I am not actively supporting Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, just correctly noting their intent (Kennedy's and Johnson's, anyway. Nixon was ready to nuke Vietnam until Kissenger basically pulled the button out of his hand).
C. If I expect a little more from those who would lead this country than "better than shit", it's because, while the country as a whole has not always acted as if they understand the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty, there have been, at least, a pretty decent history of leaders who have.
Susan B. Anthony
Malcolm X (later in his life...he started out as a smack head...what do you want?)
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
Frederick Douglas
Huey P. Newton
FDR (domestically...kinda a bit of a war monger, but meant well for the country, at least)
Gerald Ford
and the list goes on.
Obama isn't even on the B team when compared to that list.
B. I am not actively supporting Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, just correctly noting their intent (Kennedy's and Johnson's, anyway. Nixon was ready to nuke Vietnam until Kissenger basically pulled the button out of his hand).
C. If I expect a little more from those who would lead this country than "better than shit", it's because, while the country as a whole has not always acted as if they understand the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty, there have been, at least, a pretty decent history of leaders who have.
Susan B. Anthony
Malcolm X (later in his life...he started out as a smack head...what do you want?)
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
Frederick Douglas
Huey P. Newton
FDR (domestically...kinda a bit of a war monger, but meant well for the country, at least)
Gerald Ford
and the list goes on.
Obama isn't even on the B team when compared to that list.
67
@66( malcolmxy )
"A. I don't have a romanticized view of the past, just a correct one."
Sure you do. That's why your statements contradict themselves.
"B. I am not actively supporting Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, ..."
Who cares? It's easy to "support" anyone or anything in the past. It's also meaningless unless it has a direct impact upon something TODAY that you support or oppose.
But you have NOT been able to say what/who you support.
Just what you oppose.
"C. If I expect a little more from those who would lead this country ...
...
Jimmy Carter
...
Gerald Ford"
You mean the guy that pardoned Nixon?
The same guy that Jimmy Carter had to run against?
But you also list Carter as a leader who understood "the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
Again:
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
You claim to support BOTH sides in the election. When one of those sides just pardoned Nixon.
"A. I don't have a romanticized view of the past, just a correct one."
Sure you do. That's why your statements contradict themselves.
"B. I am not actively supporting Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, ..."
Who cares? It's easy to "support" anyone or anything in the past. It's also meaningless unless it has a direct impact upon something TODAY that you support or oppose.
But you have NOT been able to say what/who you support.
Just what you oppose.
"C. If I expect a little more from those who would lead this country ...
...
Jimmy Carter
...
Gerald Ford"
You mean the guy that pardoned Nixon?
The same guy that Jimmy Carter had to run against?
But you also list Carter as a leader who understood "the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
Again:
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
You claim to support BOTH sides in the election. When one of those sides just pardoned Nixon.
68
I've never looked up a thing on wikipedia. I do enjoy wookiepedia, though.
Obama, along with the democratic congress, have effectively pardoned Bush, Cheney and the rest of those criminals that occupied the white house prior to Obama. Yet you support Obama.
That was Ford's one mistake of character. Want me to name the dozens (AGAIN) that Obama has perpetrated as president?
My statements have not contradicted themselves. You've been cherry picking in your feeble attempt to straw man me to death, and all I've done is show you why Obama is not the leader that you, not I voted for (in my case, I voted for him 7 times...that's how excited I was when he took office, which is why I am just as disappointed now that I've seen what he's done with it.)
I am quite confident that he has done no better than McCain would have done, except he has the same people who would have been criticizing McCain for his actions supporting his actions.
Frankly, if it would have kept the left on guard to criticize the many injustices against the American people that either of the 2008 candidates have/would have perpetrated, I wish McCain would have won in '08 at this point (and, again, I was able to cast 7 votes for the current president)
Obama, along with the democratic congress, have effectively pardoned Bush, Cheney and the rest of those criminals that occupied the white house prior to Obama. Yet you support Obama.
That was Ford's one mistake of character. Want me to name the dozens (AGAIN) that Obama has perpetrated as president?
My statements have not contradicted themselves. You've been cherry picking in your feeble attempt to straw man me to death, and all I've done is show you why Obama is not the leader that you, not I voted for (in my case, I voted for him 7 times...that's how excited I was when he took office, which is why I am just as disappointed now that I've seen what he's done with it.)
I am quite confident that he has done no better than McCain would have done, except he has the same people who would have been criticizing McCain for his actions supporting his actions.
Frankly, if it would have kept the left on guard to criticize the many injustices against the American people that either of the 2008 candidates have/would have perpetrated, I wish McCain would have won in '08 at this point (and, again, I was able to cast 7 votes for the current president)
69
All I want from my president is a love of country and enough respect for the law so that he/she obeys it. I really don't think those are standards so lofty as to put me in the category of "extremist".
Obama is a former professor of Constitutional Law. If anyone should both know the law and respect it, it's him.
I am quite sure of the former, but I have seen that he won't do the latter. If that's OK with you, great. Just remind me to keep an eye on my wallet, should we ever come in physical contact with one another.
Obama is a former professor of Constitutional Law. If anyone should both know the law and respect it, it's him.
I am quite sure of the former, but I have seen that he won't do the latter. If that's OK with you, great. Just remind me to keep an eye on my wallet, should we ever come in physical contact with one another.
70
@68 ( malcolmxy )
"I've never looked up a thing on wikipedia."
Anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
You claim a lot of facts.
But you lack any understanding.
"That was Ford's one mistake of character."
Again, what did you say before?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
Again, which contradicts you other claims.
You cannot keep your claims from contradicting themselves.
That is because you lack the understanding of the facts that you're looking up on Wikipedia.
"My statements have not contradicted themselves."
No. They do. You may CLAIM that you lack the understanding to see the contradiction but that's exactly what I've been posting.
You list Carter as a "leader" who understood "Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
But you also list Ford as that.
But Carter had to oppose Ford in order to win the election.
For those who understand, the contradiction is obvious.
You claim to support STOPPING Ford from doing further good as the President (although he also did "evil") in the hope that Carter will be as good or better despite no evidence of such.
Strange how you can support STOPPING someone who was doing good.
Or, not strange at all once your complete lack of understanding is considered.
"I've never looked up a thing on wikipedia."
Anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
You claim a lot of facts.
But you lack any understanding.
"That was Ford's one mistake of character."
Again, what did you say before?
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
Again, which contradicts you other claims.
You cannot keep your claims from contradicting themselves.
That is because you lack the understanding of the facts that you're looking up on Wikipedia.
"My statements have not contradicted themselves."
No. They do. You may CLAIM that you lack the understanding to see the contradiction but that's exactly what I've been posting.
You list Carter as a "leader" who understood "Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
But you also list Ford as that.
But Carter had to oppose Ford in order to win the election.
For those who understand, the contradiction is obvious.
You claim to support STOPPING Ford from doing further good as the President (although he also did "evil") in the hope that Carter will be as good or better despite no evidence of such.
Strange how you can support STOPPING someone who was doing good.
