Jump to content

The Democrat Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 16, 2011 -> 01:04 PM)
Maybe it started ok, but the problem is the various networks have become entertainment networks, not news networks. They're basically 24/7 now, which means they have a ton of time to fill, and they normally fill it by having worthless debate about worthless topics that are clearly geared towards their selective audiences.

This is one issue that I don't think anyone will debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 20.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    3536

  • Balta1701

    3002

  • lostfan

    1460

  • BigSqwert

    1397

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Rand Paul:

 

Imagine this—what if there had never been a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left office he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama had governed from 2000 to 2008 exactly as Bush did–doubling the size of government, doubling the debt, expanding federal entitlements and education, starting the Iraq war–the whole works. To make matters worse, imagine that for a portion of that time, the Democrats actually controlled all three branches of government. Would Republicans have given Obama and his party a free pass in carrying out the exact same agenda as Bush? It's hard to imagine this being the case, given the grief Bill Clinton got from Republicans, even though his big government agenda was less ambitious than Bush's. Yet, the last Republican president got very little criticism from his own party for most of his tenure.

 

For conservatives, there was no excuse for this.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 16, 2011 -> 02:26 PM)

 

 

This is complete bulls***. Complete. There are many people who disagree(d) with the fiscal policy of the president between 2000 and 2008 (and in particular 2007-2008). But this is like suggesting gas doesn't light a fire when you compare it to what Barackus the Great has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2011 -> 09:32 PM)
Psycho though he may be, he's right on this.

 

Not really, unless he still has a 20 yo toilet. Government regulation spurred innovation such that modern toilets use significantly less water and work just as effectively. Sort of like improved incandescents being developed once government regs came in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2011 -> 09:38 PM)
Not really, unless he still has a 20 yo toilet. Government regulation spurred innovation such that modern toilets use significantly less water and work just as effectively. Sort of like improved incandescents being developed once government regs came in.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but I clearly wasn't referring to the toilets part of the discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2011 -> 09:26 PM)
This is complete bulls***. Complete. There are many people who disagree(d) with the fiscal policy of the president between 2000 and 2008 (and in particular 2007-2008).

What, like 8 conservatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 19, 2011 -> 05:35 PM)
Yea, the ones that actually have a brain and aren't trying to impress liberals for no reason.

Yeah I'm calling bulls*** here. I paid a lot of attention to conservative talk then (didn't have much choice being in the military, having Fox on all the time, being around Republicans all the time) and nobody seriously criticized him until like 2007 when some things became really obvious, and Bush started to not matter. And even then, it was more like "Bush wasn't conservative enough" when he was pushing the conservative agenda EXACTLY as scripted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere else appropriate to put this but in AC: Brotherhood, when you are doing Subject 16's puzzles about all the hidden doings of Abstergo and their conspiracies they have a lot of current events in it, they start talking about how the SCOTUS ruling that corporate $$ = free speech was one of Abstergo's plans. They even mention Deepwater Horizon. I thought that was kinda funny, or creepy, however you want to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 10:06 PM)
Nowhere else appropriate to put this but in AC: Brotherhood, when you are doing Subject 16's puzzles about all the hidden doings of Abstergo and their conspiracies they have a lot of current events in it, they start talking about how the SCOTUS ruling that corporate $$ = free speech was one of Abstergo's plans. They even mention Deepwater Horizon. I thought that was kinda funny, or creepy, however you want to see it.

Gesundheit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 09:04 PM)
Yeah I'm calling bulls*** here. I paid a lot of attention to conservative talk then (didn't have much choice being in the military, having Fox on all the time, being around Republicans all the time) and nobody seriously criticized him until like 2007 when some things became really obvious, and Bush started to not matter. And even then, it was more like "Bush wasn't conservative enough" when he was pushing the conservative agenda EXACTLY as scripted.

 

 

Uhhhh... that's when he decided that spending didn't matter. And immigration. And... the list goes on... so I call bulls*** back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Friedman says we need to kill grandma to save junior

by digby

 

Trudy Lieberman and CJR has a typically sharp take on the latest from Tom Friedman, catching something quite appalling from the extremely wealthy so-called opinion leader. First he glibly goes on about the need for deficit reduction and chastises both parties for failing to enact the needed cuts to the budget. But then there was this:

Friedman
s
lapped the GOP becau
s
e they have called for cut
s
in thing
s
we need to inve
s
t more in,
s
uch a
s
education and infra
s
tructure,
while leaving largely untouched thing
s
we need to reduce, li
k
e entitlement
s
and defen
s
e
s
pending.
The
s
ubtext
s
eem
s
to be that he want
s
to cut
S
ocial
S
ecurity benefit
s
, but in
s
tead he attac
k
ed the almo
s
t 1.7 million elderly in nur
s
ing home
s
s
ome of the fraile
s
t, needie
s
t people in America. Friedman argue
s
:

A country that inve
s
t
s
more in it
s
elderly than it
s
youth, more in nur
s
ing home
s
than
s
chool
s
, will neither invent the future nor own it.

That
s
topped me cold. For one thing, the U.
S
.
s
pend
s
more on elementary and
s
econdary education than it doe
s
on nur
s
ing home
s
. A
s
po
k
e
s
man for the Department of Education told me the amount
s
pent on elementary and
s
econdary education for the 2007-2008
s
chool year wa
s
$495 billion; for nur
s
ing home
s
, national expenditure
s
in 2008 totaled $138 billion, according to a document called
Health United
S
tate
s
, 2010
from the CDC. That
s
not even clo
s
e.

 

Here
s
a more important que
s
tion the pre
s
s
and the public
s
hould a
s
k
: What will happen to the elderly if we reduce
s
pending on nur
s
ing home
s
, a
s
Friedman hint
s
i
s
nece
s
s
ary?

Well, mostly they're moving in with family and someone (mom probably) will have to quit work and stay home to do 24 hr nursing duties rather than pay for the kids' college or save for retirement. Or, we could just let these people die.

 

This hits close to home as my father has been diagnosed with dementia and my always sick mother is having trouble taking care of him.

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...