Eisenhower Conservative 
Member since Jan 17, 2008


testing for formatting... is it a blob or is it formatted?

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “What’s the next step in our confrontation with Iran?

Interesting comparison of how the US treats Israel vs Iran for similar acts:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-02/israel-iran-twin-pariahs/

Posted by Anonymous on 06/04/2010 at 9:42 AM

Re: “Are Obama’s nuclear policies making the U.S. safer?

Yes, Obama's nuclear policies are making the US safer. No question about that. In fact restarting START is at the top of my list of Obama good stuff.

That list also includes: overhauling the student loan program, widening medical rights of same-sex partners, reversing the moronic Bush embryonic stem cell policy, meeting with the leaders of Burma/China and telling them to their faces that they need to clean up their human rights problems, doing away with the military 'stop-loss' program, and signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (I have a list of Obama bad stuff which is much longer, but that's for another day.)

And I was right there with you until I got to the part where you say: "he re-engineered our health care system in a way that will cover more people while saving money over the long term." While correct, that statement is such a broad brush that it is actually very misleading.

Yes, a few more people will be covered, but certainly not the 32 million of the current Democratic mantra. That's how many people will be eligible for subsidies under the law. But far fewer than that number will actually be able to afford health care, even after the subsidies. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/health/20landscape.html?nl=health&emc=healthupdateema1

And even in the very best case scenario, 23 million people in the US will still be unable to purchase health care.

The HC 'reform' bill was written by and paid for by AHIP, the health insurance lobby. Here's the bill written by them (AHIP) in 12/09 and it is essentially what was passed:

http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Uploads/ahipreformpolicyproposal.pdf

So called 'progressives' in the end did not have the courage to stand up to the corpora-Dems. No Public Option (which originally was supposed to have been the 'realistic' alternative to Single Payer), women were stabbed in the back by Obama after campaigning for his election, exchanges and pre-existing coverage doesn't start for 4 years (giving insurance companies the time to bribe those provisions out of existence), anti-trust laws still don't apply to insurance corps and they still have monopolies in most markets, and there is no control whatsoever on premiums or coverage offered. It was a complete welfare giveaway to health insurance companies. And self-described progressives stood by and let it happen.

In the end, MoveOn actually picketed Dennis Kucinich! Who knew MO would actually be an agent moving this country to the RIGHT!

At the end of the process, the one group of people who could have stood their ground and insisted on at least a Public Option, namely progressives, stood down and allowed this to happen, while making the lame excuse that it's the best we could get and we just need to get this passed and then we can work to make it better.

And then they changed the subject.

Is it really a good thing that in return for allowing just a few more people to sign up for health care (and these few new signees will get policies with very few benefits and excssive premiums - basically 'health care apartheid'), we have basically enslaved ourselves to the health insurance industry with the IRS as their personal enforcer?

Now all progressives can do is make excuses and broad brush statements that incorrectly portray this new law as something other than what it is, just so they don't have to be honest about their lack of action.

And as usual, inside-the-beltway Democrats got the bribes they wanted and still feel that they can basically ignore progressives because 'they have no place else to go.' And progressives keep vainly hoping that the Dems will someday listen to them.

Shameful!

Posted by Anonymous on 04/22/2010 at 2:15 PM

Re: “So, who won Iraq’s election?

I think it's just hilarious that the real power in Iraq is not in Iraq. And it's not in America. It's in Iran.

The most influential people who are putting together a winning coalition in Iraq are pulling the strings from Iran.

As a country, we allowed a group of neocon simpletons like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Krauthammer, Frum, Feith, et al to force the country into war, and the final result of all of their deception and conniving (which Obama is now protecting), and after all the loss of life, and driving millions of Iraqis into refugee status, not to mention taking our focus off of the Taliban just when we were about to defeat them, is that it has made America weaker and Iran many times stronger.

The pure idiocy that a large portion of the people in this country can be so easily and totally deceived and even now refuse to see what's happening even as it slaps them in the face day in and day out is just hilarious and amazing.

What irony.

Posted by Anonymous on 04/06/2010 at 2:46 PM

Re: “Is Turkey's military plotting to overthrow
its government?

Looks to me like Mr. Nouraee has scooped the NY Times.

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/europe/02turkey.html?th&emc=th

Their article came out one day later, with the same basic content.

Congratulations!

Posted by Anonymous on 03/02/2010 at 9:20 AM

Re: “Is the Afghan war at a turning point?

