Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Obama's State of the Union Speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: President Obama's State of the Union Speech

    Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
    They had NO problem with 2 unnecessary wars and ... blah blah blah
    There's that whole blaming Republicans for funding wars during the last 3 sessions of Congressional Democratic supermajority again. But then again, posters have said it enough, that if it's said enough it becomes truth. If one really believes Democrats would have defunded the wars, they would have actually done it when they owned Congress outright... years ago. This portion of the argument has been crushed several times already and is stricken from the list. Ya'll sound like a broken record playing a crappy song.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: President Obama's State of the Union Speech

      Originally posted by Kaonohi View Post
      We had a POTUS who was throwing billions of dollars overseas in TWO wars...
      We had... and have... a POTUS that is sending military members and their supplies overseas in two wars. Funding for this is voted for in Congress. If Congress doesn't want to fund the effort to put troops and machines overseas, then they couldn't afford to get them there or sustain their operations. As the dead horse continues to die, it was possible to withdraw years ago and reduce the Defense Budget. But, one doesn't just defund a military when the commitment is already there.

      I figure if there's enough people in this forum so willing to turn their backs on American servicemembers so quickly, then my comment that we should slash humanitarian aid to worthless countries who don't appreciate it doesn't come close to the sick and twisted thinking demonstrated in here.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: President Obama's State of the Union Speech

        Sorry, but it is infinitely easier to START a war than to get out of one. Once Saddam was toppled, we HAD to more or less occupy the country so anarchy wouldn't produce a series of civil wars with Al Qaeda finally coming in to pick up the pieces. Afghanistan...as gruesome as the Taliban gvt. there was, if bush had actually read the intelligence report forecasting the 9-11 attacks that he was given over a month before they occurred, and acted to prevent them, we could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars by having no need to attack and occupy Afghanistan, which now like Iraq we need to subdue lest Al Qaeda come in and rearrange the landscape. And look at the mere politics of defunding a war, has it ever been done? "Soft on Communism", "Let the Commies take over China", that kind of rhetoric kept the totally needless and futile Vietnam War going for a whole generation, it accomplished nothing, do you think for a moment Republicans wouldn't have said, "..gave Iraq to the Moslem extremists!!"? And they might have even been right. That accusation still could be, but the blame does go on the idiot boy bush for taking down Saddam Hussein in the first place. This isn't a party thing, I sincerely admire bush's dad, the elected President Bush, for NOT going to Baghdad after kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, it was a totally brilliant move, too bad his idiot son didn't see the genius in leaving the weakened Saddam as the counterbalance to Iran. Now we must do that ourselves, and we must pay for it, and it is extremely costly to do so. An economic noose around our neck, it is a luxury we could never afford. You fight wars if you have to, if you absolutely have to, but not just to gratify the ego if a mental midget with a personality defect.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: President Obama's State of the Union Speech

          Originally posted by bjd392 View Post
          There's that whole blaming Republicans for funding wars during the last 3 sessions of Congressional Democratic supermajority again. But then again, posters have said it enough, that if it's said enough it becomes truth. If one really believes Democrats would have defunded the wars, they would have actually done it when they owned Congress outright... years ago. This portion of the argument has been crushed several times already and is stricken from the list. Ya'll sound like a broken record playing a crappy song.
          You read the darndest things on the Internet, much of it misleading or outright "liar, liar, pants on fire" variety.

          Here are the facts about Democrat control of Congress:

          Democrats had a majority in the House from 2007 through 2009. The rest of the time, 1995 through 2007 the Republicans were in control. At no time was it a Democrat "supermajority." The Republicans could effectively filibuster any move through this period (2007 - 2009) to end the funding of the mid-East wars.

          Democrats had a majority in the Senate from 2007 through 2009. In 2001 it was 50/50 but a Republican switched to Independnent midway through his term and theoretically gave the Democrats a one vote control. In the 2009th Senate there was theoretically a bare Democrat supermajority if you count Independents and Blue Dog Democrats as voting with more Progressive Democrats in a block. It never happened without significant Democrat concessions on any matter. The Independent Lieberman was and still is a staunch supporter of the war as well as most Blue Dogs. So the supermajority was in name only and not in fact.

          There was an effort by a majority of Democrats in Congress last year to stop funding of the war but it was never a supermajority in the Senate or House. Obama still apparently favors these expensive ventures in the mid-East and has failed to keep his promise to get us out - NOW! But it is the Republicans, to a (wo)man, who continue to control Congressional approval (as a political party) and funding of the mid-East ventures and have always had control with support from a few colleague conservative Democrats.

          You can easily Google my argument above for it's accuracy. You decide who is being more accurate, matapule or BJD. YOU determine who continues to spread the lies in the name of truth.

          Finally, here is a perspective added by Nobel economist Paul Krugman:

          Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.
          More important, however, Mr. Bush was a buy-now-pay-later president. He pushed through big tax cuts, but never tried to pass spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss. He rushed the nation into war, but never asked Congress to pay for it (with Republicans in complete charge for 6 of his 8 year term). He added an expensive drug benefit to Medicare, but left it completely unfunded. Yes, he had legislative victories; but he didn’t show that Congress can make hard choices and act responsibly, because he never asked it to.
          Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

          People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: President Obama's State of the Union Speech

            Originally posted by matapule View Post
            You read the darndest things on the Internet, much of it misleading or outright "liar, liar, pants on fire" variety.

            blah blah blah

            You can easily Google my argument above for it's accuracy.
            Now why the hell would I google your argument when it'd just be another one of those 'misleading darndest things on the internet?' Sometimes a few of these threads fall under that category.

            I really thought you were better than this. I even took a week off this site to do something more productive in Hawaii and yet I come back to the same crap. So I realize I'm not the root cause to your problems, and Kaonohi isn't a root cause to your problems... YOU are a root cause to your own problems. Everything seems to have to be a comparison to you to defend whatever noble title you cling onto. Whatever makes you feel better. It's certainly easier to call other people trolls, but apparently you've mastered that art.

            Comment

            Working...
            X