2-Feb-11 News -- Disastrous health care law struck down

[John]

2-Feb-11 News -- Disastrous health care law struck down by Florida judge

Mubarak vows to step down, to die on the soil of Egypt

** 2-Feb-11 News -- Disastrous health care law struck down by Florida judge
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 02#e110202




Contents:
"Disastrous health care law struck down by Florida judge"
"Mubarak vows to step down, to die on the soil of Egypt"
"Additional links"
Palestinian Authority no longer has any purpose
Young Palestinians may turn against Hamas
Secret 2008 China document plans for 2012 invasion of Taiwan
South Korea's 'Sunshine Policy' towards the North is over
Kim Jong-Il's oldest son signals North Korean regime split
Anti-government dissent increasing in North Korea
Pakistan increasing size of nuclear arsenal
American drones watch over former Soviet nuclear test site in Kazakhstan
Putin appears to be lead in 2012 Russian presidential election
Young Russians avoiding the draft
Russia's booksellers report that Russia is moving to the left
Venezuela's Chavez tells homeless people to squat in the homes of wealthy people

[JULLIEN]

Pakistan becomes the fifth largest nuclear power, behind the U.S., Russia, China, and Israel (with 200 weapons).

France is supposed to have 350-400 atomic weapons and so be the "fourth nuclear power" and Britain a little less than 200 atomic weapons. So Pakistan is the seventh one.

[burt]

Russia's booksellers report that Russia is moving to the left

May I suggest it could have nothing to do with the "left" or the "right" but a desperate search of identity which turns into the direction of the first "simple" thing you can get, so radicalization...

[vincecate]

Mubarak vows to step down, to die on the soil of Egypt

Hosni Mubarak was always planning to turn things over to his son in September. The posters around town, that are allowed to stay up, are for Gamal Mubarak. In the video Hosni is saying he will support whoever the people elect. However, the constitution has been setup so the ruling party has a huge advantage and his son Gamal will be the candidate for the ruling party. So when Hosni Mubarak says he is not running for reelection this is not the same thing as stepping down. It is a trick to try to diffuse the situation without really giving in at all. He has not agreed to "free and fair elections" and I don't expect him to do that even if he says he would.

The potential for civil war does seem high.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... ssion-plan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -down.html

Another random thing. Egypt has reasons not to get into a war with Israel. Imagine Egypt starts something. About 90% of Egyptians live near the Nile river. The Nile used to flood every year, but the Huge Aswan dam stopped that. It took like 7 years to fill up that dam. If Israel hit it with one small nuke it would make a huge flood over the important part of Egypt. It would not be the Nuke that directly killed, and in fact most people would have plenty of time to get to high ground, but Egypt would be wiped out.

I am sure that the powers that be on both sides understand this. If the choice was between a genocidal war and knocking down everything in Egypt, there is no doubt in my mind which Netanyahu would take. Unlike many Westerners, Netanyahu fully believes in the right to self defense.

So I really doubt that Egypt will go to war with Israel.

[burt]

Now John I'd be pleased to understand how, with the generational theory, you can share with us, that there is almost no risk of a civil war, and why you changed you mind.

Just to say, I agree that there is very little chance of a civil war, but this come from an obervation last week-end that Army and Police didn't to fight each other. That is all... It may be important, but I do not see how to relate that with the theory you support, could you please help us, I'v seen that I'm the only one not understanding you sudden change in position....

[John]

Dear Bertrand,

> Now John I'd be pleased to understand how, with the generational
> theory, you can share with us, that there is almost no risk of a
> civil war, and why you changed you mind.

> Just to say, I agree that there is very little chance of a civil
> war, but this come from an obervation last week-end that Army and
> Police didn't to fight each other. That is all... It may be
> important, but I do not see how to relate that with the theory you
> support, could you please help us, I'v seen that I'm the only one
> not understanding you sudden change in position....

What sudden change of position? There was little chance of civil
war last week, and little chance this week. What are you talking
about? Are you just looking for something to disagree with?

Who are the pro-Mubarak protesters? Is it just a political
difference, or is there some ethnic, religious, or geographical
difference?

John

[jldavid47]

Hmm. I read the entire decision and did a search on the PDF file and I can find no reference to auto insurance mandates at all. Nonetheless, the bogus argument that since people can be compelled to purchase auto insurance they can be compelled to purchase health insurance fails on several levels:

1) The auto insurance mandate is a STATE mandate, not a federal mandate which is an important constitutional difference.
2) You do not have to purchase automobile insurance simply because you exist.
3) The auto insurance mandates exist to protect the other guy, not you. Only liability coverage is required by any state and one is not compelled to purchase coverage like collision and comprehensive which only protects you.

By the way, even auto insurance mandates are unnecessary. Even before mandates, you can add "uninsured motorist" coverage fairly cheaply. Those mandates were obviously a sop to the auto insurance companies.

[burt]

What sudden change of position? There was little chance of civil
war last week, and little chance this week. What are you talking
about? Are you just looking for something to disagree with?

I just wanted to understand why, one day (16th) you wrote that Tunisia movement could create a civil war in Egypt, and then "suddenly" (without transition, without explanation) you jumped into Egypt saying that there were no risk of civil war.

Today (3rd of February) you took time to go back to you logic and explain it clearly, THANK YOU, it is the link I was looking for.

I never try to "look something to disagree with", it would be quite stupid, I try to understand your own thinking, it is based on a fundamental logic that I respect, and I want to learn more about it, within the real life.