Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Lola--George W must go, for sure, and that propaganda from the faith-based folks is truly appalling.

But regarding the health-care privacy fiasco (HIPAA)--I don't think we can lay this one on Bush, at least not in its entirety. This crazy law was in the works for years, starting during the Clinton era. Like most legislation (take the recent Medicaid changes, please), by the time it was cobbled together, it had become the monstrosity we now have.

0 Replies

Lola - Your position in regards to your mention of the FRC (?) seem to amount to: George Bush needs to go because I disagree with a group that supports him.

That it?

Oh, and any comment on the fact that Dys was nice enough to show that their are, in fact, PAGAN charitable organizations? You clearly thought this notion outrageous, but it seems your position was one of ignorance.

FYI: I am not taking the side of the FRC here, I'm simply registering my opinion that yours appears to boil down to dismay at the fact that people you don't like also have free speech in this country.

0 Replies

Scrat,

you wrote:

Quote:

Oh, and any comment on the fact that Dys was nice enough to show that their are, in fact, PAGAN charitable organizations? You clearly thought this notion outrageous, but it seems your position was one of ignorance.

I don't see what is clear about your assumption at all, Scrat. I asked a question, it is your interpretation that I thought it outrageous. But actually, I did think it outrageous and still do. Aside from the fact that Dys is a traitor in this matter and should be shot, :wink: these organizations truly represent a small number of charitable organizations and the use of the word "pagan" by Mr. Whateverhisnameis is an attempt to frighten a group of easily frightened people. Someone said, I thought it was Blatham, but can't find it now, that the folks of the FRC easily interchange the term "pagan" with "atheist" or "agnostic" or simply "non-Christian." And regardless of all this, my point was still that I don't see any evidence that Christians are more or less charitable than are non-Christians.

If the subject were my ignorance, you would have a point. But while we're on the subject, yes, I'm ignorant about some things. Aren't you? (trick question.) :wink:

D'art wrote:

Quote:

But regarding the health-care privacy fiasco (HIPAA)--I don't think we can lay this one on Bush, at least not in its entirety. This crazy law was in the works for years, starting during the Clinton era. Like most legislation (take the recent Medicaid changes, please), by the time it was cobbled together, it had become the monstrosity we now have.

I have quite a bit of data on this, which I'll provide later........right now, I'm going to dinner. But yes, we can pin this on Bush and I'll tell you why soon.

0 Replies

Oh and btw, before I go to dinner, Scrat,

you wrote:

Quote:

Lola - Your position in regards to your mention of the FRC (?) seem to amount to: George Bush needs to go because I disagree with a group that supports him.

No, my point is that George Bush needs to go because he is a member of this group, not simply that they are his supporters. He is one of them. He's dangerous, I tell you!

0 Replies

I meant well even if i am a pagan (actually more of a White Anglo Saxon Heathen-WASH)

0 Replies

george

I love how you use language. Criticism (of the administration) is 'propaganda'. Arguments contesting claims and policies (of the administration) are 'screeds'. Of course. What other possible grasp of the world could we take?

The passages were both linked because a whole lot of people here (and everywhere) think that your version of reality and governmental ethics is wrong in pretty important ways.

How many of us knew knew knew the promise to Africa, made at a propitious PR moment, was not going to be fulfilled? I did. Would have bet my fine auto on it.

The One China policy is irrelevant. Taiwan wasn't holding a referendum to be independent, it was holding a referendum on the Chinese pointing missles at them. And even if it was for independence...what the hell is all the freedom talk? The 'liberation of oppressed peoples everywhere' rhetoric?

It's ok to bomb the **** out of (how many INNOCENT Iraquis and Afghans are now dead from US bombs and bullets, George) a couple of countries, but it's wrong to support a referendum.

Your view of things, george, is a curiosity.

0 Replies

it's ok Dys, unwashed white anglo-saxon heathen can be forgiven 1000 fold by me........you're in luck. And of course I know you meant well. Laughing

0 Replies

Timber,

There's still no answer........................mumble mumble.....I know you're busy, I don't doubt that, but comeon, I've waited a long time..............

0 Replies

timber

she wants her thread unlocked

0 Replies

yeah........I do!

0 Replies

For anyone who missed it, ex Sec of Finance, Rubin was interviewed on PBS newshour tonight. It should be online and available. He speaks a little about the present financial course and it's highly probably disastrous consequences. If you do check this out, note what he says about his recent conversation with Greenspan.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

I love how you use language. Criticism (of the administration) is 'propaganda'. Arguments contesting claims and policies (of the administration) are 'screeds'.
........
The One China policy is irrelevant. Taiwan wasn't holding a referendum to be independent, it was holding a referendum on the Chinese pointing missles at them. And even if it was for independence...what the hell is all the freedom talk? The 'liberation of oppressed peoples everywhere' rhetoric?

.

Well, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

The one China policy IS relevant. The referendum is about independence and not (explicitly) about missiles.

The people of Taiwan are not oppressed by their government. Our policy is to encourage them and China to settle their differences in a peacable and evolutionary way. All this is hardly worse than UK policy towards Hong Kong. We have set no timetable and are pressuring no one unduly. Our interest is legitamate precisely because of the security guarantees we have given Taiwan. Certainly we have a responsibility to encourage the successful and peaceful evolution of the Chinese government: this is quite obviously a related matter.

0 Replies

George said:

Quote:

The referendum is about independence and not (explicitly) about missiles

.
ok so I am confused when I read this:

Quote:

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian said Wednesday he would press ahead with an "anti-missile, anti-war" referendum on March 20 despite a stern rebuke from the United States and anger from China. "Referendum is a normal practice in democratic countries and is the basic right of the people which they cannot be deprived of," Chen told a press conference. "The Taiwanese people will hold the historic referendum on March 20, which will have nothing to do with independence nor intend to change the cross-strait status quo," Chen said.

