Obama Care vs Republicans

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

With record deficit spending, the Republicans OF COURSE, wouldn't go along with another 70 Billion increase in spending by the feds.

Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

The war with Afghanistan was required by the oath of office of the President. Bush had no choice there.

The war with Iraq was another matter, of course. There, I believe Saddam had just made himself into a huge PITA, after invading Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia, making a 10 year war with Iran, and gassing the Kurdish towns (3 of them iirc).

Saddam's secret service had also tried to assassinate Bush Jr's dad, when he went to receive an award in Kuwait or Qatar (it failed, but hardly endeared Saddam to the Bush family).

We knew that the economy in Iraq was shot to hell. Their oil production had been falling for years, with many plants barely working at all. Plus, Saddam had rebuilt his Army to a HUGE level, calling on national fervor ad's to get recruits (it worked).

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

No. You use it. Saddam also had a large fleet of mobile missile launchers, and a fair amount of Scuds to use, as well. They became a BIG problem for us, to find and destroy, during the war.

I believe Bush was just convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the CIA, that taking out Saddam now, would be a good idea. Much better than waiting for him to attack another country in the Middle East.

People like to smear Cheney, he is not afraid to be a hawk on matters, but the truth is, Cheney is one very smart dude, and he cuts right to the chase. I don't know what all our options were at that time, but Cheney did, of course. As did Bush and Rumsfeld, and the CIA.

The fight to remove Saddam didn't go well, because Al-Qaeda and the Bath party, used it to raise a huge groundswell of support for joining them, and fighting us in guerrilla fashion. No one could have predicted how successful they would be at it. (OK, one prof. from Columbia U did predict it, and did advise the Pres about it, but nobody believed him, so !)

Our big spending problem was exacerbated by the wars - no doubt. But there are much bigger issues: Top two are Social Security, (which is slowly going broke), and Medicare (which Bush Jr. substantially increased the coverage and cost of).

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Adak

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

You've accidentally identified America's biggest problem.

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by BigV

Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.

I think that's the funniest thing I've read all week.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be.
We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives
in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it,
and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

Adak, I know you are enthusiastic about fixing the US, but this is going far too far ... even for you.

Texas Hunting Club Auctioning off Permit to Hunt Endangered Rhino

A Texas hunting group is auctioning off a permit to shoot and kill
one of the most endangered animals in the world: a black rhino.

The Dallas Safari Club, an international organization of hunters and wildlife enthusiasts,
said they plan to auction off a permit to hunt an endangered black rhino from
the government of the Republic of Namibia.

But conservation groups said that the club's claim that the hunt
will actually benefit the species was based on faulty logic.

Actually, I think another article may have gotten it right about
the old grey-haired ones in the herd...

By removing these older males from the population,
you get an increase in the production of calves.
Younger males are able to impregnate the females that are
in that area so you get more offspring than from some of these older males."

I didn't even know there were that many Blacks in the GOP.
They are so few, they must all be Rinos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh... wait, don't tell me.
You mean Rino's and the Dallas Safari Club wants to kill a....

Never mind.

[henry quirk]

"we need to give this Obamacare a thorough trial"

Like we have a real choice in the matter.

Please understand: I have no objection to the plan itself...it may work as well or better than its proponents think it will...I object only to the mandatory nature of it.

#

"*You sound like a young guy"

51 years young.

#

"even anarchists need a doctor from time to time"

Sure...and, when I do, that's my problem, not yours...can't see a good reason why you should absorb a dime of my medical expenses.









*I take a small offense to this...in my experience, nowadays, it's the young who want each and every one bound tightly to each and every other...me: old and mean, wants to widen the distance...oldsters who celebrate the supposed virtues of 'community', in my experience, have yet to grow up