So, his approval ratings are down around 55%, his health care bill is clearly not going to pass, and a slight majority of Americans now think the bailout was a disaster. When combined with an economy that wil suck for years to come, which will only drag down his approval ratings...
Has he become a lameduck six months in?
Obama = Carter with a tan. :(
If that is true it just shows that with the ridiculous media cycle and short attention span of the public this country is rapidly becoming almost ungovernable.
:yes: I've been saying for quite some time that the Republic will fall shortly, probably within a generation or two. :)
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:06:36 AM
If that is true it just shows that with the ridiculous media cycle and short attention span of the public this country is rapidly becoming almost ungovernable.
I don't think that's fair. I just think he's been caught with his pants down time and time again, and seems t have trouble actually planning getting legislation past.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:12:05 AM
I don't think that's fair. I just think he's been caught with his pants down time and time again, and seems t have trouble actually planning getting legislation past.
Oh but you lambasting him after only 6 months is? Hey he may suck as President but come now...
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:12:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:06:36 AM
If that is true it just shows that with the ridiculous media cycle and short attention span of the public this country is rapidly becoming almost ungovernable.
I don't think that's fair. I just think he's been caught with his pants down time and time again, and seems t have trouble actually planning getting legislation past.
He is president because of the media boost. He may have made for a good president in another 10 years.
Yes, it's over. He's also not a natural born citizen. All hail President Biden. :mellow:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:10:05 AM
:yes: I've been saying for quite some time that the Republic will fall shortly, probably within a generation or two. :)
Democracy is inherently unsound.
Biden would be a better President. WAY more experience, and also he's much funnier (though usually not intentionally). :)
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:19:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:10:05 AM
:yes: I've been saying for quite some time that the Republic will fall shortly, probably within a generation or two. :)
Democracy is inherently unsound.
I agree, and this one is at the end of its rope. :cool:
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:19:29 AM
Biden would be a better President. WAY more experience, and also he's much funnier (though usually not intentionally). :)
I agree he's old. I don't agree he's way more experienced.
Let's look at one of Biden's pet theories in hindsight. Would Iraq be a better place today if it were partitioned into three regions?
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:04:42 AM
So, his approval ratings are down around 55%, his health care bill is clearly not going to pass, and a slight majority of Americans now think the bailout was a disaster. When combined with an economy that wil suck for years to come, which will only drag down his approval ratings...
Has he become a lameduck six months in?
Don't sell healthcare too short. I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2009, 08:21:04 AM
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Instead, they reelected Carter, and now have ensured that the Republicans will win the next few elections.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:22:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2009, 08:21:04 AM
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Instead, they reelected Carter, and now have ensured that the Republicans will win the next few elections.
No. The Republicans are wedded to Caribou Barbie. Their electoral chances for the next ten years are slim to nil.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:21:23 AM
Let's look at one of Biden's pet theories in hindsight. Would Iraq be a better place today if it were partitioned into three regions?
Yes, and in fact that's how it's eventually going to wind up, whether we like it or not.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:22:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2009, 08:21:04 AM
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Instead, they reelected Carter, and now have ensured that the Republicans will win the next few elections.
No. The Republicans are wedded to Caribou Barbie. Their electoral chances for the next ten years are slim to nil.
I rather doubt it. Even so, she could probably beat Obama.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:19:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:10:05 AM
:yes: I've been saying for quite some time that the Republic will fall shortly, probably within a generation or two. :)
Democracy is inherently unsound.
I agree with you 100 per cent. And American democracy with its "scratch my back, and I'll scratch you back," style of governing is increasingly unsound.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:26:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:21:23 AM
Let's look at one of Biden's pet theories in hindsight. Would Iraq be a better place today if it were partitioned into three regions?
Yes, and in fact that's how it's eventually going to wind up, whether we like it or not.
I rather doubt it, so long as Turkey is willing to use force to prevent the existance of Kurdistan.
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2009, 08:21:04 AM
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Huh? There was no way in hell the Dems were going to lose this past election. The Democrats could have run Hitler.
@ Neil
What makes you think all three regions will actually be independent? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2009, 08:21:04 AM
The Dem's should have lost this election.
Huh? There was no way in hell the Dems were going to lose this past election. The Democrats could have run Hitler.
He was already taken, though. :lmfao:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
Never stopped them in the past!
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
@ Neil
What makes you think all three regions will actually be independent? :ph34r:
Do you really think that Turkey would want to conquer Kurdistan? Why add more Kurds?
No, they will do everything in their power to ensure that Iraq stays together.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:04:42 AM
So, his approval ratings are down around 55%,
All presidents suffer a dip in their approval ratings during their first year. It's part of the transition from being a candidate to being a president. This won't make him an ineffective president.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 08:35:31 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:04:42 AM
So, his approval ratings are down around 55%,
All presidents suffer a dip in their approval ratings during their first year. It's part of the transition from being a candidate to being a president. This won't make him an ineffective president.
Are you sure? Matt Drudge overlapped the graphs of Carter and Obama approval ratings and I swear the sky started falling. :cry:
Obama lied. Hippies cried. :cool:
Is it 2012 already? No? Then no, it's not.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:32:14 AM
Do you really think that Turkey would want to conquer Kurdistan? Why add more Kurds?
Yes, and who said anything about 'adding' Kurds? :menace:
The Turks have a way with minorities....
eh, Spellus? :cool:
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:21:23 AM
Let's look at one of Biden's pet theories in hindsight. Would Iraq be a better place today if it were partitioned into three regions?
Invade one Iraq, get three absolutely free! :w00t:
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:31:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
Never stopped them in the past!
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
talk about short attention spans. look at this thread.
if he is really concerned about a 55% poll rating, he'll either manufacture a crisis or a feel good event, and his approval will climb back up.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:31:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
Never stopped them in the past!
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
"We're less crazy than the Southern, conservative fringe that still controls the GOP."
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 08:31:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
Never stopped them in the past!
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
this is more interesting. reps will run on their record(s) whether it's Obama record (by 2010) or their own.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
:lol:
Health care is such a contentious issue that no matter what congress does it's bound to upset a lot of people. I expect that doing nothing would cost Democrats seats, but passing a comprehensive health care reform package would cost them seats as well.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:20:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:19:21 AM
Democracy is inherently unsound.
I agree, and this one is at the end of its rope. :cool:
"Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of 'democracy' with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away."
-
The Fifth Elephant, Terry Pratchett.
The Obama admin has pushed massive spending, take over or bail outs of businesses, also massive spending. Now pushing health care, cap and trade, and more, all massive programs and changes. Too much and people are getting very wary, alarmed.
People want changes to health care and an energy policy, but are seem to be becoming quite wary of the massive scale of what's being proposed. Pres Obama has been rushing this stuff through to avoid the back lash, but he's getting a back lash on new proposals as people see the results of all the previous spending and programs. So yeah, now the Obama admin is in for much tougher times on some issues, especially on the larger spending issues.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:20:00 AM
I agree, and this one is at the end of its rope. :cool:
Don't worry. An American Sulla will declare himself dictator for life and reform the Republic before retiring peacefully to his Manhattan penthouse.
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The Obama admin has pushed massive spending, take over or bail outs of businesses, also massive spending. Now pushing health care, cap and trade, and more, all massive programs and changes. Too much and people are getting very wary, alarmed.
