• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

AlBell said:
I haven't seen a published study yet.

Those comments are shared by our 2 GP's, 2 surgeons, an endocrinologist and a nephrologist; that is they will not be accepting new medicaid patients and may well not accept new medicare parients either.

I do agree 'not persuasive' ... for skeptics here.
Click to expand...
The mind boggles that the apocalypse hasn't occurred in other nations with UHC or in Massachusetts.
 
So, to make sure I have this correct, if I get angry and act on that anger and do so by using an act of terror like burning down someone's house with the intent to terrorize them, that's not terrorism?
 
RandFan said:
I could give a list of ideas but since I don't endorse them it could be argued a straw man.

So yeah, someone from the right, if this isn't simply a game of gotcha politics then answer the question, what were the specific negative repercussions? Or are you going with the every popular conspiracy theory that the Obama administration was trying to cover it up?
Click to expand...
Doing so rather than trying to, yes.
 
RandFan said:
So, to make sure I have this correct, if I get angry and act on that anger and do so by using an act of terror like burning down someone's house with the intent to terrorize them, that's not terrorism?
Click to expand...

If the homeowner was your only target, then no, it's not terrorism. It's just arson.
 
AlBell said:
I haven't seen a published study yet.

Those comments are shared by our 2 GP's, 2 surgeons, an endocrinologist and a nephrologist; that is they will not be accepting new medicaid patients and may well not accept new medicare parients either.

I do agree 'not persuasive' ... for skeptics here.
Click to expand...

I don't even see how this is supposed to be evidence that the ACA expects doctors to work for free.
 
AlBell said:
Doing so rather than trying to, yes.
Click to expand...
Evidence? And seriously, given what Tricky has argued, what's the point? Seriously? Conspiracies typically fail and cause more harm than not. There's no serious reason to suppose there was a cover up. A terrorist attack was as harmful to American interests as a riot would have been. It's silly hoped for ad hoc rationalization that requires suspension of critical thinking and skepticism as I've already laid out.
 
Ziggurat said:
If the homeowner was your only target, then no, it's not terrorism. It's just arson.
Click to expand...

Here are the elements that distinguish international terrorism from other crimes in U.S. Law:

appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
Click to expand...

Even without knowing whether or not the murders of the Ambassador and the others was planned in advance or done by some organized and identified terrorist group, they did "appear" to have this purpose and otherwise have these elements. It was fair of Obama to refer to the attack as an act of terrorism even without knowing yet whether it was a planned or organized attack carried out by a recognized terrorist group.
 
AlBell said:
With ObamaCare we don't have UHC...
Click to expand...
To the extent that we don't (and it's debatable) it's a matter of degree. But so what? Why is that important in the context of the point you brought up?

...and Mass. isn't a federal level problem.
Click to expand...
Again, why is that important in the context of the point you brought up?

Al, this is the very example of ad hoc rationalization. You are using any possible pretext to justify a preconceived narrative due to bias. That we don't have UHC or that Massachusetts isn't a federal program are entirely irrelevant to the point you brought up.
 
{sigh}

ter·ror·ism


  1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Click to expand...
So, if I burn down my neighbors house because I'm angry that I found out he was going to run against me in the election and I burn down his house to intimidate him, that's not terrorism?

Jesus somethings are like pulling teeth.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. That's just plain murder. But there IS a special distinction for terrorism, which is the point.
Click to expand...
Well, there appear to be two; the one made under Title 18, and the one under Title 22. My question as to whether the definition under Title 22 supercedes the one under Title 18 was not rhetorical; I really don't know the answer. But since you're the one insisting on going by strict legal definitions, I see it as your obligation to do the work involved in establishing that the strict legal definition you're going by actually is the one -- and only one -- that applies here.

How has he accepted it? By simply stating "I'm responsible"?
Click to expand...
He didn't simply state "I'm responsible". He said "we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible". Implicit in that is that part of the accountability process will involve making whatever changes are deemed necessary.

Until he starts being open about what went wrong (both before AND after the attacks), he's not doing anything more than mouthing platitudes.
Click to expand...
Well, there does seem to be a great deal of emphasis being placed on what he has and has not mouthed -- but when it comes to details of some of these inner workings, it's another area where a certain amount of caution may be prudent. There is little doubt that these proceedings are being carefully watched by hostile groups that would easily meet any definition of "terrorist", and who would be eager for even the smallest pieces of information regarding weaknesses in the security protocols for US foreign diplomatic missions. A lot of the trick to maintaining good security is not to reveal too much about the methods you use in achieving that.
 
Dymanic said:
He didn't simply state "I'm responsible". He said "we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible". Implicit in that is that part of the accountability process will involve making whatever changes are deemed necessary.
Click to expand...

