NotProvenGuilty's Comments (99)

“Lame. $10K is beyond the means of many. And parsing "required by law" against "buy.. or pay taxes (fine)" is a distinction without a difference. His point is valid.”

“Evan - You communicated with me when my daughter was at the end of a long battle with leukemia, which I will always appreciate. I am sorry to learn you are battling another malady now. I wish you the best of fortune.

You have articulated discussions I've had with many people recently. The devil may be in the details, but the justification for doing something is in the broad brush stroke arguments you paint here. There simply is no excuse not to, and the system we have today simply presents undue risk of bankruptcy and death to every single citizen.

But why aren't more Americans for it? My hypothesis is that it stems from our racial and ethnic heterogeneity and history of slavery, something none of the countries on your list share (correct me if I'm wrong). I think overt and subliminal racism color people's perception of this debate -- those who would benefit are "others," minorities, darker, and lazy, and undeserving. A nation rests on a sense of "we-ness" -- the French are French! -- but the U.S. today is torn by an "us" vs. "them," Ayn Randian psychology that, I believe, poisons this debate and makes progress excruciatingly difficult.”

“And you don't think a withdrawal will lead to the fall of the Afghan government and intensified destabilization of Pakistan? It's like you're not even listening to what Obama is saying. He has good intelligence. He isn't stupid. How do you explain his wanting this policy? Is everyone corrupt to you?”

“Yes, it's a war against domestic forces in Afghanistan, not against Afghanistan. You don't see it because you don't want to.”

“You are both right. I would add that the presence of the U.S. is not the presence of war. This is the fundamental error so many of these critics seem to make. The vast majority of the U.S. army's duties there are and will be keeping the peace and training the Afghanis. Note we are not "fighting" the Afghan government, we are helping them manage their country. No, management isn't war, either, and the Afghan government has welcomed our help. There will always be some against it, both in and out of Afghanistan. That doesn't make it "war."”

“First, Obama always said he wanted to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. He hasn't changed. Second, he is not going to "war." It's more like "establishing domestic security, training an indigenous army and police, while trying to irradicate the remainder of the enemies that attacked us" (he's not fighting the government of Afghanistan, but aiding them). In other words, this commentary is seriously off base.”

“Spot on. Institute the draft, the best anti-war measure ever.”

“Thumbs down on mustache. Love your work, Bradley.”

“We lost our 14 year old daughter this year, and this piece will help me celebrate her with family at Thanksgiving.

I want to work for you...”

“Why don't you read who I was responding to. Obama is accountable to truth, not lies. Beck's criticisms are irrelevant and getting at him through his advertisers is legal. End of story.”

“Protesting by petitioning advertisers is also free speech, Einstein.”

“The issue is he lies.”

“Thank goodness you're healthy then, or rich. If you're not, prepare for bankruptcy.”

“Easy to say if you already have insurance.”

“This is the best piece Escow has penned. It helps when he stays within his area of expertise and doesn't try to take on the brilliant Christopher Hitchens in his stomping grounds, the middle east.

However, Escow's missing Rachel's point. Something IS better than nothing, as Escow's admission of significant help for the low income uninsured attests. Obama has never made any secret of his desire, and lifetime's work, of helping the least among us. But Escow's larger point that it could shoot democrats in the foot is legitimate. But, remember, Rachel said "brand" and "inspire," but not ". . . to whom."”

“Ignorance is bad enough. When coupled with arrogance, it's sad, and far too prevalent on this site. Here is the FBI's and U.S.C. definition of int'l terrorism:

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)]

Whether the act is by a government or on a military target, it still constitutes terrorism if it meets these criteria. Yes, everyone has called the Cole a terrorist attack, because it was. Look at the news of the time.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm”

“So what? And this wasn't terrorism, anyway. It was mass murder.”

“Exactly.”

“Um.. so why is the attack on the cole always called terrorism? everyone wrong but you? right.”

“Let me clarify. Capability and will are intertwined. Vietnamese never seriously thought of going after targets in the U.S. and didn't embrace suicide bombers. It has nothing to do with nukes.

If you think AQ can't or won't reassert itself in Afgh. if their government falls, you are, I fear, flat wrong. The "border" with Pakistan would become even more irrelevant than it already is.”

“Do you vote?”

“Says the proclaimer. Sophomoric indeed.”

“Airstrikes are useless and the Taliban would not have let us on their soil.”

“Agree. And I think that's what Obama's taking... a long pause.

I'd love us to get out ASAP. But I don't believe those who argue we'd be just as secure (not today or tomorrow, but years down the road).

I think we're just stuck in a bad situation, much worse than Vietnam. They hadn't capability or will to attack us on our soil.

Yes, threats arise elsewhere, too, today. I still think Afg. is singularly dangerous. It's a question of degree.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply to your readers. Classy thing to do.”

“This is a cavalier attitude people with the actual responsibility of power can't afford to take.

I wonder if Mr. Shearer, whose work I like, thinks we ever should have gone into Afgh. in the first place. I think the answer is unequivocally, "yes." If he agrees, the next question is, when would be be the right time to get out? Under what circumstances?

Our leaders are struggling to not just "save face"/credibility, but to extricate ourselves in a way that doesn't leave a power vacuum. Is this possible? I don't know. Neither do they. Which is why these choices are so hard. Mr Hoh is entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is.

I am hardly right wing, but I know many of you will assume..”