Sarah Palin's death panel a reality

I think you're making a case for republicans and democrats, as I read in your post to Drone. But not all republicans are conservatives and not all democrats are liberals, voters that is.I have voted republican before, especially in local elections, and I'm very progressive. And I would have voted for Mitt Romney had he been running against Obama.So I agree with your Rep/Dem split of election results, but I don't think it accurately describes progressives vs conservatives. Well in the case of Iraq/Afghan, the interests of the elites would be to continue with the occupation and increase military spending. This is currently the case, since the defense budget is higher than it has ever been and more troops are in Afghan than when the invasion took hold. This is a BIG win for the defense industry who has made an disgusting amount of money on the blood of soldiers and civilians.As for healthcare, while I agree with your public option points, the public option is irrelevant in proving Obama acted in the interest of the Pharm and insurance industry.By making insurance mandatory for anyone employeed, all you do is increase the amount of clients the insurance companies have. They also control how much insurance they'll give out.You also increase the amount of people now using medicine if you increase the amount of people insured, obviously, and that is a huge win for the pharm industry who controls the drug market.Plus the major lobbyist kickbacks, this is really no secret.How can all of this not be seen as being ONLY in the interests of the elite?- Oni

I wanna be the black Noam Chomsky! The funny thing is one of mine is and I insult him all the time. Then I tell him, don't worry, I can say that about black people, you're my best friend.- Oni

No, but for the most part liberals line up with the Democratic party and conservatives with the Republicans.And it's useful for it to work out that way. The post-Civil Rights Act period of realignment, where voting along ideological lines appeared to result in bipartisanship was a confusing time where electoral outcomes didn't express the real policy preferences of the voters. That can only be because you didn't pay attention to Mitt Romney during the Repub primary. I think the vast amounts of money spent by those industries to defeat the ACA are pretty relevant, don't you? Why would insurance companies spend so much money to defeat a supposed "giveaway"?Insurance companies hate the ACA. That's pretty much ironclad proof that it's no insurance company giveaway. Regardless of who wins elections, though, the defense budget will increase. That's another structural feature of government. The ACA doesn't make insurance mandatory for anyone employed. It prescribes a small tax penalty for not being insured, but it's still much less than the annual cost of insurance.And a mandate doesn't just increase the amount of clients insurance companies have; the mandate allows insurance companies to absorb the dramatically increased insurance costs that will result from them not being able to engage in adverse selection and rescission. The mandate was the opposite side of the coin from the prohibition against rescission and denial for pre-existing conditions. If there's no mandate then the only customers of insurance companies become the people who are making expensive claims, and they all go out of business. Incorrect. Terms of insurance coverage continue to be regulated by the states, and the ACA mandates that a minimum percentage of insurance company premium revenue be spent to cover medical claims. And the fact that it's a huge win for the people who need medicine to live, that means nothing? People should die so that pharmaceutical companies shouldn't make money? I don't understand that. What "kickbacks"? 10 million people who lacked insurance will have it under the ACA, and can now get medical care that they need but couldn't afford on their own. How is that "only in the interests of the elite"?

Native Americans. As I remember, during Obama's campaign he promised to step down the war in Iraq but step up the war in Afghanistan.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

How would you respond to the argument that of the three possible solutions - legislative repeal, judicial injunction, or executive order - the legislative repeal is the most permanent?

---

Depends upon judicial rules for timing of appeals. This was part of the problem for the DADT ruling: The Obama Administration waited until pretty much the last minute to file their paperwork regarding appeal. If I recall correctly, it was on the last possible day. If they had simply let it go, there would have been no ability to appeal as the (and I forget the correct term so I am going to substitute another phrase that carries the idea I'm trying to convey) "statute of limitations" had run out.Because DADT is a law, there is no way an Executive Order could override it. Instead, what an Executive Order could do would be to issue a stop-loss order saying that discharges are to be halted in general due to the need for retention of troops. That, of course, doesn't get rid of the law and can be rescinded at any time, especially by the next Republican president.And as for legislative remedies, that's going to likely be a half-baked process that will result in continued discrimination. Oh, you won't get immediately booted out for being identified as gay, but it certainly won't result in full equality. It will be akin to the "civil unions" that pretend to be equal but really aren't.The court decision was the cleanest, quickest, most permanent way of fixing things and Obama threw it away.

quote:

---

People keep saying that, but I mean, Congress was just today holding DADT hearings. You really think there's no chance of legislative success?