And for good reason. My hope is that he is getting all the big spending projects out of the way early and will then shift it down as the presidency goes on. That makes sense as a political strategy in a way.
So far I am a tad impressed, cautiously optimistic, at how he seems to be handling the Middle East issues even if he is pissing the Israelis off a bit. But then maybe that is all Clinton's doing.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:20:00 AM
I agree, and this one is at the end of its rope. :cool:
Don't worry. An American Sulla will declare himself dictator for life and reform the Republic before retiring peacefully to his Manhattan penthouse.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbtx3.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fbill-clinton.jpeg&hash=dd22967cc5f253add48fd894574631a4e03eca76)
:wub:
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 09:14:27 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The Obama admin has pushed massive spending, take over or bail outs of businesses, also massive spending. Now pushing health care, cap and trade, and more, all massive programs and changes. Too much and people are getting very wary, alarmed.
And for good reason. My hope is that he is getting all the big spending projects out of the way early and will then shift it down as the presidency goes on. That makes sense as a political strategy in a way.
I think you're right. As the economy improves the electorate is going to grow more suspicious of massive government spending. So long as they're fearful that they'll lose their house or their jobs they'll agree to major spending projects.
http://www.fresnobee.com/updates/story/1553061.html
Obama has lost me. :(
I knew you'd jump ship within six months or so. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 09:36:24 AM
I knew you'd jump ship within six months or so. :cool:
He still has my support in 2012, because as much I don't want a musselman in the WHITE House, I'd rather see Barack HUSSEIN Obama in there than a goddamned Republican. :mad:
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 09:25:53 AM
I think you're right. As the economy improves the electorate is going to grow more suspicious of massive government spending. So long as they're fearful that they'll lose their house or their jobs they'll agree to major spending projects.
I was more thinking of doing the potentially unpopular things first while you still have political capital...but that works to :P
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 08:49:55 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
:lol:
Health care is such a contentious issue that no matter what congress does it's bound to upset a lot of people. I expect that doing nothing would cost Democrats seats, but passing a comprehensive health care reform package would cost them seats as well.
You are probably right in the short term, but if you are going to lose seats anyway, why not get something done?
Sask--if democrats do nothing on major issues, I'm sure each member of congress will run a local campaign like you suggest. But there is a national campaign going on as well, and the national trends tend to determine whether seats are gained or lost. Nationally, I would expect democrats to be demoralized in 2010 and less prone to turn out.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 09:14:27 AM
So far I am a tad impressed, cautiously optimistic, at how he seems to be handling the Middle East issues even if he is pissing the Israelis off a bit. But then maybe that is all Clinton's doing.
I'm also a bit pleased at Obama's handling of at least some of the more difficult foreign policy issues. I hope he stays a course in Afghanistan as he'll come under more pressure as things heat up there. But the US/UN hasn't really devoted the effort there as yet, he US having been embroiled in Iraq. And speaking of Iraq, I'm optimistic that it appears the Obama admin is taking that seriously and is pushing for continued success. And I hope the Pres continues to do so in both nations.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:23:28 AM
No. The Republicans are wedded to Caribou Barbie. Their electoral chances for the next ten years are slim to nil.
Quitting as governor ruined what little chance she had of winning the 2012 primary.
:yes: Stick a fork in her, she's done.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:23:28 AM
No. The Republicans are wedded to Caribou Barbie. Their electoral chances for the next ten years are slim to nil.
Quitting as governor ruined what little chance she had of winning the 2012 primary.
Huckabee 2012. I said it first.
You mean for the nomination? Possible. He'll never win the general election, as he looks like a fucking rabbit with those teeth and the American people are too shallow to elect an ugly person.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 09:48:33 AM
You mean for the nomination? Possible. He'll never win the general election, as he looks like a fucking rabbit with those teeth and the American people are too shallow to elect an ugly person.
Yeah, for the nomination. Obama will BURY him in the general. It'll make 1936 look close.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 08:21:23 AM
Let's look at one of Biden's pet theories in hindsight. Would Iraq be a better place today if it were partitioned into three regions?
We don't know yet, do we? The real test would be when we leave. There was an article just yesterday about how Kurds and Iraq are primed for a civil war.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2009, 09:51:35 AM
We don't know yet, do we? The real test would be when we leave. There was an article just yesterday about how Kurds and Iraq are primed for a civil war.
Well we did our best. We cannot babysit Iraq forever if what they want is civil war, civil war is what they will eventually get.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstudents.umf.maine.edu%2F%7Ependlecv%2FCivil%2520War%2520Webquest%2FCivil%2520War%2520Battle.jpg&hash=653a07abcbedbddd239d1fb66d2d1176dd8262f8)
Obama was always going to be a better candidate than President.
Quote from: Kleves on July 24, 2009, 09:53:48 AM
Obama was always going to be a better candidate than President.
No President doing his job day after day could live up to an image like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steadyburn.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F11%2Faxelrod2.jpg&hash=541973819a74287231947e4ea1dc3fe24482fe9e)
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 10:00:02 AM
No President doing his job day after day could live up to an image like:
Yeah to live up to the hype Obama would have needed to make Abraham Lincoln look like Andrew Johnson.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 10:00:02 AM
No President doing his job day after day could live up to an image like:
Yeah to live up to the hype Obama would have needed to make Abraham Lincoln look like Andrew Johnson.
He would have had to be Yao Ming? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 08:49:55 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
:lol:
Health care is such a contentious issue that no matter what congress does it's bound to upset a lot of people. I expect that doing nothing would cost Democrats seats, but passing a comprehensive health care reform package would cost them seats as well.
You are probably right in the short term, but if you are going to lose seats anyway, why not get something done?
Sask--if democrats do nothing on major issues, I'm sure each member of congress will run a local campaign like you suggest. But there is a national campaign going on as well, and the national trends tend to determine whether seats are gained or lost. Nationally, I would expect democrats to be demoralized in 2010 and less prone to turn out.
sure, but after a 18 months in office, as opposed to six months, I think the Obama admin will have a stronger record and will be able to point to some legislative and executive achievements.
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
anyhow, must be a slow newsday. this thread is way way premature.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
The GOP is very reactionary of late but then that is pretty common for the opposition party. That usually is enough to get a party back in office.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 24, 2009, 08:49:55 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
What will their campaign be in 2010? "Give us bigger supermajorities and we will deliver change this time--we promise!"
:lol:
Health care is such a contentious issue that no matter what congress does it's bound to upset a lot of people. I expect that doing nothing would cost Democrats seats, but passing a comprehensive health care reform package would cost them seats as well.
You are probably right in the short term, but if you are going to lose seats anyway, why not get something done?
Sask--if democrats do nothing on major issues, I'm sure each member of congress will run a local campaign like you suggest. But there is a national campaign going on as well, and the national trends tend to determine whether seats are gained or lost. Nationally, I would expect democrats to be demoralized in 2010 and less prone to turn out.
sure, but after a 18 months in office, as opposed to six months, I think the Obama admin will have a stronger record and will be able to point to some legislative and executive achievements.
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
anyhow, must be a slow newsday. this thread is way way premature.
