Obama says LOL to healthcare reform

[David Floyd]

Specifically. Which positions that Clinton, Daschle, and Emmanuel subscribe to qualify them as far left radicals? And by a "radical" position, I mean one that is very unpopular.

Why is that the standard? While I could certainly find a large number of far left positions on which the three of them stand, I find it interesting that you are trying to introduce the standard of "very unpopular", when I make the point that the three of them are pretty far to the left. Who cares how popular or unpopular they are? That doesn't address the fact that Obama is appointing some pretty polarized partisans to key Cabinet positions, which is an action that contrasts - at least by implication - his entire campaign.

Seems like a pretty large change to me.

Yes, it is. However, John McCain was also proposing change. "Change", in this context, didn't refer to "liberal vs. conservative", but rather to a fundamental change in business as usual. I think everyone recognized that during the campaign, otherwise, why would Obama's message of "change" seem like anything new and different?

No. He didn't. If you can find a direct quote, I'd be glad to admit my mistake. But you're making that up. He had been deliberately vague since the time line was always dependent on political (a large enough Dem majority) and economic (healthy economic growth) concerns. Since we're in a recession, the partial repealing of the Bush tax cuts will probably be delayed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AM1F120081123

According to the article - and I think we can all agree that Reuters is credible - Obama is going back on a campaign promise to roll back the tax breaks. Remember that the tax breaks were scheduled, under Bush's legislation, to expire in 2010. Now, Obama is in favor of essentially the same thing. Saying that, by doing so, he is fulfilling his campaign promises is simply doublespeak. It's ridiculous.

We've been propping such a government up for the past 5+ years. The ruling parties, Da'wa and SIIC, are strongly tied to Iran. Da'wa was created explicitly as an Iranian client, and SIIC had its paramilitary, the Badr Corps, trained by the Revolutionary Guard How, exactly, are we addressing this problem?

We aren't, which is my point. We certainly won't be addressing the problem by withdrawing. Do you really want to see an Iraqi state, dominated by Iran? Really?

Yes, we should've tried to massacre a third of Baghdad with 3000 troops. Brilliant idea, that.

No, we should only have killed those who were militant supporters of Muqtada al Sadr, and we should have started by killing him, sewing him into a pigskin (a la Black Jack Pershing in the Philippines), and leaving him hanging upside down from a building to rot in full view of his supporters. Then, when the ****ing religious nutters rioted, we should have just killed all of them. And no, I'm neither trolling nor joking. I'm serious.

What military actions do you propose against the government of Iraq?

To start with, we lay down the law hard and fast. That law being, the US has legitimate national security concerns. If you **** with us, then you will reap the consequences. Those consequences will basically include a lot of dead bodies and no chance for Iraqi self government for years.

Actually the Sadrists aren't fighting the Big Bad USA. In large part because we're getting the hell out.

I'm against retarded uses of military force as a general rule. Calling people "religious extremists" isn't sufficient justification for carte blanche military action.

Yes, it is, when they are blowing themselves up in order to influence political policy, in a region where the US has massive national security concerns.

How, exactly, is an indefinite occupation of country to prop up a government allied to Iran, with a population that emphatically doesn't want us there "necessary for our national security?"

First off, don't allow them to be allied to Iran. They hate each other, anyway. The population may not want us there, and that's fine. I am all in favor of us leaving, as long as we are able to secure oil rights in the region. If that isn't acceptable, then **** you. I mean, really? You think we're worse than Saddam? The dictator who gassed people right and left? And all we are asking for is to a)buy oil, and b)not allow you to hold us hostage by allying to hostile regimes. Doesn't seem that far-fetched, does it? I mean, it isn't like we are proposing to take the oil without paying for it. We're just saying, sell us the oil, and also, don't climb into bed with our enemies. Duh.

Actually, they had a few elections. Our preferred clients lost.

Not our fault that religious nutters influenced elections. Well, actually, it is our fault. We should have just killed as many religious nutters as possible before having elections.

