It is currently Sat May 30, 2020 8:16 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3737 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 187  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2335
What state gets the Paris vote?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:48 pm 
Offline
This is Rome

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:48 pm
Posts: 5963
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Fair enough, but I'm more generally interested in this notion of which is the better tactic - mandates, or an absence of mandates. Any thoughts?

_________________
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:49 pm 
Offline
Reads while walking
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 pm
Posts: 4656
expat Democrats have been given 11 delegates, apparently. So we were carving up a very tiny dish! But still, it's nice to have a vote at all.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:06 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36340
nel, I have mixed feelings about the mandate question. On a broad, general level I oppose them, on the theory that people should take enough personal responsibility to obtain coverage if it is made sufficiently affordable for them to do so (which is how the Obama plan is designed). On the other hand, Klugman (and Clinton) is correct in pointing out that some people simply will not take advantage of this if they are not forced to do so, with the result that there will continue to be people who are not covered. However, Obama's plan does mandate coverage of children (if I understand correctly), which I think is particularly important since obviously most children will not be in a position to decide for themselves. More importantly, the Clinton plan has very little chance of actually becoming law, and I fear that it would meet the same fate as her last attempt at health care reform. The Obama plan is much better situated to achieve the goal of health care reform, though not actual universal health care.

My thinking is that if you really, really want universal health care, the way to do it is a single payer system. But noone is going there for the simple reason that it is politically impossible to achieve in the U.S. at this time. Clinton seems to be trying to achieve that goal in an unrealistic manner, which may result in no meaningful health care reform at all. Obama's plan seems to be the most likely one to achieve meaningful healch care reform, even if it doesn't really achieve universal health care.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:09 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
That is cool, Teremia. The Paris vote! 8)

And I agree with you about this odd thing with feathers that I keep spotting now. I'd forgotten what it was.

Nel, I am on Clinton's side on mandates. If people can evade paying for health insurance, many will, no matter how "affordable" it's made. That removes many mostly young and healthy people from the pool, leaving fewer payers to cover the costs of those who get sick. And when those young people do happen to get sick or injured, the rest of us still end up paying for their care.

I don't know why this is such a hot issue. Auto insurance is mandated, and people seem to accept that as a way of protecting society from catastrophic costs. Why not this?

There is no guarantee that either Clinton or Obama will be able to deliver the plans they're talking up, in the form they're advocating. So the issue is not enough to determine my vote.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:27 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36340
David Brooks' editorial on the health care reform issue provides a cautionary tale about Clinton's approach:

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2335
Here is some exit poll data splashed on the front page of Drudge --- take it with a grain of salt:

Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:04 am 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36340
CNN has projected Obama the winner in Georgia. No surprise there.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 3728
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
Brooks' piece is at least as informative about HRC's character and political style. You see, Prim and Nerdanel, just as it's entirely possible to distinguish between 'strong, assertive male' and 'asshole', so it's possible to distinguish between 'strong, assertive female' and 'bitch.'

HRC is the latter.

Were she a man she'd be a nether orifice. "We'll crush you" is not the approach this country needs in the White House.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 3728
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
On West Virginia's GOP convention: apparently McCain's supporters went over to (then) second-place Huckabee so as to deny Romney the win.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:47 am 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Soli, please, let's have this discussion without resorting to rude names. We can all get our feelings across perfectly well without them. Better, in fact. I'd rather hear what makes you dislike Hillary so strongly than simply hear you apply a rude label to her, one that is so overused as to be empty of significant meaning beyond the fact that people who dislike her merely for being female also use it. I know that isn't your reason.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 3728
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
Well, Prim, it's difficult to find a family-friendly male analogue to the B-word. Perhaps I should have used the genital reference.

The David Brooks piece Faramond (I think) linked just above is a nice thumbnail of why I don't like Hillary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:00 am 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36340
No, I linked to it. But I very much concur with Prim's comments. It's not necessary to resort to any rude names, particularly ones that are gender-specific (or that target any particular group).

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:04 am 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Some of us have quite a history with the word "bitch", Soli; we've heard it applied to other women, or been called it ourselves, simply for asserting that women have human rights. It's got extra freight that almost no word applied to a man can have.

I read the Brooks piece. I do find myself wondering if a male politician employing similar tactics would ever have been criticized for doing it; or if instead people would admire his manly forcefulness.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 3728
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
Vor, it would rather have ruined the point of my post had I self-censored!

I wish there was a gender-neutral G-rated term that worked. Perhaps 'jerk,' but that isn't quite right nor really strong enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:08 am 
Offline
This is Rome

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:48 pm
Posts: 5963
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
soli, "bitch" is NOT family friendly. It's a rude, insulting, derogatory way to refer to women (male analogs are irrelevant since, IIRC, no one in this thread has sought out crude pejoratives to refer to any of the male candidates.) Now, I have no problem with crude words in their time and place, and "bitch" doesn't make me melt - I listen to Eminem, Kanye West, Cypress Hill, Rage Against the Machine, and Sum 41 (among others) - but I find them obnoxious when interjected into the middle of a supposedly substantive discussion. Knock it off, please.

*****

Looks like Georgia on the Republican side is still in a threeway lock. It's difficult to know how I "want" that race to come out. Certainly McCain is the most palatable of the three candidates for me, but given concerns that he might be a bit too electable, I'd prefer a "less electable" Romney or Huckabee. That said, it would be truly nightmarish (again, to someone with my political views) to be governed by Huckabee, or (again :roll:) by Romney. Hard to know whom to root for.

_________________
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2335
Quote:
(male analogs are irrelevant since, IIRC, no one in this thread has sought out crude pejoratives to refer to any of the male candidates.)


Does "lying weasel" count? If so, I kind of used that in relation to a certain former governor of Massachusetts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:19 am 
Offline
This is Rome

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:48 pm
Posts: 5963
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
"Lying weasel" != "asshole" or "bitch" (and is perfectly appropriate to refer to Romney, btw.) I hear various Super Tuesday parties are serving Romney waffles - a delicious brunch or 2 AM anti-hangover option.

(By the way, I found it interesting that the Brooks piece twice used "icy" or "ice-cold" to refer to Clinton - because "icy" when applied to a disliked, powerful woman in corporate America or politics almost BEGS for "bitch" to be placed after it. :roll: And yes, I do think Prim is correct that a man employing the same tactics may well have been praised for his principled, stalwart forcefulness. Certainly he would not have been called "icy.")

_________________
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:23 am 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36340
solicitr wrote:
Vor, it would rather have ruined the point of my post had I self-censored!


I'd rather have you do a little self-censoring than to have to do it for you. Okay?

Prim wrote:
I do find myself wondering if a male politician employing similar tactics would ever have been criticized for doing it; or if instead people would admire his manly forcefulness.


Speaking just for myself, I would be just as critical of similar tactics employed by a male politician.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:29 am 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
I'm sure a lot of people would agree, Voronwë, if the tactics were brought to their attention. My point is that I suspect that such tactics would (and do) pass unnoticed by the media and unremarked by observers, if it's a man doing it.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3737 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 ... 187  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group