As they say, promises, promises.

Well, there does seem to be a great deal of emphasis being placed on what he has and has not mouthed -- but when it comes to details of some of these inner workings, it's another area where a certain amount of caution may be prudent.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for a lot of sensitive operational detail. But it doesn't compromise anyone else's safety to note that our ambassador had no Marine contingent, the security detail that was with him was too small, inadequately armed, and essentially untrained, and the consulate itself was protected by nothing more than ordinary door locks. These failures were all peculiar to that specific event, and do not represent the general state of diplomatic security.

There is little doubt that these proceedings are being carefully watched by hostile groups that would easily meet any definition of "terrorist", and who would be eager for even the smallest pieces of information regarding weaknesses in the security protocols for US foreign diplomatic missions. A lot of the trick to maintaining good security is not to reveal too much about the methods you use in achieving that.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you should mention how terrorists view our response, given the administration's craven grovelling regarding the YouTube video. And given the colossal failure that Benghazi security turned out to be, exposing details of that failure had better not compromise security anywhere else, or that security is already far too lax.
 
AlBell said:
You mean like ObamaCare expects doctors to do? :rolleyes:

http://townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2012/10/19/obamacare_may_be_around_but_will_your_doctor
Click to expand...
Hmm, to which should I assign more weight...?

A second hand anecdote posted at a right wing blog?

Or the fact that "Obamacare" was endorsed by the American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology?
 
varwoche said:
Or the fact that "Obamacare" was endorsed by the American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology?
Click to expand...

Is this true? I guess I could go try to Google it all but I am pretty surprised by this. I am not surprised by the fact that they all endorse Obamacare (if this is true), I am surprised that this is the first time I have heard of it.

Time after time I come to the conclusion that Obama is much better at leading than marketing. That is one impressive list that he and his team should be talking about yet I doubt most people know just how impressive the list is (again if it is an accurate list).
 
Ziggurat said:
But it doesn't compromise anyone else's safety to note that our ambassador had no Marine contingent, the security detail that was with him was too small, inadequately armed, and essentially untrained, and the consulate itself was protected by nothing more than ordinary door locks. These failures were all peculiar to that specific event, and do not represent the general state of diplomatic security.
Click to expand...
That's quite a claim, Zig. Do you have a source for what security measures are typically in place at consulates and embassies around the world? Or even in Islamic countries? Or even the Middle East?
 
AlBell said:
Mass. isn't a federal level problem.
Click to expand...

Which makes it an even better example. Why are there still doctors in Mass.? Surely they could have afforded to pack up and leave the socialist hellhole and move an hours drive down the road?
 
Ziggurat said:
As they say, promises, promises.
Click to expand...
Your criticism strikes me as premature. You might keep in mind that if there are issues with communication between the White House and the State Department, or between the State Department and any of its Bureaus or operatives, or anything of that nature, rectifying that sort of situation is not a process that can easily be hampered by GOP obstructionism. I don't see Obama as the kind of leader who would be comfortable sacrificing a member of his team as a scapegoat with purely political means in mind, but if there is a situation that can best be solved by the rolling of heads, I don't see him being the least bit bashful about it. Regardless of whether that happens or not, or whether it is done openly or quietly, one thing that is certain is that Republicans will howl.

I'm not asking for a lot of sensitive operational detail.
Click to expand...
I find it slightly comical that you followed that statement with a list of operational details which might reasonably be considered sensitive. The larger concerns would appear to me to be the possibility of problems related to the internal workings of the State Department; say, with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. If the "openness" you are demanding calls for a public airing of specifics related to the way that agency operates, I would hope you could see how that might create security problems in and of itself.

These failures were all peculiar to that specific event, and do not represent the general state of diplomatic security.
Click to expand...
I think you might want to reconsider whether that's an argument you really want to make. The conclusion it would lead to is that Benghazi was a fluke, and not representative of any widespread problems with the way diplomatic security is being handled under the current administration. In fact, as a consulate, rather than an embassy (and a temporary one at that), it's a slam dunk that Benghazi is not representative of the general state of diplomatic security.

It's interesting that you should mention how terrorists view our response, given the administration's craven grovelling regarding the YouTube video.
Click to expand...
I reject your description of the response on all counts, and would ask: Would it have been better if they had endorsed it? Do YOU endorse that video's message? How would YOU have handled the response?

And given the colossal failure that Benghazi security turned out to be, exposing details of that failure had better not compromise security anywhere else, or that security is already far too lax.
Click to expand...
That obviously is not the case, as part of the response to the Benghazi attack was an immediate order for increased security at all overseas facilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom