posted November 11, 2012 02:58 PM            

hehehehehhehehe

I'd rather "crumble" than waste SO much time in futile battles, as you do with people like jwhop, AG.

However the neocons want to break the backs of the Iranians doesn't matter so much to me, it's the moral principle and backstory revolving around OIL that warrants more attention than the media and its followers give it.

As for healthcare, forcing people to buy it when they are already struggling might cause stress and more health problems. I don't buy health insurance because I think it's a racket. My health is my insurance; I like this approach.

I believe that people ought to be free to see to our health as we choose, without paying a penalty for it.

posted November 12, 2012 01:55 AM            

quote:

---

I'd rather "crumble" than waste SO much time in futile battles, as you do with people like jwhop, AG.

---

posted November 12, 2012 05:50 AM            

You demonstrate extraordinary patience; sometimes I think you don't give yourself enough credit. You prove a point and then jwhop's taunts have you proving it again and again.

I believe that he thrives on your attention and enjoys that you will go to these great lengths for him, but you seem to be self-sacrificing in the process.

Caps sometimes find it hard to be nice to ourselves. For once I did myself a favor by deciding early on not to subject myself to jwhop's verbal abuse and baiting.

It feels good to me, not playing into that.

But I'm sorry- I shouldn't have said you are "wasting time" with him since it's really not my place to judge. Sometimes there's a lot going on beneath the surface that is meaningful on a personal level, that outsiders can't even fathom. Still, I'm glad you decided to take a look at what you're doing, just in case you want to select a new course.

Hope there aren't any hard feelings here, I wouldn't want you to stop fighting with me just because I crossed the line.

posted November 12, 2012 12:36 PM            

in fact if ANY president makes a serious dent in their hold over the country/world, he will go down in history as remarkable.

to me since before his first election the essential thing has been a) to have a us president whose IMAGE is about negotiation, tolerance for all peoples, and brain over brawn, is HUGE. the president is first and foremost a FIGUREHEAD, not in the usual pejoritave sense but as a symbol people can identify.

b) though many rightful criticisms have been aimed at LACK of transparency, his term has brought to light a great deal of america's shadow, the shenanigans of washington have been broadcast everywhere, and we are actually on our way to more transparency than i ever thought would be possible.

yes the ruling class is still in control, yes obama is to one extent or another a puppet or hostage, but i agree with AG that his chart is of someone who is NOT in it for himself but for all of us.

posted November 12, 2012 05:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
David Petreaus could have enjoyed dozens of gals in his life but wants to quit over one affair?! There is documented evidence that he is the Drone "Booster". And he is on his way out so fast after Obama's re-election. Surely you do not believe that he slept with his biographer on Nov 8th and he announced his resignation next morning?
'Conspiracy Theorists' Fact is that Obama was scared of touching him as he too did not know exactly which way the election would go. Now that he has won, he is kicking David's ass. If David denied the affair, his photos with some European bombshell would have appeared "mysteriously". If he still held on to the chair, the usual method is a car accident/single engine plane crash etc.

---

Pixie Jane (and others interested), continuing off of the above statements by iQ and conspiracy theorists alike, here's a very interesting article surrounding David Petraeus and his curiously timed resignation.

"CIA Head and Drone Booster David Petraeus Resigns Over Extramarital Affair" (A post-election surprise: Petraeus, weeks after requesting an expansion of the CIA's drone fleet, resigns from his post as director of the agency) (November 9, 2012, by Alex Kane)

"Here’s a post-election surprise no one saw coming: General David Petraeus, former head of international armed forces in Afghanistan, has resigned from his current post as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). NBC News broke the story this afternoon reporting that Petraeus resigned due to an “extramarital affair” that showed “extremely poor judgment.” President Obama “graciously accepted” Petraeus’ resignation, the general wrote in a letter to the CIA’s workforce. Petraeus is also a former commander of CENTCOM, the military branch that oversees operations in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.

“Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA,” wrote Petraeus. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

NBC News notes that “Petraeus was appointed CIA director in April 2011, replacing Leon Panetta, who moved to the Pentagon to become defense secretary.” Petraeus recently came under fire from administration officials for his handling of the Libya attack in Benghazi which killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to the country. On November 2, the Wall Street Journal published a story that “leaked a series of damaging remarks about the CIA's handling of Benghazi [from the Obama administration].” Included in the article was “a slew of grievances directed at CIA Director David Petraeus.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Petraeus oversaw the continued use of drone strikes by the agency. Under his control, the CIA accelerated the use of drone strikes to target suspected anti-American fighters in Pakistan. But the CIA also bombed Pakistan using what is called “signature strikes”--which means the “launching [of] strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed,” as the Washington Post puts it...

posted November 12, 2012 07:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:

to me since before his first election the essential thing has been a) to have a us president whose IMAGE is about negotiation, tolerance for all peoples, and brain over brawn, is HUGE. the president is first and foremost a FIGUREHEAD, not in the usual pejoritave sense but as a symbol people can identify.

---

Well the Third Reich looked good on paper, too.

To have the image being especially deceitful and totally contrary to the actual nature of things is dangerous. People don't push for needed reforms when they are tricked into complacency. In this case, many are thinking that Obama and friends actually have our back; others see rude awakenings on the horizon.

posted November 12, 2012 07:59 PM            

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of the drones now that he's gone. Hey, maybe there WON'T be drones, including predator drones, all over US airspace within the next decade...that'd be nice.

posted November 12, 2012 08:19 PM            

and a dead president is about as lame a duck as they get. proceed with caution if you want to a) accomplish anything and b) get out alive. already people are saying "if he were really one of the good guys he'd be dead by now"... maybe he is not a super hero, and just maybe he is too smart to want to be seen to be.

but as he said to the russian, this second term gives him more "flexibility" ie political capital and less pressure to get reelected!...but that still doesn't mean he is going to call an end to war tomorrow. and nor would you be able to if you were in his place.

posted November 12, 2012 08:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Well the Third Reich looked good on paper, too.

