Drone: If Obama REALLY wanted to protect the US servicemen, why does Obama continue to place them at risk in many illegal and immoral wars?
Crash: "Many" is a funny way to say "two", and you seem to have forgotten that Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The US has ALSO been bombing/invading/torturing: Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Pick up a newspaper sometime Pops.
For the "many-th" time, Obama has stopped withdrawing troops in Iraq. Currently:
drone: Obama has NOT withdrawn ALL troops from Iraq. He has re-labeled "combat-troops" with "counter-insurgency personal." 50,000 US troops are STILL in Iraq. I note you didn't respond to the 100,000 mercenary troops, PERMANENT bases, or MASSIVE US embassy.
Crash:You don't understand how unmanned drones - piloted remotely from the ground - are less risky than piloted, conventional airplanes?
This guarantees more death to innocent women and children (collateral damage) and guarantees more retaliatory strikes (blowback) against US in the future.
Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton are the president of Israel.
Yeah, I didn't think you had any evidence. Not surprised Pops.
Regarding the Palestinians: Obama is continuing the EXACT same FAILED "peace process" as Bush Jr.
Though the US continues to bribe Israel with billions of $, the continuation of illegal building and criminal discrimination/torture/death of Palestinians will continue.
Obama's action in this regard has been to reinstate the Army Field Manual guidelines to interrogations of terrorists by the US military and intelligence services, which prohibit torture.
And yet Gitmo is still open, EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION continues, and the US keeps "secret" detention bases around the world like Bagram Internment Facility in Afghanistan, still open for business.
Drone:Coming to an end? Au contraire my dear Crash, Obama is INCREASING them.
quote:Right, which is why I said:
quote:There's no realistic possibility in the United States of drone attacks coming to an end, due to how the federal government is structured to privilege military hegemony.
Not surprisingly, you missed the point, again, Pops. If Obama is sooo "liberal", why is Obama (not the federal government) INCREASING drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia that also murder innocent women and children and INCREASE hatred/risk of blowback towards the US? Seems a "liberal" president wouldn't also be a war-monger.
Drone: My, my, my. So according to you, it sure doesn't seem that Obama is dying on very many of his "liberal" hills, is he? In fact, he actually seems like he USUALLY gives away the ENTIRE store at first blink. Is that what you mean by "compromise"?
Crash: Is there supposed to be some response to my argument in this?
No, I really didn't expect you to have an answer to your delusion that Obama "compromises" instead of actually fully supporting and advancing the neo-conservative agenda.
Re-read Rrhain's Message 71 of 217 (596085).
Re-read Xongsmith's Message 191 of 214 (597273).
Now tell us, has Obama ever FOUGHT the GOOD FIGHT FOR liberal causes? AGAINST expanding War? AGAINST Torture? AGAINST Wallstreet? FOR Public Health Care? FOR a two-state Palestinian solution?
I think in the abstract, the USA, at one time, stood for Democracy, Human Rights, Equality. When I travel, I often talk to naive people who have glowing ideas of what "America" stands for. That is what I meant.
However, in actuality, if one is knowledgeable about American history, I concede your point.
Jazz: I have re-read my original reply to crash 4 times now I absolutely cannot understand how the hell you are extrapolating that I am "happy" with how things are.
As you were defending Crash's position, it seemed likely that you were at least content with Obama. If I inferred incorrectly, I apologize. Please expand your position so I am clear.
quote:BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality
quote:President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
. . . the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content.
Seems a "liberal" president wouldn't also be a war-monger.
Oh yes they would.
Try the word "progressive". "Liberal", as exposed in the old Phil Ochs song, is a word to describe those who, among other things, do not walk the talk.
Thanks for the tip, however, I believe I was using the term "liberal" in accordance with its classical definition (as per wiki), and its modern American usage. Do you still not agree?:
Because I really hate playing the definition game, and so we don't unduly derail the thread with definitions or semantics at this point, would you still object if I compromised and temporarily used the term "progressive-liberal"?
quote:How the hell should I know? The fact of the matter is, Lamont lost to Liebermann in the election.
You do realize that your second sentence contains the answer to your question, yes? There was an election which means that we got to hear what the candidates positions were on various subjects. And despite the fact that people kept saying that Lieberman was "with us in everything except the war," it turned out that he was actually against quite a lot. Why on earth was anybody surprised to find out that he was campaigning for McCain?
Do you really think Lamont wouldn't have fought to overturn DADT?
quote:I don't recall ever asserting that he was a "good and decent fellow".