Or, not strange at all once your complete lack of understanding is considered.
71
I don't "support" either Ford or Carter. I do, however, endorse both their presidencies. Both were very good, and neither left the country with any lasting, harmful side effects.
It is, in fact, possible for two good people, both belonging to opposing parties, to run for president at the same time. It's happened before. I think, now looking back (though I didn't support him at the time), that Bush 41 was a pretty OK president (not great, but not nearly as bad as Reagan). I also think Clinton was a good president, sans some of his more corporatist economic philosophies (i.e. signing the legislation that brought about MERS, which is, far and away, the instrument used to bring about the mortgage crisis). Teddy ran against Hoover, and while Hoover was a poor president, I believe him to be a good man who meant well for his country. I know there are others, though I don't have the ability or will to think of them at the moment.
All these facts are off the top of my head, which is obvious from the speed at which I am responding to you. You have done nothing except try to contradict me with arguments that don't hold water.
I'm telling you why I am opposed to Obama, and you've simply made excuses for him. Yet, I'm the idiot troll and you're the reasoned intellectual?
Puh-lease. Tell it to someone who might buy it, 'cause I'm broke.
( Why do you support him other than you have an irrational hatred for Republicans (and, I've voted for less than a handful of them in the 10 national elections in which I've participated in my life, but I do not have the kind of loathing for them that you obviously do.).
It is, in fact, possible for two good people, both belonging to opposing parties, to run for president at the same time. It's happened before. I think, now looking back (though I didn't support him at the time), that Bush 41 was a pretty OK president (not great, but not nearly as bad as Reagan). I also think Clinton was a good president, sans some of his more corporatist economic philosophies (i.e. signing the legislation that brought about MERS, which is, far and away, the instrument used to bring about the mortgage crisis). Teddy ran against Hoover, and while Hoover was a poor president, I believe him to be a good man who meant well for his country. I know there are others, though I don't have the ability or will to think of them at the moment.
All these facts are off the top of my head, which is obvious from the speed at which I am responding to you. You have done nothing except try to contradict me with arguments that don't hold water.
I'm telling you why I am opposed to Obama, and you've simply made excuses for him. Yet, I'm the idiot troll and you're the reasoned intellectual?
Puh-lease. Tell it to someone who might buy it, 'cause I'm broke.
( Why do you support him other than you have an irrational hatred for Republicans (and, I've voted for less than a handful of them in the 10 national elections in which I've participated in my life, but I do not have the kind of loathing for them that you obviously do.).
72
Dude, You're a walking contradiction and you are so full of yourself.
And I still don't believe that you answered my question about if you vote. I doubt that you do. [Although at one point you claim to have voted for Obama 7 times, which, if true, is a felony. (Unless you live in Illinois)].
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the way this country treats people of different races.
People died to get it passed. And people who helped make it a reality died later on too. Like MLK, who you say is a hero of yours.
And yet you pooh pooh the work of many people; the struggle of generations.
You are a real shmuck.
I am currently working in schools in North Central Florida and guess what, I see the effects of the Civil Rights movement every day (including the 1964 Civil Rights Act). You know what I see? Young blacks and whites and Asians holding hands, hanging out, being friends.
I know that racism exists in America still (I live two hours from Sanford), but you know what, things have changed for the better and they are continuing to get better.
Now here's a picture of some real heroes, not people like yourself, who just complain about things:
File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon…
When you grow up and want to make a difference, organize.
Me, I'm registering voters tomorrow for the Obama campaign.
And I still don't believe that you answered my question about if you vote. I doubt that you do. [Although at one point you claim to have voted for Obama 7 times, which, if true, is a felony. (Unless you live in Illinois)].
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the way this country treats people of different races.
People died to get it passed. And people who helped make it a reality died later on too. Like MLK, who you say is a hero of yours.
And yet you pooh pooh the work of many people; the struggle of generations.
You are a real shmuck.
I am currently working in schools in North Central Florida and guess what, I see the effects of the Civil Rights movement every day (including the 1964 Civil Rights Act). You know what I see? Young blacks and whites and Asians holding hands, hanging out, being friends.
I know that racism exists in America still (I live two hours from Sanford), but you know what, things have changed for the better and they are continuing to get better.
Now here's a picture of some real heroes, not people like yourself, who just complain about things:
File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon…
When you grow up and want to make a difference, organize.
Me, I'm registering voters tomorrow for the Obama campaign.
73
Progress:
File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon…
File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon…
74
@71 ( malcolmxy )
"I don't 'support' either Ford or Carter."
So you don't "support" people you had previously singled out to be lauded as the few who did "understand the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
So I guess you don't "support" Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King who was also on that list of yours.
Again, your comments keep contradicting themselves.
"I don't 'support' either Ford or Carter."
So you don't "support" people you had previously singled out to be lauded as the few who did "understand the principals of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty".
So I guess you don't "support" Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King who was also on that list of yours.
Again, your comments keep contradicting themselves.
75
@47 Don't know if you'll see this, but c'mon, man. I said "billions" not "7 billion", I'm not that whacked out that I think OBL was innocent, lol. I'd have preferred they had tried to capture him alive and put him on trial, but I don't doubt his guilt. And thanks, I enjoy a lot of your posts as well.
76
@36: malcolmxy - Oh great, another purist who would rather see 30 million people remain uninsured than accept a "shitty compromise" on healthcare.
And, really - no fucking shit McCain wouldn't have made that compromise, because he would have made no attempt whatsoever to help the uninsured/uninsurable.
That's a huge difference in presidencies right there. Obama passed the most far-reaching social legislation in decades, and McCain wouldn't have done squat.
Would McCain have selected a relative moderate for the the bench, or would it have been a right-wing ideologue? (See, I can cherry-pick, too. I can do it all day.)
You sound like the Nader apologists who claim Gore would have been no different than Bush.
And, really - no fucking shit McCain wouldn't have made that compromise, because he would have made no attempt whatsoever to help the uninsured/uninsurable.
That's a huge difference in presidencies right there. Obama passed the most far-reaching social legislation in decades, and McCain wouldn't have done squat.
Would McCain have selected a relative moderate for the the bench, or would it have been a right-wing ideologue? (See, I can cherry-pick, too. I can do it all day.)
You sound like the Nader apologists who claim Gore would have been no different than Bush.
77
@72
I did not answer your question directly, but I did say that I've voted for less than a handful of Republicans in the 1o federal elections in which I've participated.
Now, ya see? I don't need you to answer my question directly re:can you read and also understand the words when you do so. I can assess, from your response that the answer to that question is no.
So, no need to address me directly now with a response to my query. We're good on the Q&A portion of today's showing.
@74
I don't support MLK. He's dead, as is Ford (I think...I swear I remember him dying, anyway). I do fully endorse his life, though, especially his anti-war stance and advocacy just before his death. I also believe that, if alive, much like me, King would have supported Candidate Obama and would also have been disgusted by President Obama.
Dr. Cornel West also supported Candidate Obama and called President Obama an Uncle Tom. Is he contradicting himself? Does he not understand history?