I agree on all points. I think what may have been missed is why I was saying that democrats would be in trouble if they don't pass healh care. My point was that democrats know they will be screwed if they don't build some sort of a record to take to the voters, and thus when push comes to shove they are going to get behind initiatives to save their own hides. Of the major proposals out there, health care probably has the most public support and is the most urgently needed, so I think it passes.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
Generally agree. The GOP will find its focus at some point, but it better find some leadership soon if they want to regain significant ground in '10. Otherwise, they'll get a typical small mid-term bump but only that.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:05:10 AMGenerally agree. The GOP will find its focus at some point, but it better find some leadership soon if they want to regain significant ground in '10. Otherwise, they'll get a typical small mid-term bump but only that.
Romney.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:07:25 AM
Romney.
That should horrify me...but the alternatives are generally worse.
Hey what about that dude from Louisiana? Knowing nothing about him he seems good since I can project things on him.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:07:25 AMRomney.
That's looking like the most likely, since all the others are dropping like flies. I doubt Mitt has a girlfriend in South America.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:05:10 AMGenerally agree. The GOP will find its focus at some point, but it better find some leadership soon if they want to regain significant ground in '10. Otherwise, they'll get a typical small mid-term bump but only that.
Romney.
It won't be difficult to swift boat Mr Romney with Bain Capital.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:07:25 AM
Romney.
That should horrify me...but the alternatives are generally worse.
Hey what about that dude from Louisiana? Knowing nothing about him he seems good since I can project things on him.
He actually believes he performed an exorcism. Automatic disqualifier.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 11:11:25 AM
He actually believes he performed an exorcism. Automatic disqualifier.
He is in Louisiana. He probably also performed several Voodoo curses.
That still reflects more rationality than being a Mormon.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 11:08:51 AM
That should horrify me...but the alternatives are generally worse.
Hey what about that dude from Louisiana? Knowing nothing about him he seems good since I can project things on him.
Jindal, you mean? He lacks the teflon coating Romney has. Romney's big problem is that the minority that vehemently supports him--the Mormons--already given 99.9999% of their vote to the GOP anyway. Then again, same type of deal with Obama and he still won.
I'm not sure how much Romney or Jindal could do for the GOP in 2010 :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 11:12:38 AM
He is in Louisiana. He probably also performed several Voodoo curses.
That still reflects more rationality than being a Mormon.
Romney is likely to figure out a way to marginalize his Mormonism to the general public, or rebrand it as some sort of evangelical bond with the crazy Southern Baptist bloc that he will definitely need in his pocket. It won't be easy, since Southern Baptists think Mormons are EV0L.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
Don't sell healthcare too short. I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
In theory I agree with you, but is passing a messy compromise that results in significantly more spending with no real changes really going to be possible?
Not to mention that Baucas is among those who are vehemently opposed to reform...
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
It won't be easy, since Southern Baptists think Mormons are EV0L.
Finally, something I can agree with the Southern Baptists about.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Romney is likely to figure out a way to marginalize his Mormonism to the general public, or rebrand it as some sort of evangelical bond with the crazy Southern Baptist bloc that he will definitely need in his pocket. It won't be easy, since Southern Baptists think Mormons are EV0L.
Course, a guy who supports universal health care much like Obama's plan and attended gay pride parades may not be the sort to mobilize the base, if you know what I mean.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:13:58 AM
I'm not sure how much Romney or Jindal could do for the GOP in 2010 :huh:
Well hopefully a Republican will rise from the ranks and use the power of the Matrix to light their darkest hour.
FWIW, I'm liking Romney more & more these days :ph34r:
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
Don't sell healthcare too short. I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
In theory I agree with you, but is passing a messy compromise that results in significantly more spending with no real changes really going to be possible?
Not to mention that Baucas is among those who are vehemently opposed to reform...
There's always reconciliation, where they'd only need 50 Senators to pass the bill and it can't be filibustered.
@ Valmy
:mad:
I like Mormon world myth better. They think God assumed a bodily form (the so-called 'Godhead') and physically impregnated Mary. That's HOTT. Also, they think Jesus and Satan are brothers. I imagine to the Mormons they resemble a good-evil version of Xamot and Tomax from the Crimson Guard. :cool:
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:15:44 AM
FWIW, I'm liking Romney more & more these days :ph34r:
Princesca reports that he's a great guy in person.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:17:33 AM
I imagine to the Mormons they resemble a good-evil version of Xamot and Tomax from the Crimson Guard. :cool:
So everytime I hurt Satan, Jesus feels his pain?
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:18:19 AM
Princesca reports that he's a great guy in person.
So was Gaius Marius and we saw how that turned out.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 11:21:41 AMSo everytime I hurt Satan, Jesus feels his pain?
:yes:
Also, if you're a good Mormon, when you die you get your own planet to rule over! :w00t:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:22:44 AM
Also, if you're a good Mormon, when you die you get your own planet to rule over! :w00t:
This is sounding more like Scientology all the time.
I wonder what Harry Reid's planet will look like.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Romney is likely to figure out a way to marginalize his Mormonism to the general public, or rebrand it as some sort of evangelical bond with the crazy Southern Baptist bloc that he will definitely need in his pocket. It won't be easy, since Southern Baptists think Mormons are EV0L.
Course, a guy who supports universal health care much like Obama's plan and attended gay pride parades may not be the sort to mobilize the base, if you know what I mean.
The guy is as politically unprincipled as they come. I won't be suprised if he gets the nomination and turns into Obama lite by election day.
Also, after you die, you remain married to your spouse FOR ALL ETERNITY :w00t:
... er, wait.... :ph34r:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 11:24:27 AM
The guy is as politically unprincipled as they come. I won't be suprised if he gets the nomination and turns into Obama lite by election day.
:yes: He'll say and do anything to get elected. IOW, he's very electable.
When he was governor of Mass., he thought abortions were just fine and dandy.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
The GOP is very reactionary of late but then that is pretty common for the opposition party. That usually is enough to get a party back in office.
just referencing the Canadian political experience, the mad as hell Reform party got established with a sizable rump, but got not break through as government until they reinvented their party Twice. In the meantime, we had successive Liberal governments. for almost 15 years.
IMO, Radicals, including populists and reactionaries,
usually don't get elected. Do you think the Republican electoral success until Clinton in the mid 90's was the rule or the exception?
I think its an exception and the GOP is dominated by loudmouths who have smaller constituencies then first glance would suggest.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:13:58 AM
I'm not sure how much Romney or Jindal could do for the GOP in 2010 :huh:
Given the calamity the Dems and Obama admin seem to be rushing to commit on the US budget, taxes, economy, take over or nationalizing of businesses, and various and sundry other big govt stuff, it won't be all that long that the politicos will be lamenting the demise of the Dem party, same as they were doing the same for the Repubs. ;)
Already many Dems are fearful, pushing back on health care and other stuff; Cap and Trade just barely passed in the House, and it's not likely to pass the Senate. The worm is slowly turning, and no surprise. Happens every time one of our esteemed political parties gains too much power, as they go hog wild. Then again, the Congress needs more rules to ensure that the minority parties have enough say and control. Been saying that since probably Gingrich took over the Congress and ran the Repubs into the ground.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 11:26:06 AM
:yes: He'll say and do anything to get elected. IOW, he's very electable.
