2012 Debates

[RandFan]

BTW:

Al, the report is predicated on historical facts. The GOP economists looked at real world data to find the most successful strategies. Now, what have you got to show those stupid GOP experts that they are full of ****? Seriously?

 

[TheSapient]

Assign all the weight you wish to the steering committees of those organizations.

I have seven physicians (the link plus 6 of mine) that don't agree.

Can you tell me where I can read the actual opinions of these 7 people? I can go to the American Medical Association and examine their detailed and well argued reasons for supporting the ACA. Why is your claim that 7 doctors oppose the ACA more compelling than the data supported conclusions of the largest organization of medical professionals in the US?

 

[AlBell]

Given the nightmare Bush and his policies gave us I'm pretty happy with where we are at. I wish it were better but blaming all of that on Obama is, IMO, seriously dishonest.

I'll go with:

16 trillion debt; Obama's fault
20+- million un- or under-employed; Obama's fault via policies
increase in foodstamps and GDP growth anemic; Obama's policies

I know you believe Krugman & Stiglitz are correct; I and I suspect many others find them left-wing apologists/cheerleaders, and fools.

 

[AlBell]

Contact the GOP economists who wrote the report.

Thats your problem, not mine.

Let us know what you find out.

 

[marksman]

That is such rank BS. As one who actively participates in Draw Mohammad day I can say that Obama's words do not at all constitute "blame America" attitude.

Randfan, you know (assuming you haven't completely gone off the deep end into irrationality) that participating in Draw Mohammed Day doesn't entitle you to any special authority on this matter.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a president calling for respect of other cultures and beliefs.

Context is everything. In the context of discussing these specific attacks, yes, it can be seen as a problem. If my son was killed by someone, I don't want a public figure to comment on the event by saying "We condemn the killer of his poor boy -- of course we should always remember that lots of murderers come from disavdantaged backgrounds which leave them little opportunity outside crime to find ways to support their families." Even if true, poverty doesn't diminish the guilt of those who killed my son

Obama's Rose Garden speech was specifically discussing the tragic deaths of the four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya. In that context, saying things like "we condemn any attempt to be insensitive to religion", even if true, in context is saying that insensitivity is to blame in part for these people's deaths and to absolve, in part, the actual murderers. Particularly since at the time of the statement, the American government still hadn't determined whether the cultural insensitivity (i.e., the YouTube video) had even been a motivating factor -- and the government subsequently determined it did not.

Yes, it's a President's job to be diplomatic, not only to foreign powers, but to your constituents. I can totally see the argument that Obama's statement are insensitive in a way that reveals a reflex in his Administration to seek to diminish the culpability of the wrongdoers by pointing some blame back at America.

You poo-poo this as "rank BS" at your peril.

 

[AlBell]

Al, the report is predicated on historical facts. The GOP economists looked at real world data to find the most successful strategies. Now, what have you got to show those stupid GOP experts that they are full of ****? Seriously?

I don't assert they are; what I do assert is that what we need are the changes to the current tax regimes to reach that result.

I suspect they no more know that answer than you or I, but once you ask them you should have an actual answer to back up a cite you continue to provide.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, you know (assuming you haven't completely gone off the deep end into irrationality) that participating in Draw Mohammed Day doesn't entitle you to any special authority on this matter.

Yeah, that would be a straw man. I make the point to note my bias.

Context is everything. In the context of discussing these specific attacks, yes, it can be seen as a problem.

I'm sorry but you can't rescue this nonsense. You really can't. It's not simply that it is insulting, and it is, it's that it is entirely wrong.

Yes, it's a President's job to be diplomatic, not only to foreign powers, but to your constituents. I can totally see the argument that Obama's statement are insensitive in a way that reveals a reflex in his Administration to seek to diminish the culpability of the wrongdoers by pointing some blame back at America.

That is offensive to both intelligence on honesty. Obama's words do no such thing.

