Thread: Obama: approve or disapprove?

Originally Posted by Chaobam Armour

He is a great orator, but that seems about it. It appears he is back on the campaign trail again, and a place where he feels safe and secure, on TV behind the camera. He talks a lot but doesn't do much; and as for appointing 3 x Tax Evaders, scandalous.

I question the man's oratorical skills, and do so strongly. When not speaking from a prepared script and with the use of a teleprompter the man is goofiness personified. He rambles, babbles and generally exhibits confusion and muddled thought in what he says.

He talks moderately (apart from his expressions about the constitution being outdated and in need of a more contemporary re-write) but lives with (has close friends who are) terrorists and racists and proposes for hire to his administration a series of radicals who have never expressed a desire for moderation.

Originally Posted by GC13

Okay Noah, I'm calling you out on your usage of the word "pogrom" to describe socialized medicine. Regardless of whether you think a nationalized healthcare system is effective or not, "pogrom" is terrible hyperbole and your use of it cheapens the word.

As for Obama... Well, I'm glad that the members he chose for his cabinet were centrist. I was afraid that he'd come out swinging for the fences with a far-left team, but for the most part he's ticked the far left off by leaving them out in the cold. I agree that it's far too soon to try to gauge his performance, but he does need to slap some sense into Congress.

1) I use "pogrom" advisedly. I advise that any medical system that will ration care based on a cost-effectiveness paradigm, "can this person be expected to live long enough with successful medical care to be "worth" being kept alive", is barbaric and reminiscent of Nazi murder mills. "Medical ethicists" who will make decisions as to my quality of life and my value to the world (my children, grandchildren, friends) and whether I am worthy of living.... Not a matter of heroic efforts to save a dying person but rather accepted/acceptable, if costly, efforts that I (with my government insurance) can otherwise afford- but am denied life because a bureaucrat thinks it too much trouble? In any individual case it borders (you pick the side) on homicide! As a government "program" it is a pogrom of systematizing death for the elderly.

2) Congress is slapping some sense into him. He is choosing liberal politico retreads to be his cabinet, sub-cabinet and advisers. He mumbles centrism via his calls to come together but the reality is that he wants those who disagree to change their minds or shut up and leave. This is the most radical national politician the USA has ever seen. And he is surrounding himself with the most radical support team, being approved by a leftist/liberal radical congress.

If you have any doubts look at the "stimulus" legislation recently passed by the congress. Each version is more radical than the other. Numerous far left wishes hidden in the 600 page $800,000,000,000.00 package. Passed without being thoroughly examined on the basis of its "critical" need to meet the "crisis" at hand.... It is in fact a huge bill-of-goods foisted on the nation and passed by fools and fellow-traveler types elected by our own "sheeps" (a paean to Tarek Morgen) who are now facing a severe shearing. This bill will not do what it purports to and will only excavate a deeper hexx-hole for a later administration to try to climb out of.

I'll go to the intor thread now, as advised.

Originally Posted by Noah_Vaile

1) I use "pogrom" advisedly. I advise that any medical system that will ration care based on a cost-effectiveness paradigm, "can this person be expected to live long enough with successful medical care to be "worth" being kept alive", is barbaric and reminiscent of Nazi murder mills. "Medical ethicists" who will make decisions as to my quality of life and my value to the world (my children, grandchildren, friends) and whether I am worthy of living.... Not a matter of heroic efforts to save a dying person but rather accepted/acceptable, if costly, efforts that I (with my government insurance) can otherwise afford- but am denied life because a bureaucrat thinks it too much trouble? In any individual case it borders (you pick the side) on homicide! As a government "program" it is a pogrom of systematizing death for the elderly.

Etymology

The word "pogrom" Russian: погром came from the verb громить, "to destroy, to wreak havoc, to demolish violently". Holocaust survivor Uri Avnery describes classical pogroms as "riots by an armed mob intoxicated with hatred against helpless people, while the police and the army look on".

Originally Posted by JOgershok

Etymology

The word "pogrom" Russian: погром came from the verb громить, "to destroy, to wreak havoc, to demolish violently". Holocaust survivor Uri Avnery describes classical pogroms as "riots by an armed mob intoxicated with hatred against helpless people, while the police and the army look on".

I suspect that Mr. Avnery is referring to German mobs. My understanding of pogrom and I think general usage has more to do with government programs resulting in murder than with intoxicated and out of control mob behavior. I was using "pogrom" in the sense of a government program designed to wreak murder on a specific group of citizens. I believe I have used it correctly.