|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Obama | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But I'm right, as you say, it's just one sentence that all this is about. Well, three, actually.
Be specific, in fact just write, don't even link, the post that best present your argument and I'll do all the work from there. I guess I'd just like you to better develop your "the ACA is a huge insurance company giveaway" idea in light of the following facts, which I find disconfirming to that thesis: 1) The insurance companies, rather than anticipating the ACA as a huge windfall, actually spent millions in campaign contributions, lobbying, busing Tea Party activists to shout at town halls, and advertising to obstruct the bill.2) Medical insurance companies generate profits by the main mechanism of adverse selection/rescission, and the ACA eliminates these practices. 3) While insurance enrollments are assumed to increase under the ACA - that's the point - the increase is primarily in people who will make expensive medical claims well in advance of having made significant premium payments. These are exactly the applicants insurance companies didn't want because they represent a loss, not a profit. 4) Increased pharmaceutical company profits due to more people purchasing medicine is a feature, not a bug. The whole point is to increase the number of people buying medical care. These are not points I want you to respond to, because I don't see how they can really be disputed. What I'd like to see you do is defend your view that the ACA is a "huge giveaway" in light of these points, if you can. Or you can do whatever, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can't? Already? Yes, Oni. You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Insurance companies did spend millions to defeat ACA, that's a matter of public record. Rescission and adverse selection in the individual insurance market are prohibited by the ACA, it's in the text of the legislation. People getting life-saving care they need is a good thing. I guess you can argue about that, though. Those don't constitute an argument I'm making. Do you understand that? My argument is not "insurance companies spent millions to defeat the ACA." That's not an assertion I'm making and defending - that's an established and recognized fact that I believe you were not aware of when you originally struck your position. If your argument relies on up being down and black being white, I don't know that debate is going to be possible. You understand that I'm talking about the ACA that passed in this country, right? The United States?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Wow.
That's a long way to go to avoid Panda's question, Drone. To wit:
quote: Thanks for making it clear, again, how you fold in the face of a direct question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But again, and this is the IMPORTANT part that Crash wishes to fully disregard, this answer is a part of the whole and should ONLY be considered WITH my other Iraqi objections. Well, ok. Let's consider it in the context of your other Iraq objections: 1) You want the troops of out of Iraq.2) You want the private military contractors out of Iraq. 3) You want the permanent military bases out of Iraq. 4) You want American hegemonic influence out of Iraq. Thus, in context, it follows that as you find the Us embassy in Iraq objectionable, you also want it out of Iraq, as I've said. Hence your inability to answer Panda's direct and simple question. Look, Drone, maybe you just misspoke and shot your mouth off without thinking. Clearly you really did want the US embassy in Iraq to close, or perhaps never to have been built at all, before you really considered the consequences of closing the US embassy in Iraq. Or perhaps it really is the size and purpose of the embassy that you object to, and you assumed inaccurately that Obama was president in 2003 when the plans for the embassy were first drawn up. That's fine. If you're genuinely retreated from that position I won't hold you to it. If we both agree that it's stupid, that's the end of it for me. You'll literally never hear about this incident from me again, I promise. But just drop the stupid game. You said it, and Panda and Onifire aren't the only people who agree you said it, they're just the only people who have said so on the forum. Quite a few people have emailed me and told me that it's quite obvious what game you're playing; nobody finds your arguments convincing. Xongsmith and Onifire are on this because they think they can attack me with it, not because they think you're right. You said it, I proved it, and your attempt to claim otherwise is a lie. You've lost that argument. Sorry, but you did. Just admit you said something you didn't mean, that this isn't all in my head, and your long nightmare can come to an end at last.
Does an HONEST debater REPEATEDLY avoid key arguments (like Child Torture)? I think everybody understands that this question, as well as your point about the continuing policy of rendition for torture under Obama, is rhetorical. So can we talk about the key arguments you've repeatedly avoided, now? Like how continuing the policy of rendition and torture is the only option left to the Obama Administration because of the fundamental structure of our government? That's the point you've evaded in two threads, now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I find his argument convincing, and when I explained to you why I found it convincing, you quote-mined me. No, Oni, I didn't misrepresent you in any way. I used your own words to demonstrate that we're reasoning from the same basis, except I know one more thing that you don't - Dronester is lying to save face. When you combine what we both agree on with what I know about Dronester - which is not a secret, it's just something you haven't realized yet - then the conclusion is obvious. Dronester himself has asked that we interpret his remarks about the embassy in the context of the other things he'd like to see taken out of Iraq, so why don't you go ahead and do so? And while you're at it - if it's so important for you to continue this conversation, why don't you answer the questions I asked?
quote: Again - don't just tell me you "interpret his remarks as complaints about the size of the embassy." Answer the specific questions I asked you. What connection does Obama have to the size of the embassy except for the fact that he's not yet torn it down?