I'm glad you brought up MLK, though. MLK was a plagiarist and a womanizer, and he was also a great man. As I said, I am not looking for perfection, simply a love of country and a respect for the law.
Obama has fallen short of these minimum standards and he has done little good in his 4 years as president that any other president, if elected at the same time, wouldn't have also done.
Nixon created the EPA...doesn't mean I think him to be the beacon of environmentalism that other presidents should look to when making decisions concerning the environment. He had no choice but to do it at the time. Same goes for this president and DADT and the few other things he's drug his feet on that are actually good for the people of this country.
When you're smart enough to have more of a nuanced understanding of the history you so flippantly throw around with your modicum of wiki-knowledge, come see me. 'Til then, you bore me. I don't like being bored.
More...
I did not answer your question directly, but I did say that I've voted for less than a handful of Republicans in the 1o federal elections in which I've participated.
Now, ya see? I don't need you to answer my question directly re:can you read and also understand the words when you do so. I can assess, from your response that the answer to that question is no.
So, no need to address me directly now with a response to my query. We're good on the Q&A portion of today's showing.
@74
I don't support MLK. He's dead, as is Ford (I think...I swear I remember him dying, anyway). I do fully endorse his life, though, especially his anti-war stance and advocacy just before his death. I also believe that, if alive, much like me, King would have supported Candidate Obama and would also have been disgusted by President Obama.
Dr. Cornel West also supported Candidate Obama and called President Obama an Uncle Tom. Is he contradicting himself? Does he not understand history?
I'm glad you brought up MLK, though. MLK was a plagiarist and a womanizer, and he was also a great man. As I said, I am not looking for perfection, simply a love of country and a respect for the law.
Obama has fallen short of these minimum standards and he has done little good in his 4 years as president that any other president, if elected at the same time, wouldn't have also done.
Nixon created the EPA...doesn't mean I think him to be the beacon of environmentalism that other presidents should look to when making decisions concerning the environment. He had no choice but to do it at the time. Same goes for this president and DADT and the few other things he's drug his feet on that are actually good for the people of this country.
When you're smart enough to have more of a nuanced understanding of the history you so flippantly throw around with your modicum of wiki-knowledge, come see me. 'Til then, you bore me. I don't like being bored.
78
@76
I know McCain wouldn't have done anything. But, President Clinton might have been able to get a universal option in 2012 or 2016 if Obama's compromise hadn't taken place. Now, there's no chance of that.
I don't think Nader would make a terribly great president, though if I want to buy a Corvair, he's not the worst person to look to for advice.
Kucinich is my dream candidate, Hillary is a close second. There are others, but those are the only two with the juice to make a real run at the office. Obama has been a shitty president. I don't know why, since he's carried out all the same policies that you people chastised when Bush was proliferating them, that you don't feel the same way.
Whatevs.
I know McCain wouldn't have done anything. But, President Clinton might have been able to get a universal option in 2012 or 2016 if Obama's compromise hadn't taken place. Now, there's no chance of that.
I don't think Nader would make a terribly great president, though if I want to buy a Corvair, he's not the worst person to look to for advice.
Kucinich is my dream candidate, Hillary is a close second. There are others, but those are the only two with the juice to make a real run at the office. Obama has been a shitty president. I don't know why, since he's carried out all the same policies that you people chastised when Bush was proliferating them, that you don't feel the same way.
Whatevs.
80
@77
"I don't support MLK."
Always nice to know that.
After all, he was pushing for civil rights for blacks.
"I do fully endorse his life, though, especially his anti-war stance and advocacy just before his death."
So you do not "support" him but you "endorse his life".
What sort of endorsement would that be? Specifically.
"MLK was a plagiarist and a womanizer, and he was also a great man."
And you "endorse" plagiarism and womanizing?
Again, your statements contradict themselves because you do not understand the facts that you're pulling from Wikipedia.
"As I said, I am not looking for perfection, ..."
Again, that contradicts your previous statement:
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
So you don't "support" but you do "endorse".
But you haven't clarified the distinction yet.
Do you also "endorse" both Carter and Ford?
And what, exactly, do you mean by "endorse"?
"I don't support MLK."
Always nice to know that.
After all, he was pushing for civil rights for blacks.
"I do fully endorse his life, though, especially his anti-war stance and advocacy just before his death."
So you do not "support" him but you "endorse his life".
What sort of endorsement would that be? Specifically.
"MLK was a plagiarist and a womanizer, and he was also a great man."
And you "endorse" plagiarism and womanizing?
Again, your statements contradict themselves because you do not understand the facts that you're pulling from Wikipedia.
"As I said, I am not looking for perfection, ..."
Again, that contradicts your previous statement:
"When you support the lesser of 2 evils, all you get is evil, ..."
So you don't "support" but you do "endorse".
But you haven't clarified the distinction yet.
Do you also "endorse" both Carter and Ford?
And what, exactly, do you mean by "endorse"?
81
And just to have some more fun with this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
1
a : to write on the back of; especially : to sign one's name as payee on the back of (a check) in order to obtain the cash or credit represented on the face
b : to inscribe (one's signature) on a check, bill, or note
c : to inscribe (as an official document) with a title or memorandum
d : to make over to another (the value represented in a check, bill, or note) by inscribing one's name on the document
e : to acknowledge receipt of (a sum specified) by one's signature on a document
2
a : to approve openly (endorse an idea); especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely (endorse a mayoral candidate)
b : to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation (shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player)
So it looks like definition 2a is applicable in this context.
:D
A shame that MERRIAM-WEBSTER used the word "support" in that definition.
But feel free to explain how your usage of "endorse" fits one of the other definitions.
LOL
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
1
a : to write on the back of; especially : to sign one's name as payee on the back of (a check) in order to obtain the cash or credit represented on the face
b : to inscribe (one's signature) on a check, bill, or note
c : to inscribe (as an official document) with a title or memorandum
d : to make over to another (the value represented in a check, bill, or note) by inscribing one's name on the document
e : to acknowledge receipt of (a sum specified) by one's signature on a document
2
a : to approve openly (endorse an idea); especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely (endorse a mayoral candidate)
b : to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation (shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player)
So it looks like definition 2a is applicable in this context.
:D
A shame that MERRIAM-WEBSTER used the word "support" in that definition.
But feel free to explain how your usage of "endorse" fits one of the other definitions.
LOL
82
Well, asshole, endorse comes from the French, endosser and means to confirm or approve of something, usually after the fact, as in the case of a check that's already been written.
Support is also French in its origin (supportare) and means "lift up". In this case, of course, it means so figuratively.
So, while I do not endorse your idiocy, I do fully support you gaining enough knowledge to have an intelligible conversation with me in the future.
Understand the difference now?
I'm out.
Support is also French in its origin (supportare) and means "lift up". In this case, of course, it means so figuratively.
So, while I do not endorse your idiocy, I do fully support you gaining enough knowledge to have an intelligible conversation with me in the future.
Understand the difference now?
I'm out.
