Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Submitted without comment, for now, except to say that this ain't coming from Fox:

Quote
In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism.  At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list.  The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.  I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind.  I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations)

edited to comply with quoting guidelines

So, are you supporting the terrorists now?  What was it Bush said, if your not with us....

P.S.  Weren't those laws passed by Republicans?  Yeah, thought so.  Where were you when all my left wing friends were decrying that stuff.  Oh yeah, thought so again.

A lot of assumptions you make there since I wasn't even posting here at the time.

As for when the "laws were passed" - these are not laws, they are EO's and policies that - according to the article - Bush never enacted or implemented.

Given that bush never did this, how is it that your left wing friends were decrying it?

Of course, the more relevant question is - where are they now when this needs decrying?

Funny how you managed to (predictably) work in a reply in which you managed to rip on Bush and yet not whisper a word of disapproval of the actions being described.

The irony that you think you are catching me in hypocrisy while displaying your own in bright neon colors is rich.

In any case, I'll refrain from being drawn further into a spitting match. I'd suggest the issue here is more important than that.

Assassination should never be the preferred action.  This is not just for a US citizen (which is what the article focuses on), but for anyone.  That said, if you are in a situation facing resistance, you may have no choice but to kill the person... and in a de facto sense, this person may just as well be off the list as on.  But still, the use of violence must remain conditional on the situation.

The ultimate flaw of the article is that it makes this authorization seem exceptional.  It isn't.  What Bush and Obama have done is merely extend to US citizens what the government has already been willing to do to Nigerians, Britons, and anyone else in the world.  They have shown a lack of mercy, but there is equal opportunity in that lack of mercy.  It is an arrogant attitude to think we US citizens are more deserving of due process than non-US citizens.

I dont think that the constitution is worth the ink it took to make the document. It has been trampled on and it is a flawed document that should have been tossed out soon after it wasd drafted. Every generation should have the right to write its own constitution.
As to the president being able to get you shot, so?....The only diferance with Obama is that he is being dumb enough to talk about it and write orders. They should keep it like they ussed to, on the sly and nice and quite.

QuoteThat said, if you are in a situation facing resistance, you may have no choice but to kill the person... and in a de facto sense, this person may just as well be off the list as on.  But still, the use of violence must remain conditional on the situation.

The world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.  Would justice be to reduce the Americans? Or since Americans have better weapons let them reduce the rest of the overpopulation?

---

Post Merge: April 08, 2010, 02:14:17 PM

---

"Every generation should have the right to write its own constitution. "
=============
If the majority wants it can have a Constitutional convention any time it wants.  The problems being no body today is any smarter than the founding fathers. But then education leaves a lot to be desired today.

Quote
The ultimate flaw of the article is that it makes this authorization seem exceptional.  It isn't.  What Bush and Obama have done is merely extend to US citizens what the government has already been willing to do to Nigerians, Britons, and anyone else in the world.  They have shown a lack of mercy, but there is equal opportunity in that lack of mercy.  It is an arrogant attitude to think we US citizens are more deserving of due process than non-US citizens.

Rather, it's simply a matter of the nature of our system of government. The first thing those who founded our country did was specify what the government may NOT do to it's citizens. It's a foundational principle of your government - protecting the citizen from the government.

There's no practical way to extend constitutional protections to those who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. (or heck, even illegal residents in almost every instance)

To say that it is hubris or arrogance to differentiate between Americans and non-Americans under the law is just silly. It's not about who "deserves" constitutional protections, it's about whether it's practically possible to apply them universally.

It's not. A reasonable distinction must be made.

What the old court room saying?  Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law?  Pretty much that. 

Obama is wrong in continuing these wars, not quite as wrong as Bush was in starting them, but if he keeps it up, he'll be joining Bush/Cheney there in hell.  I walked in every protest we had in SF against these overseas adventures.  That's part of my history going back to marching against the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War, nuclear weapons testing, and the intervention in Central America.  I'm pretty much anti-war no matter who is involved, no matter who is president.

So, to get this out of the way to begin with I'm sure that when Bush did it and he was being strong on national defense, and if Obama does it he's assassinating American citizens. And, if  Bush doesn't do it he's being fair to American citizens. Of Obama doesn't do it, he's soft on terror.  WTF? Doesn't constantly being inconsistent on your viewpoint get annoying after awhile?

But, it might be nice if you were at least right on the facts.  So, just to start with....Isn't it the president's job to make these kinds of decisions? Whether you like it or not, Congress made this legal back in 2001 as part of the PATRIOT Act (which I opposed, and still oppose).  I told my more conservative friends that they would rue the day they gave away this kind of power, because the people in power would change.  But they were still stroking themselves over their 'Permanent Republican Majority' wet dream and didn't listen.  So I ask, "How's that working out for you now, giving the executive so much power?"


Now first of all a) it's not an assassination deal, it's not a hit per se, it's a "capture or kill" order, not a "just kill him" order. I'm being consistent here. I'll criticize Obama all day long for Gitmo still being open. I'm not going to criticize him for authorizing US forces to go after a man actively involved in attacking the US.  I'm not going to do that because I don't think there is anything intrinsically immoral about an assassination, so long as the target is a brutal war criminal whose capture and trial would be likely to effect the deaths of many innocents at the hands of sympathizers attempting to blackmail and terrorize the public into releasing him.  Are you now so upset with Obama that you are taking the side of people who profess to want to destroy this country?  Has your hate and parinoria brought you to side with al-Qaeda at long last.  That as long as they hate Obama they can't be all bad?  Have you finally gone that far?

And, since he's linked with these dudes:Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec.25 it might be that the intel on him was correct.  As long as the information is accurate (and I haven't forgotten the 'slam dunk' that got us into Iraq) then sometimes people need killin' before they kill us.  This guy seems to be conclusively a dangerous target, and actively engaged in plotting the killing of Americans. I would prefer a lawful arrest, and would much rather catch this guy and put him on trial than just put a bullet through his skull - still, if you mess with the bull, you do get the horns..

Tell you what. If he surrenders peacefully, we'll give him a trial. If they manage to capture him, he gets a trial. If he is in our custody, then he does deserve a fair trial. If he is indeed engaged with US forces on the battlefield, then he fits the definition of an imminent threat and needs to be taken out.  So, if this guy is a conclusively a dangerous target, and actively engaged in plotting the killing of Americans. I would prefer a lawful arrest, but if he gets taken out, fark it, let it be.

