Obama '08?

FreeDuck wrote:

Yeah, but

If you are stating the "but" part as a point of Boolean logic, I might concede it. The wording of the ad carefully attempts not to be technically inaccurate. But its authors clearly want their readers to believe that some people will be in distress because Hillarycare forces healthcare down their throats, and they won't be able to pay for it. This insinuation is factually false. So even if the ad is correct in the sense of Boolean logic, it is still dishonest, slanderous, and -- yes -- false in the sense in which ordinary people use everyday language.

But I guess that's what you covered with the "yeah" before your "but".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Yeah, but

If you are stating the "but" part as a point of Boolean logic, I might concede it. The wording of the ad carefully attempts not to be technically inaccurate. But its authors clearly want their readers to believe that some people will be in distress because Hillarycare forces healthcare down their throats, and they won't be able to pay for it. This insinuation is factually false. So even if the ad is correct in the sense of Boolean logic, it is still dishonest, slanderous, and -- yes -- false in the sense that ordinary people use everyday language.

But I guess that's what you covered with the "yeah" before your "but".

Fair enough. I'm not crazy about the ad (though I wouldn't go so far as to call it "slanderous") and won't try to defend it. But I think it's fair to point out that Edwards saw the problem of requiring people to buy health insurance and so he built in an exemption. She didn't.

So yes, I know I'm focusing on the technical while you're focusing on the implied. I'll concede your end if you concede mine.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.
Strickle from my pov the big part is that the invasion of Iraq was and continues to be an illegal and ill-justified. bin Laden is a person linked to his organization NOT a nation a criminal. Iraq was quite simply a despotic nation that was unpopular regardless of whether or not WoMD existed. There was zero justification for an invasion of Iraq just as there would be zero justification for an invasion of Pakistan.

And that's the truth.

Strictly from my point of view, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize that damned war. Of the two candidates, I think that Obama would be the less likely to use military action to solve problems.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I'll concede your end if you concede mine.

Deal.

0 Replies

Swimpy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.
Strickle from my pov the big part is that the invasion of Iraq was and continues to be an illegal and ill-justified. bin Laden is a person linked to his organization NOT a nation a criminal. Iraq was quite simply a despotic nation that was unpopular regardless of whether or not WoMD existed. There was zero justification for an invasion of Iraq just as there would be zero justification for an invasion of Pakistan.

And that's the truth.

Strictly from my point of view, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize that damned war. Of the two candidates, I think that Obama would be the less likely to use military action to solve problems.

I concur BUT it makes me twitchy to hear Obama talk easily about invading Pakistan.

0 Replies

See, that's why I'm so fond of you, Thomas.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Swimpy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.
Strickle from my pov the big part is that the invasion of Iraq was and continues to be an illegal and ill-justified. bin Laden is a person linked to his organization NOT a nation a criminal. Iraq was quite simply a despotic nation that was unpopular regardless of whether or not WoMD existed. There was zero justification for an invasion of Iraq just as there would be zero justification for an invasion of Pakistan.

And that's the truth.

Strictly from my point of view, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize that damned war. Of the two candidates, I think that Obama would be the less likely to use military action to solve problems.
I concur BUT it makes me twitchy to hear Obama talk easily about invading Pakistan.

Them's the two choices, dys. Can't change that.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I concur BUT it makes me twitchy to hear Obama talk easily about invading Pakistan.

Me too. I cringed when he first said that. I hope it's just tough talk aimed at those who like that sort of thing, but that's problematic too.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

See, that's why I'm so fond of you, Thomas.

Same here.

0 Replies

Quote:

3) On the substance of your argument, here's your mistake: You are looking only at the costs of healthcare reform when you should be looking at its whole balance sheet. A switch to universal healthcare raises people's taxes, which is a cost to them. It also lowers their health insurance premiums, which is a benefit. Because the switch increases the efficiency of the system at producing health, the benefits exceed the cost, so citizens effectively end up with more disposable income even if they pay higher taxes. The same is true for every other reform that gives taxpayers their money's worth. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, not just about the cost.

2 points, based upon the bolded part:

1st, I think you forgot the word 'might.' I haven't seen any objective proof that the costs are in fact lowered. Especially given the piecemeal and cobbled-together system that will result from instituting this program while leaving our current Insurance industry intact.

2nd, the question I'm most interested in in this whole thing: if the cost savings work almost as well as without the mandates as they do with it, what's the point of having the mandates?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

sozobe wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

FWIW:

Quote:
I emailed our resident expert, Anthony Cordesman, who told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be
Code:considered
an "invasion."

"Technically," Cordesman writes, "an invasion is an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Moreover, since Pakistan has both admitted that hostile forces come from its territory to Afghanistan and said it cannot stop all of them, an incursion to defeat the insurgents is probably legal under international law.

I guess I'm just not buying this "probable" spin of "invasion" or "legality", I certainly do see it as both an invasion and illegal under US law.
Could he do what he suggested? I'm sure he could. Should he do what he suggested? I'm sure he should not.

The logic put forward by sozobe's source for justifying military action in Pakistan as "not an invasion" and "legal under international law" would serve equally well to justify our intervention in Iraq (and in that case we had even better legal arguments). None of this of course goes to the point of whether either action would be wise or beneficial.

