On October 17 2012 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The US has an estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude. That's 250 years worth. Why would we need to go to other countries to get it?
?
"As of August 3, 2012, the inventory was 695.9 million barrels (110,640,000 m3). This equates to 36 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 19.5 million barrels per day (3,100,000 m3/d)."
So where does the money go? Iraqi elites who recycle it back into investments through New York? At any rate, I don't know how to process those numbers and I've so far accomplished nothing at all with my day so you can win by default Have fun boys and enjoy the masterdebators tonight if you like that sort of thing
edit: @ above, I think I got my millions and billions confused. oops
On October 17 2012 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The US has an estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude. That's 250 years worth. Why would we need to go to other countries to get it?
?
"As of August 3, 2012, the inventory was 695.9 million barrels (110,640,000 m3). This equates to 36 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 19.5 million barrels per day (3,100,000 m3/d)."
I know it's not the reserve you're talking about but 250 years?
Yeah, it is 250 years. The new shale oil discoveries and fracking techniques have basically unlocked an unlimited domestic supply of oil in the US. Go read about the Bakken oil formation as just an example.
On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital.
There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field.
Nah, seizing control is so 20th century
"opening up" is the new "seizing control"
How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win...
You need to learn to view every single interaction between all people on the planet as part of an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, whether we are talking politics, race, marriage, economics... Eliminate the concept of mutual benefit if you want to understand the modern Marxist victimization narrative.
sigh
sometimes there actually are wolves...
I understand mutual benefit. In fact, that is what I would like to promote. What I don't believe is that mutual benefit is the geopolitical strategy of US
I won't bother to address your conflation of Marxism and various fashionable poststructuralisms
Mutual benefit should not be the end of any coherent geopolitical strategy. It should only be a tool to the ultimate end of national self-interest.
Oh, I don't think it's a goal necessarily, it's what's happening anyway (edit: the goal is to cope with this state of affairs, not promote it). In ideological terms, if we're going to invent imaginary collectivities towards which to owe allegiance, I'll take "humanity" over "America" any day.
At a certain point, though, I think one is forced to realize that working together IS self interest.
On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote: I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens
But what matters?
That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often.
The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do.
However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings.
Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far.
But don't take it from me.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might".
--- HOWEVER ---
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium!
this sentiment would make sense if we had ever fucked over the terrorists, or if the terrorists who attacked us weren't involved in a war for control with a moderate Muslim for basically the entire 90s. like i said earlier, what exactly do the terrorists have to be angry with us about? giving them the support they needed to drive out the Soviets and take over a country? refusing to give their moderate enemies weapons or support?
moderate Muslims and Arabs living in the Middle East have reason to be angry us. extremists have been nothing but helped by the US for the 30+ years prior to 9/11. i've yet to see this myth of freedom-fighting terrorist shown to be true, nor have i ever been given any examples of it.
at the most, we could be accused of having supported secularist dictators who wanted peace over radical "democrats" who wanted war. but even that doesn't give any excuse to the terrorists or the religious extremists.
On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote: I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens
But what matters?
That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often.
The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do.
However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings.
Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far.
But don't take it from me.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might".
--- HOWEVER ---
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium!
this sentiment would make sense if we had ever fucked over the terrorists, or if the terrorists who attacked us weren't involved in a war for control with a moderate Muslim for basically the entire 90s. like i said earlier, what exactly do the terrorists have to be angry with us about? giving them the support they needed to drive out the Soviets and take over a country? refusing to give their moderate enemies weapons or support?
moderate Muslims and Arabs living in the Middle East have reason to be angry us. extremists have been nothing but helped by the US for the 30+ years prior to 9/11. i've yet to see this myth of freedom-fighting terrorist shown to be true, nor have i ever been given any examples of it.
at the most, we could be accused of having supported secularist dictators who wanted peace over radical "democrats" who wanted war. but even that doesn't give any excuse to the terrorists or the religious extremists.
Once again where do you think terrorists come from? A vacuum? You want examples? Okay, look at Palestine, Lebanon, and the one that takes the cake: Iran.
On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote: I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens
But what matters?
That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often.
The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do.
However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings.
Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far.
But don't take it from me.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might".
--- HOWEVER ---
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium!
this sentiment would make sense if we had ever fucked over the terrorists, or if the terrorists who attacked us weren't involved in a war for control with a moderate Muslim for basically the entire 90s. like i said earlier, what exactly do the terrorists have to be angry with us about? giving them the support they needed to drive out the Soviets and take over a country? refusing to give their moderate enemies weapons or support?
moderate Muslims and Arabs living in the Middle East have reason to be angry us. extremists have been nothing but helped by the US for the 30+ years prior to 9/11. i've yet to see this myth of freedom-fighting terrorist shown to be true, nor have i ever been given any examples of it.
at the most, we could be accused of having supported secularist dictators who wanted peace over radical "democrats" who wanted war. but even that doesn't give any excuse to the terrorists or the religious extremists.
I know I posted this just some pages ago, but it's just to important (important in the sense that it can make conservatives understand what those damn Arabs are all about better than pages of discussion): In this video the causes of suicide attacks are shown to be almost exclusively about foreign occupation. Perhaps you don't realize that the US has been seen as an occupying power for the last 20 years, but it has. The guy presenting this is the biggest douche imaginable, by no means a liberal and I disagree on his vision of foreign policy (that should give you all the more reasons to watch it) but his data and analysis is worthwhile for everybody.
[EDIT]: I do realize, that what's being discussed here is not only about suicide terrorism (which is the focus of the video). But this should help as a starting point to understand the more complicated issue of why anybody would hate the US in those countries (even if they don't express it in suicide attacks).
Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper.
On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote: I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens
But what matters?
That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often.
The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do.
However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings.
Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far.
But don't take it from me.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might".
--- HOWEVER ---
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium!
this sentiment would make sense if we had ever fucked over the terrorists, or if the terrorists who attacked us weren't involved in a war for control with a moderate Muslim for basically the entire 90s. like i said earlier, what exactly do the terrorists have to be angry with us about? giving them the support they needed to drive out the Soviets and take over a country? refusing to give their moderate enemies weapons or support?
moderate Muslims and Arabs living in the Middle East have reason to be angry us. extremists have been nothing but helped by the US for the 30+ years prior to 9/11. i've yet to see this myth of freedom-fighting terrorist shown to be true, nor have i ever been given any examples of it.
at the most, we could be accused of having supported secularist dictators who wanted peace over radical "democrats" who wanted war. but even that doesn't give any excuse to the terrorists or the religious extremists.
Once again where do you think terrorists come from? A vacuum?
one might as well ask where the fascists came from, or the Nazis, or the soviet-communists. shit, if we wanna take it back far enough, where did the Mongols and Huns come from? well, they came from Germany, Italy, Russia, Mongolia and Turkey, but you meant ideologically, where did they come from.
i would say that the religious extremist of today is the same as the dictator of yesterday and the barbarian warlord of the past. circumstances of region, religion and culture aside, if we focus on the overall goals and methods of the people we're talking about, than we can see how they work in roughly the same way. they encourage radicalism and terrorism against the state, play the part of the victimized martyr, and then use a chaos (usually driven by socioeconomic collapse and/or failure of the state) to take power. once in power they establish a totalitarian rule and they generally 1) create a discriminated class to either scapegoat or control, and, 2) engage in the conquering/infiltration of neighboring states.
now if we're talking about the support that these extremists of any time and place receive from the general populace, then I think you're correct that this kind of support does not occur inside of a vacuum. certain actions by the State and/or foreign powers can, and do, contribute to the idea that extremism is necessary. this is partially illusion, but does have some basis in truth, especially where the Middle East is concerned. however, I'm not sure that there is any real wide--spread support for the extremists among the general population. at the most, I would say that any support they do get from the civilian population is usually going to be driven by fear, rather than any true loyalty or ideological agreement.
anti-Americanism (more generally, anti-colonialism) does have some ground to stand on. America hasn't been perfect by any means. however, it would require a complete revision in history to suggest that the American president or soldier is a greater threat to the relative safety of an Afghan girl than the Taliban. or that an Iraqi Olympic athlete was better off under Saddam. and the Bahá'ís in Iran were almost certainly better off under the Shah than under the Ayatollah. the vast majority of the problems and struggles that the average citizen of a Middle Eastern country faces in his/her life will be from other Arabs and Muslims and not from the US or Israel.
among the general populace, anti-Americanism comes from a fear of America's weakness and the extremist's strength. among the extremists, the hatred of America does come from our freedoms, which are in direct opposition to the dictatorial governments that they wish to establish. more accurately, it comes from our rather hesitant support of freedom, democracy and human rights around the world. and i'm sure that the radicalizing of Islam helps drive them deeper and deeper into the pit of hatred for the secular Western powers. Israel is a scapegoat. terrorism isn't born out of any kind of benevolence or even oppression. it's born purely out of hatred and indoctrination.
On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote: Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper.
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay.
So now Gibbs is giving an interview to Bret Baier on the Libya business before a debate. He is clearly in an untenable position and knows it, but at least he isn't patently incompetent like Stephanie Cutter is. I find it funny how he says that he hopes that the topic will come up to tonight. I would think that the White House doesn't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote: Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper.
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay.
But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding.
On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote: Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper.
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay.
But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding.
The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare.
Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance.
Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare.
On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote: Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper.
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay.
But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding.
The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare.
Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance.
Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare.
These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though!
EPT
Have fun boys and enjoy the masterdebators tonight if you like that sort of thing