 

[RandFan]

I don't assert they are; what I do assert is that what we need are the changes to the current tax regimes to reach that result.

I suspect they no more know that answer than you or I, but once you ask them you should have an actual answer to back up a cite you continue to provide.

You are trying to make something that is not controversial into something controversial. I don't know how many times I can make a point while you ignore it. The GOP economists relied on historical data. They had not motivation to cherry pick in order to support a bias. They relied on solid empirical data that you denigrate.

 

[AlBell]

Can you tell me where I can read the actual opinions of these 7 people?

One is in the cite; 6 are personal communications from physicians who aver they soon will not be seeing me or my wife or accepting new medicare-medicaid patients.

I can go to the American Medical Association and examine their detailed and well argued reasons for supporting the ACA. Why is your claim that 7 doctors oppose the ACA more compelling than the data supported conclusions of the largest organization of medical professionals in the US?

Let us know if what you find is detailed and well argued reasons for supporting the ACA.

Who you plan your future on is up to you. I don't see your age in your profile but I suspect you are many years away from worrying about medicare-medicaid.

Were I still young I too might think ObamaCare is a good deal. As it is I do not.

 

[RandFan]

One is in the cite; 6 are personal communications from physicians who aver they soon will not be seeing me or my wife or accepting new medicare-medicaid patients.


Let us know if what you find is detailed and well argued reasons for supporting the ACA.

Who you plan your future on is up to you. I don't see your age in your profile but I suspect you are many years away from worrying about medicare-medicaid.

Were I still young I too might think ObamaCare is a good deal. As it is I do not.

Romeny's plan is to leave me without insurance. I'm 52 and under Romney's plan I'm screwed royally.

 

[AlBell]

You are trying to make something that is not controversial into something controversial. I don't know how many times I can make a point while you ignore it. The GOP economists relied on historical data. They had not motivation to cherry pick in order to support a bias. They relied on solid empirical data that you denigrate.

Asking for the changes needed to arrive at their 15% increase is not denigrating their study ... as we both know.

 

[RandFan]

Asking for the changes needed to arrive at their 15% increase is not denigrating their study ... as we both know.

These are experts and you are suggesting that we cannot trust them because of your ignorance. I'm sorry but that IS denigrating them and the report. If there is something you don't know WRITE them. But calling the report into question isn't helping anything.

 

[TheSapient]

One is in the cite; 6 are personal communications from physicians who aver they soon will not be seeing me or my wife or accepting new medicare-medicaid patients.

Like you, the columnist at the link you provided simply claims to know a doctor who opposes the ACA. Now, I am not saying you are lying about knowing 6 doctors. But I have way to gauge their level of knowledge regarding health care policy, how much political allegiance factors into their views, how much thought they have put into the issue, or how well you are representing their views. You can see why yours is not a very compelling argument when contrasted with the endorsements of all those medical associations.

Let us know if what you find is detailed and well argued reasons for supporting the ACA.

Who you plan your future on is up to you. I don't see your age in your profile but I suspect you are many years away from worrying about medicare-medicaid.

Were I still young I too might think ObamaCare is a good deal. As it is I do not.

I'm 41, and currently fighting colon cancer. I'm also a father and a husband with parents in their 70's. I care a great deal about health care. The views of these large groups of doctors informs my understanding. A second hand account of someone who says he knows people who disagree...not so much.

 

[marksman]

I'm sorry but you can't rescue this nonsense. You really can't. It's not simply that it is insulting, and it is, it's that it is entirely wrong.

That is offensive to both intelligence on honesty. Obama's words do no such thing.

Just as your participation is the fallacy of false authority, simply guffawing at a post I spent effort, thought and time making is both disrespectful and utterly devoid of rational argument.