To have the image being especially deceitful and totally contrary to the actual nature of things is dangerous. People don't push for needed reforms when they are tricked into complacency. In this case, many are thinking that Obama and friends actually have our back; others see rude awakenings on the horizon.

---

Who are these 'others'? Comparing the Obama administration to the Third Reich? Really? Well then, I guess we'll have to let time be the judge. Maybe in a few months or even years we can rehash this debate with a new level of understanding because of preceding events.

Oh and about Petraeus, if by "they" you mean the CIA and their corrupt political liaisons (Cheney and such) then yes, they are scapegoating him, not for the drones but for Benghazi (as well as other CIA torturous program atrocities). There's actually been a lot to cover up in this story, for now the mainstream media is pedaling this affair propaganda. President Obama is a very intelligent man and his administration has been wise to handle this whole situation very carefully. But for now as more dirt rises to the surface lets sit back and watch as corruption crumbles.

posted November 12, 2012 09:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
Who are these 'others'? Comparing the Obama administration to the Third Reich? Really?

---

It wasn't my intention to get into that, but this thread has an informative video on the subject.

Just to show how different an IMAGE can be from reality, I used the extreme case of Nazi Germany, where the documents were full of Christian rhetoric and talk of morals, and the propaganda films full of happy, beautiful children, and yet...

That didn't mean much to the people who were dying.

Image versus reality, that's all. In response to Kat's post.

posted November 12, 2012 09:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
so tired of the hitler comparisons. i don't think they apply. yes he is far from perfect, yes he will fail to make a lot of the changes you want - there are a few other people who want other things to whom he is also responsible - but he hasn't the power you ascribe to him, even on paper and especially not in action.

---

No, you missed my point. You expressed optimism that people embracing the IMAGE of what Obama represents is like a harbinger of good things to come. I meant to argue, that's neither here nor there.

You can also have a perfect image over a disastrous regime that's headed downwards fast; in fact, propaganda usually makes it so. In that case, no matter what virtues the people were ascribing to the image become irrelevant as the people become increasingly powerless to enact laws in line with those virtues, and tyranny takes over.

posted November 12, 2012 10:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
It wasn't my intention to get into that, but this thread has an informative video on the subject.

Just to show how different an IMAGE can be from reality, I used the extreme case of Nazi Germany, where the documents were full of Christian rhetoric and talk of morals, and the propaganda films full of happy, beautiful children, and yet...

That didn't mean much to the people who were dying.

---

Well, thanks for the link. Wolf's categorization can be applied to many and if not all types of political regimes and administrations. Noami Wolf is a good writer no doubt and has made waves within feminism, but she's a former political consultant, she's just as biased as anyone else in the political machine. She's a bit of an extremest with her own self interests and politically biased intentions. You can not tell me that you're basing your reservations about Obama's administration on one persons book? Wolf's really inching to make these connections. Of which I don't see a correlation specifically in regards to President Obama. I can't level with her line of thinking. She reads more like a former idealist turned pessimist dissatisfied with the direction of this nation. And it seems like she's trying to capitalize on the division within politics, which seems a bit exploitative to me. But she's not the only person in politics doing that.

posted November 13, 2012 03:44 AM            

Of course, I've read more than just Naomi Wolf's book, but to be succinct, I only mentioned that one source. I understand she's not everyone's cup of tea, but I believe her insights in The End of America are pretty solid.

As you may know, Wolf was a supporter of Obama in 2008 (I don't know who she endorsed this time.) Her book's more about the direction America is taking, and she specifies ten ways in which totalitarian regimes typically devolve. She argues that our government is becoming increasingly like closed societies of the past in these ten key ways, listed here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Can you argue against those points?

Her intention, and mine, is not to blame it all on Obama (she wrote the book before he was President, after all.) There is an assumption that it's more than just the President conspiring to bring about these changes.

But his record on preserving civil liberties isn't the best, and it's been forcefully argued by many liberals that Obama is increasing the momentum towards a draconian society rather than holding back the floodgates. Whether or not you agree with that depends on a number of factors, but you'll grant me that it's ultimately a subjective opinion. There are enough powerful people to spread the blame around however one chooses.

posted November 13, 2012 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

My health is my insurance; I like this approach.

---

posted November 13, 2012 12:24 PM            

But the preventable, degenerative diseases that account for most health care costs, I am taking responsibility for preventing.

Unlike others who wreck their bodies and want the government to pick up the tab.

posted November 13, 2012 01:19 PM            

You like making these nebulous statements about yourself. When I supposed that you're of the same ethnic heritage as the people dying at American hands, you dodged with one of these kinds of statements. When NativelyJoan supposed you weren't an activist, you dodged with one of these kinds of statements. You should know that while the internet does allow for a certain amount of anonimity, the things a person expresses reveal more than you seem to know. People pick up on things.

posted November 13, 2012 04:11 PM            

personally i despise medical insurance and rarely go to doctors. however until people start realizing how unnecessary 90% of medical care is they will continue going to doctors and the ER whether they can pay or not, and as reagan supplied the first half of universal healthcare - treatment for all - and left off the back end, we are now playing catchup after the insurance companies cleaned up on the situation.

posted November 13, 2012 05:15 PM            

quote:

---

If you get hit by a car or have an accident, you can't be denied help.

---

Sure you can.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

If your ailment doesn't fit the bill, there is no requirement to see you.

Though patients treated under EMTALA may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs, they are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law.