83
@82
"Well, asshole, endorse comes from the French, endosser and means to confirm or approve of something, usually after the fact, as in the case of a check that's already been written."
Did you miss the definition I posted from MERRIAM-WEBSTER?
Did you?
You know the one? The one where "endorse" is defined as "support"?
That one?
"Understand the difference now?"
Nope! You just used two different contexts. Do you have a problem with basic English? Huh? Is that the problem? You don't understand basic English?
Even when the definition is posted for you?
LOL
"Well, asshole, endorse comes from the French, endosser and means to confirm or approve of something, usually after the fact, as in the case of a check that's already been written."
Did you miss the definition I posted from MERRIAM-WEBSTER?
Did you?
You know the one? The one where "endorse" is defined as "support"?
That one?
"Understand the difference now?"
Nope! You just used two different contexts. Do you have a problem with basic English? Huh? Is that the problem? You don't understand basic English?
Even when the definition is posted for you?
LOL
84
Um...yeah. I just gave you the actual definition, not some dumbed down web version of it (I have an unabridged dictionary made of paper. You should look into these things called books when you learn a bit better reading comprehension).
I'm sorry that your ability to learn is restricted by a medium that is quickly being fitted for the lowest common denominator (I'm not talking about fractions, when you look that word up in your children's "I can read" dictionary, either). I don't have time for children who can't move past a word definition that they so obviously don't understand.
Thanks for playing, but you are now making a fool out of yourself for anyone with half a brain who bothers to look in.
Continue, please...
I'm sorry that your ability to learn is restricted by a medium that is quickly being fitted for the lowest common denominator (I'm not talking about fractions, when you look that word up in your children's "I can read" dictionary, either). I don't have time for children who can't move past a word definition that they so obviously don't understand.
Thanks for playing, but you are now making a fool out of yourself for anyone with half a brain who bothers to look in.
Continue, please...
85
@78 - Maybe you should Google Hillary-Care, the Clinton plan in the 90s. It was about as "shitty" as what Obama passed, in that it centered on a mandate to buy private insurance.
Why did the Clintons shoot so low? Because they weren't the royal family; they had this pesky thing called "Congress." And guess what? It'll still exist in 2016, and it'll still fight tooth-and-nail to keep the gazzillion dollar private-insurance industry from being sidelined into irrelevance by a universal federal plan.
@79 - Who gives a shit? Apparently not Dems who didn't vote for Gore. CU would have failed 6-3 if Gore got his two picks instead of Bush.
But, hell. Elections make no difference, right?
Why did the Clintons shoot so low? Because they weren't the royal family; they had this pesky thing called "Congress." And guess what? It'll still exist in 2016, and it'll still fight tooth-and-nail to keep the gazzillion dollar private-insurance industry from being sidelined into irrelevance by a universal federal plan.
@79 - Who gives a shit? Apparently not Dems who didn't vote for Gore. CU would have failed 6-3 if Gore got his two picks instead of Bush.
But, hell. Elections make no difference, right?
86
@84 ( malcolmxy )
"Um...yeah. I just gave you the actual definition, not some dumbed down web version of it (I have an unabridged dictionary made of paper. You should look into these things called books when you learn a bit better reading comprehension)."
Damn! You were owned on a DICTIONARY definition. That doesn't happen very often.
And now you're trying to claim that you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH?
"Thanks for playing, but you are now making a fool out of yourself for anyone with half a brain who bothers to look in."
You got owned by a DICTIONARY and then claimed you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH and you think I should be concerned about the opinions of people who read this and agree with you?
LOL
You were owned by a dictionary.
LMAO
"Um...yeah. I just gave you the actual definition, not some dumbed down web version of it (I have an unabridged dictionary made of paper. You should look into these things called books when you learn a bit better reading comprehension)."
Damn! You were owned on a DICTIONARY definition. That doesn't happen very often.
And now you're trying to claim that you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH?
"Thanks for playing, but you are now making a fool out of yourself for anyone with half a brain who bothers to look in."
You got owned by a DICTIONARY and then claimed you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH and you think I should be concerned about the opinions of people who read this and agree with you?
LOL
You were owned by a dictionary.
LMAO
88
Oh, venomlash, sometimes it slips my mind how much I heart you. And then you go and bring that to the table. Thank you.
89
@85
The 90s were the 90s, it's over 20 years later and the country was ready for a public option, much like Carter proposed in his last year in office (which was killed by that pesky congress, specifically Ted Kennedy as he saw his chance to be president by walking all over the president's ideas of health care). I'm fairly certain that Hillary-Care today would be much different than what she and her husband were trying to get passed in the 90s.
I have no idea what the hell your 6-3 thing means. I assume it has something to do with Bush v Gore, but you were too non-specific.
@86
The definition I gave you was from the Random House unabridged dictionary. I simply gave you the French origins (this is called etymology...look that one up as well) of the word so you would understand the subtle differences between the two.
I chose the words specifically because of the difference in their meanings, differences that you obviously don't understand.
That's your problem, though, not mine.
The 90s were the 90s, it's over 20 years later and the country was ready for a public option, much like Carter proposed in his last year in office (which was killed by that pesky congress, specifically Ted Kennedy as he saw his chance to be president by walking all over the president's ideas of health care). I'm fairly certain that Hillary-Care today would be much different than what she and her husband were trying to get passed in the 90s.
I have no idea what the hell your 6-3 thing means. I assume it has something to do with Bush v Gore, but you were too non-specific.
@86
The definition I gave you was from the Random House unabridged dictionary. I simply gave you the French origins (this is called etymology...look that one up as well) of the word so you would understand the subtle differences between the two.
I chose the words specifically because of the difference in their meanings, differences that you obviously don't understand.
That's your problem, though, not mine.
91
@89 ( malcolmxy )
"I chose the words specifically because of the difference in their meanings, differences that you obviously don't understand."
LMAO
You got owned by a DICTIONARY.
Specifically, by the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary.
Now you want to claim you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH.
:)
Oh, in YOUR dictionary you claim that the definitions are different.
LMAO
Okay. Why don't you post the definition of "endorse" from YOUR dictionary?
Go ahead.
Do it.
I can swing by the library tomorrow and use their copy of that dictionary.
I'll even post the definition of "endorse" from that exact dictionary.
I'll do it because you won't. You won't because you've been OWNED BY A DICTIONARY.
The library opens at 10 am on Saturday.
LOL
"I chose the words specifically because of the difference in their meanings, differences that you obviously don't understand."
LMAO
You got owned by a DICTIONARY.
Specifically, by the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary.
Now you want to claim you were speaking FRENCH instead of ENGLISH.
:)
Oh, in YOUR dictionary you claim that the definitions are different.
LMAO
Okay. Why don't you post the definition of "endorse" from YOUR dictionary?
Go ahead.
Do it.
I can swing by the library tomorrow and use their copy of that dictionary.
I'll even post the definition of "endorse" from that exact dictionary.
I'll do it because you won't. You won't because you've been OWNED BY A DICTIONARY.
