A recap for those not keeping score.

#26
#26
15. We face a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan because they think they won the US election.

(that may sound like a joke but it's the truth.)
 
#27
#27
gsvol said:
15. We face a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan because they think they won the US election.

(that may sound like a joke but it's the truth.)
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that one be more b/c we just up and left there quilckly after whatever in the last term and haven't paid any attention to them since?
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
I think the "fear tactic" point is completely valid. The fact that W used fear doesn't mean BO is not or should not be criticized for it. Many of us here never denied R use of fear but merely suggested fear was not an R only tactic. BO and the Ds in Congress have proven us correct.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the "us" you refer too, and all subsequent posts where a big deal was made about the fear tactics used by the R's. Not a thing is said about it until the lefties on here bring it up. That is my point. I don't care what is said on these silly little lists, but I am going to call out the blantant hypocrisy when I see it.

And FWIW, there are plenty of people from the left that are guilty of this same hypocrisy....that spent the last 8 years deploring Bush for many of the same things Obama is now doing, yet remain silent about it or don't think its a big deal.

volinbham said:
As for the rest of the list, there are always problems with nominees so nothing new here. The problems fall into 2 categories - qualifications and proper vetting.

Holder and Panetta are questionable based on qualifications. However, it is the perogative of the POTUS to choose his cabinet whether or not I agree with him.

The tax problems of others are problematic particularly because of Obama's promises of a new kind of politics. But as you suggest, there are always warts on nominees and this group doesn't stand out as worse than other administrations.

Overall, what the list does show is that BO is not a new kind of politician - and that's the real problem. It's business as usual.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with the rest of your post, especially the bolded part.
 
#29
#29
TrueOrange said:
This stuff with the economy was a long time coming though. We would have been screwed regardless of who ended up in office.
Click to expand...
that's probably true, but very few would have marched out a liberal pet project spending bill as a solution and touted the gov't at the ultimate problem solver.
 
#30
#30
TrueOrange said:
Wouldnt that one be more b/c we just up and left there quilckly after whatever in the last term and haven't paid any attention to them since?
Click to expand...

We didn't just abandon Afghanistan. We did reduce numbers and operations there.

To pretend that the resurgence of the Taliban has nothing to do with having a POTUS that is viewed as a dove by those in the middle east is being a little naive don't you think?

There is no one reason for the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, it is complicated just like every thing else in that region.
 
#31
#31
OWB said:
Nah, haven't you heard? It's Obama's fault. ALL OF IT
Click to expand...

i'm pretty certain i've seen several right wingers say that have def. not blamed obama for the economy. but rather have concerns on how he thinks he can fix it.

on the foxnews comment, please let me know which facts that foxnews said obama didn't get correct, but were false and please provide a source. if not then well u just did a joe biden
 
#32
#32
TrueOrange said:
Wouldnt that one be more b/c we just up and left there quilckly after whatever in the last term and haven't paid any attention to them since?
Click to expand...

Of course it is the reason. It is unbelievably ignorant for someone to suggest the Taliban thinks they won the US election. Just plain dumb. Sounds of a true and blue right wing redneck
 
#33
#33
truefan said:
Using the word Punish is stupid enough in itself.

You can't just go get a hand-out if you dont' want to work. I will argue with you all day on this. You might be able to bring up some isolated cases of this going on, but you or I can't go down to the unemployment or welfare office and get money just because we don't want to work. I am done with the right wing rhetoric BS on these things. You believe what you want to believe. Just know you are wrong. :good!:
Click to expand...

taking something that someonehas earned away from someone else is generally considered a punishment in most cultures. If someone doesnt work and doesnt want to work eff em, i dont want them to get any of my money, i actually work for what i have.
 
#34
#34
truefan said:
You can't just go get a hand-out if you dont' want to work. I will argue with you all day on this. You might be able to bring up some isolated cases of this going on, but you or I can't go down to the unemployment or welfare office and get money just because we don't want to work. I am done with the right wing rhetoric BS on these things. You believe what you want to believe. Just know you are wrong. :good!:
Click to expand...
why don't you walk me down the exhaustive list of qualifications for welfare, then parse the list down to those who qualify and let me know the number remaining. When you've debunked that end of it, then we can get into section 8 housing and the disaster that is.

That little section 8 housing doozy might just blow your little theory out of the water. You know, like Jaws eating a pressurized oxygen tank.

Finally, think about those administering the system and just how 'vigilant' they are in saving government money. Amazingly, they're all social workers and they have a particular mindset, but I can't seem to figure out which way they lean. You don't think they would help people game the system do you?
 
#35
#35
truefan said:
Using the word Punish is stupid enough in itself.

You can't just go get a hand-out if you dont' want to work. I will argue with you all day on this. You might be able to bring up some isolated cases of this going on, but you or I can't go down to the unemployment or welfare office and get money just because we don't want to work. I am done with the right wing rhetoric BS on these things. You believe what you want to believe. Just know you are wrong. :good!:
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that our taxes are punitive?

With all the rhetoric I've heard about the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer it certainly would lead one to at least wonder if it might become that way, no?
 
#36
#36
rjd970 said:
I'm not going to defend a man that I don't fully agree with, I just thought that little piece of hypocrisy was pathetic. You guys evidently don't, which tells me how fair you all view the list.

And I'm sure Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan...etc...did everything perfect and were model presidents. They all have a list of missteps and snafus...in case you really want to keep score.
Click to expand...

Nope... Washington, Lincoln, TR and FDR.

Who cares about the rest...
 
#37
#37
truefan said:
Of course it is the reason. It is unbelievably ignorant for someone to suggest the Taliban thinks they won the US election. Just plain dumb. Sounds of a true and blue right wing redneck
Click to expand...

