Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting? Cigarettes?
Anorexia? or....?

http://tinyurl.com/PJs1104

http://tinyurl.com/PJs11042

http://tinyurl.com/PJs11043

And from the UK:

http://tinyurl.com/PJs11044

Another from the UK:

http://tinyurl.com/PJs11045


Headline: "President Obama: wasting away to skin and bones":


http://tinyurl.com/PJs11046

Job stress. 

Look at how quickly the presidency aged his predecessors.
One president year is like two or three regular-person
years. 

Doesn't help that he's a politically-inexperienced
guy who hasn't learned all the ways to deflect critique
and delegate power. Doesn't help that he's such a
polarizing politician either ... guarenteeing rough
seas, so to speak. 

Until he learns to kick back with a smoke and a
glass of brandy and realize that he just CAN'T
make all the people happy so there's no point
in worrying about it ..... his rapid aging is
sure to continue. He'll be a balding grandpaw-
lookin' guy with dispepsia and heart palpitations
by 2016 at this rate.

> From: Mr.B1ack 
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:19:21 -0500
> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
> 
> Job stress. 
> 
> Look at how quickly the presidency aged his predecessors.
> One president year is like two or three regular-person
> years. 
> 
> Doesn't help that he's a politically-inexperienced
> guy who hasn't learned all the ways to deflect critique
> and delegate power. Doesn't help that he's such a
> polarizing politician either ... guarenteeing rough
> seas, so to speak.
> 
> Until he learns to kick back with a smoke and a
> glass of brandy and realize that he just CAN'T
> make all the people happy so there's no point
> in worrying about it ..... his rapid aging is
> sure to continue. He'll be a balding grandpaw-
> lookin' guy with dispepsia and heart palpitations
> by 2016 at this rate.

Good post.  My vote is also with stress.  Cigarettes are not the answer,
since he was already a smoker.  Ramadan fasting?  What a joke.  The person
who said that knows nothing about Ramadan.  The fast is broken after sunset,
and everyone eats tons of all the special foods that are prepared for the
breaking of the fast, all of them terribly fattening.  They don't eat less
food, they actually end up eating more.  My husband had a Muslim graduate
student who was always a bit chubby, and said he always gained weight during
Ramadan.  Anorexia at his age is also unlikely.  That leaves stress.  He
should take your advice.  Kick back, don't give up a few minor vices.

Donna Evleth
>

Donna Evleth  wrote:

>
>
>> From: Mr.B1ack 
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:19:21 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>> 
>> Job stress. 
>> 
>> Look at how quickly the presidency aged his predecessors.
>> One president year is like two or three regular-person
>> years. 
>> 
>> Doesn't help that he's a politically-inexperienced
>> guy who hasn't learned all the ways to deflect critique
>> and delegate power. Doesn't help that he's such a
>> polarizing politician either ... guarenteeing rough
>> seas, so to speak.
>> 
>> Until he learns to kick back with a smoke and a
>> glass of brandy and realize that he just CAN'T
>> make all the people happy so there's no point
>> in worrying about it ..... his rapid aging is
>> sure to continue. He'll be a balding grandpaw-
>> lookin' guy with dispepsia and heart palpitations
>> by 2016 at this rate.
>
>Good post.  My vote is also with stress.  Cigarettes are not the answer,
>since he was already a smoker.  Ramadan fasting?  What a joke.  The person
>who said that knows nothing about Ramadan.  The fast is broken after sunset,
>and everyone eats tons of all the special foods that are prepared for the
>breaking of the fast, all of them terribly fattening.  They don't eat less
>food, they actually end up eating more.  My husband had a Muslim graduate
>student who was always a bit chubby, and said he always gained weight during
>Ramadan.  Anorexia at his age is also unlikely.  That leaves stress.  He
>should take your advice.  Kick back, don't give up a few minor vices.

