What is on the table right now is a draft proposal from a drafting committee. It's a point for the start of negotiations.
To overreact to such a document is roughly the same as going into a murderous rage over the first offer a potential buyer makes for your house. What is proposed for negotiation is a PROPOSAL. These things are little more than outlines for discussion. Sometimes to stimulate the discussion conflicting and even outrageous proposals are put on the table. Anyone who has actually followed the process for these things would know that and realize that the Wall Street Journal's red flag was pure nonsense. A more cynical take on it would have the WSJ just playing hack to the Republican party trying to whip people up on something for no other reason than to politically damage the President. I can't imagine why I would get the idea the Rupert Murdock (owner of FAUX News) would do something like that.....*cough*
The reasonable and rational way of dealing with this is to pay attention to the negotiations and the final draft of the treaty that is submitted to a vote. Then watch to see if the President signs it. At that point, if you believe that ANY Ameircan President would consciously commit treason, then take the time to read the treaty and react to it in a rational manner. That, of course, begs the question why one would believe that any duly elected American President would willingly or consciously commit treason or even be able to with the limitations put on him by his staff. Finally, once the President signs it, then it goes to the Senate - which is (as we have seen) an exceptionally conservative body and even a casual reading of American history would show that anything that would even be close to signing away our national interest would be quickly killed dead in the Senate.
Thus, the original poster's fantasies and even the outrageous take on the issue by the WSJ are just pure insanity. What the original poster is doing is much the same thing as what Sarah Palin did with the charge about "Death Panels". First off, the proposed legislation didn't deal with anything of the sort, it clearly dealt with paying for medical discussions that were already occurring between doctors and patients under the guise of something else. The nutty paranoid right wing took that and ASSumed that such counseling appointments would translate into faceless government hacks making decisions about pulling the plug on granny. They got there not because they read the bill, but because they live with the insane belief that government anything is bad and corporate anything is good. Such thinking is the very soul of stupidity and ignorance.
- Location: Realityville
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
 |
|