Iran

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

This isn't a contradiction, but rather a pragmatic observation. The UN certainly has dysfunctions, but at the present it's the only global organization with legal legitimacy. While I'd agree this shouldn't be seen as a crippling constraint, when used properly it could dramatically diminish the options of our opponents.

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

A very interesting book (I loaned to my father and haven't seen since) is the "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" by Andrew Bacevich.

"Bacevich is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--Tony Judt, The New York Review of Books

Basically he argues that as a nation we've come to rely on cruise missiles rather than thinking to solve our big problems.

Good book...

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-M...4251588&sr=8-1

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?
See Spence, I don't like Obama. I don't like what he stands for. He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues. He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward. Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.
FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.
Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.
Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;714535]I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?

Not a cheap shot, I was just wondering where your critical thinking went. Read your own responses in this thread.

See Spence, I don't like Obama.

I got that.

I don't like what he stands for.

America?

He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues.

I see that he has a different approach than Bush, but where has Obama shown a lack of courage?

He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward.

Election year fluff long since debunked.

Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate.

The Illinois state Legislature allows members to vote "present" rather than "yes" or "no." The Times reported in December that "present" votes provide a way for lawmakers to voice opposition to an issue. Such votes can also help them avoid the political fall-out of voting "no":

Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.

Yep, Iran sure was intimidated.

FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.

I think most would agree that the majority of the Patriot Act is very reasonable. Some elements need additional measures to ensure privacy is protected. I don't see this as "trashing."

Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.

Where?

Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

I'm really not all that educated, it just comes naturally

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.


Belize? Riots? This is not marginalizing, it is super-minimalizing and smearing. It was Zakaria, not you, that left out "right wing" opinions in ALL the countries to whose select media he referred.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.



Your picture is not the GOP. Is code pink the Democrat party?

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

It is the nature of treaties to constrain. Without the constraint, anything goes. On the other hand, if too much constraint already exists, a treaty may remove it. That is usually the object of "free trade." I have not followed "current" conservative position on trade. It has traditionally been for open markets. It is the nature of law, in a society such as ours, to constrain government from infringing on the rights of the people.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.-spence

Where did you find these beliefs? I am not aware of them.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

Anyway, my response was to your question to ME, did I think the U.S. has the diplomatic strength that it had in the 1940s. I wasn't responding for the GOP, or neocons.

[scottw]

the folks comparing Obama to Hitler are Lyndon Larouche followers...they're lefty's...

didn't Obama say that Iran is a tiny country and posed no threat?

[buckman]

It appears Obama's now pissed off the French. Now even the French are calling him out. This is getting embarressing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

In regard to Zakaria saying that Obama's speech was well received ALL OVER THE WORLD except in ONE PLACE, he must not consider much of the trepidation in East Europe to be occurring in a place. There is much fear there with his "cooperation" with Russia. Especially when, in July a group of politicians and scholars from 9 of these countries published a lengthy open letter to Obama stating the need for continued and expanded US engagement in the security of that region, and specifically pointed to the need for maintaining the planned missile-defence installations and NOT to bow to Moscow's wishes.

He also must not think Israel is much of a place. 4% of Israelis see obamas policies as pro-Israel, 51% see them as pro-palestinian. 88% of Israelis, by the way, view Bushes administration as pro-Israel.

Because of the growing Islamic "problem," their are many in Western Europe who have become "right wing populists," some percentages as high as 25-30% or more. They do not have favorable views of Obama and his policies. But, of course, the MEDIA that Zakaria hears reports that everywhere in the world except America's right wing netherworld received Obama's speech well.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.


-spence

In regard to your photo, isn't it interesting that the Obama as Hitler photo is being held conveniently backwards right at the camera, the sign holders arms fully extended (which couldn't be held in that position very long due to circulation and gravity/weight problems) so as to place the photo prominently above the distraction of the messy crowd, dominating the photo in an almost perfect artistic "third" portion. And all so conveniently coinciding with the click of the camera.

And regarding Zakaria's saying the discourse of American conservatism today being death panels and Hitler, how about:

Gore Vidal, major leftist and Obama supporter, says the Republican party is a mindset, like Hitler youth, based on hatred, and conservatives are fascists.

Ted Turner, leftist CNN guy, compares Fox News to Hitler.

CNN host D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany.

Allen L Roland (lefty radio host) said Bush was like Hitler.

Edward Jayne said Bush was like Hitler.

George Soros compared Bush to Nazis.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd said Bush reminded him of Goering.

Al Gore referred to republican computer teams as brownshirts.

Novelist Andrew Greeley depicted Bush as a Hitler figure.

Judge Guido Calabresi said Bushes rise to power was like the rise of Hitler and Mussolini

Various leftists depicted Bush as Attila, Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ, Frankenstein.

Anti-war protests of 2003-2007 was rife with images of Bush with Hitler Mustache and Nazi uniform.

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

-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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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.

Fareed not only went beyond merely calling Republicans obstructionists to Obama (which he never really did--that's just your throw-in).

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

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?

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

You DO think well of yourself, don't you.

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.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.

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

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.

[buckman]

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I see other signs in the picture that are not double sided. I don't see any other signs being held up arms fully extended. That would be difficult to do for more than a moment or two and there is no need to do so. If you want to make a photo with IMPACT, you ask the holder to hold the sign above the crowd so it stands out and dominates, and you also ask the holder to turn his back so as not to detract from the sign because the first thing a viewer looks at in a photo is a living human face. You compose your picture, click, tell the holder that he can lower his tired arms, chuckle devilishly and know you've got a hit. It is VERY convenient to have these factors accidentally converging at the same time a camera is right behind the sign holder ready to shoot the picture. I said it was PROBABLY staged.

Sorry if my critical thinking clouds your judgment.

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.

You DON'T think well of Republicans, do you. They just don't meet your standards of leadership.

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.

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

What is your connection of the GOP to that photo? Is the sign carrier a GOP congressman? Did the GOP give him the sign and tell him to display it? I have no idea who that person is, what his intentions are, to which party he is affiliated, for all I know, you sent him there. The photo does nothing to support the assertion that the GOP is demonizing Obama. And if it's a set-up, it is even worse.

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 this is supposed to give you the bona fides to connect the GOP to that photo?

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

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

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

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

-spence