This case would be interesting to think deeply about if the guy was simply a terrorist sympathizer but did not actively take part in the terrorist's activities. But it seems like he is, and even if he's not, we'd probably never know that, or we would find out about it 20 years from now when the records would be unsealed. So far, we've not seen any evidence to point out that he's simply a terrorist sympathizer but does not advocate terrorism. And I also have a hard time believing that the Obama administration would bother with targeting an American citizen if he wasn't a real threat. They seem to have their hands full with actual threats, so why would they go after this guy? But of course, the "black helicopter watchers" of the right believe that Obama is making secret FEMA death camps, so Obama targeting this guy because Obama is pure evil is perfectly understandable.

As a standard test of the ability to judge reality realistically, don't go being some anti-US religious fanatic in Yemen when the US is all warmongering. Your ass might just get blown off, no matter who is President..

As for the law...

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

I think homeboy meets the criteria, and while I don't like the fact that we've targeted an American citizen, but he definitely falls within the scope of the accepted process that we use for dealing with imminent terrorist threats.  I think it's unseemly, but if this guy was privateering for England, I have no doubt James Madison would have had no problem letting the navy fire on his frigate, if you know what I mean..


And, according to the law, he might not even be an American anymore...

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481),(which I'm sure you are familier with) as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

So yeah for Laura, and keep on with your fellow conservatives sticking up for the "rights" of a terrorist who wants to kill Americans. I'm sure that'll play well with your base come election time.

QuoteSo, to get this out of the way to begin with I'm sure that when Bush did it and he was being strong on national defense, and if Obama does it he's assassinating American citizens. And, if  Bush doesn't do it he's being fair to American citizens. Of Obama doesn't do it, he's soft on terror.  WTF? Doesn't constantly being inconsistent on your viewpoint get annoying after awhile?

Now i know why you are so arrogant.

It's easy to win every argument when you get to ascribe your opponent's position to them.

A bunch of silly inconsistencies makes people interesting, but inconsistency in values just makes them dangerous.

Why would Obama assassinate al-Awlaki?  I thought he(Obama) was a muslim communist terrorist who hated America?

Jeez.  Why can't the right wing get their stories straight. 

I think Obama is a lot like LBJ.  Similar pragmatist who wants to do something grand and transformative to the country that won't be appreciated in his prime.  Similar in that he's escalating a two wars that we shouldn't even be in because he lacks the political capitol to pull us out of the wars, and still accomplish the social changes he wants.

I'm also surprised to see the right refer to Al Awaki as a US citizen and not a terrorist given the connections he's had to pretty much every major terrorist attack we've had in the past 10 years.  I don't think anyone should be assassinated, but I find all of the inconsistencies in these arguements very frustrating to navigate.

I don't think we should be assassinating anyone whether they are American or not, and I find it offensive to make that distinction.  And I don't understand why the right is suddenly against assassinating someone who is actively working to kill Americans, given that it was 8 years of "bring them to me dead or alive" from Bush.  This is not ideaology we are discussing, this is politics dressed up in the skin of ideology.  There's nothing in the conservative position that has ever opposed such atrocities.

I guess this subject could also read "Obama authorizes the assassination of an Al Queda leader who was born in the US.

So, the right wing tore into the Obama administration as "Terrorist Sympathizers" because lawyers were given to some Gitmo detainees.

So, if we treat this Al Queda terrorist as a regular US Citizen will the right get super upset again?

I have mixed emotions about this whole situation. On the one hand it is a US citizen but on the other this is a leader in Al Queda who is actively recruiting terrorists to kill Americans. I can assure you, however, I would never make post about how terrible it is for this guy to be targeted by the Obama administration to be killed on site.

I don't think it's the fact that this is being done that bothers people, but that we're aware of it.  Just about everybody's passively aware that the US government routinely engages in this kind of action.

I'm not a right wing advocate, nor am I a left wing advocate because all radical views are by their nature based on omission of certain facts that don't fit their agenda.  I'm not even saying that I support this action, because I don't.  I'm just saying it's been going on forever, and people only care about when its explicitly brought to their attention.

Though I do think it's not as simple as a "right" or "wrong."  The military deals with complicated matters that go beyond what other fields do, the government deals with complicated self-contained issues too, as does the media, and so on.  It's the playing of these forces, sometimes with another and sometimes against each other that determines value.

The question should really be "Who are your sources?"  If the sources are verifiable, what are you going to do about it?  I'm Canadian, so nothing.  I have a funny feeling though, that in this day and age, the course of action isn't going to be "in depth investigative journalism carried out with honesty and integrity, with all of the relevant facts published in a responsible manner for mass consumption," or "social action based on these facts."

So, are your values personal safety no matter the cost?  Freedom no matter the cost?  Fair and balanced justice?  Arm chair liberalism?  Revenge?

With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

QuoteJeez.  Why can't the right wing get their stories straight. 

guess I missed the memo when Salon joined the vast right wing conspiracy.

Or maybe it's just easier to invoke the standard talking points ans to actually discuss something.

Congrats, ya'll - you verified my hypothesis.

You're always welcome to go on over to redstate.com or freerepublic and discuss your crossdressing with them, I'm sure they are hip to it.  They talk about it all the time.  They almost seem obsessed with it.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

I actually think about this a lot. Humanity will be redefined.

---

Post Merge: April 11, 2010, 07:51:45 AM

---

Quote from: tekla on April 10, 2010, 05:18:01 PM
You're always welcome to go on over to redstate.com or freerepublic and discuss your crossdressing with them, I'm sure they are hip to it.  They talk about it all the time.  They almost seem obsessed with it.

Redstate doesn't seem as openly transphobic but freerepublic? OMFG.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2471057/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2471057/posts)

QuoteThe world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.  Would justice be to reduce the Americans? Or since Americans have better weapons let them reduce the rest of the overpopulation?

There exists more alternatives to addressing the problems of overpopulation/resources than dealing with (alleged) violent criminals who are (alleged) to remain a serious threat.  Besides, overpopulation is more due to excessive reproduction in other countries (despite US population growing, women are reproducing below the replacement threshold)... although you can partly blame the likes of US missionaries who preach abstinence instead of teaching comprehensive sex education.

QuoteTo say that it is hubris or arrogance to differentiate between Americans and non-Americans under the law is just silly. It's not about who "deserves" constitutional protections, it's about whether it's practically possible to apply them universally.

I have not seen a convincing argument on this point.  Even on a practical level, we should be able to extend protections to citizens of any sufficiently-allied countries -- otherwise is a trivial matter for allied countries to do each other's dirty work to their respective citizens.