And to remind you, I am voting for Obama. I do not agree with the Republican argument. But I am not so far gone into partisanship and bias that I am unable to understand other people's viewpoints, even as I disagree with them. You keep making a point to admit your bias, but you appear to make no effort to put that bias aside long enough to understand other people's points of view. Your responses have been the complete opposite of what this forum is supposed to be about.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It can be seen as a "Blame America" attitude, particularly when the actions that are being blamed are private citizens' actions that fall squarely within permissible behavior.

I'm not sure disrespectful behavior from an individual, even if legal, is necessarily beneath criticism from the President. I'm also not sure how it could possibly be seen as "blame America".

We Americans call out fellow Americans on all kinds of disrespectful behavior, but I don't see anyone calling that "blame America". Does that phrase only apply to calling out disrespectful behavior toward anything non-American? If so, why the double standard?

 

[marksman]

I'm not sure disrespectful behavior from an individual, even if legal, is necessarily beneath criticism from the President.

In context. If you condemn, apropos of nothing, the Innocence of Muslims, it's no big deal. It's a crappy mean attack on Islam. (Innocence fo Muslims is an attack on Islam, that is, not the condemnation of it.)

If you condemn the Innocence of Muslims during a speech about the death of four Americans in Libya by Muslim extremists, the context indicates you think that the film is a cause of the deaths, meaning you think the extremists are not entirely to blame for what happened.

Nobody is saying Obama cannot condemn that YouTube video. The argument is that the timing of that condemnation says a lot about Obama's predisposition and priorities.

And, again, I am voting for Obama.

 

[RandFan]

Just as your participation is the fallacy of false authority, simply guffawing at a post I spent effort, thought and time making is both disrespectful and utterly devoid of rational argument.

Your post is absurd.

And to remind you, I am voting for Obama.

I don't care. You are being absurd. It really is intellectually offensive.

Nothing, NOTHING Obama said was "blame America' and I'm really sick of that propaganda. It's seriously nauseating.

 

[RandFan]

INobody is saying Obama cannot condemn that YouTube video. The argument is that the timing of that condemnation says a lot about Obama's predisposition and priorities.

BS. Absolute and utter BS.

And, again, I am voting for Obama.

Doesn't change the fact that Obama appropriately made a very reasonable point. It was diplomatic and rational. I don't care who you are voting for. Asserting that Obama was blaming America is A.) wrong B.) idiotic C.) offensive in the extreme.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, but you probably won't hear about it. Basic security considerations would demand that any "improvements" remain confidential. It would be beyond foolish to announce them.

Maybe, but making clear that it was a fault within the administration and aiming to move on whatever information is NOW available is still reasonable. If they were relatively consistent in their communication internally on this matter then it's likely the public perception of the administration being incompetent or negligent as it is would be less. To be clear, they ultimately had Hillary Clinton taking responsibility as well as the state department, but that was still after having everyone in complete chaos on it before. There's always going to be a sect of the voting block that doesn't care about how the details are divided up once the impression is made... They view discrepancies from one department as a representation of them plus everyone else even despite clarification.

Housing and auto industries stabilized, stock market doing extremely well, great gains on the war on international terror, forward-looking policy on social issues, almost all indicators point to ongoing recovery, and most important, not returning to the policies that led to the recession. Much better evidence than Romney is providing... of anything.

Not just at you BTW... Weren't some of the factors in the recession linked to the housing bubble that was in turn the product of policies created by several prior administrations? I view issues with the debt to be the same on this one... as Clinton is the only recent president to end his term with any kind of budget surplus. The wars were a major part of Bush's section of the current debt, but Obama's policies have helped to accelerate it, and that's a long-term worry comparable to the time it took for the housing bubble to come to a head. One of the reasons why I have little faith in the ideas they've been putting forward... Obama's 4 trillion dollar reduction is even a stretch.... Improvements under the current state of affairs are relatively short term influences that I don't think either of them actually grasp.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The wars were a major part of Bush's section of the current debt, but Obama's policies have helped to accelerate it,

Evidence?