I disagree. Pandering is an advantage only if you can do it smoothly. You're not being too smooth at it if pandering is synonymous with your name, which is Romney's situation.
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
Is there anything written somewhere online that disproves what Obama was saying in his speech?
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 11:26:54 AMDo you think the Republican electoral success until Clinton in the mid 90's was the rule or the exception?
I think its an exception and the GOP is dominated by loudmouths who have smaller constituencies then first glance would suggest.
You mean lack of success?
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
It won't be difficult to swift boat Mr Romney with Bain Capital.
What's the dirt?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 11:34:36 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 11:26:54 AMDo you think the Republican electoral success until Clinton in the mid 90's was the rule or the exception?
I think its an exception and the GOP is dominated by loudmouths who have smaller constituencies then first glance would suggest.
You mean lack of success?
success. Contract with America led to a majority in the House. I would call that a qualified success, as I have no clue about their legislative record beyond blowjobs and cigars as grounds for impeachment.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
It won't be difficult to swift boat Mr Romney with Bain Capital.
What's the dirt?
Private equity firms are about as popular as the Holocaust. We buy companies. We lay off the working man. We sell the company off and run away with a lot of money. I'm sure they'll trot out hundreds of people that hold Romney responsible for their sob stories.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 11:26:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
my impression is that the opposition is weak, lacks focus and leadership. individual candidates from GOP will get elected on a reeactive "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" ticket, but that's normal, especially in a struggling economy.
The GOP is very reactionary of late but then that is pretty common for the opposition party. That usually is enough to get a party back in office.
just referencing the Canadian political experience, the mad as hell Reform party got established with a sizable rump, but got not break through as government until they reinvented their party Twice. In the meantime, we had successive Liberal governments. for almost 15 years.
IMO, Radicals, including populists and reactionaries, usually don't get elected. Do you think the Republican electoral success until Clinton in the mid 90's was the rule or the exception?
I think its an exception and the GOP is dominated by loudmouths who have smaller constituencies then first glance would suggest.
The Democrats are also dominated by jackasses who have smaller constituencies than would be expected.
A poll recently came out that in a theoretical Obama-Romney matchup they are tied. A ridiculously early poll, but even with Romney in primary mode and the GOP rudderless, they are even. It is a 50-50 country. Democrats need accomplishments either to change the makeup of the country (as FDR did) or at least get the key reforms through before they lose their supermajorities.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 11:34:36 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 24, 2009, 11:26:54 AMDo you think the Republican electoral success until Clinton in the mid 90's was the rule or the exception?
I think its an exception and the GOP is dominated by loudmouths who have smaller constituencies then first glance would suggest.
You mean lack of success?
success. Contract with America led to a majority in the House. I would call that a qualified success, as I have no clue about their legislative record beyond blowjobs and cigars as grounds for impeachment.
Until Gingrich came along, the GOP was a permanent punching bag. I guess the word "until" confused me.
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
If the polling numbers are to be believed, the public was initially pretty open to the idea, but as with most of these things, that cooled off-- I think the price tag might have something to do with it.
Just curious, what is it about Obama's plan that you think is so sane?
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 11:42:42 AM
Private equity firms are about as popular as the Holocaust. We buy companies. We lay off the working man. We sell the company off and run away with a lot of money. I'm sure they'll trot out hundreds of people that hold Romney responsible for their sob stories.
It sounds like a private equity firm is exactly what we need to fix the public sector. :lol:
Gnashing of bureaucrat teeth and the rending of bureaucrat garments. Sob stories from former IRS employees. How glorious!
Anyway, you're probably right, but it's not enough for a full-fledged swiftboat. There needs to be some actual wrongdoing. You know, a scandal.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 11:54:12 AM
Anyway, you're probably right, but it's not enough for a full-fledged swiftboat. There needs to be some actual wrongdoing. You know, a scandal.
I don't know, the original swiftboating didn't seem to have that--it was actually based on volunteer combat service resulting in medals for valor, purple hearts, and an honorable discharge.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 11:57:27 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 11:54:12 AM
Anyway, you're probably right, but it's not enough for a full-fledged swiftboat. There needs to be some actual wrongdoing. You know, a scandal.
I don't know, the original swiftboating didn't seem to have that--it was actually based on volunteer combat service resulting in medals for valor, purple hearts, and an honorable discharge.
They accused him of faking injuries to get his medals. That's pretty scandalous.
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
Is there anything written somewhere online that disproves what Obama was saying in his speech?
Here are just a few items from the AP:
QuoteFACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writers
Thu Jul 23, 3:06 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.
Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.
A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:
__
OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."
THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.
It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.
He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."
He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."
___
OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.
Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.
___
OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."
THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, you would have a hard time finding anything in his speech that even remotely approaches the health care bill right now up in Congress. His entire speech was a combination of outright falsehoods combined with glib platitudes. Apparently he hasn't grasped yet that he isn't a community organizer anymore who just can make do with dissembling blather.
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
Is there anything written somewhere online that disproves what Obama was saying in his speech?
People do want changes/fixes to health care, that's probably not the issue. The issue seems more centered around what to do, how much and how far to go, and just what parts need fixing.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 12:26:48 PMAnd that is just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, you would have a hard time finding anything in his speech that even remotely approaches the health care bill right now up in Congress. His entire speech was a combination of outright falsehoods combined with glib platitudes. Apparently he hasn't grasped yet that he isn't a community organizer anymore who just can make do with dissembling blather.
I still get the impression that Obama is campaigning for President, or at least is in that mode mentally.
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
The GOP is more interested in passing laws that require a birth certificate to run for president.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2009, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
The GOP is more interested in passing laws that require a birth certificate to run for president.
What does this have to do with the GOP?
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 01:00:53 PM
What does this have to do with the GOP?
Pay him no heed; he's living in a fantasy world. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:37:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 08:32:14 AM
Do you really think that Turkey would want to conquer Kurdistan? Why add more Kurds?
Yes, and who said anything about 'adding' Kurds? :menace:
The Turks have a way with minorities.... eh, Spellus? :cool:
Neil is right and Biden was retarded. Neither Syria, Iran nor Turkey would allow an independent Kurdistan, and Iran would have trouble with a Sunni Arab state in control of Baghdad, and Syria and Turkey would have problems with a Shi'ite controlled Baghdad. It was-by far and away- the stupidest suggestion during a period of fantastic defeatist stupidity.
For all his claimed "expetrise", I don't think I've ever heard Biden say something really insightful on foreign relations, especially in regards to the Middle East. After 9/11, he suggested that we "give Iran a blank check". So he wanted to bribe (which wouldn't work, obviously) a state that not only had nothing to do with 9/11, but was
by far and away the most active opponent of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and he Taliban.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 08:21:47 AM
Don't sell healthcare too short. I don't see how democrats will be able to look voters in the eye if nothing passes.
In theory I agree with you, but is passing a messy compromise that results in significantly more spending with no real changes really going to be possible?
Not to mention that Baucas is among those who are vehemently opposed to reform...
Did you read this article in the Washington Post yesterday?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203282.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The story relates how several conservative democrats voted on the concealed weapons bill that was successfully filibustered by a narrow margin: apparently there were several members that voted with the NRA at the very last moment (and one that even switched his vote to the NRA side) only after making sure the NRA would be defeated.
