Politics As Usual

[the Spartan]

PRISONERS MAY BE EMBARRASSED AND HUMILIATED BY A PAIR OF PANTIES ON THEIR HEADS BUT THEY ARE HARDLY BEING TORTURED. NO, SENATOR KENNEDY ET AL, HERE'S WHAT TORTURE IS:

TORTURE IS WHEN YOU'RE TRAPPED UNDERWATER

IN A CAR AND LEFT TO DROWN, WHILE THE ONLY

PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO KNOWS WHERE

YOU ARE RUNS AWAY.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, what is your position today?

Approving harsh interrogation tactics, and potentially "torture" against suspected terrorists was/would be "a mistake"?

Not my position, but maybe it is the admin's position. I am not an insider and neither are you. I am just saying that the fact that someone changes their position on an issue doesn't mean they aren't committed to their principles. Now if someone is constantly changing their position based on polls or for the prospect of political gain, that is different. I don't see the current administration as doing that.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[And someday will, splease read it for me. I'd hate to actually learn first-hand what the other side thought. TIA]

I read and listen to what the other side has to say all the time. It is not like these people aren't on TV all the time and that good summaries of what they have to say don't exist. You may have to read every fricking word someone writes to understand their point, but some of us aren't so limited.

Take Clinton's book. Do you really need to read all 950 pages of it to know what he thinks of Ken Starr? Do you have to read even 1 page of it to know what he thinks of Ken Starr?

Oh and my posts about people telling me about the parts of Clinton's book on Juanita Broderick, James Riady, and Johnny Chung were a joke. I posted that because according to several people who have read the book, Clinton left those 3 out of the book.

What a fucking joke.

If someone accused you of rape and it became a big media story, would you have left it out of your book? Not if you didn't rape the person. If you didn't rape her, you would want to tell your side of the story.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by the Spartan
TORTURE IS WHEN YOU'RE TRAPPED UNDERWATER

IN A CAR AND LEFT TO DROWN, WHILE THE ONLY

PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO KNOWS WHERE

YOU ARE RUNS AWAY.

Seems like you might be interested to read more about this "waterboarding" thing the press has been talking about.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, what is your position today?

Approving harsh interrogation tactics, and potentially "torture" against suspected terrorists was/would be "a mistake"?

Certainly understandable that you could reach that conclusion, but no.

While convoluted, I think her argument* has gone something like this.

1. Torture? That's not torture, you morons! It's a party! Hey, who forgot to bring the rum?

2. Well, Ok, maybe it's not a party for the raped, maimed or dead detainees. Still, this is just the isolted acts of a few untrained National Guard detainees. No one authorized this, for godsakes.

3. Well, even if they did, sometimes ya gotta break some eggs to make an omlette, ya know what I'm saying?**

4. Well, even if they DID violate the Geneva Convention, the GC is just for pussies anyway. Just because we've been a party to the various GCs for over 120 years is no reason for us to avoid leaving it in a fucking roadside ditch when it no longer serves our purposes, right?***

Gattigap

*I rather pointedly limited this to NotMe, but my general recollection is that variants of these arguments have been made by many on this board. Anyone wishing to embrace or leave them, I'd be glad to be corrected.

** Given that GWB has completely condemned the use of torture and the administration in running at high speed from the torture memos, please note that arguments #3 and #4 are even more conservative positions than the Bushies are willing to take. Well done, Not Me! This year you'll get an extra set of ammo in your stocking for that one.

*** As proof of the silver lining in every cloud, at least this will make people forget Kyoto, et al.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Because they control the patient populations.

If there wasn't excess capacity in the system, that wouldn't be a problem. I should point out that I am talking about excess capacity for the insured population.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
If there wasn't excess capacity in the system, that wouldn't be a problem. I should point out that I am talking about excess capacity for the insured population.

Because insurance carriers would be all broken up if their insureds had to wait longer than they should for treatment?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by the Spartan
PRISONERS MAY BE EMBARRASSED AND HUMILIATED BY A PAIR OF PANTIES ON THEIR HEADS BUT THEY ARE HARDLY BEING TORTURED. NO, SENATOR KENNEDY ET AL, HERE'S WHAT TORTURE IS:

TORTURE IS WHEN YOU'RE TRAPPED UNDERWATER

IN A CAR AND LEFT TO DROWN, WHILE THE ONLY

PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO KNOWS WHERE

YOU ARE RUNS AWAY.

President Taft was known as the most polite in Washington. On a train, he would get up and give his seat to three women!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I do.

But they still seem to end up in bed with other chicks.

I always knew you were the kind of man who could push a woman to cross over to the other side. (NTTATWWT)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now if someone is constantly changing their position based on polls or for the prospect of political gain, that is different. I don't see the current administration as doing that.

