@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

@newtboy

not to butt my nose in...
ah who am i kidding..of course i am going to butt my nose in.

you and space are getting caught up on definitions.
neo-conservative which is a fairly new political philosophy from the 1960's by irving kristol,whose name you may recognize as bill-the bloody- kristol (weekly standard) father.

prior to neoconservatism was.../drum roll
neoliberalism.

the fundamental difference is what you alluded to newt,but in my opinion were far too gracious in your definition.
while neoconservatism is far more hawkish,seeing american and "manifest destiny" as her right,and being a global power has a right to use that power to serve her interests,even if that be way of military force.the ultimate goal is to spread american excellence to the world in the form of markets.we sell our awesome and they buy,and we extract what we need for our interests a.k.a business baby.

neoliberalism may be more "dovish" but the goals are the same:political and financial dominance.

and the results are very similar as well.
so while neoliberalism may use economic hitmen,the IMF and the GTO to impose the will of american buisiness,and the neoconservatives may rely on the military heavily..

countries are still stripped of their resources,their labor exploited and a starbucks on every corner.their sovereignty is more a suggestion than an actual respective entity.

both philosophies are abhorrent and destructive and cause incredible suffering....and death.

i am super high right now,so if i misread your guys conflict..please forgive.
if i read it right and helped..
you are welcome!

Just watch Bill Kristol on any Jon Stewart appearance...the guy is a moron. What's worse is he's a moron when arguing with Jon Stewart who has very limited knowledge of the military industrial complex.

>> ^chicchorea:

Forgiven, absolutely, likewise please.
Funny how idiots are drawn to each other.
Oops, guess I just called myself an idiot.
Anyway, not here for this. Sorry. You 're right, not about everything, but who is?


Randolph Scott.

You'll have to forgive me. Your psychobabble reminds me of an idiot named choggie that used to be here. He's gone now.

Well you better get back to upvoting everything. Only about 60,000 videos to go. >> ^chicchorea:

Powerful.
Why don't you go find Choggie. HUNT DOG HUNT!
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Dumb.>> ^chicchorea:
I'll bite. Big black dot over here!
That right? They're wrong? These people are wrong are they not? They are only speaking through their pain aren't they? They are being manipulated to say something they do not feel to be true, and wouldn't say otherwise would they? Or this has been contextually edited hasn't it?
They don't represent the majority of people in this country do they? Oh, but they do?
If so, the majority is wrong, yes? The majority has been wrong before has it not?
Recently is seems, huh? A new majority seems to think we are living through that mistake now, does it not?
The only groups, majority, minority, or otherwise, that seems to be right is that which agrees with....
Ya'll finish that statement. We know you and your POV is the only one that is right, left right, left right. Sorry, step is locked.
See it every day.

Powerful.

Now why don't you go find Choggie. HUNT DOG HUNT!

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Dumb.>> ^chicchorea:
I'll bite. Big black dot over here!
That right? They're wrong? These people are wrong are they not? They are only speaking through their pain aren't they? They are being manipulated to say something they do not feel to be true, and wouldn't say otherwise would they? Or this has been contextually edited hasn't it?
They don't represent the majority of people in this country do they? Oh, but they do?
If so, the majority is wrong, yes? The majority has been wrong before has it not?
Recently is seems, huh? A new majority seems to think we are living through that mistake now, does it not?
The only groups, majority, minority, or otherwise, that seems to be right is that which agrees with....
Ya'll finish that statement. We know you and your POV is the only one that is right, left right, left right. Sorry, step is locked.
See it every day.

Dumb.>> ^chicchorea:

I'll bite. Big black dot over here!
That right? They're wrong? These people are wrong are they not? They are only speaking through their pain aren't they? They are being manipulated to say something they do not feel to be true, and wouldn't say otherwise would they? Or this has been contextually edited hasn't it?
They don't represent the majority of people in this country do they? Oh, but they do?
If so, the majority is wrong, yes? The majority has been wrong before has it not?
Recently is seems, huh? A new majority seems to think we are living through that mistake now, does it not?
The only groups, majority, minority, or otherwise, that seems to be right is that which agrees with....
Ya'll finish that statement. We know you and your POV is the only one that is right, left right, left right. Sorry, step is locked.
See it every day.

Bill Kristol scares the begeezus out of me.

Well, I guess I'm convinced now. If Kristol doesn't like it, it -must- be a good thing for the rest of us. I can't think of -any- issue when he's been on the right side.

Why? To go to war.

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.")

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...
You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.


I enjoyed the passive aggressiveness of your response. Thanks!

This was a flippant remark. Let me explain. A "shallow, or lacking in seriousness" comment that was made because it was late at night and I was tired. I will try to make the flippancy of future remarks more noticeable, should they be flippant.