   Well ... he's new, and had several big projects in
   the works ... Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, health care
   and our sinking economy topping the list. He's
   also burdened by the unrealistic expectations both
   he and the media created during the elections. 

   So, maybe, he can learn to slow down a bit. With
   all the myriad demands on a president - EVERYBODY
   *needs* to see him - it is difficult to carve out
   any real 'personal time' to just kick back and
   clear the mind. JFK would take off in a boat, 
   GHWB would disappear to Kennebunkport or Camp
   David for extended periods, Clinton, well, he
   had the girls :-) Regardless, 

   OB needs to find his own escapes and *quickly* 
   before he blows a gasket. 'Black' men especially
   are far more prone to cardiovascular problems and
   24/7 stress is a sure ticket to disaster. 

   Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
   but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
   then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
   iron grip on every little detail because there are
   just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
   think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
   of control. 

   While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
   do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
   Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
   few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
   ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ... 
   might even help save him because *job stress* is
   his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
   he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
   the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.

On Nov 4, 11:19 am, Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> Job stress.
>
> Look at how quickly the presidency aged his predecessors.
> One president year is like two or three regular-person
> years.
>
> Doesn't help that he's a politically-inexperienced
> guy who hasn't learned all the ways to deflect critique
> and delegate power. Doesn't help that he's such a
> polarizing politician either ... guarenteeing rough
> seas, so to speak.


In what way is he "polarizing"? Starting insane wars? Wrecking the US
economy?

Be specific.


>
> Until he learns to kick back with a smoke and a
> glass of brandy and realize that he just CAN'T
> make all the people happy so there's no point
> in worrying about it ..... his rapid aging is
> sure to continue. He'll be a balding grandpaw-
> lookin' guy with dispepsia and heart palpitations
> by 2016 at this rate.

The magnitude of the problems Bush 1/2 left and the insanity of you
reichtards couldn't have anything to do with it, could it? That would
be too much like reality.

liberal2 wrote:
> 
> On Nov 4, 11:19 am, Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> > Job stress.
> >
> > Look at how quickly the presidency aged his predecessors.
> > One president year is like two or three regular-person
> > years.
> >
> > Doesn't help that he's a politically-inexperienced
> > guy who hasn't learned all the ways to deflect critique
> > and delegate power. Doesn't help that he's such a
> > polarizing politician either ... guarenteeing rough
> > seas, so to speak.
> 
> In what way is he "polarizing"? Starting insane wars? Wrecking the US
> economy?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
Be specific in explaining what you mean by "insane war starting".



> > Until he learns to kick back with a smoke and a
> > glass of brandy and realize that he just CAN'T
> > make all the people happy so there's no point
> > in worrying about it ..... his rapid aging is
> > sure to continue. He'll be a balding grandpaw-
> > lookin' guy with dispepsia and heart palpitations
> > by 2016 at this rate.
> 
> The magnitude of the problems Bush 1/2 left and the insanity of you
> reichtards couldn't have anything to do with it, could it? That would
> be too much like reality.
>
Blame everything in the world on Bush. Didn't you insist that the
day after Bush took over from Clinton, everything was his fault? 


-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Mr.B1ack  wrote:

>    Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>    but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>    then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>    iron grip on every little detail because there are
>    just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>    think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>    of control. 

I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
falling fairly flat.

>    While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>    do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>    Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>    few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>    ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ... 
>    might even help save him because *job stress* is
>    his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>    he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>    the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS. 

A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
moment.

I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
FWIW.

-- 
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show.  Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game

diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:

>Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>
>>    Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>>    but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>>    then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>>    iron grip on every little detail because there are
>>    just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>>    think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>>    of control. 
>
>I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
>much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
>must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
>falling fairly flat.

   I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
   equation here. There's also the issue of him being
   a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
   delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
   and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
   all running their own private governments in the
   basement without his knowledge. For any modern
   president, the delegation/control equation must
   be pure HELL to negotiate. 

>>    While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>>    do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>>    Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>>    few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>>    ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ... 
>>    might even help save him because *job stress* is
>>    his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>>    he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>>    the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS. 
>
>A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
>Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
>moment.

   Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good 
   usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to 
   be qualified just a bit ...   :-) 

>I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,

   I urge you to reconsider. 

   The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment' 
   involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
   comes out of the committees - tomorrows 
   potential LAW. 

   'Good intentions' don't always translate well
   into law and real-world practice. Rather like
   the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
   but have 39 evil side-effects.

   BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
   need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
   all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
   course of action is to do nothing - at least
   until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
   that has only a few, mild, side-effects.

> From: Mr.B1ack 
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:10:11 -0500
> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
> 
> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> 
>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>> 
>>> Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>>> but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>>> then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>>> iron grip on every little detail because there are
>>> just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>>> think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>>> of control. 
>> 
>> I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
>> much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
>> must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
>> falling fairly flat.
> 
> I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
> equation here. There's also the issue of him being
> a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
> delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
> and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
> all running their own private governments in the
> basement without his knowledge. For any modern
> president, the delegation/control equation must
> be pure HELL to negotiate.
> 
>>> While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>>> do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>>> Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>>> few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>>> ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ...
>>> might even help save him because *job stress* is
>>> his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>>> he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>>> the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.
>> 
>> A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
>> Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
>> moment.
> 
> Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good
> usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to
> be qualified just a bit ...   :-)
> 
>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
> 
> I urge you to reconsider.
> 
> The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment'
> involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
> comes out of the committees - tomorrows
> potential LAW. 
> 
> 'Good intentions' don't always translate well
> into law and real-world practice. Rather like
> the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
> but have 39 evil side-effects.
> 
> BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
> need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
> all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
> course of action is to do nothing - at least
> until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
> that has only a few, mild, side-effects.
> 

Are you a lawyer?  Nothing mean intended, just curious.

Donna Evleth

Donna Evleth wrote:
> 
>> From: Mr.B1ack 
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:10:11 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>>
>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>>
>>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>>>> but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>>>> then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>>>> iron grip on every little detail because there are
>>>> just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>>>> think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>>>> of control. 
>>> I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
>>> much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
>>> must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
>>> falling fairly flat.
>> I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
>> equation here. There's also the issue of him being
>> a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
>> delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
>> and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
>> all running their own private governments in the
>> basement without his knowledge. For any modern
>> president, the delegation/control equation must
>> be pure HELL to negotiate.
>>
>>>> While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>>>> do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>>>> Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>>>> few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>>>> ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ...
>>>> might even help save him because *job stress* is
>>>> his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>>>> he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>>>> the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.
>>> A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
>>> Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
>>> moment.
>> Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good
>> usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to
>> be qualified just a bit ...   :-)
>>
>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>> I urge you to reconsider.
>>
>> The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment'
>> involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
>> comes out of the committees - tomorrows
>> potential LAW. 
>>
>> 'Good intentions' don't always translate well
>> into law and real-world practice. Rather like
>> the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
>> but have 39 evil side-effects.
>>
>> BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
>> need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
>> all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
>> course of action is to do nothing - at least
>> until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
>> that has only a few, mild, side-effects.
>>
> 
> Are you a lawyer?  Nothing mean intended, just curious.
> 
> Donna Evleth
> 

I hope he's a politician - he would do well if he
was.  Very few will agree with him, or me, but
very often the best policy is to do nothing.  It's
amazing how many a problem seems to sort itself
out without intervention.

Mr.B1ack  wrote:

> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:

> >I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
> 
>    I urge you to reconsider. 

I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.

On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.

-- 
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show.  Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game

> From: diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo)
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:28:19 +1100
> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
> 
> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> 
>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> 
>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>> 
>> I urge you to reconsider.
> 
> I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
> 
> On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
> only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
> transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
> to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.

Not all of them do.  I was talking with an American friend last Sunday who
is absolutely enraged by the scare tactics, calling them outright lies.  May
his tribe of reasonable, rational people increase.