It's called a "metaphor," crash. Look it up.
quote:I think someone who does take single payer off the table and who does bring insurance companies to the table, because passage of any HCR whatsoever would be impossible without doing so can be a liberal and can do more for the progressive agenda than someone who insists on dying on the hill for any and all liberal "principles", with the ultimate result that absolutely nothing is accomplished.
Except he didn't "accomplish" what he set out to do.
We don't have health care reform. We have insurance reform. What we have is a massive subsidy of insurance companies. We're still going to be paying way too much for way too little.
quote:do you really think single-payer health care was ever going to pass a Senate with only 57 Democratic votes?
No.
Do you really think that was the point? When you know you are dealing with a body that will never, ever go along with you on anything you are trying to work for, do you really think it's a good idea to "meet them halfway" as a starting position? Do you go out of your way to be absolutely silent on the benefits of your desired plan? Do you let the other side be the one to run away with the rhetoric and fearmongering?
Or do you fight for the very campaign promise you made? Even though you know you're probably not going to get it, do you start the process acting like you have every confidence in the world that you are?
quote:Single-payer didn't even pass a majority in the House; I don't think Tony Weiner's single-payer bill even came up for a vote.
Because nobody fought for it. Nobody got their asses in gear to try and make it happen. They immediately folded as soon as there was any pushback.
Why do you think those teabaggers were out there shouting, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"? That's because people like Medicare. Do you really think things would have been the same if proponents had actually fought for it rather than leaving all the talking points to Fox?
quote:"McCain is going to do everything he can to block the bill and I very much doubt that there will be a vote on it before the end of the term.." Is that what you call "batting 1.000"?
The Defense Authorization Bill was voted down, if you recall. The Senators that said they were going to vote for it voted against it.
So yeah, I'm doing pretty well.
quote:But the "mandate" is hardly a mandate; it's just a tax penalty for not buying insurance.
Which is a giveaway to the insurance companies which will not reduce costs.
quote:The mandate is there to prevent people from dropping their insurance until the day before they need to make a claim, not to convince some vast untapped market of uninsured-but-healthy people to purchase insurance.
That's not why the insurance industries fought for it. It's there to make sure that the insurance companies have a whole new market of people paying for insurance who probably won't make a claim in order to offset the regulation that they cannot drop people from the rolls should a claim be made. Of course, insurers are still allowed to jack your rates if you do make a claim and make it impossible for you to afford decent insurance due to your "pre-existing condition," but they can't just kick you out.
The only way a mandate works is if the entire risk pool is gathered together in one group. (*gasp!*) That's single-payer, universal coverage!
And you still haven't bothered to answer my question, so let me try again:
How can someone who has called for the ASSASSINATION of a US citizen without charge let alone a trial or any form of judicial oversight be considered "liberal"?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
No, it's been repeatedly and literally claimed that "Obama is not a liberal", and the evidence for this has been his supposed conservativism.
Of course, we're using "conservative" to mean a "tax cuts for the rich, militaristic foreign policy, pro-big business" agenda, as the word is generally understood to be defined in the context of modern American politics. But, if you mean "conservative" in the sense of "generally opposed to intervention or change", which is kind of what we agreed Chomsky meant by it, then my argument still stands - Obama could be (and is) as liberal as any of you want, and still his administration could only produce fundamentally conservative policy, because of fundamental constraints on the power of the Presidency.
I suppose when juxtaposing Obama with Dennis Kucinich, he probably looks like Hitler. But really isn't it a debate on semantics to some degree?
I could say that Bush Jr. really wasn't conservative on the basis that his Big Government approach is counter-intuitive to ideals traditionally embodied by conservatives. But even that fails for the simple fact that Republicans ARE all about Big Government -- they're just really selective on what parts of the government they want BIG (Border Wars, military industrial complex, Drug war, etc).
The Tea Party movement was essentially hijacked by the so-called limited government folk, but when push comes to shove they are nothing like it. (I should know, I once was a Big Government Republican). Thankfully I've seen the error of my ways.
All I know is that Obama is not "change we can believe in," he's the status quo repackaged. And that's not to undermine the good things I think he has done, and it certainly doesn't overlook the fact that he inherited a huge portion of the problems. That's lost on me.
Is Obama a liberal or a conservative or a moderate? He's a Progressive with moderate tendencies. I think that is the most accurate one is going to get. He's certainly not a classical liberal (few, if any, Democrats are).
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Now tell us, has Obama ever FOUGHT the GOOD FIGHT FOR liberal causes?
Yes, repeatedly - which is why we have the Lily Ledbetter Act, the American Care Act, the repeal of DADT, the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, reform of the nation's financial industry, and the Supreme Court's first Hispanic and (well, maybe) lesbian justices.
What Obama has not done, for the most part, is die on hills making futile stands for impossible-to-achieve, fringe liberal principles.
quote:What Obama has not done, for the most part, is die on hills making futile stands for impossible-to-achieve, fringe liberal principles.
Make no mistake, I am very much happy that it is Obama who is president rather than McCain. But since when is a healthcare program that more than 70% of the public actually supports (single-payer, universal coverage) a "fringe" liberal principle?
Since when is a tax policy that more than 80% of the public actually supports (letting the Bush tax cuts expire) a "fringe" liberal principle?
And most importantly, and something you have still refused to respond to in any way, since when is refusing to call for the ASSASSINATION of a US citizen without charges let alone a trial or any form of judicial oversight a "fringe" liberal principle?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Do you really think Lamont wouldn't have fought to overturn DADT?
Who knows? And why does it matter? The truth of the matter is that Leiberman won the election, not Lamont, so Lamont was not there in the Senate to take any action at all on DADT.
The question is not "Lieberman vs. Lamont", that's just a red herring you're raising because you can't speak to the central point, here. The question is "Leiberman with his committee seats and as part of the Democratic caucus vs. Lieberman given the brush-off and pushed into the Republican party", the latter being exactly what Obama had the foresight to prevent. Do you really think Lieberman-as-a-Republican would have taken any action at all on DADT except to vote against it? Answer the question.
It's called a "metaphor," crash. Look it up.
I know what a metaphor is, Rrhain; I'm wondering if you do. Do you think "good and decent fellow" is a metaphor for the argument I'm making? How, when I've repeatedly told you that I'm not rehabilitating Lieberman, I'm rehabilitating Obama?
We don't have health care reform.
In fact, we do. This is the year, now, that health insurance companies are subject to a draconian restriction on how much revenue from premiums has to be spent on medical care; a restriction so profit-eroding that insurers in Maine have sought to have the requirement temporarily suspended.
Do you really think that was the point? When you know you are dealing with a body that will never, ever go along with you on anything you are trying to work for, do you really think it's a good idea to "meet them halfway" as a starting position?
In US politics? Absolutely. Unlike the classical perspective on negotiation, Rrhain, negotiations between the US Senate and the President don't happen in closed rooms. Striking a position that you expect to negotiate away has costs in politics that it doesn't have in the boardroom or out in the casbah.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Obama accomplished more towards health care reform than any other liberal president. You think his strategy is naive and misguided. I submit that his strategy produced results and your strategy led to the defeat of Hillarycare in the Clinton administration. That, of course, is the conclusion you arrive at when you understand the actual practical import of the American Care Act instead of simply swallowing the lies of Firebaggers, wholesale.
Because nobody fought for it.
Amazingly, the Constitution has no provision for passing legislation because you "fight for it" really, really hard. Wishing as hard as you can doesn't get you even a single Congressional vote under our system of government. I know that's hard for Firebaggers to understand but as soon as you lose your idiotic and naive "Green Lantern" model of how the government operates, you'll see what I'm talking about.
It's there to make sure that the insurance companies have a whole new market of people paying for insurance who probably won't make a claim in order to offset the regulation that they cannot drop people from the rolls should a claim be made.
People who probably won't make claims were already insured, for the most part, because they knew they faced rescission if they only picked up coverage just as soon as they intended to make claims. The mandate is meant to prevent those people from leaving insurance rolls, not to convince a vast untapped market of healthy, uninsured people to sign up.
No such market exists. Those people are largely mythical- the uninsured are primarily people who were refused insurance due to medical conditions or expensive claims, people who are eligible for S-CHIP or Medicaid in their states but unenrolled (but, of course, would become enrolled immediately upon seeking medical care), or people who are temporarily uninsured as a function of a change in their employment status (usually moving from one status to another, say student to employed, before employment-based coverage kicks in.)
More than 5 million uninsured Americans are uninsured because they're uninsurable; they have immediate or incipient medical needs that will surely result in large claims. Those are the people who can no longer be turned away in the individual insurance market as a result of the American Care Act, and to act like that's nothing but a "giveaway" to insurance companies is deeply, deeply stupid. Don't make the mistake of making perfect be the enemy of good; perfect is not an outcome we're allowed to have under our system of government. Sorry, but it's not.
™ Version 4.2