Until conservative democrats start sinking the democrats on core issues, I'll expect them to fall in line when the party needs them.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:12:05 AM
I don't think that's fair. I just think he's been caught with his pants down time and time again, and seems t have trouble actually planning getting legislation past.
Actually in terms of legislation past he's above average so far. It took until April before W Bush proposed his first major legislation and until June for Clinton to do similar (Clinton was fighting some embarassing nomination issues and the gays in the military fight for a long time).
I think some form of healthcare will pass. And I think six months is a preposterously short period in which to judge a President. By this point Bush II had approval ratings under 55% and in some polls under 50%, Clinton didn't even have a honeymoon.
Is the Obama administration over? Probably not but the honeymoon may be, which should be a very good thing because it could lead to more focus on what's being proposed and the various arguments for and against.
I think Obama's lucky to have an opposition party that seems singularly weak, leaderless, directionless, thoughtless and damaged. I mean the only leader in the Western world with half that kind of luck is Sarkozy and I do think that a better comparison is the Republicans are like a right wing PS rather than the Tories in 1997. They even have the improbably popular, good-looking female politician/Joan of Arc impersonator. It's unfortunate.
QuoteWhat does this have to do with the GOP?
Good government generally requires a a good opposition. If you've got one that's getting distracted by fringe conspiracy theories then it's bad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 02:18:00 PM
Good government generally requires a a good opposition. If you've got one that's getting distracted by fringe conspiracy theories then it's bad.
How big of a distraction is it, really?
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 02:23:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 02:18:00 PM
Good government generally requires a a good opposition. If you've got one that's getting distracted by fringe conspiracy theories then it's bad.
How big of a distraction is it, really?
It's huge.
If Obama fails at anything, that is likely the reason. The GOPs fault for not opposing him more effectively.
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
The World was a much different place at that time. It's unlikely that the US/UN could pull it off again.
Not that logic means much coming from you Strix, but why do you think that?
I am not sure they pulled it of fthe first time - its not like the creation and history of Israel is some great success story.
What could they do about it? The same thing they've "done" about Israel - start a never ending low level insurgent war that results in a political disaster that never ends. At least in theory.
You mean an independent, stable functioning Democracy in the Middle East that has flourished for the last forty years populated by a people who've been Nomads since the times of the Romans isn't a success story?
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
What if the local Kurds don't like being part of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran? Is that just too damn bad?
But anyway no independent Kurdistan will be made unless the Kurds do it themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
What if the local Kurds don't like being part of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran? Is that just too damn bad?
My point isn't about self determination. It is that the world is America's to do as she pleases.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 02:23:38 PM
How big of a distraction is it, really?
Well that'll be for the electorate to decide. If they perceive the Republicans as a party spending its time on conspiracy theories or issues they don't care about then unless Obama really fucks up, they won't support the Republicans.
You know it's like when the Tories ran their campaign in 2001 as 'X number of days to save the pound'. Most people were opposed to entry into the Euro, most people knew the Tories opposed it and that Labour supported it after a referendum. Now that campaign may have excited the Tory diehards who wanted a strong oppositionist line to the EU but to anyone else it seemed like a distraction.
Similarly with the Republicans. These conspiracy theories exist in the Republican base. I think it's tough to respond to because you don't want to piss those people off by saying 'this is nonsense, what we need to focus on is how we beat his party in 2010 and then him in 2012, not on fringe lunacy', but if you don't tell them to sit down and shut up then there's a danger that it looks like they're more influential than they are (a la Move On). If you spend time humouring them then I think unconvinced voters may look at that and ask why you're spending time on that at all.
Basically I don't know how much of a distraction it is. I generally also believe in that cliche that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. Having said that, while I don't think oppositions need great ideas or a clear direction or a strong leadership they need to give the impression of having real ideas and above all they need to look like a credible government-in-waiting. That's why I think this sort of distraction is dangerous to parties and why I think the 'hip-hop suburban urban strategy' is bullshit. People don't want Republicans who play hip-hop and wear baseball caps. They want Republicans too look like a responsible, clear-headed, credible government and that's the job of the party leadership in opposition.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:44:57 PM
My point isn't about self determination. It is that the world is America's to do as she pleases.
America has neither the desire nor the willpower to prop up a Kurdish state. Nor any other kind of state. Israel exists because the Jews worked their butts off to create it.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 02:26:36 PM
It's huge.
If Obama fails at anything, that is likely the reason. The GOPs fault for not opposing him more effectively.
That's not what I said at all.
I've said for years that good, strong opposition is important. I said it during the Bush years (and I think he was actually a pretty good President for his last 2-3 years) and though I support Labour I always said that I wanted the Tories to do better because I think a weak opposition, crying the foetal position, as we had for almost a decade, would lead to bad government and bad laws. I think it did.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 24, 2009, 11:34:14 AM
The healthcare thing is failing?
Damn, I thought the bulk of the republicans had begun to realise it was a sane idea. I really haven't been keeping up with the news lately....
If the polling numbers are to be believed, the public was initially pretty open to the idea, but as with most of these things, that cooled off-- I think the price tag might have something to do with it.
Just curious, what is it about Obama's plan that you think is so sane?
All of it.
I've only heard his side but from that it lowers costs to the government and broadens coverage.
Its not quite a national health but it seems to be a step up from the horrible current system- which suits both sides really.
Could the Kurds create a state? Practically speaking, wouldn't it just be like a giant West Berlin surrounded by hostile territory. I imagine the Turks, Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians would close their borders to the Kurds and they wouldn't have a seaport. How would it work?
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:44:57 PM
My point isn't about self determination. It is that the world is America's to do as she pleases.
Obviously we cannot. We have limited resources just like everybody else.
Iran does as she pleases also to the extent that she can.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:38:37 PM
Not that logic means much coming from you Strix, but why do you think that?
#1 - The US lacks the respect it once had and it also lacks the ability to rally and organize other nations behind such a cause. We would lose all credibility once we started creating new nations after declaring we were only "helping" the Iraqi people.
#2 - The US lacks the resources and ability to create and defend a newly created nation. Turkey is our closest ally in the region and one of the likely nations to create issues for a new country. Yes, we could dump arms and hardware on the new nation but that wouldn't be enough considering the potentially hostile neighbors.
#3 - And most important reason. We lack the political will and stamina to undertake such a proceeding. Any new nation lacks the "guilt" factor created by the holocaust for the Jews. Also any new nation lacks the international backing that Israel enjoys as far as having members that associate themselves with the Jewish nation providing money, support, lobbying, etc, and so on.
If the US created a new nation it would go the same way that South Vietnam went at the end. We will sign agreements and treaties. Get assurances from neighbors and concerned parties. Throw advisors and equipment at them so they can defend themselves. And than do nothing beyond probably a UN complaint once someone moves in to take over (and maybe some airstrikes/missile attacks).
Especially for a Kurdish state that may be attacked by Iran and/or Turkey.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 02:54:10 PM
Could the Kurds create a state? Practically speaking, wouldn't it just be like a giant West Berlin surrounded by hostile territory. I imagine the Turks, Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians would close their borders to the Kurds and they wouldn't have a seaport. How would it work?