The library opens at 10 am on Saturday.
LOL
92
I admire your wide-eyed optimism. But there's a difference between the public being ready for single-payer, and the insurance industry being ready to close up shop.
Call me cynical, but at least I'm not hand-waving away the market forces that stopped single-payer from happening two times out of two.
Call me cynical, but at least I'm not hand-waving away the market forces that stopped single-payer from happening two times out of two.
93
The reason that single payer didn't pan out was two-fold.
1. Communication - when the group in charge of selling the health care plan to the public (who would then call or write their congressmen/women telling them to vote or not vote for it) disbanded, they said that the communication from top to bottom was so poor that many of them didn't even understand the plan, and so there was no way that they could effectively sell it to the public (read - failure directly attributable to Obama).
2. The industry (and, just like with his decision to grant immunity to the telcom industry over domestic spying, Obama is little more than a corporate shill) - yeah...obviously the Health Insurance Industry is powerful, and I didn't expect that they would be phased out immediately (10 years is about the best I figured I could hope for, with 15 being more realistic), but Health Care Companies saw an almost universal rise in their stock prices after the health care legislation was passed.
So, the market feels that these companies will now be even more profitable, and this is for an industry that is nearly unregulated and sucking 30% immediately off the top, even now after the legislation passed (in the P&C industry, because it is regulated, companies run between 85% and 105% expense ratios, and even at 105% they still make a hefty profit because of their investment income).
Given that, do you really think this plan is good for the people, overall? Since Wall Street now values these companies even more than before?
Look beyond the propaganda. Show a little intellectual curiousity. Once you do, you'll see that Obama is no better, and possibly slightly worse given that he is almost never heavily criticized by the left leaning press, than any Republican who he might face in this election (except Santorum...no one is worse than Santorum...well, maybe Gingrich, but beyond that...)
@91
Like I said, I'm not terribly fond of LOLCATS.
More...
1. Communication - when the group in charge of selling the health care plan to the public (who would then call or write their congressmen/women telling them to vote or not vote for it) disbanded, they said that the communication from top to bottom was so poor that many of them didn't even understand the plan, and so there was no way that they could effectively sell it to the public (read - failure directly attributable to Obama).
2. The industry (and, just like with his decision to grant immunity to the telcom industry over domestic spying, Obama is little more than a corporate shill) - yeah...obviously the Health Insurance Industry is powerful, and I didn't expect that they would be phased out immediately (10 years is about the best I figured I could hope for, with 15 being more realistic), but Health Care Companies saw an almost universal rise in their stock prices after the health care legislation was passed.
So, the market feels that these companies will now be even more profitable, and this is for an industry that is nearly unregulated and sucking 30% immediately off the top, even now after the legislation passed (in the P&C industry, because it is regulated, companies run between 85% and 105% expense ratios, and even at 105% they still make a hefty profit because of their investment income).
Given that, do you really think this plan is good for the people, overall? Since Wall Street now values these companies even more than before?
Look beyond the propaganda. Show a little intellectual curiousity. Once you do, you'll see that Obama is no better, and possibly slightly worse given that he is almost never heavily criticized by the left leaning press, than any Republican who he might face in this election (except Santorum...no one is worse than Santorum...well, maybe Gingrich, but beyond that...)
@91
Like I said, I'm not terribly fond of LOLCATS.
94
@89
Again, you get basic US History wrong.
You have confused Carter with Nixon.
It was Nixon who proposed health care reform similar to what Obama gave us. Unfortunately, Senator Teddy Kennedy did not allow it to pass because he thought that it did not go far enough. He thought he could get a better deal through with a different president. He did not foresee the coming Reagan Revolution.
Years later, Kennedy would say that it was the worst political mistake of his life.
He should have compromised and got a starting place; like we have now.
Instead, we wasted a generation due to Kennedy's mistake. Thank God Obama didn't make the same mistake, even though he has gotten nothing but flak from purists like you who sit on the sidelines and do nothing.
Again, you get basic US History wrong.
You have confused Carter with Nixon.
It was Nixon who proposed health care reform similar to what Obama gave us. Unfortunately, Senator Teddy Kennedy did not allow it to pass because he thought that it did not go far enough. He thought he could get a better deal through with a different president. He did not foresee the coming Reagan Revolution.
Years later, Kennedy would say that it was the worst political mistake of his life.
He should have compromised and got a starting place; like we have now.
Instead, we wasted a generation due to Kennedy's mistake. Thank God Obama didn't make the same mistake, even though he has gotten nothing but flak from purists like you who sit on the sidelines and do nothing.
95
Kennedy's mistake with Nixon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
Kennedy also killed Carter's tepid reform plan. But not because it had a public option (Carter was more conservative and never proposed such a thing), but because it was too weak:
"As a presidential candidate in 1976, Carter equivocated on NHI. In truth, this Southern moderate never liked the idea. A proto-Clinton, he preferred low-cost free-market solutions to public ills. Nonetheless, in order to win over the money and manpower of the UAW, Carter endorsed NHI. After his election, he put Great Society architect Joseph Califano (head of Health Education and Welfare) in charge of drawing up legislation. The UAW met with Califano and was shocked when he told them not to expect the support of the president for reform. He eventually quit his job in frustration at stonewalling by Carter.
In office, Jimmy Carter’s biggest challenge was bringing down double digit inflation. In 1978, he proposed a budget that cut the deficit by reducing social spending. Facing mounting pressure by liberals, the administration endorsed an NHI proposal in July 1978. President Carter promised reform in three stages. The first—and the only ever defined—stage was a hospital cost-containment bill designed to deflate medical bills. Ted Kennedy was shocked. The administration made no commitment to comprehensive coverage and the cost-containment package was likely actually to raise the price of healthcare as doctors hiked other charges to cover any loss in revenues. Worse still, the administration insisted that any future program be run by private insurers: there would be no “public option” for consumers to buy from the government."
http://hnn.us/articles/131473.html
More...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
Kennedy also killed Carter's tepid reform plan. But not because it had a public option (Carter was more conservative and never proposed such a thing), but because it was too weak:
"As a presidential candidate in 1976, Carter equivocated on NHI. In truth, this Southern moderate never liked the idea. A proto-Clinton, he preferred low-cost free-market solutions to public ills. Nonetheless, in order to win over the money and manpower of the UAW, Carter endorsed NHI. After his election, he put Great Society architect Joseph Califano (head of Health Education and Welfare) in charge of drawing up legislation. The UAW met with Califano and was shocked when he told them not to expect the support of the president for reform. He eventually quit his job in frustration at stonewalling by Carter.
In office, Jimmy Carter’s biggest challenge was bringing down double digit inflation. In 1978, he proposed a budget that cut the deficit by reducing social spending. Facing mounting pressure by liberals, the administration endorsed an NHI proposal in July 1978. President Carter promised reform in three stages. The first—and the only ever defined—stage was a hospital cost-containment bill designed to deflate medical bills. Ted Kennedy was shocked. The administration made no commitment to comprehensive coverage and the cost-containment package was likely actually to raise the price of healthcare as doctors hiked other charges to cover any loss in revenues. Worse still, the administration insisted that any future program be run by private insurers: there would be no “public option” for consumers to buy from the government."
http://hnn.us/articles/131473.html
96
@93
I see that you did not post the definition that you claim supports your position from your dictionary.
