Agreed, but that not the point that Fareed was trying to make. It was quite simply, that the GOP has offered little but to demonize Obama in the hope of stalling his Administration.

That liberals have used the analogy is moot. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's the context of the recent dialogue that's important when discussing his commentary.

As for the missle shield in Europe...are we fighting the Cold War or the War on Terrorism? One observation (ok, also made by Fareed) is that US foreign policy too often tries to have it all. It calls for behavior modification and regime change and then complains when it gets neither.

It's quite possible that Obama's concession to Russia could add to our hand in Iran, and that this has a larger long-term net value for our security.

Does this mean that some reporting has glossed over these concerns? Perhaps, but was that of interest to the American media consumers? Perhaps not as much.

-spence

So why do you show us that stupid, probably staged, photo?

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in). The only actual Republican politician he mentioned was Nixon. He painted ACTUAL UNNAMED Republican politicians as fools-by-proxy. He immediately excoriated a "right-wing netherworld" comprised of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and a debate in The National Review, and then proclaimed that today's discourse of American conservatism is: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler. As an editor of Newsweek, either he KNOWS that actual Republican politicians have not discoursed Hitler and have discoursed every major topic, or he is too ignorant to be an editor of a major news journal. Does he, or you, know that there are 32 bills on health care reform submitted by House Republicans? Of course, when Republicans speak, as far as the media to which Zakaria pays heed, its like an insignificant little gust passing away. Because Republican views differ from the politically accepted norm of the select media, when they are given attention, they, naturally being different than Obama's, are considered obstructionism, or demonization to defeat him. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IF YOU DISAGREE? Is that not what the Dems did throughout much of Bushes terms? SUCCESSFULLY?

Much of Zakaria's article was about diplomacy, but he was very undiplomatic and sarcastic toward the right.

How do you know it was staged? If I were attending a rally you'd better believe I'd bring a double sided sign.

If it were an image of Obama as the Joker would that be any different? I'm sure I can find plenty of those.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

I've yet to see any real GOP leadership on these issues. Are there legitimate ideas out there? Of course there are, but they are not the focus of attention because the party is in a reactionary position and looking towards the quick emotional hit, the pundits, rather than those who might actually make a difference.

About the only rationale I've seen from Republicans on the issue of health care has come from Republican "business executives".

-spence

Discussing the missile shield is another lengthy topic. I introduced the SIZABLE POPULATION AND AREA of East Europe, as well as Israel, as well as sizable numbers of West Europeans, as a rather huge block of folks that Zakaria left out of his everyplace in the world except in America's Right-Wing netherworld. You called it marginalizing (which I think is a mean thing to do), I call it willful ignorance, misinformation, which leads me to mistrust what he says.

There is a great deal in Eastern Europe that SHOULD concern "American media consumers". And they might well be very interested, but, we remain ignorant, perhaps Zakaria as well, because the "media" doesn't tell us. As I said before, if all the truth resided in media reports, you might have a point.

HR77, HR109, HR198, HR270, HR321, HR464, HR502, HR544, HR917, HR1086, HR1118, HJR1441, HR1458, HR1468, HR1658, HR1891, HR2520, HR2607, HR2692, HR2784, HR2785, HR2786, HR2787, HR3141, HR3217, HR3218, HR3356, HR3372, HR3400, HR3438, HR3454, HR3478.

Iran has spent the last year or so building a second nuclear facility in a mountain. They are going to have a bomb. That they will not be denied. If you think inspectors or a piece of paper will stop then then you need a little more realitity in your life. Talk will not work.
Obama had his chance at an internal uprising a few months ago and he sat on his hands and did nothing for fear of offending.

Aren't you tired of committing your money to policing the world?

Iran getting the bomb is of minimal risk to the US when compared to any of the European countries.

I quickly grabbed a photo to spice up my post, not to serve as the backbone of the argument. Postulate all you want as to the origins of that photo, it does nothing to counter the assertion that as far as the GOP is concerned, demonizing Obama is prioritized over furthering any constructive debate.

I don't really care about party. I vote based on the candidates and the issues, and I'm fairly certain I've voted for far more Republican candidates over the years than Democrats.

So did you actually read any of these before you cut and pasted?

To provide for a credit for certain health care benefits in determining the minimum wage.

To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to analyze and report on the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to require that additional tariffs be imposed on products of that country on the basis of the rate of manipulation by that country of the rate of exchange between the currency of that country and the United States dollar.

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize assistance to improve security and promote economic development in Mexico.

Etc...

These are the great GOP ideas we've been waiting for? Did any make it past sub committee?

-spence

When you google the HR numbers, you will find numbers for various years. For instance the HR321 that refers to the foreign exchange rate policies of China is the 2007 bill. The 2009 HR321 is the health care version. The HR502 that refers to security in Mexico is the 2007 bill. The 2009 bill is the health care version. The majority of the HRs I listed are small items. The largest, most important one, in the list is HR3218. It is titled Improving Health Care For all Americans Act, introduced by Republican House Representative John Shadegg.

So which NON-EXISTENT Republican health care proposal is Democrat congressman Alan Grace referring to when he says the Republican health care plan tells you to die quickly? Is this demonizing rather than furthering the debate? Or is it demonizing and obstructing only if a Republican says it?

It was a stunt...like "you lie"...he makes the bed in which he sleeps.

-spence

So is his stunt a demonization of an ACTUAL Republican health care plan (which Dems keep claiming doesn't exist and Repubs only demonize, without being constructive, for the quick hit to defeat Obama)? Or is his stunt somehow calling attention to the fact that there is no Republican plan by saying that such a non-existent plan tells you to die quickly?

I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?

-spence

Sarcasm represents a difficult verbal behavior, and many who attempt to use it, fail to accomplish the task.

I see, so I guess that invalidates the entire commentary.

-spence

The universe is infinite, and entireties are diffilcult to comprehend.

I see you're not an advocate of quantum theory.

-spence

I see by your avatar that you are. And a pseudo-postmodernist as well.

I think that some postmodernist thinking can be very beneficial to understanding complex things, or coming to a better understanding of absolutes - which should be applied judiciously.

As Obi wan said, "only Sith believe in absolutes."

-spence

Hmmm. Might be a contradiction between your postmodernist self and your quantum theory self. The postmodernist side is very beneficial to understanding absolutes, but your quantum theory side cannot achieve absolute certainty because of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty.

BTW, has the postmodernist in you tackled the deconstruction of quantum theory? That would be a spectacular contribution to the philosophy of science.

Actually, it's just the opposite.

Quantum theory stipulates that particles can be in more than one place at one time, or even disappear and reappear somewhere else. This "uncertainty" is critical for modeling the relativism of morality :hihi:

And make for some really, REALLY whack artwork in the process.

If I had the brainpower I'd be all over it.

-spence

It is also the model for unraveling concepts such as "balance of nature" or even such things as a perfectly balanced eco-system. It is probably critical for modeling evolution. Quantum theory can probably explain why things constantly evolve rather than idylically staying the same. Even your avatar didn't like the "uncertainty" inserted into quantum theory and tried to disprove it. He said that God doesn't play dice with the universe. Interesting that he doesn't seem to have stated any opinions on evolution. I kinda think he didn't like that either. Maybe he has commented on it. I'm not well-versed on his bio.

I actually did a project on that quote in art school. It was a composition of a God figure throwing dice at the end of a craps table. Ironically enough it was a study in perspective!

Not making that up.

I think Einstein simply didn't want to give up on the idea that everything in physics could be defined in a logical manner. Perhaps this was just his ego talking...

-spence