I don't care enough about you to try and "attack" you with anything. Well, that's clearly false. Throughout this thread you've referred to what you perceive is some kind of tendency on my part to not admit when I'm wrong. Of course, that's not true - probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than me. It's just that I don't admit I'm wrong when I'm not wrong, just as I'm not admitting to being wrong about what Dronester has said because I'm not wrong about what he's said, as I've proven.
I got into it because I realized what Dronester meant by his ENTIRE paragraph What he means by his entire paragraph is that just like Obama is to blame for not withdrawing troops from Iraq, mercenaries from Iraq, and military bases from Iraq, Obama is to blame for not withdrawing the enormous US embassy from Iraq. Dronester's paragraph was a list of things Obama should have withdrawn from Iraq and hasn't. He's even admitted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It reads like the LAST log entry of a doomed 19th century pioneer lost in his failed pursuit to reach the antarctic. Poetic, but futile. I see you've neither responded to my point or to Panda's question. Disappointing.
If there are indeed errors in my posts, someone should speak up. You're the only one who would know, in this case. If you didn't intend to complain that Obama hasn't yet torn down the enormous US embassy, then why have you repeatedly made that complaint? In regards to the giant US embassy, exactly what part of it do you feel Obama is responsible for? You've said "continuing the policy", but only policy here is not closing the embassy. So you're lying when you say that you've never said Obama should close the embassy. You've actually said it four times, now.
YOU are telling ME I am evading points: size, context, child torture, illegal wire tapping, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, SIGNING STATEMENTS. I've addressed these points. These are, again, all the result of systematic constraints that leave a liberal president no other choice. Obama could be as liberal as they come - and is! - and guess what we're going to get? Extraordinary rendition, torture of children, illegal wiretapping, executive orders, signing statements. How many threads do we have to open before you're prepared to address that basic point?
His presidency did so much. Yes, because the goals of the Bush Administration were fundamentally conservative ones - illegal wiretapping made legal, wars, an increased security state, hegemonic expansion. The Bush administration was able to accomplish so much because the policy goals of that Administration were the exact things the government is structured to deliver. Bush was not a liberal. I can't believe you need to be told that.
However, you want everyone to believe that, NOW, SUDDENLY, due to the fundamental structure of our government, Obama's presidency is powerless to enact any worthwhile "liberalisms"??? Yes, exactly! Because liberal goals are different than conservative ones. The government is fundamentally structured to allow only conservative outcomes. That's why no matter who we elect, we only get conservative outcomes. The answer isn't the election of liberals, it's the election of reformers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
... that the activities of President Bush, who was not a liberal and did not do liberal things, is not going to be an effective counterexample to my thesis that the government structurally favors conservative outcomes. In fact the policy "successes" (in the sense that Bush had agenda items that succeeded in passing) of the Bush administration prove me right.
Try to think it through? I'm not asserting a symmetric bias in government, but rather an asymmetric one. The government is structured such that it's far, far easier to enact a conservative agenda than a liberal one. Think it through. If I asserted a structural bias against black people in academics, for instance, instances of high-scoring white people wouldn't be a counterexample, they would be confirming evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Barack Obama voted FOR illegal wiretapping HR 6304, 2008. Well, to be fair what he voted for was to legalize certain future wiretapping that would have been illegal under current law. (Of course you've never been fair in this entire debate, have you?) But this, of course, highlights the difficulty in trying to play "disqualify the liberal" on the basis of votes. For instance liberal icon Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks for buyers of firearms. Barney Frank favors the legalization of gambling and opposed greater federal oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and contributed to the financial crisis. A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress and that means people make deals and vote for things they might otherwise not support to get agenda items passed that they consider much more important. Obama's done a great deal of this and the American people have benefited. Just ask anybody who can now buy medical insurance as a result of the ACA.