On the other side, I question whether such a specific protection is truly possible.  Even a born US citizen can transform themselves in such a way that they will be just as separated from the US as anyone from al Qaeda.  You can only get so far with a name, a DOB, and a social security number.

Quoteguess I missed the memo when Salon joined the vast right wing conspiracy.

Salon is not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

Actually, while government IS the problem - population is not. In the VAST majority of cases, when people suffer malnutrition and famine, it is because corrupt governments undermine the production and distribution of resources, not because there are not enough resources to go around.

---

Post Merge: April 24, 2010, 11:28:34 PM

---

Quote
Salon is not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.

I'd have to share your opinion of fox News to be impressed by that remark.

independent surveys do put Fox (speaking of news content here, not opinion) right of center, but much closer to the center than almost all of the major left of center outlets.

but it's all a matter of perspective.

If one is looking from a hard left position, Fox SEEMS far to the right just because the middle is so far to the right of where you stand.

But I don't want to get trapped into debating fox.

I'll only say that your point is a non-sequiter because Salon doesn't HAVE to be what Fox is or what Fox is perceived to be in order for my remakr that they are NOT a right of center source to be true.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 08, 2010, 02:11:39 PM
The world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.

Finally I agree with you on something.

---

Post Merge: April 24, 2010, 09:59:59 PM

---

Laura, FOX is, in a very uniquely American way, hardcore right-wing; it's a terrible stinking witches' brew of John Birch Society-style conspiracy theoretics, Family Research Council-style "the gays are coming!" 'phobe rhetoric, cafeteria pop-libertarianism, NRA theatrics, "clash of civilizations"-type "the mozlems are coming!," militaristic pot-banging, anti-intellectualism, and on and on and on. Just because theyre not marching around in berets and jackboots does not make them "fair and balanced."

I don't mind educated libertarians and conservatives, and perhaps wouldn't mind a powerful network that was strongly biased towards thoughtful libertarian and conservative content: stories from a free market/neoliberal perspective, analysis by Francis Fukuyama, et cetera - a sort of Democracy Now for conservatives.

It's this sort of ridiculousness to which I object:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D_S7WOnjg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D_S7WOnjg#)

What kind of civil society can we really expect when one of the nation's most followed and watched political commentators not only spends all his time frothing at the mouth about Evil Communists (o noes, they're flouridatin' the drinkin' waterz!), but he can't even spell the word "oligarch" on national television.

Politics as a disconnected, discombobulated, illiterate spectacle of lip-chewing, eye-widening fear, an enormous frothing broth of paranoia shoveled into the willingly opened mouths of one of the largest audiences in the country - that's what FOX sells, and it concerns me enormously.

PanoramaIsland, it is incredible how many people watch that video and actually thinks it makes sense. It is horrific that people can be that stupid. Or perhaps it isn't being stupid. Maybe it is just being willfully ignorant. Or maybe grasping at whatever straws they can to try and get a black president out of the white(house).

I thought the reason for not going down the road of killing civilians away from the battlefield, as per the original posts on this subject, was so that firstly your enemy would not do it, and secondly to maintain a moral position.

These things were put in place because we claim to be civilised, even if our opponent is not, and to protect our own people. 

It is similar to the proscription on the use of torture, however now that the CIA has opened that can of worms, American POW's will be fair game.

We are headed too civil war, Fox news is faning the flames.
Simply put I do not care what the left or right think of eachothers presidents. Both sides are so busy villifying eachother that it is impossible for the mass's to separate the chaff from the wheat so to speak.
Curently the right needs to calm down and allow the left to rule. The left won the pressidency not the right.

Also what is up with teabaggers showing up across the river from the capitol with guns? What would have happened if it was a rally of young black men with guns decrying the deplorable conditions of the inner cities?
I dont even need to answer that WE ALL know what would have happened.

Quote from: cynthialee on April 25, 2010, 07:30:33 AM
We are headed too civil war, Fox news is faning the flames.
Simply put I do not care what the left or right think of eachothers presidents. Both sides are so busy villifying eachother that it is impossible for the mass's to separate the chaff from the wheat so to speak.
Curently the right needs to calm down and allow the left to rule. The left won the pressidency not the right.

Also what is up with teabaggers showing up across the river from the capitol with guns? What would have happened if it was a rally of young black men with guns decrying the deplorable conditions of the inner cities?
I dont even need to answer that WE ALL know what would have happened.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree that the left won. It is the center that won, the Third Way. Many, many leftists - especially center-left and left-liberal/social liberal types - mobilized to get Obama into power, including my own brother and father, who went out of state to campaign for him. He was not, however, ever a leftist, and he never claimed to be.

That's the remarkable thing about Obama: as much as the left sighs and is disappointed, as much as the conservative media is a bit confused by his positions - much different than what both of them were, secretly or publicly, expecting - he is actually an excellent keeper of campaign promises. He put himself up there as this big symbol upon which the left projected its hopes and worries, the center projected its sigh of relief and some of its race/class anxieties, and the right projected its enormous fears. Yet, under all that, he stated very clearly in the campaign that he was going to keep us in Iraq for a good while, trying to patch things up; he said that getting out of Guantanamo was going to be slow-going; he very clearly indicated that his economic policies were not going to be an enormous shift to the left from Bush's strange amalgamation of pragmatic-neoliberalism and unpaid for government expansion, but only a shift towards trying to pay for things more and add to the debt less, and save money by reforming health care. He said he would pull back from deregulation, but the left projected quite a lot onto that - nationalization, real universal healthcare, etc. - that he wasn't really preaching for.

So, in short, the Obama we voted for is the Obama we got. That includes his quiet continuation of Bush's policies of expansive executive power and extraordinary military powers, such as this case of ordering a hit on a U.S. citizen that we are discussing right now. The Obama we voted for, and the Obama we got, is a centrist, not a man of the left.

QuoteActually, while government IS the problem - population is not. In the VAST majority of cases, when people suffer malnutrition and famine, it is because corrupt governments undermine the production and distribution of resources, not because there are not enough resources to go around.

This world works on trade. To get something you have to give something. Many over populated people get squeezed out of their home and are forced to occupy inhabitable land. This land has no natural resources for survival. Neither does the land they were squeezed out have enough natural resources to provide something to trade for all. Hence there are not enough resources to support the population.  People that have nothing to give will die.

