• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In your view 'Republican' and 'fluff' are interchangeable. Of course, those that agree with you are the only one's to be taken seriously:rolleyes:
Donatelli is a consultant for the Republican Party. He's paid to write that sort of thing by the Republicans. Yes, of course it's fluff.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Curious response from those that are self described as open minded.

Talk about knee jerk... you will not even acknowledge that there are many market based ideas regarding healthcare that have not even been discused much less tried.

It's always interesting though. You guys look to govt first and foremost. The "Let somebody else take care of me first" crowd. If thre's an issue, govt can fix it. Everytime.
Health care, climate change, gun control, intrusive anti-abortion bills, budgets and taxes, conservative governors refusing to accept stimulus money even though it would help their constituents, energy conservation, conservatives are against all of it solely because of their absolute paranoia about "government control".
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
You are asking them to try and understand the dynamics of a place they have never been to. Even a simple visit to the DMZ / 38th parallel. To these folks it is just a talking point, something to say without any thought regarding any potential consequences for the “gutting of the military”.
Maybe the better question is: why are we in the DMZ 38th parallel to begin with?

Defense budget cuts are needed. I am not sure what the level of cuts would be but I would not want the folks who post on this thread at a regular clip in charge of those cuts.
Republicans don't believe any cuts are needed to the budget, would've continued the war in Iraq, and now want to extend military action to Iran. Would you prefer that they be in charge?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Conundrum: aliens v. "abortion"

Unusual Alliances Form In Nebraska's Prenatal Care Debate

[GOP Gov]Heineman was referring to a bill he subsequently vetoed that would restore publicly funded prenatal care for women in the country illegally. Until two years ago, Nebraska was one of about 15 states providing that benefit.
"We don't want to distinguish that because ... of a baby's circumstances or in whose womb that baby resides that dictates whether that baby receives care or not," said Julie Schmit-Albin, the group's executive director.
Take some personal responsibility, you almost-anchor-baby! Pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pay that prenatal care to your living flesh bunker yourself. Off the dole with you!
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Curious response from those that are self described as open minded.
You people thought it might be a good idea to have ****ing Rick Santorum as the next president of the United States. I'm starting to wonder if maybe we should start cracking down a bit.

Talk about knee jerk... you will not even acknowledge that there are many market based ideas regarding healthcare that have not even been discused much less tried.
And yet, universal health care has already been proven to work, so why bother experimenting with something that might or might not work when there are things that we can do right now that are known to work? Oh but right, ideological concerns come first.

It's always interesting though. You guys look to govt first and foremost. The "Let somebody else take care of me first" crowd. If thre's an issue, govt can fix it. Everytime.
The market is very effective at some things, not so effective at others. We, unlike you, are not so ideologically blinkered that we can accept that markets are not infallible. They have significant shortcomings. That bothers us, that people fall through the cracks. We'd like to build a society with effective social safety nets. Market's can't do that.

Your side, on the other hand, doesn't seem so concerned about any of that, mostly you just seem bothered by taxes and money.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
Maybe the better question is: why are we in the DMZ 38th parallel to begin with?

Republicans don't believe any cuts are needed to the budget, would've continued the war in Iraq, and now want to extend military action to Iran. Would you prefer that they be in charge?
I do not think anyone that has any sense would want a real war with Iran. (troops on the ground). Given the opportunity I would be willing to bet that President Obama and the Republicans would bomb / missile them from a distance. That is just an opinion.
So to answer your question of would I prefer them (republicans) in charge….Sure I am willing to give mittons a shot at it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I do not think anyone that has any sense would want a real war with Iran. (troops on the ground). Given the opportunity I would be willing to bet that President Obama and the Republicans would bomb / missile them from a distance. That is just an opinion.
So to answer your question of would I prefer them (republicans) in charge….Sure I am willing to give mittons a shot at it.
Well you are right in that Mittens and the Republicans would be far more willing to bomb Iran. But once you start bombing Iran, how exactly do you propose to stop it from escalating? Iran ain't Iraq or Libya, you know.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Bala Verde said:
Bad things like this?

U.S. troops posed with body parts of Afghan bombers

I wonder who will get strung up for that incident (how many incidents make something structural, or chronic?)