Again, one who argues that our intervention in Iraq was unwise and wasteful of our moral and physical resources, and then goes on to speculate that a unilateral military intervention in Pakistan would be both justified and wise is indulging in lunacy.

0 Replies

Sozobe
May I draw your kind attention to the subject of this thread.
I hope you are aware that I peruse, read, think about the reactions.
Obama is a nice intellectual who preach the signifigance of CHANGE and HOPE.
Is USA matured enough to elect a person like OBama or his counter part a lady?
If yes then what kind of Change and hope that person will enunciate to make the bitter butter better?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Yeah, but

If you are stating the "but" part as a point of Boolean logic, I might concede it. The wording of the ad carefully attempts not to be technically inaccurate. But its authors clearly want their readers to believe that some people will be in distress because Hillarycare forces healthcare down their throats, and they won't be able to pay for it. This insinuation is factually false. So even if the ad is correct in the sense of Boolean logic, it is still dishonest, slanderous, and -- yes -- false in the sense in which ordinary people use everyday language.

But I guess that's what you covered with the "yeah" before your "but".

Once again, the bolded part here is an assertion.

It is without doubt that there will be some who, due to one instance or another, will be forced to pay for health insurance under Hillary's plan, yet cannot afford it. To believe that this is untrue is to believe that a perfect system will be set up to deal with the individual instances of our citizens' lives, which cannot easily be fit into a spreadsheet or formula in many cases. I find this very difficult to believe.

When asked about whether prices should be expected to drop, you said:

Quote:

1) You may not believe it now, but if anything close to the Edwards plan gets implemented, I'm betting 5:1 that you will.

Yes, but you are betting with my money. I know you see the problem with this. The great thing about not having mandates is that you get to bet YOUR money without forcing others to bet theirs.

I find the argument that, if costs drop without mandates, then it will serve as an argument against mandates, and that's a bad thing, to be highly disingenuous. It starts out with the assumption that mandates are desirable. They are not. If we can achieve the desired result without mandates, that is preferable to having them. We ought to give it a shot before locking ourselves into a plan.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I concur BUT it makes me twitchy to hear Obama talk easily about invading Pakistan.

Me too. I cringed when he first said that. I hope it's just tough talk aimed at those who like that sort of thing, but that's problematic too.

That's what I thought in late 2002, during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Generally ignorant of military strategy, I read myself through a dozen Middle East strategy papers by the US Army War College. They all agreed that local populations were perceiving the US as the region's schoolyard bully -- my wording, not theirs. They stated that this perception created lots of problems. One of the big ones was that the US made it needlessly easy for Al Quaida and other terrorist organizations to recruit members and supporters. The papers concluded that US military and foreign policy should proceed less agressively than it previously had.

This seemed to make a good match with Bush's talk about America being "a more humble nation in our dealings with the world". Confidently, I concluded that however loudly Bush might be rattling his saber for tactical reasons, in the end he would do the right thing and choose a strategy smarter than war. Even more confidently, I stated this prediction in online communities where it was read by all kinds of people including, cough cough, the initiator of this fine thread here.

That was the stupidest mistake I made during the Bush presidency, and I am resolutely determined not to repeat it with current candidates.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.

What is the other part, because I doubt he would have been OK with the War if we had somehow gotten other nation's to foot the bill.

A military action launched, without the knowledge or permission of the Pakistani government, to capture or kill Obama within the borders of Pakistan may not be an invasion, by the technical definition used by Pentagon, but it sure will be provocative. I have a feeling most Pakistanis will consider it an invasion.

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

I'm not saying I would be against such an action, but somehow I doubt Obama really thought it through all the way before making the comment.
Has he spoken further on the subject or answered questions in regards to it?

I wonder what he believes would be the responsibility of the US if our military action led to a revolution within Pakistan. What would our response be if it appeared that Islamist forces in the country appeared to be poised to gain control of Pakistani nukes?

0 Replies

Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

Is that Obama's position or yours?

If yours, what do you think about the possibility that Obama might launch a military action in Pakistan to capture or kill Bin Laden; without the permission of the Pakistani government.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Confidently, I concluded that however loudly Bush might be rattling his saber for tactical reasons, in the end he would do the right thing and choose a strategy smarter than war. Even more confidently, I stated this prediction in online communities where it was read by all kinds of people including, cough cough, the initiator of this fine thread here.

That was the stupidest mistake I made during the Bush presidency, and I am resolutely determined not to repeat it with current candidates.

Well, you have my sympathy. Though I didn't think Bush's tough talk was just talk (it's easier to see bullshit when you're this close to it) I did naively believe that Congress would never authorize it. I remember saying to my husband "he can't do it, Congress has to declare war or give some other authorization, and they'll never do that." Ahem.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

Is that Obama's position or yours?

If yours, what do you think about the possibility that Obama might launch a military action in Pakistan to capture or kill Bin Laden; without the permission of the Pakistani government.

It's my position.

Pakistan's gov't already allows our special forces to conduct limited operations there. Bush threatened/coerced Musharraf into that long ago. This would merely be a continuance of policy.

Cyclotichorn

0 Replies

The horse( usa) is dead tired.
Change not the jackey.
allow the country( or is it soup power?)
to find its new dream without CHANGE or any HOPE.
Among those who are in the limelight none can shape anything nor CHANGE or enthuse the poor world with any HOPE:

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know