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 25, 2010, 02:59:28 AM
PanoramaIsland, it is incredible how many people watch that video and actually thinks it makes sense. It is horrific that people can be that stupid. Or perhaps it isn't being stupid. Maybe it is just being willfully ignorant. Or maybe grasping at whatever straws they can to try and get a black president out of the white(house).

Just for the record - the folks who you just described as stupid? they think you are stupid too.

How are we better off if we divide up into camps of grade schoolers saying "You're stupid!" - "No YOU are!"

By the way - let's just drag it out into the open: i don't egree with EVERY point Beck makes, and i certainly understand not having much tolerance for his theatrical delivery but....

He's right FAAAAAAR more often than he's wrong - the spelling of "oligarch" aside.

So, ya know, go ahead and file me in the "stupid" folks you feel sorry for.

Quote

Politics as a disconnected, discombobulated, illiterate spectacle of lip-chewing, eye-widening fear, an enormous frothing broth of paranoia shoveled into the willingly opened mouths of one of the largest audiences in the country - that's what FOX sells, and it concerns me enormously.

Before I reply to this - let's hear your review of Bill Mahr, Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Jenine Garafalono et al.

If you don't like over-the-top, hyperbolic, theatrical mugging rhetoric...i assume you don't like it across the board, right?

---

Post Merge: April 25, 2010, 12:29:16 PM

---

Quote from: cynthialee on April 25, 2010, 07:30:33 AM
We are headed too civil war, Fox news is faning the flames.

did you have similar sentiments about the rhetoric directed at George Bush?

Were MoveOn and MSNBC and so many others "fanning the flames of civil war"?

Quote
Simply put I do not care what the left or right think of eachothers presidents. Both sides are so busy villifying eachother that it is impossible for the mass's to separate the chaff from the wheat so to speak.
Curently the right needs to calm down and allow the left to rule. The left won the pressidency not the right.

Again - like the left "calmed down and let the Right govern" for the last eight years before the current administration?

Quote
Also what is up with teabaggers showing up across the river from the capitol with guns? What would have happened if it was a rally of young black men with guns decrying the deplorable conditions of the inner cities?
I dont even need to answer that WE ALL know what would have happened.

I do to - nothing, except tons of media attention about those poor oppressed people voicing their outrage at oppressive government.

---

Post Merge: April 25, 2010, 01:30:25 PM

---

By the way - isn't it marvelous how VERY few of the folks here can stop breathing out fire at Fox long enough to voice ANY disapproval of the policies described (and not by Fox) in the OP?

Nice DD&B folks.

Laura, the increasing theatricality of political discourse does concern me across the board, yes. There is also some dumbing down on the left and center-left as well as on the right, best represented perhaps by Michael Moore. Thank you for calling me out on that.
There is also some rhetoric of fear being used by folks like Moore and Olbermann, although Olbermann is an interesting animal - sensational and somewhat fear-based without necessarily being dumbed down. His facts tend to be solid and his analysis is decent, etc. - it's just delivered in a very theatrical and hyperbolic fashion. Like all such dramatic shows, his show tends to pick up on a lot of less-than-serious stories and portray them as more serious than they are, and also to inject perfectly silly and trivial content into blocks of serious discussion, a sort of Shakespearean populist comic relief move. I also think that his recent habit of reading James Thurber on air, while enjoyable and a great big slap in the face of trash TV, looks a bit silly. It would make a lot more aesthetic/psychological sense if someone quiet like Bill Moyers were doing it.

Olbermann is clearly literate and decently informed, however, and not prone to conspiracy theories and wildly fudging facts. Glenn Beck is none of those things. It is not merely that he is shouting; he seems to have abandoned fact-checking and any sort of real analysis in the process. He is channeling the fear and anxiety of a certain part of the nation's populace, and I understand that; however, he would do well to base his fear and anxiety on an informed analysis of the situation, rather than on conspiracies, easily disprovable claims and wildly emotional antics.

Beck is also unique in the incredible volume and tenor of his theatrics. Even when Olbermann was describing in graphic detail the experience of being with his father as he was dying, going on to use (exploit?) that no-doubt very genuine personal suffering to make a point about healthcare reform, he did not break down in probably-fake tears like Beck tends to. Beck also tends towards an astounding level of hyperbole in his rhetoric and his epithets that Olbermann in his worst excesses could never touch.
Olbermann also seems to be aware of the danger of his theatrics; he basically said as much in an interview with Bill Moyers. Beck does not seem to be aware that he's being theatrical at all.

As for Bill Maher, I just don't like the guy, period. He rubs me the wrong way. Some of his positions are okay, but his anti-vaccination and anti-medical rhetoric in particular pisses me off. It's completely unscientific, and it's the last thing we need right now.

I watch at least 20 hours a week of Fox news if not more. Same with MSNBC. Yes they are both vitriolic and over the top but I can say with certainty that the left gave GW a hell of a lot more of a length of rope to hang himself with than the right did with Obama.
Before the election votes had been confirmed they were preaching doom and gloom on Fox. I know I watch the vile thing so I know when the right moves and trys to foment rebelion. Same with MSNBC.
The issue is really simple. I am not not keen on being subjected to laws that are only backed up by scripture. The right has repeatedly insisted that they are they party of god and they alone are the representatives of family values. They seek to put us in the closet permantly or worse.
I know the left is also basicaly evil but they at least are the lessor of 2 evils. I havent heard very many liberal canadates publicly makeing anti LGBT policies part of their platform.

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 25, 2010, 02:25:37 PM
Just for the record - the folks who you just described as stupid? they think you are stupid too.

How are we better off if we divide up into camps of grade schoolers saying "You're stupid!" - "No YOU are!"

By the way - let's just drag it out into the open: i don't egree with EVERY point Beck makes, and i certainly understand not having much tolerance for his theatrical delivery but....

He's right FAAAAAAR more often than he's wrong - the spelling of "oligarch" aside.

So, ya know, go ahead and file me in the "stupid" folks you feel sorry for.
Before I reply to this - let's hear your review of Bill Mahr, Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Jenine Garafalono et al.

If you don't like over-the-top, hyperbolic, theatrical mugging rhetoric...i assume you don't like it across the board, right?

---

Post Merge: April 25, 2010, 12:29:16 PM

---

did you have similar sentiments about the rhetoric directed at George Bush?

Were MoveOn and MSNBC and so many others "fanning the flames of civil war"?Again - like the left "calmed down and let the Right govern" for the last eight years before the current administration?I do to - nothing, except tons of media attention about those poor oppressed people voicing their outrage at oppressive government.

