Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Anyone care to take a stab at why the US military is bombing Yemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Anyone care to take a stab at why the US military is bombing Yemen?They've got WMDs./nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 It's an al-Qaeda stronghold, apparently. The radio this morning said that half the remaining Guantanamo detainees are Yemeni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Anyone care to take a stab at why the US military is bombing Yemen?This site makes it out to be a Yemeni operation, and denies any reports of US involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Are you suggesting the passage of the PATRIOT act without significant debate was a good thing?I believe that Tracker's point was that you cannot win a fight with one hand tied behind you're back. If you never get your legislation passed it doesn't really matter whether or not you were standing on the moral high ground the whole time. Sadly it's a point which the republicans have taken to heart and the democrats seem to refuse to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Anyone care to refute some of the things said in this Greenwald article?White House as helpless victim on healthcareETA: I cannot afford healthcare on my current salary, at the current rates, or anywhere slightly less than the current rates. Any bill requiring that I have healthcare without significant reductions in cost will fuck me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Anyone care to refute some of the things said in this Greenwald article?White House as helpless victim on healthcareETA: I cannot afford healthcare on my current salary, at the current rates, or anywhere slightly less than the current rates. Any bill requiring that I have healthcare without significant reductions in cost will fuck me.Here's some stuff on from 538:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.htmlThere's a fun little graph there.Also, another one on a similar subject:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/20-questions-for-bill-killers.htmlIt will depend on your specific situation though.But, regardless, if you want to do away with "Pre-Existing Condition" bullshit, there must be a mandate. Otherwise, costs will sky-rocket even worse then now.Greenwald is one of the growing "Raging Progressive" crowd. Frankly, I think they are expecting far more then the Democrats were capable of delivering and not paying attention to the reality of the situation. With the Republicans behaving as they are, the ConservaDems have all the power in these negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 BTW, here's a fun graph to see the level of obstruction the GOP has been using:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Ben Nelson: Even more of an asshole then you already thoughtCentrist Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) said Thursday he won't vote to advance the Senate healthcare bill unless it's changed.Nelson said more stringent restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion must be included in the bill if it is to win his vote. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72767-nelson-a-no-on-health-bill-pending-further-changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Another thing that has drawn criticism is that the mandates aren't strong enough. Meaning the fines that one would incurr for not buying health insurance aren't imposing enough so people will still go without. If this happens with younger and healthier people it makes the risk pool that is buying into insurance older and sicker and therefor more expensive. For this to work well, everyone (or virtually everyone) has to be in.That was a long-winded way of saying "you're right."If paying a yearly fine for not having health insurance is cheaper than health insurance, that's definitely the route I'll be taking. :dunno: Thanks for the links Shryke, that's exactly what I was hoping for. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 It still feels to me like health reform can fall completely apart. It makes me wonder when anyone will ever try it again.I think they have to pass something. It's just a question of how watered down it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 You know, all this stalling would have been tolerable if there's a reasonable chance that the stalling will end up with a better bill. However, since August, the GOP has not shown itself to be a reasonable negotiating partner. The justification for their stonewalling loses much of its merit in light of this, imo. Not to mention, anyone who follows the nuts and bolts of law making would have been able to find you amendments that were added on the floor. The whole "need time to consider" is a bunch of houey. What do you think the Democrats have been doing if not trying to get the GOPers to read and agree to these different incarnations of the amendment in the last 6 months? The amendment is not news to the Capitol Hill. To pretend otherwise is just for show, and to believe this charade is nothing short of willful blindness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Current tally of countries the US is bombing: 4 (up from 2 during the Bush years). Can we put to bed the idea that democrats are pro-peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Irving Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Umm four? I count three. PLus we were bombing four in the bush administration there was Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.Wait your counting plan columbia arn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Current tally of countries the US is bombing: 4 (up from 2 during the Bush years). Can we put to bed the idea that democrats are pro-peace?Tormund, that attitude is so 1990s. These days, to be truly anti-peace one has to follow the example of Dubya and invade other sovereign nations without a clear threat, a declaration of war, or enough troops to stabilize the region. This is the only area in which George Bush was an overachiever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Nelson may be the real problem which is not entirely surprising. He has long indicated that his vote was going to be a hard one to get. I think that there is an outside chance that they can get Snowe to vote for the bill. If they could do that they could let Nelson walk away as long as Lieberman stays on board.Nelson is to the Right of Lieberman ideologically, but much, much easier to deal with in the sense that he's at least rational: you simply bribe him with Nebraska-flavoured pork and he'll go away. Lieberman on the other hand is just motivated by sheer spite and egotism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Tormund, that attitude is so 1990s. These days, to be truly anti-peace one has to follow the example of Dubya and invade other sovereign nations without a clear threat, a declaration of war, or enough troops to stabilize the region. This is the only area in which George Bush was an overachiever. So...like...sending troops and predator drones into Pakistan, or bombers into Yemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Irving Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 but that makes it so bush did at least five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Current tally of countries the US is bombing: 4 (up from 2 during the Bush years). Can we put to bed the idea that democrats are pro-peace?You're conflating peace with pacifism.Use of force is a means of achieving peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxtile Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 You're conflating peace with pacifism.Use of force is a means of achieving peace.... did you just compliment democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.3f56831e08f45aee9fc98a2e7a9741fe.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.