I'd say don't sequester and spend that money on some additional ethics courses, or brain transplantations.
So these actions of a few represent a chronic problem within the US military?
What would be the precentage of problem soldiers compaired to the ones who do their duty without any trouble?

There are problems within every unit but this does not mean everyone is going around taking pictures like this.

Only one course for the Army to take when something like this happens and that is immediate court marshal and dishonorable discharges handed out.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
Well you are right in that Mittens and the Republicans would be far more willing to bomb Iran. But once you start bombing Iran, how exactly do you propose to stop it from escalating? Iran ain't Iraq or Libya, you know.
I have no idea about what would stop it from escalating. President Clinton seemed to do just fine with Iraq. But this is not Iraq is it. Maybe mittons can handel it just like Clinton did. Who knows?

In my opinion I don't have a problem with Iran making Nukes. I think Israel will have something to say about it whether we want them to do that or not. Can you imagine the talks that are going on between President Obama's administration and Israel? It is sure to be some heavy negotiating to keep them from starting up a full blown war over there.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
So these actions of a few represent a chronic problem within the US military?
What would be the precentage of problem soldiers compaired to the ones who do their duty without any trouble?

There are problems within every unit but this does not mean everyone is going around taking pictures like this.

Only one course for the Army to take when something like this happens and that is immediate court marshal and dishonorable discharges handed out.
Are you saying this goes on in every unit, but only some are stupid enough to take pictures, i.e. get caught?

As I said, how many incidents make a structural problem?

Remember Lynndie England, way back in erm, 2004-2005 and the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Bagram 'torture' facility. The non-convicted and non-disclosed CIA agents that 'allegedly' tortured people (of which evidence was destroyed, or is not to be released because national security), the, at least highly controversial, night raids in Afghanistan (and Iraq?) during which many people have gotten killed or were plainly abused ("excessive use of force, ill treatment, death and injury to civilians and damage to property has occurred in some cases involving Special Forces"), the 'wikileaks' helicopter clip where some soldiers seemed to be playing a 'video game' when attempting to blow up a van with photographers and children. Then the group of twelve "kill team" who collected trophies by cutting off fingers of randomly killed innocent people, the guys peeing on dead combatants, the Staf Sgt Bales accused of killing 17 people in Afghanistan now the guys posing with corpses

Could this merely be the tip of the iceberg?

Before you send anyone to war, learn about the Zimbardo prison experiment and you'll see how easily seemingly 'good guys' become bad guys.\

And I agree. Let's not judge a group by the actions of a few.

Not all people receiving benefits try to game the system, are lazy and don't want to work.
Not all "Muslims" are terrorists.
Not all undocumented immigrants/non-whites are criminals.
Not all french speaking Americans are liberals
etc.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I have no idea about what would stop it from escalating. President Clinton seemed to do just fine with Iraq. But this is not Iraq is it. Maybe mittons can handel it just like Clinton did. Who knows?
Iraq had no air defenses due to the no-fly zones imposed by the UN - we could fly in and out with virtual impunity - and a decimated military. That's not going to happen in Iran, a far larger country with a very experienced and well-equipped military. But beyond that, Iran doesn't exist in isolation: major countries like China and India and Japan import a lot of Iranian oil. Think they're going to be happy with the US unilaterally bombing Iran? And then of course there's ****ing off the rest of the Middle Eastern countries with yet another military strike against a Muslim country, how the Iranians would respond through terrorist acts in the US, etc. There's far more to this than simply the US, Israel, and Iran. That's what makes the Republican/Romney stance so laughable in its "we will bomb you and you will give up" simplicity.

So thank god a grown-up like Obama is in charge. The only way it will work is if you give Iran an opening to climb down while saving face. Which is exactly what's happening:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-a-deal-with-iran-in-the-works/2012/04/17/gIQAbaT0OT_story.html

But then, as is so often the case, there's the Rs to go and **** things up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-nuclear-negotiations-can-result-in-a-robust-deal/2012/04/11/gIQAAmaQBT_story.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Donatelli is a consultant for the Republican Party. He's paid to write that sort of thing by the Republicans. Yes, of course it's fluff.
Hypocrite much?

You post from sources like media matters and center on budget and priorities, who are bought and paid for by various surrogates of the DNC (including Soros), then whine about Donatelli being paid to write pro-R?

Seriously?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Bad things like this?

U.S. troops posed with body parts of Afghan bombers

I wonder who will get strung up for that incident (how many incidents make something structural, or chronic?)

I'd say don't sequester and spend that money on some additional ethics courses, or brain transplantations.
While certainly regrettable this is hardly a new phenomenon. This type of thing happens in war. It happened during both World Wars, particularly during WWII.

Also, some sense of proportion would be nice but I won't hold my breath.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
You people thought it might be a good idea to have ****ing Rick Santorum as the next president of the United States. I'm starting to wonder if maybe we should start cracking down a bit.

And yet, universal health care has already been proven to work, so why bother experimenting with something that might or might not work when there are things that we can do right now that are known to work? Oh but right, ideological concerns come first.

The market is very effective at some things, not so effective at others. We, unlike you, are not so ideologically blinkered that we can accept that markets are not infallible. They have significant shortcomings. That bothers us, that people fall through the cracks. We'd like to build a society with effective social safety nets. Market's can't do that.

Your side, on the other hand, doesn't seem so concerned about any of that, mostly you just seem bothered by taxes and money.
You people thought it might be a good idea to have ****ing Rick Santorum as the next president of the United States. I'm starting to wonder if maybe we should start cracking down a bit.
And yet, and yet, look who you defend to the death right now.

And yet, universal health care has already been proven to work, so why bother experimenting with something that might or might not work when there are things that we can do right now that are known to work? Oh but right, ideological concerns come first.
I'll give you this... you don't quit easily no matter how much information presented. Good for you.

The market is very effective at some things, not so effective at others. We, unlike you, are not so ideologically blinkered that we can accept that markets are not infallible. They have significant shortcomings. That bothers us, that people fall through the cracks. We'd like to build a society with effective social safety nets. Market's can't do that.
I highlighted a few things. You have the balls to accuse me of ideological purity and then post this. What is this if not ideological?

"We'd like to build a society with effective social safety nets".... " people fall through the cracks".....

We have significant safety nets now... but that's not enough for, what, population control? Cradle to grave govt hand holding. Yikes.

There is no system of govt where all people have no possibility of falling through the cracks. You are talking social utopia. It will never happen anywhere except in the minds of those who are extremely adept at denying what is.

Time to grow up.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hypocrite much?

You post from sources like media matters and center on budget and priorities, who are bought and paid for by various surrogates of the DNC (including Soros)

whine about Donatelli being paid to write pro-R?

Seriously?
um, Scott, I was pointing out that the guy you were bragging about sounding exactly like is a paid Republican consultant who, by nature of the fact that he is a paid Republican consultant, is expected to hit on every Republican talking point about Obama.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Your best work to date.
You want our next president to be a super-wealthy silver-spoon dude named "Mitt". And if not "Mitt", then Rick ****ing Santorum. And if not Rick ****ing Santorum, then...Newt Gingrich. The most grown up of them all. Oh and of course, that was after 8 years of George Bush.

Yes, I reiterate: thank god a grown up is in charge.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
While certainly regrettable this is hardly a new phenomenon. This type of thing happens in war. It happened during both World Wars, particularly during WWII.

Also, some sense of proportion would be nice but I won't hold my breath.
Where's the outrage?

No outrage?

There was so much outrage when the buffet rule was mentioned.

Or "Solyndra". Remember your Solyndra outrage (if I may call it that)? Or was that merely regrettable?

talking about a "sense of proportion"... :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
um, Scott, I was pointing out that the guy you were bragging about sounding exactly like is a paid Republican consultant who, by nature of the fact that he is a paid Republican consultant, is expected to hit on every Republican talking point about Obama.
Right back at you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
You want our next president to be a super-wealthy silver-spoon dude named "Mitt". And if not "Mitt", then Rick ****ing Santorum. And if not Rick ****ing Santorum, then...Newt Gingrich. The most grown up of them all. Oh and of course, that was after 8 years of George Bush.

Yes, I reiterate: thank god a grown up is in charge.
Double-down. Nice.

You and about 10 other people refer to Obama as a grown up. Welcome to the smallest of minorities you could possibly align yourself with.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Where's the outrage?

No outrage?

There was so much outrage when the buffet rule was mentioned.

Or "Solyndra". Remember your Solyndra outrage (if I may call it that)? Or was that merely regrettable?

talking about a "sense of proportion"... :)
Oh, there's outrage at the dumb-asses posing and the even bigger DA's taking the pics.

Nobody thinks this was/is a good idea. Ever. But it's not new.

There's plenty of stuff like the Buffett rule and Solyndra to get outraged about too.

Spend most of my days outraged....:D
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And yet, and yet, look who you defend to the death right now.
Yep. A grown up.

I'll give you this... you don't quit easily no matter how much information presented. Good for you.
I'll give you this...no matter health care, climate change, gun control, whatever, you manage to ignore facts no matter how much information is presented. And although it's kind of appalling the degree to which ignorance and anti-intellectualism has become a badge of pride in the conservative world, you wear it well. Good for you.

I highlighted a few things. You have the balls to accuse me of ideological purity and then post this. What is this if not ideological?

"We'd like to build a society with effective social safety nets".... " people fall through the cracks".....
um, no, it's not ideological. It's based on practical solutions that other countries have employed that have been shown to work. You know, the exact opposite of having faith that markets will just somehow magically take care of everyone.

Insisting that we persist with systems - like the US health care system - that don't work rather than abandoning them for systems that do work while at the same time trying to convince everyone that they really do work and is "the best health care system in the world! USA! USA!" when everyone knows that it's a horrible system simply because one is paranoid about the gubment is ideological, Scott.

We have significant safety nets now...
No, we really don't. Even, for the sake of argument, if we did, Republicans seem pretty bent on eliminating them. Why? Apparently because of blind faith in some sort of magical "market solutions". Or they just couldn't care less.

but that's not enough for, what, population control? Cradle to grave govt hand holding. Yikes.
I dunno, other countries seem to handle it quite well. I'd like to think that we're at least as smart and capable as they are.

What exactly are you so paranoid about, Scott?

There is no system of govt where all people have no possibility of falling through the cracks. You are talking social utopia. It will never happen anywhere except in the minds of those who are extremely adept at denying what is. .
Take things way too literally much?
Time to grow up
I did. I voted for Obama.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Bala Verde said:
Are you saying this goes on in every unit, but only some are stupid enough to take pictures, i.e. get caught?

As I said, how many incidents make a structural problem?

Remember Lynndie England, way back in erm, 2004-2005 and the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Bagram 'torture' facility. The non-convicted and non-disclosed CIA agents that 'allegedly' tortured people (of which evidence was destroyed, or is not to be released because national security), the, at least highly controversial, night raids in Afghanistan (and Iraq?) during which many people have gotten killed or were plainly abused ("excessive use of force, ill treatment, death and injury to civilians and damage to property has occurred in some cases involving Special Forces"), the 'wikileaks' helicopter clip where some soldiers seemed to be playing a 'video game' when attempting to blow up a van with photographers and children. Then the group of twelve "kill team" who collected trophies by cutting off fingers of randomly killed innocent people, the guys peeing on dead combatants, the Staf Sgt Bales accused of killing 17 people in Afghanistan now the guys posing with corpses

Could this merely be the tip of the iceberg?

Before you send anyone to war, learn about the Zimbardo prison experiment and you'll see how easily seemingly 'good guys' become bad guys.\

And I agree. Let's not judge a group by the actions of a few.
Not all people receiving benefits try to game the system, are lazy and don't want to work.
Not all "Muslims" are terrorists.
Not all undocumented immigrants/non-whites are criminals.
Not all french speaking Americans are liberals
etc.
No, not every unit has this happening in it.

I am saying that many Army units that I have been in contact with have shown various degrees of lack of discipline. That is just an observation on my part. I do not pretend to sit here in my comfortable office / life and judge the people who have volunteered to serve the United States.
When you have a war that goes on for such a long time there will be more and more incidents. This is due to many factors. One such factor is that the US Army does not do enough to weed out the people who should not be there in the first place (in my opinion). They play it lose with discipline in my opinion. That is a totally different discussion. If you really want to have that discussion then,,,, feel free to fire away.
Spare me the “before you send anyone to war …learn about” bull bleep. I am not sending anyone to war. I do not support the decisions to stay in the wars that we are in now. Why would I support the start of another one?


To the bolded bits......It is not that simple now is it really???
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts