> From: Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> > 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.
On Nov 4, 11:19 am, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> 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.
> On Nov 4, 11:19 am, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> 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 <b...@barrk.net> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> 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 <b...@barrk.net> 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 Professor: What's "Friends"? Satan: A TV show. Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth. - Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game
>> 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.
> >> 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....
> >> 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. 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
>>>> 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.
> 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.
> >>>>> 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.
> >> 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 .......
> >>>>> 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.
> >> 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.
> I hate deceivers more.
Ohhhhh, the irony of that statement.
I note you vote reichtard and looneytunarian. So think about who you vote for and who are the deceivers you need to worry about.
> Can't make rational decisions if your info > is defective.
> >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.
> This is America ... we'd SCREW IT UP ten ways to > sunday. Come on ... you KNOW it .....
> "GovtCare" is brought to you by the same people > and doctors who put plutonium into babies just > to see what it would do.
|