Donna Evleth

John Rennie  wrote:

>Donna Evleth wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Mr.B1ack 
>>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>>> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:10:11 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>>>
>>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>>>>> but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>>>>> then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>>>>> iron grip on every little detail because there are
>>>>> just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>>>>> think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>>>>> of control. 
>>>> I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
>>>> much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
>>>> must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
>>>> falling fairly flat.
>>> I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
>>> equation here. There's also the issue of him being
>>> a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
>>> delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
>>> and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
>>> all running their own private governments in the
>>> basement without his knowledge. For any modern
>>> president, the delegation/control equation must
>>> be pure HELL to negotiate.
>>>
>>>>> While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>>>>> do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>>>>> Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>>>>> few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>>>>> ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ...
>>>>> might even help save him because *job stress* is
>>>>> his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>>>>> he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>>>>> the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.
>>>> A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
>>>> Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
>>>> moment.
>>> Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good
>>> usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to
>>> be qualified just a bit ...   :-)
>>>
>>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>>> I urge you to reconsider.
>>>
>>> The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment'
>>> involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
>>> comes out of the committees - tomorrows
>>> potential LAW. 
>>>
>>> 'Good intentions' don't always translate well
>>> into law and real-world practice. Rather like
>>> the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
>>> but have 39 evil side-effects.
>>>
>>> BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
>>> need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
>>> all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
>>> course of action is to do nothing - at least
>>> until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
>>> that has only a few, mild, side-effects.
>>>
>> 
>> Are you a lawyer?  Nothing mean intended, just curious.
>> 
>> Donna Evleth
>> 
>
>I hope he's a politician - he would do well if he
>was.  Very few will agree with him, or me, but
>very often the best policy is to do nothing.  It's
>amazing how many a problem seems to sort itself
>out without intervention.

   Yep. Call it "Darwinian process" or whatever but
   when a bona-fide, often complex and tangled, problem
   arises it creates forces which cause adjustments in
   the 'environment' - often making the problem just
   disappear. The 'fixes' are often so broad and
   subtle that there's no way you could have written
   and executed a detailed law or policy to achieve
   the same results. 

   This is not quite the same as so-called "market
   intelligence" (of which there's little IMHO). The
   'evolution' of a solution may not generate any
   profits or losses at all, but simply make things
   easier because people would rather they be easier. 

   Of course, the abovedescribed processes are 
   'unreliable' - so 'doing nothing' actually means
   taking no definitive steps but still watching 
   the situation closely. If the 'environment'
   fails to resolve an important issue then it's
   necessary to make a deliberate stab at it -
   for better or worse. 

   In the late 1800s, there was much consternation, and
   many elaborate plans offered, in New York City relative
   to the critical manure problem. Projections had shown
   that within a decade or two the rapidly-growing city
   would be literally hip deep in the stuff. However, since
   horses and donkeys were getting to be a pain, there
   was an impetus for a change in the whole transportation
   "environment" ... and automobiles suddenly became 
   interesting and more affordable. Problem solved - without
   having to lift one shovel-full of manure.  :-)

Donna Evleth  wrote:

>
>
>> From: Mr.B1ack 
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:10:11 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>> 
>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>> 
>>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
>>>> but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
>>>> then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
>>>> iron grip on every little detail because there are
>>>> just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
>>>> think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
>>>> of control. 
>>> 
>>> I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
>>> much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
>>> must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
>>> falling fairly flat.
>> 
>> I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
>> equation here. There's also the issue of him being
>> a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
>> delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
>> and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
>> all running their own private governments in the
>> basement without his knowledge. For any modern
>> president, the delegation/control equation must
>> be pure HELL to negotiate.
>> 
>>>> While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
>>>> do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
>>>> Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
>>>> few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
>>>> ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ...
>>>> might even help save him because *job stress* is
>>>> his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
>>>> he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
>>>> the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.
>>> 
>>> A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
>>> Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
>>> moment.
>> 
>> Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good
>> usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to
>> be qualified just a bit ...   :-)
>> 
>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>> 
>> I urge you to reconsider.
>> 
>> The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment'
>> involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
>> comes out of the committees - tomorrows
>> potential LAW. 
>> 
>> 'Good intentions' don't always translate well
>> into law and real-world practice. Rather like
>> the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
>> but have 39 evil side-effects.
>> 
>> BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
>> need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
>> all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
>> course of action is to do nothing - at least
>> until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
>> that has only a few, mild, side-effects.
>> 
>
>Are you a lawyer?  Nothing mean intended, just curious.