The libraries open in 2 hours.
I bet this is the first time anyone has been afraid of a library opening.
LOL
I see that you did not post the definition that you claim supports your position from your dictionary.
The libraries open in 2 hours.
I bet this is the first time anyone has been afraid of a library opening.
LOL
97
Getting back to the point of this blog, here is the 9-11 Tribute video at the Republican National Convention on day 4, shown less than an hour and a half before McCain spoke and excepted the party's nomination.
What a bunch of hypocrites! The Republicans use to use 9-11 all the time.
Clip from MSNBC with Olbermann's reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFr…
Clip from CNN with images of the crowd (video quality poor)-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085IADWSZ…
What a bunch of hypocrites! The Republicans use to use 9-11 all the time.
Clip from MSNBC with Olbermann's reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFr…
Clip from CNN with images of the crowd (video quality poor)-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085IADWSZ…
98
@97
Of course they do. It's even become a joke.
A noun, a verb, 9/11.
The country NEEDS them to PROTECT it from the "terrorists".
Because, you know, Democrats are "soft" on "terrorism".
Now that a DEMOCRAT has done in 2 years what a Republican could not do in 7 years ... NOW it is political and insensitive to bring it up.
But Republican hypocrisy isn't as amusing as "malcolmxy" spewing ridiculous claims.
So I'll stay focused on that because it amuses me to see someone afraid of the library opening.
:D
Of course they do. It's even become a joke.
A noun, a verb, 9/11.
The country NEEDS them to PROTECT it from the "terrorists".
Because, you know, Democrats are "soft" on "terrorism".
Now that a DEMOCRAT has done in 2 years what a Republican could not do in 7 years ... NOW it is political and insensitive to bring it up.
But Republican hypocrisy isn't as amusing as "malcolmxy" spewing ridiculous claims.
So I'll stay focused on that because it amuses me to see someone afraid of the library opening.
:D
100
@96
you're also an idiot'
World English Dictionary
endorse or indorse (ɪnˈdɔːs)
— vb
1. to give approval or sanction to
sup·port
[suh-pawrt, -pohrt]
verb (used with object)
1.
to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for.
2.
to sustain or withstand (weight, pressure
you're also an idiot'
World English Dictionary
endorse or indorse (ɪnˈdɔːs)
— vb
1. to give approval or sanction to
sup·port
[suh-pawrt, -pohrt]
verb (used with object)
1.
to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for.
2.
to sustain or withstand (weight, pressure
101
@99
Only 30 minutes until the library opens.
:D
You still haven't posted the definition that you claim comes from that dictionary that supports your position.
You're afraid of the library opening.
Only 30 minutes until the library opens.
:D
You still haven't posted the definition that you claim comes from that dictionary that supports your position.
You're afraid of the library opening.
102
@95
Still an idiot ($2,500 per year cap on family medical expenses, with the difference being paid by the federal government, and the take-over of medicare supplement plans by the federal government).
I know you're just learning about this stuff now to try and denigrate me, but do a little better with your research, would ya:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=75…
(that's a NEWSPAPER...it's what people read to get the NEWS. You should try it some time, after you learn to read, that is)
Still an idiot ($2,500 per year cap on family medical expenses, with the difference being paid by the federal government, and the take-over of medicare supplement plans by the federal government).
I know you're just learning about this stuff now to try and denigrate me, but do a little better with your research, would ya:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=75…
(that's a NEWSPAPER...it's what people read to get the NEWS. You should try it some time, after you learn to read, that is)
103
@101
You pwn'd me. I have been pwn'd. lol...lmao...lulz.
Can you cease interupting with your Goebbels-esque debate style now? It doesn't matter how wrong you are, you're still gonna yell how right you are, so just go pretend you actually won something elsewhere.
Straw man and ad hominem are the last tools of the misinformed zealot, and since that's all you've had from the get-go, perhaps I should say the persistent, misinformed zealot.
You pwn'd me. I have been pwn'd. lol...lmao...lulz.
Can you cease interupting with your Goebbels-esque debate style now? It doesn't matter how wrong you are, you're still gonna yell how right you are, so just go pretend you actually won something elsewhere.
Straw man and ad hominem are the last tools of the misinformed zealot, and since that's all you've had from the get-go, perhaps I should say the persistent, misinformed zealot.
105
@103
Guess where I just got back from? Go ahead! Guess!
Did you guess the Seattle central library? In downtown Seattle?
More specifically the 7th floor?
Row 300?
Reading the dictionary to referenced? You know the one.
"The definition I gave you was from the Random House unabridged dictionary."
For anyone who wants to verify this, the cover is red. It's on the top shelf. It's a bit heavy so be careful when you get it.
Definition follows shortly. I have to type this in by hand.
Guess where I just got back from? Go ahead! Guess!
Did you guess the Seattle central library? In downtown Seattle?
More specifically the 7th floor?
Row 300?
Reading the dictionary to referenced? You know the one.
"The definition I gave you was from the Random House unabridged dictionary."
For anyone who wants to verify this, the cover is red. It's on the top shelf. It's a bit heavy so be careful when you get it.
Definition follows shortly. I have to type this in by hand.
106
endorse
en dorse (en do(the o has a hat)rs) v.
-dorsed, -dorsing. n.
-vt
1. to approve, support, sustain; (this part is in italics) to endorse a political candidate.
2. to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument.
3. to sign one's name on (a commercial document or other instrument).
4. to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one's endorsement.
5. to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.; (again with the italics) to endorse instructions; to endorse one's signature.
6. to acknowledge (payment) by placing one's signature on a bill, draft, etc.
-n
7. Heraldry, a narrow pale, about one quarter the usual width and usually repeated several times.
Also, indorse.
en dorse (en do(the o has a hat)rs) v.
-dorsed, -dorsing. n.
-vt
1. to approve, support, sustain; (this part is in italics) to endorse a political candidate.
2. to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument.
3. to sign one's name on (a commercial document or other instrument).
4. to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one's endorsement.
5. to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.; (again with the italics) to endorse instructions; to endorse one's signature.
6. to acknowledge (payment) by placing one's signature on a bill, draft, etc.
-n
7. Heraldry, a narrow pale, about one quarter the usual width and usually repeated several times.
Also, indorse.
107
@103
"It doesn't matter how wrong you are, you're still gonna yell how right you are, so just go pretend you actually won something elsewhere."
You've been owned by a DICTIONARY.
And not just the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary.
You've been owned by the very dictionary you claimed had the definition you used.
Which means that you fail at basic English.
LOL
"It doesn't matter how wrong you are, you're still gonna yell how right you are, so just go pretend you actually won something elsewhere."
You've been owned by a DICTIONARY.
And not just the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary.