---

Post Merge: April 25, 2010, 01:30:25 PM

---

By the way - isn't it marvelous how VERY few of the folks here can stop breathing out fire at Fox long enough to voice ANY disapproval of the policies described (and not by Fox) in the OP?

Nice DD&B folks.

Laura, did you watch that video posted in this thread? My statement was only for this single video. And yes, anyone who bought that is stupid.That video is indefensible.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 25, 2010, 03:14:47 PM
Laura, the increasing theatricality of political discourse does concern me across the board, yes. There is also some dumbing down on the left and center-left as well as on the right, best represented perhaps by Michael Moore. Thank you for calling me out on that.
There is also some rhetoric of fear being used by folks like Moore and Olbermann, although Olbermann is an interesting animal - sensational and somewhat fear-based without necessarily being dumbed down. His facts tend to be solid and his analysis is decent, etc. - it's just delivered in a very theatrical and hyperbolic fashion.

This is EXACTLY how I would describe Beck with the exception that Olberman's presentation is over dramatic while Beck's is over comedic.

In some ways, Beck is more comperable to John Stewart than Olberman.

Quote
Like all such dramatic shows, his show tends to pick up on a lot of less-than-serious stories and portray them as more serious than they are, and also to inject perfectly silly and trivial content into blocks of serious discussion, a sort of Shakespearean populist comic relief move. I also think that his recent habit of reading James Thurber on air, while enjoyable and a great big slap in the face of trash TV, looks a bit silly. It would make a lot more aesthetic/psychological sense if someone quiet like Bill Moyers were doing it.

Olbermann is clearly literate and decently informed, however, and not prone to conspiracy theories and wildly fudging facts. Glenn Beck is none of those things.

If you go to factcheck.org and search "Glenn Beck" you get a VERY short list of things he has specifically stated (as opposed to hit where an erroneous fact is mentioned by someone else in something where Beck's name is also mentioned which caused the hit) which they found to be in error.

As for conspiracy theories, the left routinely claims Beck was pimping the "camps" theory when, in fact, Beck specifically debunked the claim on the air when no one else was doing so.

Now, does he in fact believe that Obama's inner circle has a blan to radically shift the nature of our government to the left towards European style socialism?

Yeah.

The thing is - it's not a nutty theory when that's exactly true.

Now, someone wnats to argue that this is a GOOD thing? fine by me. That's just a difference of political opinion. but those who deny that people like Cass Sunstien and Van Jones and Valarie Jarrett more other names than is worth mentioning have that goal in mind and want to paint Beck as a loon for pointing it out? That's just intellectually dishonest.

If a left winger comes out and says, for instance, "George Bush wanted to pack the court with judges who'd overturn Roe" - i wouldn't insist they were conspiracy nuts - that's TRUE.

Just oppose it on philosophical grounds. Think Beck is wrong on the political philosophy he favors? GREAT!!! That's completely different than trying to deny the things he points out are true when they self evidently are.

Quote
It is not merely that he is shouting; he seems to have abandoned fact-checking and any sort of real analysis in the process.

The funny thing about "facts" is that a lot of what people CALL facts are really opinions. most of the time when folks rip on Beck, they rip on his presentation and his opinion. Again, a non-partisan source doesn't have a long list of FACTS he got wrong. (And no Media Matters or HuffPost are not impartial sources).

And very often (this is true right or left) most of the time when someone cites facts a speaker got wrong, what they are citing is trivialities that take nothing away from the overall point being made.

Quote
He is channeling the fear and anxiety of a certain part of the nation's populace, and I understand that; however, he would do well to base his fear and anxiety on an informed analysis of the situation, rather than on conspiracies, easily disprovable claims and wildly emotional antics.

Fear is not a bad thing when there's something to be afraid of. Even the most responsible of thinkiers occasionally said "be afraid of this"

Quote
Beck is also unique in the incredible volume and tenor of his theatrics. Even when Olbermann was describing in graphic detail the experience of being with his father as he was dying, going on to use (exploit?) that no-doubt very genuine personal suffering to make a point about healthcare reform, he did not break down in probably-fake tears like Beck tends to.

I'd argue that the difference is not volume so much as tenor - Beck's hyperbole is more a smary, smart-aleky sarcastic style...Olberman's is more an outraged, angry, even bitter presentation.

One raises his voice more than the other? Perhaps. But not that relevant.

Quote
Beck also tends towards an astounding level of hyperbole in his rhetoric and his epithets that Olbermann in his worst excesses could never touch.

Like calling someone his pissed at "The Worst Person in the World"?

Like this, for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLPqAZnhsw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLPqAZnhsw#)


Feel free to cite me an example of Beck ripping anyone like that.

Quote
Olbermann also seems to be aware of the danger of his theatrics; he basically said as much in an interview with Bill Moyers. Beck does not seem to be aware that he's being theatrical at all.

You apparently have never read or watched ANY interview in which Beck has spoken of himself or his style, otherwise you'd know better. I won't comment on Olbermann's admission because I will tell you up front that if Olbermann isn't talking about baseball, I can't endure him that long. Whatever he's said of his own self awareness I'll take your word for.

All that said, I think Olberman is FAR worse than Beck on the things Beck takes criticism for. If Olberman were a right winger he'd be burned in effigy.

The right wing equivalent of Olbermann, if there is one, is Michael Savage (whom I despise)

Beck is, in very many ways, the right wing version of John Stewart, with the modifier that Stewart uses right wing politics to get humor, and Beck uses humor (often) to address left wing politics. There ultimate bottom line is slightly different but the synergy between entertaining and informing is very similar, IMO (and I enjoy the work of both men)

One other thing, most of what most left-of-center folks who do not, in fact, watch Beck know of him is what your preferred media source refer you to which is the most extreme sampling of the man's work (this is true of Limbaugh as well).

I have seen Beck take a full hour (usually at least once a week) and sit down with ONE person, often on a non-political subject, and do a quiet, thoughtful, informative, insightful interview that would compare very well with anything that Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers or any of the "big name" interviewers has ever done (and completely embarrass  clown like Larry King)

the one with Jon Huntsman about the Huntsman Cancer Centers stands ot in my memory.

Thing is, you'll never see THAT episode referanced in the left wing media. I'll bet a year's salary, if i had one, that 80% of those who most loath Beck have no idea such interviews even exist.

American civilians will never have the intel, nor the responsibility, that agents within the CIA, and special forces, contend with on a daily basis.  Given this fact, American civilians will never have any justifiable backing to judge actions of the decisions made by these individuals.

It's entirely inappropriate to attempt to audit something you know absolutely nothing of.

So don't.

Quote from: inoutallabout on April 25, 2010, 09:47:36 PM
American civilians will never have the intel, nor the responsibility, that agents within the CIA, and special forces, contend with on a daily basis.  Given this fact, American civilians will never have any justifiable backing to judge actions of the decisions made by these individuals.

It's entirely inappropriate to attempt to audit something you know absolutely nothing of.

So don't.

So rape or murder is OK depending on circumstances?

What makes them any better judge of circumstances?

Scott brown is racist, sexist, homophobic, a Tea Party sympathizer, etc. The only one I don't know anything about is the "nude model" part, which is probably just a hyperbolic representation of something I've never heard of.

Comparing Michael Savage to Olbermann is preposterous. Savage is an utter lunatic. He talks about a "homosexual Mafia," and how the government is being overtaken by this vast Communist conspiracy. His solution to the "illegal immigration problem?" Kill 'em all! Muslims? Kill 'em! Kids with autism? They just need a real, manly father to tell 'em what's what.

But seriously, Scott Brown is nuts. Really, really nuts, and really, really bigoted. He's just a really disgusting guy.

Re: FEMA camps, Glenn Beck was for the conspiracy theory before he was against it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ&feature=related#)

All of the people you mentioned Glenn Beck "uncovering" were the targets of conspiracy theory smears.

Obama is a centrist. I say this as someone with friends who are real, live, breathing socialists, communists and anarchists - not "socialists" in the sense of "capitalism with a human face" welfare state social democracy like in Europe, but actual socialists - believers in workers owning the means of production, in the lines of Eugene Debs and Big Bill Haywood. Glenn Beck and his cohort do not know the first thing about radical leftism. They use the words "socialist," "communist" and "Marxist" interchangably, as though all socialists are communists and all communists are Marxists (as opposed to, say, Luxemburgists), and never mention anarchists, because they've never even heard of them. The irony here is, of course, that there's actually a considerably larger popular anarchist movement in America than there is a communist movement. I know anarchists as well as people in Communist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation and so on, and they will all attest to this.

Beck needs to read his history, gain an understanding of Das Kapital, read about the Bolshevik-Menshevik split and the Trotsky-Lenin split after that, learn about the anarchist revolutions that were crused by Bolshevik communists. He should read up on the rise of reformism and groups like the Fabian Society in Britain, and how heatedly such groups were denounced, to the point where Stalin, megalomaniac that he was, had reformists sent to the GULAG camps or killed. "Reformist" is still a swear word amongst Marxists. A friend of mine who is a sort of Zizekian neo-Marxist, hardly a dogmatist, got frustrated with me in political conversation recently and called me "worse than a reformist." And by his lights, I am, of course - he's right.

So consider this: consider that those cursed "reformist" socialists are quite considerably to the left of the most leftist European governments. Consider then that the largest hopes that conventional left liberals had re: things like health reform have been largely dashed. Real universal health care? Forget about it. Instead, we get a bill that mimics something that was passed by Mitt Romney.

Obama is a centrist. His philosophy is Third Way, like that of Clinton; his economic policies, especially internationally, have significant neoliberal (free market) qualities. That he is willing to reinstate some small measure of the financial regulation we have had in the past is nice, but it hardly makes him a "socialist."

I've watched a fair bit of Beck, as well as other programs I find despicable - 700 Club, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. Know thine enemy.

The bottom line is that Glenn Beck does not even know what Communism is. What he is accusing Obama of is not European-style "socialism" - capitalism with regulation and a relatively large welfare state - but communism, Marxism. Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were the case, (a) he'd be a bizarre sort of Marxist-reformist-Blanquist, atttempting an election-cum-coup which sparks revolutionary change on the behalf of the workers from the inside, and (b) he'd be nationalizing absolutely everything and treating the opposition as an enemy to be crushed with military force, instead of trying to be bipartisan at enormous costs and passing very, very weak reforms.

Also, if Obama's a Marxist, where's his revolutionary working-class movement? I don't mean the popular movement that got him elected, I mean a revolutionary movement - an armed movement of working-class agitators. The Russian Revolution was not an election, it was, you know, a revolution. A massive, violent conflict.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnet.lib.byu.edu%2F%7Erdh7%2Fwwi%2Fmemoir%2FRusRev%2Fimages%2Frr19.jpg&hash=93d25bce9b07f20e6031b762e63aab7386f282bf)
Proletariat and vanguards with guns.

Glenn Beck is boxing at shadows. He's nuts. All of his theories are sheer conspiracy, no different than Joseph McCarthy or the John Birch Society were promoting during the Red Scare.

I'm sorry to say that I have very little respect for anyone who takes that man as anything more than a sad, deranged fool. It really is not about differences in policy or political philosophy; like I said, I'd have no problem with someone the likes of Francis Fukuyama, Ron Paul or William F. Buckley (who did have a TV show, Firing Line, for many years).
Those guys, IMO, are/were wrong, but they're not nuts. There's being conservative, and then there's being nuts. It's perfectly possible to be deeply conservative and quite smart; this is not about conservatives. This is about Glenn Beck and his ilk: the populist right-wing cafeteria libertarian conspiracy theorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY#)
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

I'm sorry but factcheck.org doesn't have time to keep up with all of Glenn Beck's nonsense.

Is that Dr. Strangelove reference I see?

Yep.
The great thing is that the "precious bodily fluids" conspiracy is actually a real and enduring conspiracy theory that has even managed to survive the Cold War - it wasn't invented for the film. The John Birch Society liked to squawk about such things, back in the day.

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 26, 2010, 02:53:33 AM
I'm sorry but factcheck.org doesn't have time to keep up with all of Glenn Beck's nonsense.

Most of its content consists of rebuttals to what it considers inaccurate, misleading, or false claims by politicians. FactCheck has also targeted misleading claims from various partisan groups.

^^
So why have the referances to things Beck got wrong at all, if he's not there job?

QuoteObama is a centrist

And thus the basic divide.

As Spock told McCoy about the afterlife, no conversation is possible without a common frame of referance.

On the world political stage, Obama is a centrist - on the American political spectrum, he's anything but.

Does that make him the next Che ready to lead an armed uprising? No. (though why would he when he's already in poser?)

But he doesn't have to be that to be well to the political left of most of the population, and to favor governmental actions and institutions and philosophies that are well to the left of the nominal American governmental model.

