Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
On Obama's "battles": For two years Democrats held both the House and the Senate. That's half of his presidency. I know that one can argue that the Senate did not have a filibuster-proof majority, but cmon...there are enough RINOs in the Senate. And I was also not aware that the job of the Congress is the rubber stamp whatever the president wants. If what he was offering was such a great idea, passing would have been no problem in the least. I love how liberals blame <insert boogeyman here> when others reject their ideas, or when their ideas simply don't work because they don't reflect reality.
On Benghazi: dramatically overpoliticized? It was not talked about nearly enough, so much so that Romney declined to bring it up at the foreign policy debate. And it matters. A lot. What is to be thought about a president who deliberately chose not to protect Americans *on American soil*, as embassies are? Help was actively denied. We don't know the reasons why, but knowing the character of the man, I would bet money on the reason being the fear that it would blow up as a campaign issue. Just a guess on my part, and as you can tell my opinion of Obama is not very high.
On soldiers and war: remind me who is the president who has used drones more than any other, continuing to kill civilians along with the intended targets? The one who has assassinated an American citizen with one? And the one who has not ended the war (only escalating it, getting yet more of our soldiers killed) in Afghanistan, and seems to be gearing up for another one in Mali? Our soldiers are still coming home in boxes, and he's had four years to end the war like he said that he would. Democrats claim that they are the anti-war party just to pick up votes from useful idiots, and then do exactly the opposite. Reference again their approval of the war in Iraq. If you don't believe me on the upswing in deaths in Afghanistan, look here: http://icasualties.org/
Then you got Forbes vs Buffett and one of them still pushes trickle down. It's like global warming ... you can deny the facts about it but it doesn't make it any less true. Alan Greenspan did a pretty good job with the economy.
“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, told Bloomberg News. … Jan Stevens cautioned against drawing any conclusions before a thorough investigation, "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena.” Jan Stevens is the father of one of the young men killed during the attack.
I’m glad you brought up the foreign policy debate, though. Did you watch Romney go back on all his bold “pro war” comments and align himself with Obama? Mitt Romney on foreign policy is a disaster and you can poll the rest of the world and see that. I think he even knows it. Skip over the fox polls, they were predicting a landslide win for the Romney camp, the math is bad.
Of course he has used drones more than any other president … that’s like saying he has used an iPad more than any other president, it’s new technology. Out of curiosity (not trying to be rude), did you watch the debate or pick up what you needed to know on Fox? The drones were discussed during that debate ...
"The exchange was short-lived, however. When Republican candidate Mitt Romney was asked by debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, "What is your position on the use of drones?" he said he believed that America “should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us.” ... "And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes," Romney continued, "and I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.""
Eyerolling comical. I think that you are seeing things so much in terms of "us vs them", that you're failing to see the point. I'm not defending Romney in the least in anything that he proposed. I am very critical of Obama as you can see. Yet, I don't see any defense of Obama here...the discussion is immediately turned around into a <insert boogeyman here>, which I just cannot stand. Romney: check. Fox News: check. Republicans: check. Two posts up, Donald Trump: check. Sigh.
The point of bringing up the drones was in response to your comment about a "war mongering party". The reality is that both parties don't have the best record in this regard. It is very probable that Romney would have continued to carry out drone attacks had he been elected president. What we do know is that Obama uses them a great deal, so we can reasonably expect him to continue to use them. What amazes me is that you, and most liberals I know, will sit there and preach against Republicans (of which I am not, so you can set aside your preconceived notions now) for warmongering, while simultaneously excusing their own leader of targeted assassinations (one against an American citizen, no less..that should be chilling), expanding the war in Afghanistan, entering a new theater of combat in Libya, and being just about to open a new theater of combat in Mali.
This is a small, noncomprehensive list of what I think is wrong with it, from what I actually have been able to gather about what the bill says.
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.
* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?
* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example: http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.
* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.
* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.
* we don't know what ELSE is in there. Re. Nancy Pelosi.
So there's a few. We Americans need to get it out of our head that health care is a *right*. It's simply not. What makes it *not a right* is that there has to be someone there providing the service for you. It sucks to have to tell everyone that, and people will go ballistic. That does not change the fact, however. Health care is a service just as any other, and if you can't pay for the service, you can't have it. For those unfortunate enough to not be able to pay, they have to rely on charity for services that they receive. Again, this ain't Utopia, but it's the only system that can possibly work in the long run. Sure, for a short while we can borrow money to pay for everyone (Ref 16T debt and rising), but sooner or later, we are out of money. What then? Round up the doctors and force them to work for nothing, turning them into slaves. That too will work for about a generation, until people figure out that having doctoring skills is a bad idea. What then?
I couldn't let this go either. The stimulus and endless QEn is doing nothing but acting like cocaine for an economy that never got out of recession. We are in a deep recession, if not depression, right now. No "double dip" or anything was ever prevented. All that was done was to go deeper in hock, using that borrowed and/or printed money to pretend like everything is OK. Just like taking out a home equity loan is sure fun when you get the dough, you can spend it on all kinds of fun things, it's not so fun when the bill comes due.Quote:
I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.
two quick things
with Bernake all we will do is punt the problems down the street and hope the economy grows faster than the debt then we can start to pay it down by creating jobs Monetary policy set til 2014 curent rates 5 yr t bill .6%, 10 yr t note 1.63% 30 yr t Note 2.75%
Job creation has to be done with Fiscal policy, cant see that happening in the next 4 yrs. = 20T in debt
another quick one
friend of mine had his hip replaced. bil 64,000 ( new mojo right)
covered portion 14,000 ( row bow with 35 hp engine)
how does america let this happen.
In reality, we have a two party system and its not ideal but it does create "us vs them". You can criticize Obama all you want but criticism without a solution is .... ? And is it just the liberals pushing "us vs them"? Are you just doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing? Have we not heard one hundred times the election is over picking the best loser?
I am not a liberal so you can set aside your preconceived notions as well. If I haven't made it clear yet, let me, I am way more scared of fox news than I am Mitt Romney. All my comments have been in relation to comments made thus far. I'm not here to campaign for Obama, there are things he has done I don't agree with. I think one of my first comments was this not being a win for Obama, but a loss for the Tea Party. My hope is that people will begin to question what they hear and not take everything for gospel.
Honestly, I don't feel like all my responses have been typical liberal propaganda and I have consistently given factual information to defend Obama tax increases. I have also made an attempt to defend Obamacare but I can't find anyone that hates it that can tell me why. Yes, I could see how you could say some of my responses were propaganda but they were in response to questions or comments. Romney: I think its obvious why it's important to bring him into the discussion. Fox news: lets save that one. Republicans: same as Romney. Donald Trump: I mean come on, if he is going to be recommend for president, a call of concern is valid. Also on the flip side, same idea, I don't see anyone defending Romney here. The whole campaign was run on anti-obama! So I suppose I ask the same of you ... If you voted for Romney, can you defend why without mentioning Obama? If you voted for third party then awesome of you; it is a step in the right direction.
As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield. As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".
Of course this is correct. The reason that it makes me very queasy is that 1) it lowers the barrier to ordering a targeted killing, because there is less risk involved, so our fearless leaders will be much more likely to use it, and 2) it is only a matter of time before drones are going to be used on us (maybe not to kill us, but for surveillance), unless we *all raise a fuss now*. What I see is that conservatives are mostly unconcerned, and liberals would be very concerned if it was a Republican president doing it.Quote:
As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield.
Here is what I'm referring to:Quote:
As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".
Sure the bad guys got it here. But these people were American citizens, and thus have the right under our U.S. constitution to stand trial for the things they have done. Judicial process, not just a missile up their arse.