Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government

Buz
By international standards there are no mainstream leftwing politicians in the US. Including Obama. In fact the democrats would probably be considered slightly to the right of centre in most other major Western democracies. As would Obama himself.Whatever you think of him and whatever you think of his actual policies (i.e. the ones he actually carries out as opposed to the imaginary list in your OP) I think you can rest assured that a socialist revoloution in the US is not going to happen anytime soon For what it is worth Obama seems to me to be a genuinely remarkable human being. Just the right person at just the right time. But I guess history will ultimately be the judge of that. As it will also be the judge of the reign of GWB (maybe the worst president in US history?)

No. I have not had that pleasure as yet.But I have nearly pissed myself laughing at some of GWBs humiliatingly idiotic and embarassingly bizzarre comments in the past.I have nearly fallen asleep as I have watched McCain sweat his way though some seriously mind numbing and dribble inducing speeches more recently.And I would shit myself if a hateful imbecile like you were to be taken seriously by anyone with any actual power.Does that satisfy your desire to wallow in the full range of human excretions....?

Well I never expected that.I think I am destined to disappoint you on this front but I take your comments as a compliment and your faith is genuinely appreciated (even if I think it is misplaced).Despite our differences I have never doubted the sincerity of your views and no matter how much I disagree with most of what you say I think EvC is a much better place for your presence here. (although I am less ure about your new friend Petrophysics)Anyhow.... Stay happy. And I really would not worry too much about that Obama led socialist take-over if I were you. It really won't happen.Mores the pity

Does not the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, Jewish and very pro-Israel as well as a fellow Chicagoite, as chief of staff not suggest to you that things are not quite as black and white with Obama as you seem to think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buz
It seems you think everything that Obama does that you might have sympathy with is nothing more than a cunning trick used to hide his true intentions whilst thinking everything he does that you disagree with confirms your worst fears!!!!On that line he can, by definition, never do anything right by your book.Have you read the Wiki article on Rahm Emmanuel. He is not someone who just happens to be Jewish. His family are die hard Israelis. He is also a close political ali of Obama. Just how deceptively clever do you think Obama is? Does Rahm Emmanuel know he is just, as you assert, a pawn in the pro-Muslim game Obama is playing?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Erm... Doesn't 9/11 count? If Obama turns out to be an anti-American anti-Israel supporter of Islamic extremism with a plot to Islamisise the world I'll donate a months wages to the next republican election campaign.If however he turns out to be exactly as he has consistently claimed to be on these issues (i.e. not that radically different to any previous US president) then how about you vote democrat next time round?How about it?

Do you really think the Middle East conflict is that simple?There are indisputably reasons for both sides to feel aggrieved and the Israelis have also indisputably attempted to expand their territories. Buz if you were a Palestinian would you think "Oh OK fair enough that's fine by me"? Or would you feel compelled to fight for what you believe to be your homeland?The whole problem stems from the fact that both sides have legigimate claims and grievances whilst simultaneously having long ago reached the point that the two sides are loathe to actually give an inch to the mutually hated opposing side.The fairly arbitrary divvying up of the region by the broadly Israeli sympathetic Western powers (Britain latterly and now the US) hardly helps. But I think most people think that a two state solution is the only way forwards. The sticking point will always be about who gets which areas and regions.If Obama makes any progress on that issue he will have truly earned his place in history. However on this point more than any other I am relatively pessimistic.

No I am not. Fair point. I knew I could not vote (obviously) which is why I didn't suggest that.I did not know overseas contributions were also not allowed. Although with some thought this too would have been obvious. :Maybe I could give the money to Buz's church so that they can contribute on my behalf. That way I can gain salvation and keep my side of the bargain If Obama does set out to Islamisise the world that is.......

All fair points. The system seems watertight to dubious and illegal contributions from overseas.Just testing

I'm game!!Buz?In the unlikeley event that I lose I would become a social outcast. It is debatable whether even my family would talk to me anymore. In fact you lot at EvC might be the only ones who would

Oh I dunno................. A picture of Bill Clinton and Obama in a manly (but very heterosexual!!) embrace?