Yes, I agree, it is certainly easier to enact a conservative agenda when "liberals" push forward a neo-conservative agenda But that's not what I said, now is it? Again - the fundamental structure of government makes it easier to pass conservative agenda items than liberal ones. One of the ways in which Obama is moving the progressive agenda forward is by tethering progressive agenda items (like the extension of unemployment benefits by another year) to conservative agenda items (like the extension of tax cuts for the rich.) But people like you think Obama can't be a liberal unless he's willing to die on the hill for every single liberal principle, a strategy that accomplishes precisely nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. Right, but that's not a "vote for illegal wiretapping", is it? I don't see how it is.
Do not paint the liberal icon Bernie Sanders as soft on gun control. I'm not, Theodoric. I'm making the exact same point you are - looking at a politican's votes in isolation, devoid of context or any sense of how they weighed the trade-offs, doesn't give you a very accurate picture about a politican's beliefs. A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress - particularly in the face of the fundamental, structural issues (like Congress not being a majority-rules body) that privilege conservative outcomes and obstruct liberal ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It was a vote to make illegal wiretapping retroactively legal. Well, no. It's a vote to indemnify AT&T (basically) against civil suits stemming from their compliance with government instructions. How does that legalize any wiretapping?
In other words if the government requested the wiretapping the bill retroactively made all illegal wiretapping legal. You're doing a lot of work with "in other words", there, for instance the somewhat dishonest conflation of civil and criminal courts.
You have yet to show a liberal reason for Obama's FISA vote. I don't need to show such a reason. It's merely sufficient to note that a single vote taken in isolation and out of context can't be considered "disqualifying" for liberalism. Obama doesn't die on hills for liberal principles the way Bernie Sanders does; the result is that Obama has advanced the liberal agenda to a far greater extent than Bernie Sanders ever did or ever will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Government instructions that were illegal when they were made. Sure, but that's something else, now isn't it?
How is this not making the illegal, legal. How is it?
What affect does civil or criminal courts have to do on the legality? Really? That's really what you're asking? You can't see the relevance of the courts to legality?
H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. But that may have already been legal. There's never been a law against American interception of communications outside of the United States; that's the basis of signals intelligence. There's been an argument made that existing law didn't extend that protection to communications between foreign persons and American citizens, and I'm sensitive to that argument, but that argument was not tested in court. And, again - the vote isn't especially relevant. It's not disqualifying for liberals - many liberals were in favor of it and voted for it. And a single vote, absent any context or justification, just isn't enough information. You are, after all, ignoring all the times Obama voted against the telecom immunity amendment. Why is that?
What were the liberal values Obama was advocating for in this vote? Precisely the liberal values he's always advocated:
quote: But, despite Obama's repeated votes against it, the telecom immunity amendment passed. At that point, it was a question of whether or not the benefits of the bill outweighed the disadvantage of telecom immunity. Obama determined that they did not:
quote: So tell me, Theodoric, why is Obama's final vote for the entire bill somehow more diagnostic than his repeated votes against the very provision you're so upset about? Isn't this just another case, in fact, where Obama espoused precisely the very position you wanted him to, but simply refused to die uselessly on a hill for it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If he were so liberal he would make some sort of liberal stand on something. What would you call six votes against telecom immunity provisions, and joining a filibuster against the bill, if not "making a stand"?
It isn't compromise when you are always giving in. That is, actually, exactly what compromise is. Compromise means recognizing when you can get something you want by giving something your opponent wants. A reasonable adult person seeks any opportunity to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I saw something today that substantiates what I was saying about Oni's point:
No they are not. They may not approve of the presidents way of getting it, but they all want affordable insurance for everyone. Well, no, they don't. They want some people to get less care:
quote: Opinion | Bigger Is Easier - The New York Times As Matthew Yglesias points out:
quote: In other words, the conservative answer to rapidly rising health care costs is simply to buy less health care, for less people. Conservatives have no desire to expand access to health care; they want to diminish access to health care because health care is expensive. You know, assuming David Brooks and Paul Ryan can be taken as representative conservatives. (Who the hell are those guys, right?) Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
quote: Congress repeals ban against gays in military | Reuters You just can't make money betting against Obama.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
there are things that perhaps we shouldn't be willing to compromise on. The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to. Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024