Did it really look like an effort to have add a serious comment? I'll try to make up for the misunderstanding with a more serious response. I find it ineffective and irritating to discuss health care because it is rare for people to sit down and discuss a topic thoroughly. Near impossible on the internet. Why do you believe it? What information are you using? Is that information reliable? Has that information been interpreted or affected by how the it was obtained that skewed it in a direction and can you correct for it... and agree on the correction? Just look at some of the arguments above. Try to remove yourself from your personal beliefs and read both sides from a critical point of view. There are many different issues being discussed and people are fairly set in their beliefs. This won't end in a rational discussion because people approach it as an argument. In an argument, someone wins and someone loses (wins and loses broken up into partials.) However, on the internet, arguments usually end up in stalemates.

Let's be honest here. Although my original comment was flippant, there was a twinge of seriousness there. There are brainwashed people who are against free public health care. I'm referring to the people who get information from their favorite tv/radio host or some personally-respected person and believes them verbatim. No effort to investigate, no curiosity at all. That's fine because we can't be curious about everything, but those people will hold onto their beliefs, pushing them as facts, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, these people exists on all sides of an issue.

As for military medical, I spent 6 years in the Navy. Most of the medical was atrocious. There were a few good doctors and you did your best to become friends with them. Of course it is just anecdotal evidence, but there is quite a bit of it.

>> ^fford:
Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time.

Well, I was just using your words. But let's be honest. All taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. So, if you're going to call one instance of taxation and spending "robbing and paying off," then you're calling all instances of it that. So, unless you have some Constitutional law to back up the claim that Congress is not allowed to levy taxes and appropriate those revenues as it sees fit, then just concede the point. Ranting about it just makes you look silly.


>> ^quantumushroom:
There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You talk about the Founders' intent as though they were some sort of hive mind of uniform thought. They disagreed heavily about what the role of the federal government was. If, when they came to a concensus, they had intended to strictly limit Congress' authority to spend revenues, they would have done so. Instead they did just the opposite by including the "common defense and general welfare" clause.

The general welfare clause is analagous to the 9th Amendment. Where the 9th Amendment notes that the previous 8 do not delineate all of the rights held by the people, the general welfare clause provides Congress with broad appropriation authority over and above those specifically listed. Realizing that it would be foolhardy to try to delineate all possible reasons for the Congress to appropriate funds, several very important ones are specifically noted, and then a clause is included to make sure that Congress was not limited to just those listed.


>> ^quantumushroom:
It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power grab.

I don't believe any such thing. Of course all institutions will hold onto and try to expand their authority. But the logical conclusion of your point is anarchy. We create institutions and grant them power realizing that they will tend to grow and need to be limited. I agree with you that the federal government oversteps its bounds all the time. The Commerce clause is more abused than a foster child. But the reality of institutional power cannot by itself be a reason not to create an institution. Every agency of every government has this problem, especially those dealing with law enforcement. But we're not going to abolish them for that reason. We implement oversight, accountability, and reform when necessary.


>> ^quantumushroom:
The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

Government sponsored insurance is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would entail all health care providers being government employees and hospitals being owned and operated by government agencies. Government sponsored health insurance is just what it says it is. Insurance. This already exists in nearly every other insurance domain - auto insurance, flood insurance, home owner's insurance in hurricane zones, etc. None of those insurance programs have displaced private insurers. (Flood insurance is solely available from the National Flood Insurance Program only because no private insurer will underwrite flood policies - you can't make money doing that.)


>> ^quantumushroom:
The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.
Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.


Your arguments would carry much more weight if you didn't act like a child by using phrases like "Obamessiah," "federal mafia," "wait for the Muslims to take over," etc. Seriously, stuff like that just makes you sound like an ultra-right-wing nutjob. There are cogent arguments to be made against government sponsored health insurance, but when you embed them in language like that, they tend to be laughed at, as do you.

>> ^gtjwkq:
That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

This is something I have discussed before in other places, and on other forums. Both with Americans and Canadians. If you look at Canada's federal health act, it comes down to a whopping 24 sections or so. That's it. When I started reading the American one, and hit section 100, I thought that the guys in Washington were insane.

The whole point of the Cdn. federal health act is to say: Hey, we don't know how the provinces operate, we don't know what the people need, and we sure don't know where you need the resources or where. You deal with it, and if there's budget shortfalls come let us know and we'll pick up the cost, by taking it out of the general revenue fund(or equalization payments). We'll make sure it's spent properly(oversight), and make sure that it's running smoothly, and if the system needs help, we'll do what needs to be done. But if people are dying because you can't provide care, you and I are going to have a big talk. Fed to province.

End of story.

Now, sounds pretty good. There's other issues in Canada on this. But the reality is, Canada and the US in forms of government aren't that different at a state/provincial level. Both are highly independent, and both want the federal government to piss the hell off. So if you want this to happen, that's what I'd suggest and people should be telling their congressmen the same as well. To make it work, it may require one of two things. Either nationwide tax(icky), or each state will be required to pay a 'health coverage' surcharge or levy(akin to a tax) excess funds are then dumped to a general health revenue fund for all states(offlimits to anything else), and states which come up short can with oversight get money from it to cover deficits. We have something similar up here for it as well. Again long drawn out thing that I don't want to yammer on about right now.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.


Generally the more that people get healthcare, the longer they live. The longer they live, the longer and more productive members of society they are. Generally when someone goes to the hospital when they don't have healthcare, it's because it's do or die. That is, they're about to die. They're not ready, so better off to live. Unfortunately, that's a rather huge burden to place on the system, compared to say treating the underlying cause the first time a round.

An example: A man goes to his doctor, finds out that he's got an ulcer. Get medication. Ulcer goes away.
Flip it around: A man doesn't go to his doctor, ulcer keeps going, becomes peptic, nearly kills him. Spends 3-8 weeks in the hospital in recovery, may have lost their job that they couldn't afford to lose in the first place.

Now depending on the province, not all medications are covered. However, a lot of doctors do swing things on the by-and-by to get you what you need for next to nothing. They're generally pretty good folks, and walk in clinics will help you out the same with pharmacies. Now if you look at the NHS in the UK where it's more-fully socialized including medication. It's a non-issue unless you're dealing with idiots who believe that treatment will kill you(luckily for them stupidity isn't considered a psychiatric disorder, because you can get treatment for that too).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well, that really is the crux of the issue isn't it. I'm convinced that neolibs want socialized medicine for one reason and ONE reason only... Misplaced guilt over the utterly false perception that life is a zero-sum equation. It is all a big shell game played by small-minded, petty, lazy, self-righteous twits with other people's money and freedoms.
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.
But neolibs are dominated by their personal guilt. To them it is unfair that 42 million people are 'uninsured'. Therefore to assuage their misplaced guilt, they vote for a social system that allows them to say everyone is 'covered'. It doesn't matter that in actual truth the poor guy is getting slow, substandard care. It doesn't matter that everyone has less freedom and everyone is equally miserable. All that matters is that the priggish, smarmy little git can ignore poor people in the street while telling himself, "I'm doing something..."


wow..just WOW..
that has to be the most inane,ill-thought comment i have ever seen you post.
you just stated the intentions and emotional motivation for an entire group of people.
based ON?
your own prejudices.
where are your statistics to back up your premise?
who are these people who want a public option to assuage their guilt of success?
or have you been taking game plays from rush limbaugh and glenn beck again?
you are SO cute when you get all neoconservative../pinches WP's cheeks

>> ^spoco2:
There's obviously no changing people's minds here.
But to just address one point of QM "Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?"
Well, we handle the smoking issue here in Australia by taxing the shite out of them. Over 63% of the cost of cigarettes is tax. This is fair... you don't NEED to smoke, you shouldn't really smoke, by doing so you are indeed vastly increasing your chances of becoming ill and costing the rest of us money. So... we make the buying of the product cover the probably cost of taking care of you... the more you smoke, the more you've paid towards your own care.
Seems fair.
Same could be applied to fast food etc. and less tax being put on fresh food and healthy options. It becomes murky as to what you class as what around the edges, but by and large you can make those that chose to be unhealthy pay more to be so.
You're not outlawing such behaviour, you're not stopping people smoking, you're just encouraging people not to in the first place by making it expensive, and if that doesn't stop them at least they are contributing money to the rest of us.


It's not just fast food, though, that can make you unhealthy. It's soda pop, pastries, too much starch, too much sodium, too much hamburger, too many eggs, too much cheese. What the fuck are you going to do, start taxing everything except raw vegetables? Some things are perfectly healthy choices depending on how often you eat them and how much you exercise. The government hasn't a fucking clue what each individual's exercise habits are. This is the most dictatorial, socialist-engineering nonsense I've ever heard anyone say. The only way to dissaude someone who is eating irresponsible amounts of junk food relative to exercise is to penalize people who eat a responsible amount relative to exercise. It's like having a lineup of 10 suspects in which 1 is the murderer, but you don't know which one, and so you shoot them all. I think that's morally bankrupt to punish the innocent to get to the guilty.

Part of living in a free country is to be able to take personal responsibility for one's own health choices. There's a huge difference between having a public option for car accidents and crack babies vs having a public option for conditions that may have been the result of that individual's own poor life habits. I think that people should be on their own to finance health problems that they incur past the age of 30. It is impossible for the government to distinguish whether the condition was the result of such choices, thus is cannot fairly administer a general tax to provide unlimited coverage without disproportionately benefiting those who made bad choices. And I think individuals need to be the customer for insurance companies, not employers.