Buz with no evidence and no trial of any sort how many of these prisoners are completely innocent?10%? 30%? 50%? 80%? 90%? How many do you think?What percentage of all the prisoners that have been, or still are detained at Guantanamo, have actually been found guilty of anything at all? How many have revealed anything useful?How many innocents are you willing to lock up and torture repeatedly for years?How is this total disregard for international law and innocent victims along with an "all means are justified by the ends" attitude really any different from the level of morality demonstrated by terrorists.Buz bear in mind that no-one believes themselves to be evil. No matter how misguided they may be, all those who commit atrocities genuinely believe themselves to be justified and righteous.No matter how justified or righteaous you may feel certain actions to be if at the end of the day those actions are morally wrong then ultimately you are no more moral or justified than those that you oppose.There has to be a line. In most people's eyes Guantanamo oversteps that line by a country mile.

But didn't you just say 99.9% are innocent victims?Anyway as soon as you start invoking lawyer style technicalities as to why certain behaviour is not illegal you have absolutely lost the moral argument as to it's acceptability. the Geneva convention is designed to protect human rights. By abandoning it, whether technically illegal or not, you are indisputably compromising human rights.One last point: Given your fear of Obama would you not rather that the US government did not have the right to imprison indefinitely without trial anyone who meets the purely arbitrary definition of a "national security threat"?Such measures have been used by pretty much every tyrannical dictatorship to get rid of anyone who poses a political threat. Surely you would welcome the removal of this power from a government that you fear?I oppose Guantanamo on principle. When you give any government the right to imprison people without trial or charge that right is inevitably going to be abused one day. By one administration or the next.Here in the UK various "anti-terror" laws have been imposed which would potentially give the government all sorts of opportunity for abuse of those it is supposedly protecting. What was that then...........?

When you are seriously ill the last thing on your mind is choice and options. What is needed is care without regard for cost.No system is perfect.I have a father who has had bowel cancer in the last year or so. I have also got elderly grandparents (both 85+) who have various conditions. I also have a 2 year old son who has had a few normal but worrying medical episodes.The treatment, home help and support that these family members have received in the last two years has surpassed anything I would have expected of any health system in the world.My father is now basically well but undergoing various preventative treatments. My grandparents receive daily home help and care. The aim of the health system seems to be to facilitate their independent lives in their family home with as much self sufficiancy as possible. My son has been immunised against all major world diseases and various child health care voluntary programmes attended. All of this is on ths NHS.If me and my family had to pay for this we would be bankrupt.I personally cost the British NHS all but nothing. I, as a top tax payer, probably pay far more than my own individual health costs would currently warrant. But I do not begrudge a single penny of this and as a wider family member the National Health service has saved me and my kin from financial and health related devastation.I really do not understand the US right wing opposition to non-private health care.Insurance companies are bastards at the best of times. When people are at their physical, mental and financial weakest the very last thing that they need is the administrative and beauracratic nightmare of private insurance.Infinitely better a system that delivers health care based purely on need with no regard for individual ability to pay. IMHO.

Hi BuzNo patient in the UK is forced to take any medicine that they personally oppose!!!!Your idea that socialised medicine somehow equates to enforced treatment is utterly unfounded.Additionally I believe that the NHS does in fact supply various alternative therapies. I know it does homeopathy and acupuncture but it also seems that all sorts of other alternative treatments are available http://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.aspxPersonally I oppose the NHS providing such unproven or even unprovable treatments which seem to rely on a combination of the placebo effect, anecdotal evidence and a refusal to undergo double blind formal clinical trials for their onoing claims.......But it does seem that they are actually available on the NHS regardless of my personal opposition.Do US medical insurance companies cover all forms of alternative therapy then? If so is it because these options are cheaper?