   A lawyer would have framed and phrased the issue
   differently - mostly in ways that obfiscated the
   issue and made sure he'd get paid to straighten
   it all out  :-) 

   I'm just an observer ....

diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:

>Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>
>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
>> >I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>> 
>>    I urge you to reconsider. 
>
>I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
>
>On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
>only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
>transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
>to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.

   The problem is that Americans know Americans - and
   American politicians & bureaucrats. We KNOW they'd
   screw it up, KNOW they'd find a thousand ways to
   abuse such a system, KNOW it would wind up costing
   three or five times what's projected and undeliver
   even then. The days of "Trust us, we're the government"
   are LONG gone ... replaced by realistic cynicism and
   justified paranoia. 

   There may be a way ... but nobody's come close to finding
   it yet. We'll know it when we see it. Meanwhile it's better
   to stick with the devil we know ... maybe hobble him just
   a bit .......

Donna Evleth  wrote:

>
>
>> From: diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo)
>> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:28:19 +1100
>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>> 
>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>> 
>>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>>> 
>>> I urge you to reconsider.
>> 
>> I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
>> 
>> On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
>> only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
>> transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
>> to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.
>
>Not all of them do.  I was talking with an American friend last Sunday who
>is absolutely enraged by the scare tactics, calling them outright lies.  May
>his tribe of reasonable, rational people increase.
>

   Really though, are those 'scare tactics' any worse than
   all the false promises and carefully-groomed figures
   offered by those on the other side of the issue ? Seems
   like liars-vs-liars to me ....

On Nov 5, 3:15 pm, Donna Evleth  wrote:
> > From: dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo)
> > Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:28:19 흝
> > Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> > Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>
> > Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>
> >> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>
> >> I urge you to reconsider.
>
> > I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
>
> > On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
> > only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
> > transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
> > to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.
>
> Not all of them do.  I was talking with an American friend last Sunday who
> is absolutely enraged by the scare tactics, calling them outright lies.  May
> his tribe of reasonable, rational people increase.
>
> Donna Evleth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

<<<<Why this liberal Democrat voted Republican in New Jersey

Jigsaw>>>>

<<<anecdote time.

Evleth>>>

<< Not really, it's actually the topic of discussion.

Jigsaw>>

<No, an article based on the comments of a single
unimportant person is not informative.>

Evleth>

Anecdote from an unimportant person calling herself a "historian"

<Not all of them do.  I was talking with an American friend last
Sunday ...etc. etc......ad nauseum....

Donna Evleth>

Mr.B1ack  wrote:

> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> 
> >Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> >
> >> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> >
> >> >I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
> >> 
> >>    I urge you to reconsider. 
> >
> >I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
> >
> >On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
> >only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
> >transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
> >to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.
> 
>    The problem is that Americans know Americans - and
>    American politicians & bureaucrats. We KNOW they'd
>    screw it up, KNOW they'd find a thousand ways to
>    abuse such a system, KNOW it would wind up costing
>    three or five times what's projected and undeliver
>    even then. The days of "Trust us, we're the government"
>    are LONG gone ... replaced by realistic cynicism and
>    justified paranoia. 

For sure.  However, the more vocal stuff - stuff that reaches us over
here - is nonsense about death panels and killing granny.  We have UHC
and yet ... No death panels and granny is entirely alive.

In summary, to cynically posit that the government will fuck it up is
all fair and reasonable - they have a history of fuckups whether they're
Democrats or Republicans.  To tell scary and untrue stories of the
magnitude of the ones that I've read simply beggars belief.

-- 
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show.  Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game

> From: Mr.B1ack 
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:43:42 -0500
> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
> 
> Donna Evleth  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo)
>>> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
>>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>>> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:28:19 +1100
>>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
>>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>>> 
>>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> diablo@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>>>> 
>>>> I urge you to reconsider.
>>> 
>>> I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
>>> only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
>>> transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
>>> to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.
>> 
>> Not all of them do.  I was talking with an American friend last Sunday who
>> is absolutely enraged by the scare tactics, calling them outright lies.  May
>> his tribe of reasonable, rational people increase.
>> 
> 
> Really though, are those 'scare tactics' any worse than
> all the false promises and carefully-groomed figures
> offered by those on the other side of the issue ? Seems
> like liars-vs-liars to me ....

I think I do hate scare tactics more.  False promises raise hopes which are
then dashed, and this can cause people to become pessimistic.  On the other
hand, scare tactics can create paranoia.  I don't really like either of the
alternatives, but I think I would rather be pessimistic than paranoid.

Donna Evleth
>

On Nov 5, 4:31 pm, Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> John Rennie  wrote:
> >Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> >>> From: Mr.B1ack 
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> >>> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:10:11 -0500
> >>> Subject: Re: Obama's weight loss called "shocking": Ramadan fasting?
> >>> Cigarettes?   Anorexia? or....?
>
> >>> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >>>> Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>
> >>>>> Maybe the early presidents could do it all themselves,
> >>>>> but it was a much smaller, slower-paced country back
> >>>>> then. Nowadays they HAVE to delegate, CAN'T keep an
> >>>>> iron grip on every little detail because there are
> >>>>> just too MANY of them. Alas young newbies tend to
> >>>>> think delegation is a sign of weakness and/or a loss
> >>>>> of control.
> >>>> I think that you have him spot on there.  He is trying to achieve too
> >>>> much and probably not even going about it in the right way.  The stress
> >>>> must be telling even more because most of what he's trying to do is
> >>>> falling fairly flat.
> >>> I think the young-mans "macho" thing IS part of the
> >>> equation here. There's also the issue of him being
> >>> a relative newbie .... he isn't as experienced at
> >>> delegating as an old hand, doesn't know who to trust,
> >>> and is afraid of discovering a bunch of Ollie Norths
> >>> all running their own private governments in the
> >>> basement without his knowledge. For any modern
> >>> president, the delegation/control equation must
> >>> be pure HELL to negotiate.
>
> >>>>> While I don't care for OBs politics very much, neither
> >>>>> do I want to see him drop dead on the WH lawn (or see
> >>>>> Biden as president). He needs space and he needs a
> >>>>> few little vices to take the edge off - and a few
> >>>>> ciggies and beers each day ain't gonna kill him ...
> >>>>> might even help save him because *job stress* is
> >>>>> his #1 enemy at this point. That calm, smooth demeanor
> >>>>> he projects is well-practiced ... and false. Behind
> >>>>> the scenes 'they' must be driving him NUTS.
> >>>> A very good post.  It is good to see some honest, solid criticism of
> >>>> Obama minus the hysteria that appears to dominate the practice at the
> >>>> moment.
> >>> Hysteria makes good press, good TV and good
> >>> usenet posts. Well, maybe "good" needs to
> >>> be qualified just a bit ...   :-)
>
> >>>> I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
> >>> I urge you to reconsider.
>
> >>> The main problem isn't so much the 'sentiment'
> >>> involved ... but the nuts and bolts of what
> >>> comes out of the committees - tomorrows
> >>> potential LAW.
>
> >>> 'Good intentions' don't always translate well
> >>> into law and real-world practice. Rather like
> >>> the pills they hawk on TV ... they fix one thing,
> >>> but have 39 evil side-effects.
>
> >>> BTW ... 'reconsideration' does NOT mean you
> >>> need to love any GOP counter-offers. They
> >>> all seem to suck too. Sometimes, the best
> >>> course of action is to do nothing - at least
> >>> until (if) you FINALLY come up with a plan
> >>> that has only a few, mild, side-effects.
>
> >> Are you a lawyer?  Nothing mean intended, just curious.
>
> >> Donna Evleth
>
> >I hope he's a politician - he would do well if he
> >was.  Very few will agree with him, or me, but
> >very often the best policy is to do nothing.  It's
> >amazing how many a problem seems to sort itself
> >out without intervention.
>
>    Yep. Call it "Darwinian process" or whatever but
>    when a bona-fide, often complex and tangled, problem
>    arises it creates forces which cause adjustments in
>    the 'environment' - often making the problem just
>    disappear. The 'fixes' are often so broad and
>    subtle that there's no way you could have written
>    and executed a detailed law or policy to achieve
>    the same results.
>
>    This is not quite the same as so-called "market
>    intelligence" (of which there's little IMHO). The
>    'evolution' of a solution may not generate any
>    profits or losses at all, but simply make things
>    easier because people would rather they be easier.
>
>    Of course, the abovedescribed processes are
>    'unreliable' - so 'doing nothing' actually means
>    taking no definitive steps but still watching
>    the situation closely. If the 'environment'
>    fails to resolve an important issue then it's
>    necessary to make a deliberate stab at it -
>    for better or worse.
>
>    In the late 1800s, there was much consternation, and
>    many elaborate plans offered, in New York City relative
>    to the critical manure problem. Projections had shown
>    that within a decade or two the rapidly-growing city
>    would be literally hip deep in the stuff. However, since
>    horses and donkeys were getting to be a pain, there
>    was an impetus for a change in the whole transportation
>    "environment" ... and automobiles suddenly became
>    interesting and more affordable. Problem solved - without
>    having to lift one shovel-full of manure.  :-)

