Comments on: CT AFL-CIO: Healthcare, Who Needs It?

By: mui

mui — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:31:15 +0000

And, on 1/23/03, Lieberman skipped a close vote on legislation that, according to official Senate records, would have significantly “increase[d] funding for reducing health disparities and promoting minority health” through public health programs.
HoJoe-brand cynicism is toxic: lip service, saintly statements, and a raging sense of entitlement. He’s nothing but an “elder statesmen” to special interests. He sniffs whichever way the political winds blow and hops on that badwagon without even batting an eyelash . I wish people in CT who have “met” Joe, would *stop* calling the man “nice.” A man without moral compass is not “nice.”
Re: Iran. ChimpCo has the special ability to tap into ugliness everywhere and make the world worse.So the little people around the world are captive to a bunch of hostile regimes or caught in crossfire (e.g. Lebanonese civilans.). If I got into the argument on who’s more insane, the Preznit of Iran or the Preznit of the U.S. I would say it’s the Preznit of the U.S.

By: gc wall

gc wall — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:39:30 +0000

Two changes might make Iran give up its nuclear ambition:

Israel decommissions its 200 - 400 nuclear weapons, and if oil lasts another five hundred years.

What is the possibility of either happening?
Slim, very slim indeed.

The administration uses the threat of war.
Considering the problems in Iraq, it has the appearance of an empty threat.

By: T-

T- — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:01:32 +0000

scarecrow-
Thanks, but…the USSR and USA did not slow down arms production until Earth was assuredly destroyed 10K times over.

The question is what “means”

exactly, see my second comment at 84 on this.

The “means” are how we differentiate ourselves from bushco.

I think we are now in an arms race due to the inconsistancy that our current foreign policy affords nuclear vs. non-nuclear powers.
This admin. not in a position to prevail diplomatically in non-proliferation.
Our only hope for that is a regime change in the US and an all-out effort to gain the trust of the international community.
That is only possible with a Democratic majority in congress. We do not disagree on that.

By: scarecrow

scarecrow — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:48:57 +0000

T-

Does this not imply Pax Americana, leading another arms race to mitigate that, is your preferable solution?

No. Once both sides understood the logic of MAD, they were able to slow down the arms race and negotiate reductions.

What is “unthinkable” if its not defined as Mutually assured destruction?

The inevitability of destruction, even if you try a preemptive strike, is what makes the preemptive strike unthinkable.

How safe did you feel during the bay of pigs in ‘61 and the nuclear arms race in the 80’s?

Bay of Pigs was not as scary as the subsequent missile crisis. The danger there was the potential for miscalculation on both sides. But MAD made both sides look for alternatives, and they found them.
The arms race in the 80’s was a concern because the people in the WH did not understand MAD and were willing to risk undermining it.

The point is not that the world is better with nuclear weapons than without them. Or course it’s not. The question is what means should the US take to prevent another determined nation not to develop such weapons. I do not believe it is rational to engage in rhetoric that leads inexorably to war if we don’t succeed in convincing Iran to not choose that path, because there is a fallback strategy that can also achieve an acceptable objective.

By: T-

T- — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:19:19 +0000

scarecrow-
the only substantive point that I still see that we might disagree on is this:

It is, however, important that we create conditions in the ME (and elsewhere) in which everyone who might have or wish to develop nuclear weapons reaches the firm conviction that using them would be unthinkable. That framework worked; it kept us safe for 50 years

Does this not imply Pax Americana, leading another arms race to mitigate that, is your preferable solution?
What is “unthinkable” if its not defined as Mutually assured destruction?
How safe did you feel during the bay of pigs in ‘61 and the nuclear arms race in the 80’s?

By: ccmask

ccmask — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:07:16 +0000

Rush is an OxyMoron. And Scarecrow, I guess my mistake was using the word donors. I meant to say targets. Shiver me timbers!

By: GSD

GSD — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:03:54 +0000

Brian Williams is a self-proclaimed ‘big fan’ of Oxycontin Limp-baugh.

-GSD

By: TeddySanFran

TeddySanFran — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:57:15 +0000

Wow, Jane, I spotlighted this post to a bunch of Business reporters at the Connecticut papers — the AFL-CIO’s got a lot to answer for in its support of RGJoe, and no one likes to investigate labor better than Business reporters, right?

Gotta love that cuppa Joe!

=================
Had Enough, Connecticut?
=================

By: Old Sow

Old Sow — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:45:35 +0000

I don’t think that “Otherwise Thoughtful” people are just over the edge on a single issue like Iran and the bomb, that’s all. I mean, maybe they also think that Nafta is good, or that the US ought to have the right to have the best ideas about other international arrangements.

I think that thinking that Iran is so dangerous that it must be bombed is working from a blind spot. It’s not so much a question of Iran as it is the whole region. As we have found with Iraq, meddling only makes all the rest worse.

aaargh!

By: Dru

Dru — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:39:32 +0000

angie-141
OH. Now I got it, maybe. ARGGGh. Thanks matey.