(albeit, he is simply building on the foundation FDR laid, so it's not like his chosen direction is unprecedented - just further down the same road)


All that said, I don't begrudge him his views, or the right to act (within the bounds of political propriety) on them - elections have consequences.

But the idea that he is - on the U.S. political spectrum - a centrist is so at odds with the obvious facts, IMO, that there's really no point in us even discussing it because we clearly don't start with enough basic assumptions in common for the discussion to accomplish anything.

Beck is more like a for real version of Stephen Colbert.

---

Post Merge: April 27, 2010, 03:40:05 AM

---

Oh and Obama is nowhere near as liberal as FDR was.  FDR wanted universal single payer healthcare, which Obama has never advocated for.  FDR argued for a new worker's bill of rights as well.  FDR was far and away the most liberal president we've ever had.

And not for nothing but he's the man responsible for for turning the US into a great world superpower.  I'd say Ronald Reagan, Bush II, and Clinton pretty much did their damndest to dismantle his work.

I didn't say "On the US political spectrum, he's a centrist." I said that he's a centrist on the world political spectrum - the one that stretches from fascist corporatist dictatorships and free market monarchies to left-communist (yes, there's such thing as a non-left communist) and anarchist revolutionary states. That political spectrum - the one on which the entire first world spans from center-left to center-right, with Western Europe being often left of center and America often right of center.

I still think, though, that you're mis-characterizing Barack Obama. He is not only not a leftist on the world stage, he's not a leftist on the American stage, either. Hear me out here.

Here are a few of the many ways in which Barack Obama is not the lefty you make him out to be:
-Guantanamo is still open, and don't ask him about Bagram
-He's ordered a hit on a US citizen (something the left is quite angry about)
-He's keeping us heavily militarily engaged in the Middle East
-In 2006, he voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act
-He's kept the radical and unprecedented expansions of Presidential power enacted by President Bush
-He's exploring the possibility of oil drilling in the Gulf of New Mexico
-He's pro-nuclear power
-Gay marriage? He's sort of "neither for it nor against it," waffles and takes a noncommital stance. Doesn't really want to talk about it.
-The healthcare bill he ended up championing was like a weakened version of Mitt Romney's healthcare plan for his state
-Although more critical of Israeli actions than Bush, he's still totally 100% a Zionist, and very committed to continuing our significant aid dollars to fund the Israeli military
-His first Supreme Court appointment, Sonia Sotomayor, was a bit more conservative than the justice she replaced. It is likely that his replacement for John Paul Stevens will be to the right of Stevens, as well, moving the court further to the right
-He passed a tax cut on 97% of the populace, in keeping with campaign promises
-When he did "bailout" measures, he didn't nationalize those banks and companies, or even really put much legal restriction on how they spent the money; remember that much of the left opposed the bailouts.
-His global warming legiislation, which was pretty weak-kneed to begin with, seems to have withered and died
-His cabinet is largely Clinton people
-He, like any winning candidate, is awash in corporate money
I could go on.

The left in American politics is not Barack Obama. He came from the center-left, and moved to the center. Nancy Pelosi? Yes, she's on the left. Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich? Well, of course. But America doesn't have much in the way of major leftist politicians; we've got a few really lefty ones, like Kucinich and Sanders, and then we've got the Progressive Caucus folks, like Pelosi. For context, consider that France, Japan, South Africa, India, Italy and other first world and major developing nations all have minority communist parties which hold a dedicated, small percentage of the vote, often hold a couple seats in the parliament, and regularly field also-ran and perennial candidates.

We don't have any such minority communist party in the US - not even here in the San Francisco Bay Area does any of the communist parties have any support. The Green Party is a pretty big deal, unsurprisingly, but the candidates they field aren't generally any further left than the leftiest Democrats in congress. Think about that.

For that matter, our far right is, what, Timothy McVeigh, the Huttaree Militia, the Ku Klux Klan? Britain has the British National Party; France has the Front National, the National Front. Both are far-right ultra-nationalist parties. The BNP restricts its membership to whites only; the BNP and FN leaders have both been caught on tape multiple times trivializing or playing down the Holocaust and trying to justify war crimes. Both parties are basically founded on racism and fear of the Other: women, the Scary Communists, people of color, Muslims, the Scary Gays (trans people included in the group, of course), and especially immigrants. The BNP especially are essentially fascists - they have positions remarkably in line with fascist thought. Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, has given talks to Ku Klux Klan organizations, posed with David Duke for photos.

The BNP has two seats in the European Parliament. They've got one of the 25 seats of the London Assembly. Again, think about that.

I think any characterization of contemporary American institutional politics as extreme in any direction is generally unjustified, and when there is any institutional - not underground/countercultural - extremity, it's generally right-wing, as in the Red Scare. Oh, sure, we've had our movements on both left and right, but the heyday of Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party was what, in the Great Depression? The heyday of the New Left and the 20th century KKK were both in the civil rights era. That's a long time ago.

Yeah, I know communists and anarchists. That's because I'm a queer Jewish artist and punk rocker in San Francisco. People like me attract far-leftists like flies to honey; my friends are not a representative sample of the American left (or the San Francisco left) by a long shot.

Running around saying that America's being taken over by socialists is ridiculous. It is disingenuous, it is silly, and it is simply wrong. Period.




And yeah, FDR was way more liberal than Barack Obama, and was generally pretty great. Not perfect - he signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the Japanese-American detention camps - but pretty great.

Quote from: SarahFaceDoom on April 27, 2010, 03:36:58 AM
Beck is more like a for real version of Stephen Colbert.

---

Post Merge: April 27, 2010, 02:40:05 AM

---

Oh and Obama is nowhere near as liberal as FDR was.  FDR wanted universal single payer healthcare, which Obama has never advocated for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE#)


Modified later thusly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE&feature=related#)

Note that even in this he says we can't "immediately" or "rapidly" transition...and implies that over time we end up with single payer.

So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

Would you mind addressing the rest of my post?

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 04:02:32 AM
So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

This is one point where I seriously disagree. I think single payer health plan would be the biggest mistake this nation could ever make.

Quote from: LordKAT on April 27, 2010, 06:57:26 AM
This is one point where I seriously disagree. I think single payer health plan would be the biggest mistake this nation could ever make.

