Ted Rall for August 30, 2008

Touché!

Incompetent and a liar sums it up.

Picking Palin is about the worst display of tokenism-as-cynicism since Bush the Smarter nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. I didn’t think anyone could top that, but then there was Harriet Miers…oh, and Alberto Gonzales. There’s plenty to criticize about affirmative action, but these people want it to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

There is no good reason a woman hasn’t been president I’ll give the writer that but to be honest there really hasn’t been a viable option of a woman president untill Hillary so it’s not like anyone is opposed to it. The other “points” are a different story though.

This supposed “most” of the people that want universal healthcare is a farce or otherwise we’d have it. Why would we want a system that will raise our already large tax burden? Perhaps people simply don’t care that people they don’t know don’t have health insurance? Not too mention that a large portion of these poor poor uninsured people are illegal aliens or simply don’t care to pay for yet another bill (ie: healthy young people that don’t even need health insurance yet)

Ignoring the fact that there is nothing to impeach Bush over other than the bad feelings he gives you in your tummies…why bother? Wait untill January and he’s gone anyway. It’s not like Congress is doing anything about anything for him to veto. Impeaching him would accomplish absolutely nothing.

All of these supposed “problems” the author lists are pretty much the least important things we should be worrying about.

“Nothing to impeach Bush over…?” Have you read the law on impeachment? All it takes is the misuse of Presidential power. Deceiving Congress and the American people counts, as has been firmly demonstrated re: Iraq. So does illegally spying on Americans (which contributed to the case against Nixon – remember him? He resigned because impeachment was inevitable). You could make a case that his incredible overuse of signing statements (which are NOT in the Constitution) to circumvent the law and appointing candidates during the Congressional break to circumvent Congressional approval (which IS in the Constitution) all count. Retroactive approval by a weak-spined Congress does not work to justify these acts. The Republicans impeached Clinton for nothing whatsoever - and for some inexplicable reason Bush is getting a pass.

He didn’t deceive anybody to invade Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq was made during the Clinton years in the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998. Therefore it was CONGRESSIONAL policy to cause a regime change in Iraq through force. Clinton on the other hand was guilty of perjury which is a jailable offense. Not to mention sexual harrassment and what he was doing in Whitewater.

He didn’t need to “circumvent” Congress’ approval because the majority of Congress approved the invasion so you’re wrong. Nixon was spying on his political opponents by the way, Bush’s “wiretapping” was in reality a computer program that listened for words that would signify a terrorist attack and it was mostly on phone calls that were made to the Middle East. Once the program thought it heard enough of these phrases it would alert the Feds to what it’s heard. Obama himself is not even against the wiretapping (that saved the Brooklyn Bridge by the way)since he voted against doing anything to the telecom companies that did it.

I’m not going to sit here and say Bush was a good president, he wasn’t…but we have to realize that not everything bad that happened these past 8 years was his fault. You people are blaming a sigle man from everything to the economy being bad to not predicting hurricanes and it’s ridiculous. To only look to one man for the cause of all of our problems is ignoring what is truly wrong with this country and is a distraction.

If Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful critics of Bush won’t move to impeach him shouldn’t that tell you that there really is nothing to impeach him for?

And «we don’t wanna» because it might just lead to ordinary US citizens taking politics, particularly at the national level, seriously, and as Aisōpus put it, «vestigia terrent». Why people might actually begin to demand a Republic !…

Henri

“Obama himself is not even against the wiretapping (that saved the Brooklyn Bridge by the way) since he voted against doing anything to the telecom companies that did it.”

So because Obama didn’t want to punish the telecoms that were coerced into giving up customer’s personal information during Bush’s hysterical War on Terror, that means Obama agrees with the illegal things that Bush has done.

Your illogical leap of faith is staggering.

ConservativeBob: If Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful critics of Bush won’t move to impeach him shouldn’t that tell you that there really is nothing to impeach him for?

Pelosi and other Dems won’t impeach or investigate because they were let in on the illegal activities early on, and did nothing to stop the administration. Pelosi is just covering her own ass. Pathetic.

Obama’s 180 on the FISA/immunity BS has truly stopped me in my tracks. I want to hear this “constitution law” expert explain himself, without the obvious horseshit his advisors have thrown out to the public.

And I say all this as a progressive who would gouge my eyes out with a dull spoon rather than vote for McCoont.

“So because Obama didn’t want to punish the telecoms that were coerced into giving up customer’s personal information during Bush’s hysterical War on Terror, that means Obama agrees with the illegal things that Bush has done.”

There is absolutely NO evidence of what you claim about this supposed coersion so knock it off with the conspiracy theories will you?

And you don’t have to do the typical liberal “I don’t agree with you so I’ll insult you” thing and say things like “my leap of faith is astounding” either. If you use some logic you’d see that if Obama was against these wiretappings he would of pursued those companies. One of these days you’re going to have to admit that Obama may not stand for everything you believe in or vice versa.

Also, I’m glad you didn’t bother to comment about the wiretappings SAVING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE either.

ConservativeBob: “This supposed “most” of the people that want universal healthcare is a farce or otherwise we’d have it.”

Yes, if only there were a way to actually quantify the opinions of the American people. Perhaps by asking the same question of a small but representative sample, then extrapolating to the opinions of the whole? What mad, mad science!

Oh, wait. Go see www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm and note the consistent roughly two-thirds majority supporting government-provided universal health care.

“Why would we want a system that will raise our already large tax burden?”

Government-provided healthcare is cheaper. Nations with socialized health insurance have a healthier population and spend less to get it. (Of course, they don’t have an insurance industry growing fat off the overhead.) The sensible comparison you should be making there is between paying for healthcare with taxes and paying regular insurance premiums, along with the constant threat of losing said insurance if you lose your job. Unless, that is, you think that money you spend on necessities is somehow magically different from tax money that goes to the same program.

“Not too mention that a large portion of these poor poor uninsured people […] simply don’t care to pay for yet another bill (ie: healthy young people that don’t even need health insurance yet)”

This is exactly why health insurance fails if not everyone has it. Here, I’ll explain the adverse selection death spiral.

Health insurance costs money. A certain proportion of young, healthy folk bet that they won’t get sick, and save money by not getting insurance. The average premium has to rise, because there are fewer young, healthy people subsidizing it. More people are priced out of being insured. Premiums have to rise until only the very sickest will bother paying for it, and you’re back to having almost everyone uninsured. That is why socialized health insurance has to include mandated coverage; it’s the same reason why you can’t just opt out of social security if you feel like betting that you won’t need it.