You've been owned by the very dictionary you claimed had the definition you used.
Which means that you fail at basic English.
LOL
108
@104
I tried, but this idiot is convinced he used the same dictionary as me, but he forgot to ask what year mine was, because apparently he was unaware they publish new versions of these books every year.
But, just the fact that he went to the library specifically over a word, and one that was not terribly germane to the point I was trying to make is at least a little funny, no?
Talk about your trolls...jesus christ.
I tried, but this idiot is convinced he used the same dictionary as me, but he forgot to ask what year mine was, because apparently he was unaware they publish new versions of these books every year.
But, just the fact that he went to the library specifically over a word, and one that was not terribly germane to the point I was trying to make is at least a little funny, no?
Talk about your trolls...jesus christ.
109
@108
"I tried, but this idiot is convinced he used the same dictionary as me, but he forgot to ask what year mine was, because apparently he was unaware they publish new versions of these books every year."
LMAO
Keep going! This keeps getting better.
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
And this mystical tome that you alone posses proves that you are correct and all those other dictionaries (and other editions of that same dictionary) are false.
No, seriously, keep going!
I'll even play along.
What year/edition is your fabled codex?
"I tried, but this idiot is convinced he used the same dictionary as me, but he forgot to ask what year mine was, because apparently he was unaware they publish new versions of these books every year."
LMAO
Keep going! This keeps getting better.
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
And this mystical tome that you alone posses proves that you are correct and all those other dictionaries (and other editions of that same dictionary) are false.
No, seriously, keep going!
I'll even play along.
What year/edition is your fabled codex?
110
@93 - Do I think having insurance vs. not having insurance is better for the American people overall? Is that really your question? 30 million more people will get health insurance because of this law. I'm sure you're a decent person, but It makes you seem like a sociopath to say that you'd rather see them remain uninsured than see any benefit go to insurance companies, even after the ACA required 85% of their revenue to go toward patient care.
In fact, you seem to say you'd still be against the law if the insurance companies were forced to contribute 105% percent of revenue toward patient care - regardless of how many lives (and life-savings accounts) would be saved in the process - because insurance companies will still be making money on investments!
Maybe you should Google mortality rates for the uninsured. While you're at, take a break and actually read the ACA, and when you are done, try saying with a straight face that insurance companies are "unregulated."
Look - every liberal wants single-payer. I do, too. But to say this was just a communication failure on the part of Obama is facile to the point of pissing oneself. Hell - the votes weren't there for a public OPTION - an OPTION for anyone to enroll in a federal plan if they so choose - and no punches were pulled on the communication of THAT plan. But here you say mandatorily enrolling EVERYONE into a public plan was a slam dunk, if only Obama gave more speeches.
In fact, you seem to say you'd still be against the law if the insurance companies were forced to contribute 105% percent of revenue toward patient care - regardless of how many lives (and life-savings accounts) would be saved in the process - because insurance companies will still be making money on investments!
Maybe you should Google mortality rates for the uninsured. While you're at, take a break and actually read the ACA, and when you are done, try saying with a straight face that insurance companies are "unregulated."
Look - every liberal wants single-payer. I do, too. But to say this was just a communication failure on the part of Obama is facile to the point of pissing oneself. Hell - the votes weren't there for a public OPTION - an OPTION for anyone to enroll in a federal plan if they so choose - and no punches were pulled on the communication of THAT plan. But here you say mandatorily enrolling EVERYONE into a public plan was a slam dunk, if only Obama gave more speeches.
111
@110
I worked in the industry. I know it like the back of my hand. Wanna know a neat trick that gets them past "regulation".?
So, can't deny someone coverage for a pre-existing condition now, right? Everyone knows that, no?
Wanna know why they could deny someone coverage? ANY OTHER REASON.
Don't feel like covering blondes on Thursdays after one of them has bone cancer? OK. Just don't mention the bone cancer and you're good.
They are "regulated" to run at a 70% combined ratio (essentially all their expenses divided by all premiums they take in) with the new legislation. That means they get $.30 on every dollar they take in (because, I guarantee you, they will all run at the bare minimum, and with their actuarial tables, that's exceedingly easy to do).
Know how much it costs medicare per dollar they take in? $.03.
So, in essence, because Obama was so bad at communicating this plan to the public (and, do you really believe that? The man is the best communicator, as a president, that we've had since Lincoln, and he may eclipse even honest Abe himself in that area.), that we are destroying $.27 for every dollar of what are massively increasing medical expenses, and we are putting Medicare at risk because of this, and all because why again? Because Obama sucks more corporate dick than Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman?
30 million sounds good now, until you realize that we are insuring those 30 million today at the cost of 100 million in 20 years.
But, I'm glad you have such a warm, fuzzy feeling about the legislation. Reading it, if you're 40 or under, is about the maximum benefit that you're going to receive from it, so you might as well read it as much as you can.
The goal of health care should be people's health. The goal of for profit health care is profit. In fleecing our nation's future health, Obama gave them exactly what they wanted - more profit.
In doing so, he destroyed an entire nation's coverage in 2 decades.
Whoopie!!! If understanding this makes me a sociopath, then fuck it. I'm a sociopath.
More...
I worked in the industry. I know it like the back of my hand. Wanna know a neat trick that gets them past "regulation".?
So, can't deny someone coverage for a pre-existing condition now, right? Everyone knows that, no?
Wanna know why they could deny someone coverage? ANY OTHER REASON.
Don't feel like covering blondes on Thursdays after one of them has bone cancer? OK. Just don't mention the bone cancer and you're good.
They are "regulated" to run at a 70% combined ratio (essentially all their expenses divided by all premiums they take in) with the new legislation. That means they get $.30 on every dollar they take in (because, I guarantee you, they will all run at the bare minimum, and with their actuarial tables, that's exceedingly easy to do).
Know how much it costs medicare per dollar they take in? $.03.
So, in essence, because Obama was so bad at communicating this plan to the public (and, do you really believe that? The man is the best communicator, as a president, that we've had since Lincoln, and he may eclipse even honest Abe himself in that area.), that we are destroying $.27 for every dollar of what are massively increasing medical expenses, and we are putting Medicare at risk because of this, and all because why again? Because Obama sucks more corporate dick than Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman?
30 million sounds good now, until you realize that we are insuring those 30 million today at the cost of 100 million in 20 years.
But, I'm glad you have such a warm, fuzzy feeling about the legislation. Reading it, if you're 40 or under, is about the maximum benefit that you're going to receive from it, so you might as well read it as much as you can.
The goal of health care should be people's health. The goal of for profit health care is profit. In fleecing our nation's future health, Obama gave them exactly what they wanted - more profit.
In doing so, he destroyed an entire nation's coverage in 2 decades.
Whoopie!!! If understanding this makes me a sociopath, then fuck it. I'm a sociopath.
112
Sorry, in addition to everything else, I have a degree in Economics, so I kinda know this shit...for realz.
113
@111
Are you having trouble finding the year that your fabled dictionary was printed?
LOL
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
Are you having trouble finding the year that your fabled dictionary was printed?