That comes in a dispatch from a boots on ground street intelligence soldier in Afghanistan. That's what he is hearing.

Whether Obama is a muslim or not doesn't have any effect on that the Taliban are saying and that is what they are saying, whether you like it or not.

Ghadffi praised obama as a fellow muslim on the largest Arabic TV network.

One of the top muslim clerics in Egypt declared obama to be a muslim.

Obama's first foreign call upon becoming president was to Abbas in Palistine fwiw.

You can call me red neck or what ever if it makes you feel better but if you want to see plain old dumb ignorance go to your nearest mirror and sneak a peek.

What NATO is saying.

A senior U.S. Defense Department official, said “it is hard to view this as anything other than a negative development.”
Click to expand...

Obama's plan in Afghanistan, with the ramp up of troops, in a situation where the enemy has save haven across at least one international border, and is increasing it's control of one of those countries and has a very friendly regime in another, may be a huge mistake in American foreign policy.

The U.S. could be walking in the Soviet Union’s shoes.


Twenty years to the month after the Soviet Army pulled out of Afghanistan, the U.S. is ramping up troop commitments in a country famously known as “the graveyard of empires.”

Yet history tells us that increasing troop levels to fight an insurgency is not a winning formula. The Soviets learned this after 10 years in Afghanistan; the French learned it in Algeria, and we had our lesson in Vietnam.

Still, Afghanistan’s history of burying big ambitions -- those of Alexander the Great as well as of Leonid Brezhnev -- was clearly on General Petraeus’s mind when he spoke at a security conference in Munich this month.

“We cannot take that history lightly,” said Petraeus, and he is right.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
#40
#40
UT IE 95 said:
Exactly how is someone that doesn't pay federal income tax getting a tax break? Feel free to quote the bill that outlines this.
Click to expand...

the left spins it as a tax break from paying FICA and medicaid. Ironic, since the left also thinks Social Security is a wonderful program that should be kept exactly as it is.
 
#41
#41
MG1968 said:
the left spins it as a tax break from paying FICA and medicaid. Ironic, since the left also thinks Social Security is a wonderful program that should be kept exactly as it is.
Click to expand...

I'm missing something? I haven't heard a spin on FICA and medicaid. I'm just trying to figure out how anyone thinks that people that don't pay federal income taxes are getting a "tax break"?

There are a lot of questions about the future, but to get caught up in tax breaks for non tax payers shouldn't be one.
 
#42
#42
well, they're not getting a tax break per se, what they're getting amounts to a welfare check. when liberal pundits are asked why people who have no federal income tax liability should get these transfer payments, they will chime in with the FICA argument.
 
#43
#43
MG1968 said:
the left spins it as a tax break from paying FICA and medicaid. Ironic, since the left also thinks Social Security is a wonderful program that should be kept exactly as it is.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it can't be improved, but what specifically would you do to improve SS? Privatize it???? There was much talk of that several years ago.
 
#45
#45
droski said:
cut it by 50%
Click to expand...


The benefit to the retiree???

If so, then what are you going to do with the all the retirees who need what they are getting now just to get by? In some cases, it isn't enough. For some, it is the only income they get each month. What are going to do when our retired population can't pay their bills? I am thankful my mother doesn't have to rely solely on it, but many do.
 
#46
#46
UT IE 95 said:
I'm missing something? I haven't heard a spin on FICA and medicaid. I'm just trying to figure out how anyone thinks that people that don't pay federal income taxes are getting a "tax break"?

There are a lot of questions about the future, but to get caught up in tax breaks for non tax payers shouldn't be one.
Click to expand...
They're not, they're getting a free hand out. Quite simply if you don't pay federal taxes you shouldn't get part of someone else's. This garbage isn't defendable in any way, shape or form. Its just plain old BS.
 
#47
#47
truefan said:
The benefit to the retiree???

If so, then what are you going to do with the all the retirees who need what they are getting now just to get by? In some cases, it isn't enough. For some, it is the only income they get each month. What are going to do when our retired population can't pay their bills? I am thankful my mother doesn't have to rely solely on it, but many do.
Click to expand...

you merge it with welfare. help out those who need it. the others need to stop milking the young.
 
#48
#48
truefan said:
I am not saying it can't be improved, but what specifically would you do to improve SS? Privatize it???? There was much talk of that several years ago.
Click to expand...

the talk was of a partial privatization that was spun into some catastrophic gamble. What was lost in that debate was that the partial privatization would only affect people in my age category or younger.

here's what I'd do if I couldn't scrap the program altogether:

pass a Constitutional Amendment forcing SS funds into a lock box that cannot be touched for any reason.

Allow people to "opt out" of the system in favor of a private plan that has permanent, bipartisan government oversight, but no actual control over the funds.

Make the benefits inheritable.

Place no income restrictions on seniors who continue to work while receiving their SS.

Allow for receipt of a single lump sum of all benefits paid once a person has reached "mandatory" retirement age.
 
#50
#50
MG1968 said:
the talk was of a partial privatization that was spun into some catastrophic gamble. What was lost in that debate was that the partial privatization would only affect people in my age category or younger.

here's what I'd do if I couldn't scrap the program altogether:

pass a Constitutional Amendment forcing SS funds into a lock box that cannot be touched for any reason.

Allow people to "opt out" of the system in favor of a private plan that has permanent, bipartisan government oversight, but no actual control over the funds.

Make the benefits inheritable.

Place no income restrictions on seniors who continue to work while receiving their SS.

Allow for receipt of a single lump sum of all benefits paid once a person has reached "mandatory" retirement age.
Click to expand...
That would take their hands out of the pie, they won't have it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top