That's my thought as well. Kurdistan seems doomed unless one of their neighbors chooses to be its ally. It's doomed, in other words.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 02:54:10 PM
Could the Kurds create a state? Practically speaking, wouldn't it just be like a giant West Berlin surrounded by hostile territory. I imagine the Turks, Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians would close their borders to the Kurds and they wouldn't have a seaport. How would it work?
I was thinking about this, and they might. The Turks, Iranians, sunni Iraqis, shiite Iraqis, Syrians and so are obviously not a united front and so they should be able to find temporary allies from that list to offset the others. dance partners would change often. it would require adroit diplomacy, lots of bribes and some degree of cynicism.
I think Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan have a reasonable chance of forming a state, or some type of semi-state, allied autonomous areas, within the next 20 years, mostly if Iraq does not become a strictly centralized state and if there is a decline in Tehran's authority in the West. But Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan are relatively disenfranchised (compared to the rest of their country) poor areas under tight control. There won't be a real Kurdish state, it has the same problem as Armenia did back in the day.
Should've gone for my girl, America. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2009, 03:34:56 PM
Should've gone for my girl, America. ^_^
Well at least we seem to have a very good Sec of State when we really need one.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2009, 03:34:56 PM
Should've gone for my girl, America. ^_^
Well at least we seem to have a very good Sec of State when we really need one.
Really? Word on the street is that she's stupid.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 03:40:40 PM
Really? Word on the street is that she's stupid.
The North Korean street?
I believe the Obama administration won't be over for another 3 1/2 years, possibly another 7 1/2.
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2009, 03:53:05 PM
I believe the Obama administration won't be over for another 3 1/2 years, possibly another 7 1/2.
Certainly 7 1/2 if the Republicans select Palin. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2009, 03:53:05 PM
I believe the Obama administration won't be over for another 3 1/2 years, possibly another 7 1/2.
Certainly 7 1/2 if the Republicans select Palin. :lol:
I doubt they will, but Palin is undoubtably a better leader than Obama.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
I doubt they will, but Palin is undoubtably a better leader than Obama.
And her eyesight is superhuman.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2009, 04:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
I doubt they will, but Palin is undoubtably a better leader than Obama.
And her eyesight is superhuman.
She's got better knockers.
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
There are larger organizations.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
As opposed to running a baseball team in Texas into the ground? Was that a good start? A good indicator of executive experience?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
As opposed to running a baseball team in Texas into the ground? Was that a good start? A good indicator of executive experience?
Probably better than being a community organizer in one of the most corrupt and disorganized communities in the civilized world.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
As opposed to running a baseball team in Texas into the ground? Was that a good start? A good indicator of executive experience?
Tht's a feeble attempt at a retort.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:23:04 PM
Tht's a feeble attempt at a retort.
Okay, how about McCain running his planes into the ground?
Or Palin
running Alaska into the ground crying like a bitch because those gosh-darn liberal bloggers and main stream media are SO MEAN to her, ya betcha?
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
I find it funny how people expect that somebody who has shown absolutely no leadership or management skills on any issue up until he was elected would somehow be capable of leading and managing the largest organization in the known world. :lmfao:
As opposed to running a baseball team in Texas into the ground? Was that a good start? A good indicator of executive experience?
Tht's a feeble attempt at a retort.
Just insult the Persian empire. You'll get a better retort.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 24, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
As opposed to running a baseball team in Texas into the ground?
They made the playoffs (!), built a new stadium, and sold for almost triple what the purchase price was. If only I could run something into the ground like that. :( They were also all apparently roided up, but I don't particularly care about such things.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2009, 03:34:56 PM
Should've gone for my girl, America. ^_^
No way. She's too brittle.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 01:04:26 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 01:00:53 PM
What does this have to do with the GOP?
Pay him no heed; he's living in a fantasy world. :)
You don't know about the birther inspired bill in Congress.
Only read the first two pages.
Healthcare is going to pass. The No Reform ads are ridiculous and desperate. The fact that government plan/no government plan is the big divisive issue shows where the center has moved on this issue.
Obama and the Democrats are safe as long as the economy is weak. Only way they will be in trouble is if the economy recovers and we either have high inflation or high interest rates.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 04:23:04 PM
Tht's a feeble attempt at a retort.
It's true, there is eight years of failure for him to bring up. Stuff he did before the presidency doesn't compare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2009, 04:58:17 PMHealthcare is going to pass. The No Reform ads are ridiculous and desperate. The fact that government plan/no government plan is the big divisive issue shows where the center has moved on this issue.
Obama and the Democrats are safe as long as the economy is weak. Only way they will be in trouble is if the economy recovers and we either have high inflation or high interest rates.
Actually it doesn't have a snow-ball's chance in hell of passing. The public is already opposed to the plan and opposition will only grow as more details emerge in the coming weeks. Obama's press conference on health care was a complete train wreck despite the softball questions from the press. Unable to pass it by stealth prior to August recess means that they will get an earful from their voters on their reckless health care plan while back home. Add to that that the mid-point budget forecast revisions will come out (Obama has been stalling its release due to the effect it will have on the debate), which will sharply revise downward the previous growth projections for the second half of this year and next year, which will blow the deficits sky high for years to come. In addition, the official unemployment rate will cross the psychologically important 10% threshhold (unofficial unemployment will close in on 20%). When they get back from recess in September Congress will be in turmoil over the staggeringly high deficits for years to come and all talk of healthcare reform and cap-and-trade will cease, while they try to panickly write next years budget and mollify the public and the credit markets.
Obama blew it, he wasted all his political capital on a pork-laden, worthless "stimulus" bill and now his credibility is used up. Amongst likely voters his approval rating has already dropped beneath 50% and it will head lower over the next few weeks.
I sure hope he never drops down to Bush levels! :o
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 05:18:02 PM
Actually it doesn't have a snow-ball's chance in hell of passing.
Such certainty! You wouldn't happen to have next week's lotto numbers would you?
Congress is full of Democrats who want Obama to succeed, so they'll probably pass something.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 05:26:38 PM
I sure hope he never drops down to Bush levels! :o
I predict that the majority of Presidents in the modern era going forward will reach those kinds of levels at some point in their terms. It's inevitable. Obama may not.
You a bettin' man Square?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2009, 05:27:49 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 05:18:02 PM
Actually it doesn't have a snow-ball's chance in hell of passing.
Such certainty! You wouldn't happen to have next week's lotto numbers would you?
Congress is full of Democrats who want Obama to succeed, so they'll probably pass something.
He was certain of the finial end of the democratic party back in 2005. I find his certainity very reassuring.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 05:28:48 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 05:26:38 PM
I sure hope he never drops down to Bush levels! :o
I predict that the majority of Presidents in the modern era going forward will reach those kinds of levels at some point in their terms. It's inevitable. Obama may not.
I think you're grossly underestimating Bush's contribution to those numbers. I really do think that he was an exceptionally catastrophic president, and it will take some time before we get the next one like him, Democrat or Republican.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscavenging.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fsarah-palin.jpg&hash=32b007afdbc3993e58473fa50301b05d4eae0c3e)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
He was certain of the finial end of the democratic party back in 2005. I find his certainity very reassuring.
I don't, once I think about what he does for a living. Every time I read his post I feel myself less and less safe.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2009, 05:37:03 PM
I think you're grossly underestimating Bush's contribution to those numbers. I really do think that he was an exceptionally catastrophic president, and it will take some time before we get the next one like him, Democrat or Republican.
Possibly so. Bush is a special case. But with all the hyper-scrutiny public figures get now, I think we'll continue to see an overall decline in the average approval ratings. Before, those guys could have affairs and nobody would know. Now, they can't even accidentally walk into a window or hit their head getting into a helicopter without the whole world laughing at them.
Caribou Barbie. hehe. hehe.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2009, 05:37:03 PM
I think you're grossly underestimating Bush's contribution to those numbers. I really do think that he was an exceptionally catastrophic president, and it will take some time before we get the next one like him, Democrat or Republican.
Nonsense, he was just a mediocre President. The only thing that was exceptionally catastrophic was the conduct by the hysterical media.
It is almost bizarre how the MSM went from foaming at the mouth insane hatred of Bush to schoolgirl-crush hysterical support for obama. the good thing is that they'll soon all be out of a job, what a joke the MSM has become.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2009, 05:30:41 PM
You a bettin' man Square?
I'll guarantee nothing will pass this year, there is simply not enough oxygen left. And if anything called 'health care reform' passes in the following years it ill only be a relatively meaningless, small face-saving measure, but even that much is doubtful. The magic's gone, and now you just have an overexposed celebrity (though the press will try their darndest to revive him). Blue Dog Democrats are scared for their lives, 60 of them have to run for reelection in districts McCain won in '08. They're already on life support and are not going to try to bail out Obama at their own expense.
It'll be a futile effort since most of them will be toast anyway in '10, when the GOP is certain to retake the House (though not the Senate).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2009, 04:58:17 PM
Healthcare is going to pass. The No Reform ads are ridiculous and desperate. The fact that government plan/no government plan is the big divisive issue shows where the center has moved on this issue.
Obama and the Democrats are safe as long as the economy is weak. Only way they will be in trouble is if the economy recovers and we either have high inflation or high interest rates.
You usually make sense, Yi, but I don't understand you on either point.
Palin is hot and all, but Tina Fey is way hotter.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 06:15:12 PM
You usually make sense, Yi, but I don't understand you on either point.
Look at the objections Republicans and blue dogs are raising about health care. It will hurt insurance companies. It's a big part of the economy, we shouldn't rush into this. No one is even disputing any more the central principal that the federal government should subsidize coverage so that the currently uninsured will be insured.
As to recessions helping Democrats, what are Republicans going to say? Elect us and we promise to spend less?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Look at the objections Republicans and blue dogs are raising about health care. It will hurt insurance companies. It's a big part of the economy, we shouldn't rush into this. No one is even disputing any more the central principal that the federal government should subsidize coverage so that the currently uninsured will be insured.
I think the GOP is just trying to pick its battles. Are they actually advocating that principal? They haven't really come up with a plan of their own, but they might not have to in order to 'win'.
QuoteAs to recessions helping Democrats, what are Republicans going to say? Elect us and we promise to spend less?
How do recessions help Democrats in power? Anyway, I think promising to spend less will help the GOP in red states & maybe even some blue areas.
I don't understand the recession thing either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 06:15:12 PM
You usually make sense, Yi, but I don't understand you on either point.
Look at the objections Republicans and blue dogs are raising about health care. It will hurt insurance companies. It's a big part of the economy, we shouldn't rush into this. No one is even disputing any more the central principal that the federal government should subsidize coverage so that the currently uninsured will be insured.
As to recessions helping Democrats, what are Republicans going to say? Elect us and we promise to spend less?
Actually, a lot of Democrats representing wealthy districts have also come out in opposition to the rape-the-rich part of the plan. 53% of the public already opposes the plan and that without knowing all the craptacular shit in it. A plurality also already supports cancelling the stimulus. I don't know where you're coming from on this Yi, but you badly are misreading public sentiment on this. The deficits are sucking the money out of the economy in order for it to be spent by politicians on nonproductive endeavors. people aren't quite as stupid as politicians believe they are and are increasingly aware of this. A wise woman once that socialism fails because eventually you run out of other people's money.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 06:55:34 PM
People aren't quite as stupid as politicians believe they are...
Oh yes they are.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 05:40:59 PM
Possibly so. Bush is a special case. But with all the hyper-scrutiny public figures get now, I think we'll continue to see an overall decline in the average approval ratings. Before, those guys could have affairs and nobody would know. Now, they can't even accidentally walk into a window or hit their head getting into a helicopter without the whole world laughing at them.
What's interesting is that after Clinton, a President's early approval ratings have been instantly very polarised (and Bush, weirdly, did better than Clinton): so people either approve or they don't. Prior to that very few people, early in a term, disapproved of the President they said they 'didn't know'. I think the only exception is Nixon.
But I think there's something to this.
I agree with Yi on healthcare and I'd add that I think the Republicans saying this is their 'Waterloo' might have the effect of driving some loyalist but mildly unhappy Democrats back into the fold. I disagree on the economy because I think Obama's ratings and those of the Democrats in general are very tied to the success of the economy. They need a recovery.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 06:20:34 PM
Palin is hot and all, but Tina Fey is way hotter.
Not when adjusted for occupation. Fey is either an average actress or a hot comedienne, while Palin is a superhot politician.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2009, 07:26:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 06:20:34 PM
Palin is hot and all, but Tina Fey is way hotter.
Not when adjusted for occupation. Fey is either an average actress or a hot comedienne, while Palin is a superhot politician.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.fallenbeck.com%2Fbilder%2FAngelaMerkel.jpg&hash=25357e922b0b95a2e671319b8258e806363dd3f9)
WHAT?
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Heh. The U.S. did little to help Israel. Most of the weapons that were used in 1948 were Czech. If you are going to give credit to any superpower, that should be the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2009, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Heh. The U.S. did little to help Israel. Most of the weapons that were used in 1948 were Czech. If you are going to give credit to any superpower, that should be the Soviet Union.
If I did that, Hans and Derspiess would have me dragged before the Tribunal.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2009, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Heh. The U.S. did little to help Israel. Most of the weapons that were used in 1948 were Czech. If you are going to give credit to any superpower, that should be the Soviet Union.
:rolleyes: Might as well give the Nazis credit, too, since a lot of the 'Czech' armaments were Nazi production.
Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2009, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2009, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Heh. The U.S. did little to help Israel. Most of the weapons that were used in 1948 were Czech. If you are going to give credit to any superpower, that should be the Soviet Union.
:rolleyes: Might as well give the Nazis credit, too, since a lot of the 'Czech' armaments were Nazi production.
Nazi fanboism is best left to the pros like you. :)
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2009, 06:20:34 PM
Palin is hot and all, but Tina Fey is way hotter.
:mmm:
Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2009, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 25, 2009, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Just wondering..
if the US said we're going to make an independent Kurdistan..
What could Turkey, Syria or Iran do about it?
If the US/UN could create Israel of all countries in the heart of Arabdom, doesn't that basically say we could create any state the fuck we want anywhere we want and if the locals don't like it - its just too damn bad.
Heh. The U.S. did little to help Israel. Most of the weapons that were used in 1948 were Czech. If you are going to give credit to any superpower, that should be the Soviet Union.