LOL
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
115
Don't feel like covering blondes on Thursdays after one of them has bone cancer? OK. Just don't mention the bone cancer and you're good.
Let me understand this. You are saying that it would be in the financial interest for an insurance company to drop all blondes to avoid the ones with bone cancer, thus reducing their enrollment by 16% (or whatever percentage blondes constitute)? Because they certainly can't deny the blonde with bone cancer for being blonde if they are insuring other blondes.
You claim to be an economist, yet you seem to have no idea how insurance companies make money! You might as well say they can drop EVERYONE to avoid reimbursement for bone cancer. Maybe they could, but wouldn't that hurt their bottom line? Man, you're thick.
Please cite the section of the ACA that states that companies may run on a 70% combined ratio. You've mentioned that in other threads as well, but never backed it up, and I can find no reference to it. I will assume you are just talking out your ass as usual if no response is given.
As for the rest of your rant, well - it's just that: no facts, just bluster. "Fleecing our nation's future health?" I don't even know what that means without any kind of data backing it up.
If Obama has made any communication mistakes on health care, it's not explaining to the American people how great this plan is. Instead, he leaves the stage open to people like you, who slander it because they didn't get single-payer, something he never could have passed.
116
@115
"Let me understand this."
Actually, what he posted was:
"Don't feel like covering blondes on Thursdays after one of them has bone cancer? OK. Just don't mention the bone cancer and you're good."
Your analysis was pretty much correct. Following his "logic" would be ruinous to their bottom line.
But more to the point it would be illegal under current laws in the USofA.
An insurance company CANNOT refuse coverage for a population segment or person that they cannot show, statistically, does not meet their criteria. (and a bunch of other stuff about how much of the population any one insurance company can cover and the insurance company buying insurance for their coverage from another insurance company and so on)
So dropping all blondes is illegal.
The same as denying coverage to blacks would be.
They could charge the blonds more for the same coverage IF AND ONLY IF they could show, statistically, that blondes were x% more likely to contract bone cancer.
In conclusion, you are correct. He is wrong. And he is wrong in multiple, core concepts.
"Let me understand this."
Actually, what he posted was:
"Don't feel like covering blondes on Thursdays after one of them has bone cancer? OK. Just don't mention the bone cancer and you're good."
Your analysis was pretty much correct. Following his "logic" would be ruinous to their bottom line.
But more to the point it would be illegal under current laws in the USofA.
An insurance company CANNOT refuse coverage for a population segment or person that they cannot show, statistically, does not meet their criteria. (and a bunch of other stuff about how much of the population any one insurance company can cover and the insurance company buying insurance for their coverage from another insurance company and so on)
So dropping all blondes is illegal.
The same as denying coverage to blacks would be.
They could charge the blonds more for the same coverage IF AND ONLY IF they could show, statistically, that blondes were x% more likely to contract bone cancer.
In conclusion, you are correct. He is wrong. And he is wrong in multiple, core concepts.
117
It would only be the one blonde. The argument isn't logical because the legislation is written like shit.
I'm sure I'm wrong, though, and that lawyers aren't lining up as we speak to defend medical insurers who are using this exact loophole to get out of insuring people with pre-existing conditions (perhaps if I had said, "this one blonde, at 2:01PM on a Thursday" it would have been less confusing for the two of you.
@116
Have you read the law, and are you familiar enough with reading other laws that you understand it, because it doesn't take but a quick search to find dozens of law firms who are now specializing in this type of insurance defense.
The thing is, I SHOULD be wrong, but I'm not.
Whatever...like I give a shit if you understand this. Only a handful of people do, which is why they're able to get away with it. You being no different than the herd just makes you like everyone else. Ain't like I'm trying to change the world, just get some entertainment out of it.
I'm sure I'm wrong, though, and that lawyers aren't lining up as we speak to defend medical insurers who are using this exact loophole to get out of insuring people with pre-existing conditions (perhaps if I had said, "this one blonde, at 2:01PM on a Thursday" it would have been less confusing for the two of you.
@116
Have you read the law, and are you familiar enough with reading other laws that you understand it, because it doesn't take but a quick search to find dozens of law firms who are now specializing in this type of insurance defense.
The thing is, I SHOULD be wrong, but I'm not.
Whatever...like I give a shit if you understand this. Only a handful of people do, which is why they're able to get away with it. You being no different than the herd just makes you like everyone else. Ain't like I'm trying to change the world, just get some entertainment out of it.
118
@117
"Have you read the law, and are you familiar enough with reading other laws that you understand it, because it doesn't take but a quick search to find dozens of law firms who are now specializing in this type of insurance defense."
Are those law firms the places that sell that fabled dictionary of yours?
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
"Have you read the law, and are you familiar enough with reading other laws that you understand it, because it doesn't take but a quick search to find dozens of law firms who are now specializing in this type of insurance defense."
Are those law firms the places that sell that fabled dictionary of yours?
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
120
@119
"More straw man. cool."
You must be using the dictionary definition of "straw man" that is within that special dictionary that only you posses.
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
"More straw man. cool."
You must be using the dictionary definition of "straw man" that is within that special dictionary that only you posses.
The point is that you cannot even handle basic English.
You refuse to accept the dictionary definition of words and instead claim that you have a dictionary which defines those words differently than other dictionaries and even differently than other available editions of that dictionary.
121
Thanks for the tag-team, f.u. This Malcolmxy is a preposterous fool.
I hope he contacts me when a jury sides against a bone-cancer victim due to the "we don't cover blondes at 2:01pm on Thursdays" defense. (A policy that the insurance company instituted AFTER this hypothetical blonde's appointment.) Yeah, that's a legal slam dunk.
I know I should leave the little boy alone, but I find his combination of narcissism and imbicility hilarious.
I hope he contacts me when a jury sides against a bone-cancer victim due to the "we don't cover blondes at 2:01pm on Thursdays" defense. (A policy that the insurance company instituted AFTER this hypothetical blonde's appointment.) Yeah, that's a legal slam dunk.
I know I should leave the little boy alone, but I find his combination of narcissism and imbicility hilarious.
122
@121
"I hope he contacts me when a jury sides against a bone-cancer victim due to the 'we don't cover blondes at 2:01pm on Thursdays' defense."
:)
Yeah, like any insurance company would even try that. Despite what he claims. It's just more trolling.
Kind of sad in a way. He spent so much time and energy here just demonstrating how little he understood about so many subjects.
Remember kids, Wikipedia is NOT a substitute for knowledge. Wikipedia only gives you facts and all facts are not of equal importance.
"I hope he contacts me when a jury sides against a bone-cancer victim due to the 'we don't cover blondes at 2:01pm on Thursdays' defense."
:)
Yeah, like any insurance company would even try that. Despite what he claims. It's just more trolling.
Kind of sad in a way. He spent so much time and energy here just demonstrating how little he understood about so many subjects.
Remember kids, Wikipedia is NOT a substitute for knowledge. Wikipedia only gives you facts and all facts are not of equal importance.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (122) RSS