Okay, and your NYC example (which I've used to point out the fallacy
of limiting solutions to only the way we do things today) simply
underscores the fact that the inadequacies and unfairness of the US
health system, and the potential consequences of that unfairness,
means we need to look at other systems of providing health care.

I vote for Medicare-for-all, single payer.

What's your recommendation? I ask because I've noticed all you do is
reject, reject, reject...especially if a democrat, liberal, or
progressive offers a plan.

On Nov 5, 4:41 pm, Mr.B1ack  wrote:
> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >Mr.B1ack  wrote:
>
> >> dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> >> >I'm happy to disclose that I quite like quite a few of Obama's policies,
>
> >>    I urge you to reconsider.
>
> >I have no dog in this race.  I'm not a US citizen.
>
> >On the other hand, I know that UHC is a good idea and may well be the
> >only thing that can save the foundering US health care system.  The
> >transparency of the scare campaign against health care reform is risible
> >to outsiders and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Americans buy it.
>
>    The problem is that Americans know Americans - and
>    American politicians & bureaucrats.

Assine assumption. Assine because you frame it as if there's something
unique about American politics. Even divine right monarchies have the
same political problems.

If your understanding of political systems is so poor, lurk, you're
only embarrassing yourself.


>                                                        We KNOW they'd
>    screw it up, KNOW they'd find a thousand ways to
>    abuse such a system, KNOW it would wind up costing
>    three or five times what's projected and undeliver
>    even then. The days of "Trust us, we're the government"
>    are LONG gone ... replaced by realistic cynicism and
>    justified paranoia.
>
>    There may be a way ... but nobody's come close to finding
>    it yet. We'll know it when we see it. Meanwhile it's better
>    to stick with the devil we know ... maybe hobble him just
>    a bit .......