0 Replies

D'art,

Quote:

A federal lawsuit set to be heard Wednesday in Philadelphia before U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin sets out that case. Citizens for Health makes a compelling case for reviewing a host of concerns over potential threats to medical privacy.

Quote:

Privacy advocates say the way to rein in data is to require that health care providers obtain patients' consent before sharing data. That's the aim of the suit before McLaughlin. It's notable that an early version of the privacy rule under Bush contained the right for patient consent - only to see it taken out a year later. Health Secretary Tommy G. Thompson now says he concluded requiring patient consent would snarl health care.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7430677.htm

Here's the history. Bush initially agreed to the requirement for patients' consent when it was politically advantageous for him and then, a year later (does this sound familiar to anyone) he went back on his word. The man is a silly political pantomime, a boy, posing as a man.....and he can't be trusted.........furthermore he doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. But that's just my opinion.

0 Replies

Quote:

The One China policy is irrelevant. Taiwan wasn't holding a referendum to be independent, it was holding a referendum on the Chinese pointing missles at them. And even if it was for independence...what the hell is all the freedom talk? The 'liberation of oppressed peoples everywhere' rhetoric?

blatham, He is merely maintaining status quo, unless you consider his public indication that we would use military force to protect Taiwan, which no other president has done, to be a policy change. Bush urged Taiwan not to provoke China, this policy is a tightrope we walk.

The trick is to do enough for Taiwan without pissing China off, for obvious reasons including we need them to temper North Korea.

0 Replies

Damn, this topic is on its 130th page already!

So has there been any consensus on whats to be done yet? Laughing

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

blatham, He is merely maintaining status quo, unless you consider his public indication that we would use military force to protect Taiwan, which no other president has done, to be a policy change

Not exactly ... begininning with Truman, US policy re Formosa/Taiwan has specifically declared any attempt by the People's Republic of China to assume control of the Republic of China/Formosa/Taiwan would be met with US military response. From the mid-'50s into the mid-'60s, US warships, including carriers and an amphibious assault group, were continuallypositioned in the Straights of Formosa, and both in '53 and '58 the Nuclear Option was quite publically bandied about as a potential response to PRC bellicosity directed toward ROC. There have been numerous other incidents of less dire nature, some quite recent. All post-war US administrations have been explicit that a military effort to annex Formosa/Taiwan to Mainland China would be considered an attack on The US.

0 Replies

One could, I think, make the argument that China presents the most complicated relationship that any US administration would face - economically, militarily and culturally. The US can't ignore China, and needs to forward the relationship for market and strategic reasons.

The reason I posted the piece above was to demonstrate that how and why the US acts, and why it says it does, are unrelated. The US, and particularly this administration, is not terribly interested in democracy at all, nor in freeing oppressed peoples. They are interested in creating markets and in ensuring a level of 'stability' for the maintenance of those markets.

For example, the governments of the countries now banned from contracting in Iraq were operating not merely in accordance with international law, but in accordance with the wishes of their citizens. Britain, Australia, and Spain, on the other hand, were acting against the wishes of their citizens. The US has now rewarded those nations whose governments acted in opposition to their citizens and penalized the others which acted in accord with their citizens wishes. Hardly forwarding democracy.

What it does forward is a policy of bullying, and support for those who support bullying. And it forwards, most primarily, powerful US business interests. Iraq is now in the process of being 'privatized'. Under the procedures established by the US occupation, Iraqi businesses can be taken over 100% by foreign interests. Guess who thinks that's a really swell idea.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Brand X wrote:

blatham, He is merely maintaining status quo, unless you consider his public indication that we would use military force to protect Taiwan, which no other president has done, to be a policy change

Not exactly ... begininning with Truman, US policy re Formosa/Taiwan has specifically declared any attempt by the People's Republic of China to assume control of the Republic of China/Formosa/Taiwan would be met with US military response. From the mid-'50s into the mid-'60s, US warships, including carriers and an amphibious assault group, were continuallypositioned in the Straights of Formosa, and both in '53 and '58 the Nuclear Option was quite publically bandied about as a potential response to PRC bellicosity directed toward ROC. There have been numerous other incidents of less dire nature, some quite recent. All post-war US administrations have been explicit that a military effort to annex Formosa/Taiwan to Mainland China would be considered an attack on The US.

Do you know of a specific instance where a president stated verbally that military force would be used if needed? I'm thinking the thought had only previously been in writing in the policy, Bush actually said it in an interview.

0 Replies

Blatham now presumes to speak for all the citizens of all the countries that either supported or opposed the U.S. intervention in Iran. He knows that those governments that supported us did so in defiance of the wills of their peoples, and those that opposed us did so in accord with the wills of their peoples. Further he presumes to be able to judge how the U.S. government should spend the money it collects as taxes from US residents, the will of our government notwithstanding.

Further he states that ,
"The US, and particularly this administration, is not terribly interested in democracy at all, nor in freeing oppressed peoples. They are interested in creating markets and in ensuring a level of 'stability' for the maintenance of those markets."
implying that somehow we are different from all the other countries of the world in this. I assume therefore that France and Canada, for example, are solely interested in the spread of democracy and in the freeing of oppressed peoples. France certainly didn't exhibit much interest in this during the two years of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia - in the heart of Europe - that preceded the intervention there demanded and led by the United States. What has Canada done to spread Democracy and free oppressed peoples? (Perhaps they will claim their economic relations with Cuba as an example.)

Nonsense !

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know