---

While the House has passed the bill, it will require two Republicans to switch their votes in order to pass it in the Senate during this lame duck session. The Republicans just released a unanimously-signed pledge indicating that they will not take up anything until tax cuts for the rich are dealt with first.While Scott Brown has flip-flopped (yet again) regarding this issue and says he might vote for repeal, that isn't enough. Susan McConnell (currently) claims to support repeal but she is holding to the pledge: No vote until tax cuts for the rich are passed. 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...which means we have to start all over again. Since the Democrats lost the House, it won't pass there (only 5 Republicans voted for repeal) and with more Republicans in the Senate, their obstructionism only gains strength.If it's going to happen, it's going to take a miracle. The Democrats had their chance and they blew it.

---

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.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Thus, if Iraq violates the terms of the cease-fire, then the parties who agreed to cease firing - namely, us and the UK - are authorized to resume hostilities.

---

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Resolution 1441 was a cease fire agreement and had provisions to resume hostilities in the case of breach (it isn't and didn't as has been clearly shown).Iraq was in compliance at the time we declared war. Or have you forgotten that Bush had to remove the weapons inspectors who were literally begging him to stop and let them complete their job. The very same day that he went onto the television to claim that Iraq was obstructing the weapons inspectors, they were destroying a set of missiles that violated the range restrictions (with videotape of the destruction being shown earlier in the day).So since Iraq was in compliance, why were we invading?

---

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.

So, about Republican death panels ...

The us is one of the gratest wepon producing countries, the companies wanted a ware so they could make some profit by selling weapons, others jined in cause they saw oportunity in Iraqs oil, and with your whole nation riled up from the 9.11 attack who was going to say well the terrorists came from afganistan not iraq and iraq is doing everything it can not to go to ware.

if you bring an end to a war on conditional terms - which 1441 clearly did - then there don't need to be explicit provisions to resume hostilities - the entire document implies the return to hostilities if the conditions are not met.I mean that's common sense. I've not forgotten that. But at the time, the legal burden of demonstrating Saddam's noncompliance had been met. Dishonestly, but it had been met. Saddam was complicit in concealing a non-existent weapons program; he considered it in his interest to fool people into thinking he had weapons capability that he did not have. He may not have known the extent to which his weapons program was fictitious. The Iraq War was based on lies. But it was nonetheless legal, at least according to legal arguments made by the US government which have never been successfully challenged.

If the legislative option - which Obama clearly prefers, perhaps to deny Republicans the chance to campaign on "activist judges"? - fails, then can't his DoJ simply swamp the appeal? It seems to me that nothing is lost but time. Frankly, this is exactly what I heard about health care reform after the Scott Brown election. But you just can't make any money betting against Obama.

And claiming everyone that criticizes Obama is a racist is what?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not everyone.Just probably you.

Well lets look at the evidence.Can you show anything I have ever posted that is racist?I am criticizing Pres Obama.From the very start you have made racial claims.You have made racist claims against everyone that has criticized Obama on this thread.This is exactly what you have been doing this whole thread. Making another unevidenced assertion. How about providing a little evidence that shows I am criticizing Obama because of his race. Like all of your other unevidenced assertions on this thread you have no evidence. All you have is your paranaoia. Do you think the President is claiming all his critics are racist Do you think he thinks his critics from the left are racist?Barack Obama is a very smart man. I would be very surprised if he thinks his critics from the left are racist.But seemingly its all you have. When it is all you have I guess you have to go with it.It truly amazes me that you claim I am a racist when
1) You know nothing about me
2) I have never posted anything racistDo you not realize how this automatic and immediate claim of racism makes you look? It completely overshadows your arguments.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Besides this whole thread? Based on an absurd double standard that you have not and would not apply to any other President.Hrm, I wonder what's different about this President that would cause you to apply a double standard?

Republican death panels ... ?