Posted by Mark Kleiman on his blog
The Bush attack machine has invested substantial effort, not without success, in convincing the country that John Kerry "flip-flops" on the issues. Mickey Kaus has spent a large number of bytes elaborating on the distinction between a "flip-flop" and a "straddle" (usually concluding that Kerry is simultaneously guilty of both).

So I'm trying to see how that analysis might apply to George W. Bush's record on the "patient's bill of rights": a law that would require insurers and HMOs to pay for all "medically indicated" treatment, which in effect means whatever the doctors, chiropractors, etc., want to do and get paid for. I'm not sure such a law is a good idea, but that's not the point for the moment.

I'm doing this mostly from memory, so don't hold me to every detail, but here's the outline as I understand it:

As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was publicly "neutral" on a patient's bill of rights, while lobbying behind the scenes to kill it. I think that's a "straddle."

Having allowed the bill to become law without his signature, he then claimed credit for it, and promised to support such a bill if elected President. That, I suppose, must be a "flip-flop."

As President, he says he's in favor of the bill but again has lobbied, this time successfully, to keep it from coming to a vote in Congress (e.g., attached to the Medicare bill). Another straddle.

His administration intervened on the side of the HMOs in the Supreme Court case that just struck down the Texas law as inconsistent with federal law. Is that a flip-flop, or a staddle? And if the latter, is it part of the same straddle, or is it a new straddle? (You can see this stuff is really hard; good thing Mickey is so smart.) I think I'm going to call this a new straddle, but I'm open to correction.

So having helped kill all state laws that do the thing he says he's for, and having refused to support a federal law that would do the thing he says he's for, or even a lesser law that would allow the states to do the thing he says he's for, the President's spokesman says the President is still for a patient's bill of rights. I think it's hard to call that either a flip-flop, since the President's actual position remains what it has always been, or a new straddle, since the President's rhetorial position also remais what it has always been. It's just that the actual and rhetorical positions are opposite to one another.

So I think this latest move has to be called neither a flip-flop nor a straddle, but simply a lie.

To recapitulate: The President has executed a straddle to a flip-flop to a double staddle to a lie. That sequence of moves has a degree of difficulty of 2.8. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

Just remember this the next time someone tells you that, agree with him or not, at least you know where Mr. Bush stands.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because insurance carriers would be all broken up if their insureds had to wait longer than they should for treatment?

No but employees would be complaining to their HR departments about how their husband/wife/dependant died or was otherwise harmed by the inability to get timely care. Or about how they had to go out of network to get care and pay more money.

Now if unemployment is high, the employer may not care about keeping employees happy and stay with the insurer. But if management is getting the same crappy insurance as the worker bees, then management might care and want to switch to a better plan.

The problem is the excess capacity in the system.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
bush lied

The problem with all your "bush lied" fantasy, is that recent history set some pretty clear standards for, the President lied. So far Bush hasn't really come close to what we learned to use as the measuring stick.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem with all your "bush lied" fantasy, is that recent history set some pretty clear standards for, the President lied. So far Bush hasn't really come close to what we learned to use as the measuring stick.

All of the Dems I know have no problem admitting that Clinton lied. It is a little weird that Republicans are so devout in their ardor for Bush that they cannot bring themselves to admit what was going on. I will say, though, that it is reassuring that opinion polls increasingly reflect what some of us have been thinking for a while. I thought people would come around.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem with all your "bush lied" fantasy, is that recent history set some pretty clear standards for, the President lied. So far Bush hasn't really come close to what we learned to use as the measuring stick.

The "measuring stick?" Well, sure. Context, obviously, is the problem.

Certainly Bush hasn't been sued in civil court for sexual harassment and asked point-blank in a deposition whether an intern sucked him off. Give it time, though.

Until we reach the clarity of a deposition, we'll simply have to content ourselves, playing these silly little games about similarly frivolous stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The "measuring stick?" Well, sure. Context, obviously, is the problem.

You mean Colin Farrell? Oops, wrong board.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
All of the Dems I know have no problem admitting that Clinton lied. It is a little weird that Republicans are so devout in their ardor for Bush that they cannot bring themselves to admit what was going on. I will say, though, that it is reassuring that opinion polls increasingly reflect what some of us have been thinking for a while. I thought people would come around.

Well, put aside your "lied to get us into Iraq" schtick- that is played and no one is moving there- but now he lied because allegedly he claimed to support some bill, but didn't really and worked to make it go away. This is absurd.

This is much less a lie than Clinton is responsible for welfare reform. Politicians has to take positions in sound bytes- and bills come in 100 page packets. There is not way any politician is against fixing health care, but it sure is possible to be against some of what's in any given 100 page bill.

edit: my goodness Ty has over 4000 posts...