Here are a few late breaking headlines that were not available to the author before deadline.

Operation Moshtarak is just 'the beginning' of an 18 month onslaught by the US:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-to-launch-major-campaign-in-afghanistan-in-next-18-months/582823/

...and if they are saying 18 months now, just think what they'll be saying in 18 months. Turning point?

Oh! And back in Iraq: there might be a 'slight' delay in our withdrawal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022202933.html

Let's see, first candidate Obama said he would have ALL troops out within one year of taking office. Then nominee Obama said he might stretch that out to 16 months. Then president Obama said that of course we'd have to keep about 50K troops there 'permanently.' What?

Finally I couldn't resist: Blackwater will get the contract to train Afghan police:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/Blackwater_up_for_Afghan_police_training_contract_.html

Right. Train them to slaughter innocent civilians like they did for instance in Nisour Square in Sept. '07 and then bribe the witnesses not to testify.

Lastly, there's this little dust up brewing in Iran.

Yep, I see a turning point. We're turning into a country of all war all the time.

Hey all you guys out there with draft cards, you might want to start learning how to spit shine combat boots. See ya! Wouldn't wanna be ya!

Posted by Anonymous on 02/24/2010 at 10:21 AM

Re: “What's next with Iran?

I'm surprised at this post. It starts out a little weak and MSM-like, and ends kind-of strong.

Weak part: You premise the article with 3 statements that are clearly in line with most of the rest of the MSM and are politically correct right now, but they are not actually correct.

1. "The West's nuclear standoff with Iran has been going on forever." What? Iran keeps informing the IAEA of what it is doing. Iran continues to be the most IAEA inspected country in the world. And the MSM continues to jump up and down and scream about nuclear weapons. That's not my idea of a 'standoff'. I would call it more of a 'boy cries wolf'.

I have posted numerous times in CL on this subject for almost a year now, complete with time lines and references.

2. "It was 2002 when the world figured out Iran was building a secret uranium-enrichment facility." Whoa! And how exactly did the 'world figure out' about this so-called secret facility? Because Iran notified the IAEA exactly as it was supposed to on exactly the schedule it was supposed to.

3. "Even if Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon today, the process of enriching radioactive fuel for nuclear power reactors is so similar to the process of making fuel for nuclear weapons that it doesn't matter what Iran intends to do." Well only if you believe that 20% is about the same as 80% - which is, by the way, what the MSM is touting. Iran simply does not have nearly the number of working centrifuges needed and it is making no serious effort to get them.

Kind-of strong part: The good cop-bad cop thing. But it's worth mentioning that bluffing does no good if they other guy knows that's what you're doing.

There's no doubt that Iran is run by a bunch of lunatic, hubristic, crack-brain, thug fundamentalists, but hey so was this country up until one year ago. Now our country is run by a bunch of lilly-livered cowards who run for the hills every time some body says 'Soft On Terror.' So basically the corporations are still in charge.

We all need to take a deep breath and allow the UN to continue to monitor the situation - just like we should have done in 2003 in Iraq.

There are lots of countries in the world that already have the bomb, like N. Korea, Pakistan, Russia, India, Israel, China, etc etc that pose a far greater danger to world peace than crack-brain run Iran. I don't hear anybody screaming and jumping up and down about bombing those countries. The MSM is hyping the rhetoric for war. Let's don't make the same mistake twice in a row.

Pre-emptive attack on Iran is the absolute worst solution but it seems that no one can remember lessons learned even 6 years ago. If you would like a step by step description (by the Brookings Institute) of how a 'successful' Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would probably backfire, check this out:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html

This scenario would be bad for everybody except the war corporations. And the one thing that all scenarios agree on: An external attack on Iran would provide the government all the excuse it needs to finish crushing all internal dissent.

Posted by Anonymous on 02/22/2010 at 11:00 AM

Re: “Will the U.S. military’s intervention help or hurt Haiti?

naj,

Please don't misunderstand what I was trying to say.

Mr. Nouraee was just keeping his article succinct and to the point. No way could he have given the complete history of Haiti in his article, nor even the history of US involvement there.

He was focused on the point in question. I added a few details for ProudAmerican1, but again, not nearly a complete history.

Mr. Nouraee properly leaves background information as an exercise for the reader. Sounds like you did your homework.

Posted by Anonymous on 01/28/2010 at 8:41 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »
 

© 2016 Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation