Obama intends an up-or-down vote on health reform

[Olo401]

You know archi, i like you. You probably represent the common voter and you are honest about it. Sure, this means that the US is screwed and will never get better, but i prefer your honesty over beckwin's creepy delusions.

Pot meet the fuckin' kettle. Your refusal to accept that politicians can't and won't do everything they promise, and the ridiculous notion that the world doesn't just change overnight because you want it to, is just as creepy.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes, and you're going to suffer dearly for your complacency

Yeah, the economy is down right now, it'll bounce back sooner or later. Other than that, and especially compared to most countries in the world, America's really not doing so badly.

Incremental progress will do just fine - I think I'll survive whatever suffering I endure.

And this is coming from someone who would benefit hugely from a single-payer health care plan.

[Kuya]

Pot meet the fuckin' kettle. Your refusal to accept that politicians can't and won't do everything they promise, and the ridiculous notion that the world doesn't just change overnight because you want it to, is just as creepy.

lol

[Kuya]

Yeah, the economy is down right now, it'll bounce back sooner or later. Other than that, and especially compared to most countries in the world, America's really not doing so badly.

Incremental progress will do just fine - I think I'll survive whatever suffering I endure.

And this is coming from someone who would benefit hugely from a single-payer health care plan.

I was mostly referring to the same credit default swaps starting up again both in previous form and in new carbon trading.

[archibaldcrane]

Hollywood.

It's recession-proof.

Maybe by the next time the real estate market tanks I can actually buy some property round these parts.

[Olo401]

Laugh all you want Kuya. You're making yourself look just as ridiculous as the Tea Party goons by sticking so close to the absolutes.

Edit: I'm not insulting you btw.. I'm trying to bring you down off the edge of the ideological map.

[archibaldcrane]

(also kuya, telling someone they "represent the common voter" is really condescending if you aren't at a town hall meeting and they aren't wearing a trucker hat and a red and black checkered plaid shirt or something)

[Kuya]

Laugh all you want Kuya. You're making yourself look just as ridiculous as the Tea Party goons by sticking so close to the absolutes.

Edit: I'm not insulting you btw.. I'm trying to bring you down off the edge of the ideological map.

lol

Hollywood.

It's recession-proof.

Maybe by the next time the real estate market tanks I can actually buy some property round these parts.

I suppose blowblack constitutes a consequence, but it's so hard to predict and it's not really noticed until a big incident comes that most might not even really consider it a consequence. It does make an excellent oportunity for invading other countries though.

[Demosthenes11]

in obamas first year we were supposed to have:
be out of iraq
gitmo closed
afghanistan handled
economy looking up
transparency in the cabinet
healthcare reform

i understand things dont happen overnight (though some of those could), but to have a the 60/40 majority and still not really get 1 of those done or even looking like it could get done? kind of a slap in the face to the constituents

[Kuya]

(also kuya, telling someone they "represent the common voter" is really condescending if you aren't at a town hall meeting and they aren't wearing a trucker hat and a red and black checkered plaid shirt or something)

But your previous reply is exactly why you represent the common American so well. You're not really concerned if a financial crisis occurs and it does not affect you, which is a realistic, though short sighted, outlook. And that's exactly how most Americans think. As long as consequences are limited to a few dozens dead americans every few months and perhaps a few lost jobs (which are almost always going to be lower middle class jobs) then the fundamental issues don't really need to be addressed. Perhaps decent health reform might be passed or gays might be allowed to marry or enter the military freely, but issues such as foreign policy, economic policy and campaign policy will remain the same just as long as the consequences are never too explosive. That's the beauty of it, you see? They are so hard to see in the inmediately lives of people that it makes it easy to ignore. It's a godsend really.

[Cephius]

Yea, i suppose getting the tacit approval of a military dictatorship we helped set up as opposed to the people itself (democracy? bah who needs democracy!) makes it totally legit.

Let me guess, don't know much about Pakistan, do you?

So people who live in democracies get to approve military action before their governments go ahead with it? That's funny, I don't remember being able to cast a vote on whether America should invade Iraq.

in before "America is not a democracy"

[SamanosukeShiva]

i cant believe i was reading that in obama's voice, my god what have you done obama.

[Kuya]

So people who live in democracies get to approve military action before their governments go ahead with it? That's funny, I don't remember being able to cast a vote on whether America should invade Iraq.

in before "America is not a democracy"

Don't look now, but i think that 'military action' is usually not the military action of a foreigh nation. People tend to be very tolerant of unilateral military action if it's not inside their country.

Let me just clarify this:

You realize that you're trying to justify the Obama administration's policy of lauching missles inside an allied sovereign nation with the tacit approval of the military establishment which usurped the democratic government in Pakistan (particularly the courts) with US backing?

Oh

And that now you're saying that militaries act without democratic legitimacy ignoring that i just said that the military junta is a dictatorship and has no legitimacy and that said military action is being carried out INSIDE Pakistan itself?

Sure, how often do people democratically vote to attack other countries (... except military action is supposed to be authorized via representatives in parliament, where in a representative democracy vote in place of the people, this seems to no longer be the rule in the US, not surprisingly), but how often do they accept foreign countries dropping bombs in THEIR country because the dictator they are under said it was okay?

[Kuya]

I kind of don't think you were serious when you implied it was okay to drop bombs on countries you're not at war with (but allied with!), especially when a vast majority of the population hates it to death.

[archibaldcrane]

But your previous reply is exactly why you represent the common American so well. You're not really concerned if a financial crisis occurs and it does not affect you, which is a realistic, though short sighted, outlook. And that's exactly how most Americans think. As long as consequences are limited to a few dozens dead americans every few months and perhaps a few lost jobs (which are almost always going to be lower middle class jobs) then the fundamental issues don't really need to be addressed. Perhaps decent health reform might be passed or gays might be allowed to marry or enter the military freely, but issues such as foreign policy, economic policy and campaign policy will remain the same just as long as the consequences are never too explosive. That's the beauty of it, you see? They are so hard to see in the inmediately lives of people that it makes it easy to ignore. It's a godsend really.

Popping into a thread about health care and saying "well he might pass some sort of limited reform, but predator drones blowback credit default swaps working with dictators you're a short-sighted average american idiot" is kind of a dick move.

And taking my flippant response to the housing market crash seriously is lol.

[Kuya]

That's par for the course for a politics thread.

Although your statement doesn't make any sense. My statement didn't say anything we didn't already know, meaning, that he might attempt health reform (well more like he needed to do it or else lose points to the republicans). In fact, that isn't even what the thread was initially about. Now it's mostly about whether Obama is full of shit or not.

[Cephius]

Don't look now, but i think that 'military action' is usually not the military action of a foreigh nation. People tend to be very tolerant of unilateral military action if it's not inside their country.

Let me just clarify this:

You realize that you're trying to justify the Obama administration's policy of lauching missles inside an allied sovereign nation with the tacit approval of the military establishment which usurped the democratic government in Pakistan (particularly the courts) with US backing?

Oh

And that now you're saying that militaries act without democratic legitimacy ignoring that i just said that the military junta is a dictatorship and has no legitimacy and that said military action is being carried out INSIDE Pakistan itself?

Sure, how often do people democratically vote to attack other countries (... except military action is supposed to be authorized via representatives in parliament, where in a representative democracy vote in place of the people, this seems to no longer be the rule in the US, not surprisingly), but how often do they accept foreign countries dropping bombs in THEIR country because the dictator they are under said it was okay?

So according to you, Obama should suspend military operations in Pakistan because the recognized government in place was put there with US backing long before he ever took office? Why? I guess we shouldn't deal with the Germans either, that was a US-backed government change too! I agree with you that the legitimacy of their government is questionable at best. But, they are the recognized government entity there. If their approval isn't good enough, who's is? Should we have the Pakistani people vote on an internet poll before we do anything? I mean come on.

It's not like we're attacking Pakistani people there and marching in thousands of troops. These are precision strikes (in remote tribal areas as well, not exactly a place you'd find residential homes) against the terrorists hiding there, who not only attack US troops in Afghanistan but attack the Pakistanis as well. The Pakistani military was fighting them long before we started the airstrikes. Why wouldn't they want our help?

[archibaldcrane]

It's not like we're attacking Pakistani people there

Hopefully I can beat Kuya here by saying

LOL

Predator drone strikes are a shitty solution to an intractable problem. Is it the best course of action? I don't know. Is there another course of action? I don't know.

The Pakistani government doesn't really give a shit about what happens in the tribal hills near the afghanistan border - they don't represent our "interests" and we won't be able to make them. It's just another example of "what do you do when your enemy isn't a nation-state?"

No one has really found an answer yet.

[Cephius]

I still don't see how that's "LOL" but sure, whatever.

[archibaldcrane]

I still don't see how that's "LOL" but sure, whatever.

We continually kill Pakistani civilians with each predator strike. We happen to get some Al Queda operatives in the process too.

And yes, yes, I know. They shouldn't have been standing there.