Seriously, these idiots deserve to die. You don't like them either. Why are you supporting them?

[Zkribbler]

According to the article - and I think we can all agree that Reuters is credible - Obama is going back on a campaign promise to roll back the tax breaks. Remember that the tax breaks were scheduled, under Bush's legislation, to expire in 2010. Now, Obama is in favor of essentially the same thing. Saying that, by doing so, he is fulfilling his campaign promises is simply doublespeak. It's ridiculous.

Obama said during the campaign that, with the economy getting worse, he might have to put off the tax-cut roll back until they expired.

Now, he's submitted this question to his economic team to get their opinion whether he should or not. His position has not changed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Zkrib is right. Obama flipped on it during the campaign (adopting McCain's criticism against Obama's tax plan).

But Floyd is right that a lot of people though Obama's "change" was fundamental change (ie, not just another Dem).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Zkrib is right. Obama flipped on it during the campaign

He didn't flip on it; he waffled on it. There's a difference.

[Ramo]

Why is that the standard?

Because left and right have to be defined in the context of something. They might be far left in your bizarre libertarian-fascist ideal, but not in the context of US society. Not in the context of any Western society, for that matter.

I think everyone recognized that during the campaign, otherwise, why would Obama's message of "change" seem like anything new and different?

The set of policies that Obama proposed are new and different. The general election was all about specifying "change" to mean "Democratic change."

According to the article - and I think we can all agree that Reuters is credible - Obama is going back on a campaign promise to roll back the tax breaks.

Note the lack of a quote. That's spin.

Obama never said that he would repeal these tax cuts immediately. Again, if you can provide an actual quote, I'd be happy to admit my mistake.

Do you really want to see an Iraqi state, dominated by Iran? Really?

It is dominated by Iran. That's current US policy. Propping up a government closely tied to Iran. That's what we're doing. That's what we would be doing if we were to stay.

No, we should only have killed those who were militant supporters of Muqtada al Sadr, and we should have started by killing him, sewing him into a pigskin (a la Black Jack Pershing in the Philippines), and leaving him hanging upside down from a building to rot in full view of his supporters. Then, when the ****ing religious nutters rioted, we should have just killed all of them. And no, I'm neither trolling nor joking. I'm serious.

In other words, slaughter a large part of Baghdad. Good thing you're far, far away from any amount of power.

Yes, it is, when they are blowing themselves up in order to influence political policy, in a region where the US has massive national security concerns.

Sadrists don't suicide bomb. You realize that all Arabs aren't the same, right?

First off, don't allow them to be allied to Iran. They hate each other, anyway. The population may not want us there, and that's fine. I am all in favor of us leaving, as long as we are able to secure oil rights in the region. If that isn't acceptable, then **** you. I mean, really? You think we're worse than Saddam? The dictator who gassed people right and left? And all we are asking for is to a)buy oil, and b)not allow you to hold us hostage by allying to hostile regimes. Doesn't seem that far-fetched, does it? I mean, it isn't like we are proposing to take the oil without paying for it. We're just saying, sell us the oil, and also, don't climb into bed with our enemies. Duh.

So how are we going to "stop" them from allying with Iran? I presume with exactly the same cyborg ninja commandos who would be killing the "religious extremists."

And we're going to get them to sell oil to us, as if that weren't already happening (and oil becomes nonfungible, I suppose, in your universe).

Why are you supporting them?

That's what you're doing by insisting on the Iraqi occupation continuing.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Zkrib is right. Obama flipped on it during the campaign (adopting McCain's criticism against Obama's tax plan).

We've discussed this. I don't remember you offering a cite last time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As pointed out, that was the impression EVERYONE got from his statements on the matter (as said, Reuters is fairly respected). Until he changed his tune later on no one thought that meant simply letting them expire. That was how he was going to pay for his tax cuts, remember?

You can spin and spin and spin as much as you want, but that doesn't make you right.