...because you don't know the first thing about our country's miserable healthcare system and the 10,000 ways in which it is a) miserably broken and b) jaw-droppingly expensive because it's miserably broken.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
...because you don't know the first thing about our country's miserable healthcare system and the 10,000 ways in which it is a) miserably broken and b) jaw-droppingly expensive because it's miserably broken.

DO NOT EVER presume to know what I do or do not know. I know plenty about how and why it is broken. That doesn't meant that single payer is the correct solution. I understand that you think it is. I do not. Both are opinion, not fact.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 04:02:32 AM
So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

Would you mind addressing the rest of my post?

Respectfully, Ireally don't see the point. We see the world in two different ways, and we'd just end up frustrating each other.

I could take an hour and run down your list (like pointing out, for instance, that Gitmo isn't open because Obama WANTS it open but because he's finding out what Bush already knew - there's no other way to do what is being done there. Liberalism very often has the failing of being a nice ideal that actually won't work in real life) but, just as you no doubt categorically disagree with my last sentence, so all that writing would accomplish . . . nothing.

Frankly, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen without animosity or bloodshed, I'd love to see the political map of North America rearranged so that people with your worldview were able to live under the government you approve of and folks with mine were able to do likewise - and I say that admitting I'd probably have to live in your country because of being on the wrong side of LGBT issues.

It troubles me that we spend so much time in this country yelling past each other both sides convinced the other CAN'T be too "stupid" to see what is so obvious to them.

Ovr the years I've learned that sometimes a discussion gets to the point where all you can do is agree to disagree and talk about baseball (or whatever) instead.

Yeah, you're right, of course. I think that Gitmo actually harms our national security interests by providing something terrible that hardcore Islamists can point to and say "Look! The US really IS the Great Satan!" I also think that it is morally inexcusable under any circumstances.
No surprises there.

I often wonder if breaking up the United States wouldn't be such a bad idea myself. The problem is that we'd end up with a sandwich -  the United States of Diversity And Free Hugs on the coasts, and the Loose Confederation of Minimally Governed Freedom-Lovers in the middle.

The San Francisco Bay Area could secede, but how could we go up against the Pentagon? The closest thing we've got to military material are riot-savvy anarchists and the Earth Liberation Front. You can't take down fighter jets with Molotov cocktails and tree spikes. The dip->-bleeped-<-s over in Berkeley would spend all their time being useless and meditating for peace, and Mayor Newsom would spend all his time getting sworn at vehemently by Chris Daly and combing his greasy hair.

...
On the subject of traditional American values, you know what American tradition I value? Damned fine domestic architecture.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fci.mount-dora.fl.us%2Fvertical%2FSites%2F%257BB57363BB-8A05-49A7-AE31-DBFCAAA4A5EF%257D%2Fuploads%2F%257B360BE965-CDBA-4796-A317-585E7FF6A89F%257D.JPG&hash=3b1bb7f71f076229602abb7990fe809a121f3186)
The J.P. Donnelly house, Mt. Dora, Florida. Queen Anne style, 1893.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2F10621509.jpg&hash=f5ba3de444831baae8299fce4698c9529ba0127a)
The Heck-Andrews house, Raleigh, North Carolina. Second Empire style, 1870.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.rcn.com%2Fscndempr%2Fdave%2Fbedbreak%2Feast%2FMass02.jpg&hash=a812af043ed55865a3c7c070d8c1e07ce5e0ed5b)
The Rotch house, New Bedford, Massachussetts. Gothic Revival style, 1845.



Because drool-inducing bargeboarding and scrollwork is a non-partisan issue.

PanoramaIsland if we were to split up the states it should probably be right down the middle. If the conservatives had control of the middle of the country could you imagine the horror of traveling through their territory. Of course being GLBT would be against the law. There would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

QuoteThere would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

There would be no open game if people respected the culture of the land they are in.

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 28, 2010, 03:12:49 AM
PanoramaIsland if we were to split up the states it should probably be right down the middle. If the conservatives had control of the middle of the country could you imagine the horror of traveling through their territory. Of course being GLBT would be against the law. There would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

Point of order: if you were doing a 50/50 split it shouldn't be DOWN the middle but ACROSS the middle.

But in reality, there is no straight line division which is practical.

My suggestion, based on election results, goes like this:

Draw a line Eastward extending from the southern border of Iowa...
Draw a line north from the westernmost point of DC...
Continue until those two lines intersect...

Everything directly north and East of those lines (and East of the Potomac River) can be ceded to Canada, along with the coastal counties o the Pacific Coast as far south as LA

In return, the southernmost populated areas of the plains provinces can vote, by local option but all as one unit, to join the remaining US or stick with Canada.

Thus, if you were afraid to travel through "Jesusland" (as one blogger derisively put it) then you could connect through Edmonton or some such.

That said, i scoff at the idea that the remaining states would suddenly become a killing field for LGBT people (at least, to any greater extent than any place is now)

But yeah, getting recognized and protected in law would be a few more generations in coming. Conservative folks more and more are learning to separate economic conservatism from social conservatism, but it's gonna take time.

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 29, 2010, 12:59:47 PM
Point of order: if you were doing a 50/50 split it shouldn't be DOWN the middle but ACROSS the middle.

But in reality, there is no straight line division which is practical.

My suggestion, based on election results, goes like this:

Draw a line Eastward extending from the southern border of Iowa...
Draw a line north from the westernmost point of DC...
Continue until those two lines intersect...

Everything directly north and East of those lines (and East of the Potomac River) can be ceded to Canada, along with the coastal counties o the Pacific Coast as far south as LA

In return, the southernmost populated areas of the plains provinces can vote, by local option but all as one unit, to join the remaining US or stick with Canada.

Thus, if you were afraid to travel through "Jesusland" (as one blogger derisively put it) then you could connect through Edmonton or some such.

That said, i scoff at the idea that the remaining states would suddenly become a killing field for LGBT people (at least, to any greater extent than any place is now)

But yeah, getting recognized and protected in law would be a few more generations in coming. Conservative folks more and more are learning to separate economic conservatism from social conservatism, but it's gonna take time.

Have you ever used the term "take our country back"?

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 29, 2010, 02:41:39 PM
Have you ever used the term "take our country back"?

I HATE that term!

Most of all because both sides like to use it whenever the other side is in power. It has no real meaning at all.

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 29, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
I HATE that term!

Most of all because both sides like to use it whenever the other side is in power. It has no real meaning at all.

Good. Thanks. :)

Getting back to the OP, by the time Americans finish talking about it, the couta will have moved through three different countries.
The Israelis or the British would have simply bumped him off and not said a word about it.