:rolleyes: Might as well give the Nazis credit, too, since a lot of the 'Czech' armaments were Nazi production.
Yeah, their first fighter squadron was equipped with Me-109s.
I thought the US and Israel were close for the first while but that Israel was far closer to France and the Soviet Union. Then that changed in the 1960s.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 08:04:42 AM
So, his approval ratings are down around 55%, his health care bill is clearly not going to pass, and a slight majority of Americans now think the bailout was a disaster. When combined with an economy that wil suck for years to come, which will only drag down his approval ratings...
Has he become a lameduck six months in?
It's just a little bit early to make that kind of pronouncement, don't you think. :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 09:56:42 AM
It's just a little bit early to make that kind of pronouncement, don't you think. :huh:
Not really. Things will only get tougher for him in the years to come, as he faces a disillusioned base with no healthcare reform despite Democratic supermajorities, a sagging economy, war without end, and no climate change bill.
He could get two terms, but since the GOP has become fucking crazy, I'm not sure what he'll be able to do if they make sweeping gains.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 09:56:42 AM
It's just a little bit early to make that kind of pronouncement, don't you think. :huh:
war without end
Has the West really become so weak that the conflict in Afghanistan where only 753 Americans have died in more than 8 years can be called war without end? :bleeding:
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 06:55:34 PM
Actually, a lot of Democrats representing wealthy districts have also come out in opposition to the rape-the-rich part of the plan. 53% of the public already opposes the plan and that without knowing all the craptacular shit in it. A plurality also already supports cancelling the stimulus. I don't know where you're coming from on this Yi, but you badly are misreading public sentiment on this.
OTOH,
QuoteOverall, 69 percent of respondents, who were registered Democrats, Republicans and independents, say Americans should have the option to enroll in a government-run health care option, but only 29 percent say they would want to use public health insurance themselves. That may be because most in the poll say they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own health care coverage.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/01/poll-americans-want-public-option-but-wont-use-it/
Hans may well be right that healthcare reform will fail, which if so would be a shame and one more sign the American dream is dying.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 09:56:42 AM
It's just a little bit early to make that kind of pronouncement, don't you think. :huh:
war without end
Has the West really become so weak that the conflict in Afghanistan where only 753 Americans have died in more than 8 years can be called war without end? :bleeding:
I wouldn't say weak. The liberal nut jobs are just louder and their arguments more persuasive when it's not a war that directly threatens the nations involved.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Has the West really become so weak that the conflict in Afghanistan where only 753 Americans have died in more than 8 years can be called war without end? :bleeding:
IIRC we took a nice detour along the way that killed tens of thousands of Brown people as well of thousands of Americans.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 24, 2009, 06:55:34 PM
Actually, a lot of Democrats representing wealthy districts have also come out in opposition to the rape-the-rich part of the plan. 53% of the public already opposes the plan and that without knowing all the craptacular shit in it. A plurality also already supports cancelling the stimulus. I don't know where you're coming from on this Yi, but you badly are misreading public sentiment on this.
OTOH,
QuoteOverall, 69 percent of respondents, who were registered Democrats, Republicans and independents, say Americans should have the option to enroll in a government-run health care option, but only 29 percent say they would want to use public health insurance themselves. That may be because most in the poll say they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own health care coverage.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/01/poll-americans-want-public-option-but-wont-use-it/
Hans may well be right that healthcare reform will fail, which if so would be a shame and one more sign the American dream is dying.
Socialized health care is about a million miles away from the American Dream.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 26, 2009, 12:58:15 PM
Socialized health care is about a million miles away from the American Dream.
I know. Nothing says America like families going bankrupt because Timmy needs a kidney.
But Obama's plan isn't "socialized" health care unless you also think Social Security is.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 26, 2009, 12:58:15 PM
Socialized health care is about a million miles away from the American Dream.
I know. Nothing says America like families going bankrupt because Timmy needs a kidney.
But Obama's plan isn't "socialized" health care unless you also think Social Security is.
Of course it is. You have to ignore the dishonest rhetoric and focus on the House bill which he has already endorsed. It is as socialist as you could possibly make health care.
HA!
What happened to "My country, right or wrong?" Republicans? Guess it only applies when you have a white, Republican president in power, eh?
If socialized medicine is good enough for our military and elderly, it's good enough for me. :bowler:
Quote from: Fate on July 26, 2009, 03:03:49 PM
If socialized medicine is good enough for our military and elderly, it's good enough for me. :bowler:
If our medicine is an example of what socialized medicine would be, we're all fucked.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2009, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Has the West really become so weak that the conflict in Afghanistan where only 753 Americans have died in more than 8 years can be called war without end? :bleeding:
IIRC we took a nice detour along the way that killed tens of thousands of Brown people as well of thousands of Americans.
Would you rather we lose tens of thousands of Americans back in the homeland? We either fight the sand niggers here, or over there.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 26, 2009, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 26, 2009, 03:03:49 PM
If socialized medicine is good enough for our military and elderly, it's good enough for me. :bowler:
If our medicine is an example of what socialized medicine would be, we're all fucked.
Well, the current "public option" is an emergency room and the government footing the bill. Do you believe a US military style plan would be a step down from our current informal treatment system?
Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2009, 07:01:20 PM
:rolleyes: Might as well give the Nazis credit, too, since a lot of the 'Czech' armaments were Nazi production.
Whoever designed them is irrelevant. The Nazis didn't sell Israel weapons. The Czechs did, and it would be reasonable to assume their Soviet masters had something to do with that.
On the other hand the US was perfectly happy watching how the Arabs enjoyed material superiority thanks to Brit armament and decided to join the embargo.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 26, 2009, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 26, 2009, 03:03:49 PM
If socialized medicine is good enough for our military and elderly, it's good enough for me. :bowler:
If our medicine is an example of what socialized medicine would be, we're all fucked.
I had a good laugh at that one too. We don't even get to see doctors when we're sick. We have socialized health care for the military, for veterans, and for indians on reservations and what they all have in common is that the health care is famous for being absolutely craptacular.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 26, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You have to ignore the dishonest rhetoric and focus on the House bill which he has already endorsed. It is as socialist as you could possibly make health care.
They're nationalising all the hospitals and establishing a National Health Service with cradle to grave care free at the point of need? :o :w00t:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2009, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 26, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You have to ignore the dishonest rhetoric and focus on the House bill which he has already endorsed. It is as socialist as you could possibly make health care.
They're nationalising all the hospitals and establishing a National Health Service with cradle to grave care free at the point of need? :o :w00t:
I don't think you can expect such a rational solution out of the US Congress.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2009, 08:16:03 PM
I don't think you can expect such a rational solution out of the US Congress.
This is true.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
The Czechs did, and it would be reasonable to assume their Soviet masters had something to do with that.
Are you going on anything more than an assumption?
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
The Czechs did, and it would be reasonable to assume their Soviet masters had something to do with that.
Are you going on anything more than an assumption?
Why'd the Soviets always use the Czechs in the Mid-East? Nasser's 1955 deal was with Czechoslovakia too :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
The Czechs did, and it would be reasonable to assume their Soviet masters had something to do with that.
Are you going on anything more than an assumption?
:lol: