The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

Well it's still pretty basic and apolitical why the deficit keeps growing. The deficit should expand during a recession.

Didn't the gov't say the recession ended in the summer of 2010?

[Y2HH]

This is ridiculous on so many levels.

 

Obama is not responsible for the bush tax cuts our iraq or afghanistan, which are the main deficit drivers (plus the crap economy). He is ending two of those things and taking all sorts of s*** for republicans from it. He had an unending desire for a big compromise on entitlement and tax reform, but one party has almost universally pledged never raise taxes ever. Pretending that this is an evenly two-sided problem is part of the problem.

 

You're entire attempt at rebuttal is nothing more than a bunch of excuses for failure of leadership. The sooner you see that the better.

 

1) Obama is responsible for extending the Bush tax cuts...the instant he extended them they ceased being the Bush tax cuts and became the Obama tax cuts. It's now HIS name on that dotted line. Whatever excuse you have as to why he extended them is meaningless...it's now his signature on the law, therefore it's now his law. Maybe he should start being the leader the US elected him to be instead of the whipping boy he has become. He talks about having to make the tough choices...well, it would have been a tough choice to let the tax cuts expire...and IMO, he should have. Maybe he will make the right decision this time around instead of signing the dotted line and making up excuses as to how he was strong-armed into doing it. 2) The second lie you keep trying to perpetuate in his "unending desire for entitlement and tax reform" is an absolute joke. Obama had a super majority congress/senate for OVER A YEAR and could have done almost anything he wanted with the tax code, and during that time he did almost NOTHING except compromise over and over on the ACA, which is nothing like what they wanted or intended. If I had the kind of power he had when entering office and I had this "unending desire" you claim he had, I'd have f***ing done something. I also find the excuse that he was too busy working on the ACA weak, too...considering the staff they have, they can and should be working on more than one thing at a time. Their inability to multitask on legislation is just another ridiculous excuse. The fact is, these people don't actually want to do anything to the tax code...OR THEY WOULD HAVE BY NOW. They've been having this same "tax/entitlement reform" argument for 3 decades now. And what's changed regardless of who's in office? Nothing.

 

I'm the only one here that's NOT pretending this isn't two sided, and that's a big part of the problem...it's ONLY two sided. And if anything, it's balanced in favor of the democrats and has been for upwards of 6 years now. They currently have 2 branches of government (President/Senate), and HAD all three for a while there, with huge majority numbers. So what you need to do is 1) Stop making excuses for failed leadership and 2) Stop pretending the republicans have more power than they do. The only reason they have power is because the democrats we elected are spineless non-leaders that shouldn't be...you know...leading. The worst part is most of them will get reelected by the same people...mostly because they have a *D* or an *R* next to their names on the ballot...and for no other reason.

 

And why?

 

Because of people like yourself who forgive their every failure by blaming the evil (insert opposite party from your own here).

Edited March 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

Obozo moves G-8 out of Chicago, and to Camp David.

 

Wanted to spend some 'alone' time with his wallstreet bailout buddies

 

http://www.suntimes.com/11082594-417/white...camp-david.html

Edited March 6, 2012 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Obozo moves G-8 out of Chicago, and to Camp David.

 

Wanted to spend some 'alone' time with his wallstreet bailout buddies

 

http://www.suntimes.com/11082594-417/white...camp-david.html

Really, this isn't the wrong move at all. Turning Chicago into a police fortress and having to deal with that kind of crowd is just silly when there are other options.

[mr_genius]

Really, this isn't the wrong move at all. Turning Chicago into a police fortress and having to deal with that kind of crowd is just silly when there are other options.

 

just have the meeting in a bunker

[StrangeSox]

just have the meeting in a bunker

The White House better have a full-scale recreation of the Strangelove war room

[Soxbadger]

Its sends a bad message.

 

Are we now afraid of protests?

[southsideirish71]

Its sends a bad message.

 

Are we now afraid of protests?

 

The protestors are not the issue. Its the anarchist goons that travel to these events like its their world cup. If they don't burn a cop car or overturn a bus then its not an event for them. This was a disaster waiting to happen. You will have the professional anarchists mixed amongst the normal protestors. its a recipe for disaster. Glad this is not happening.

 

[Soxbadger]

Right, so we are afraid. Professional anarchists, whatever, we give into threats, we let them win.

 

You dont need a summit to commit crimes. If these people are so terrible and have been planning for so long, Id expect they still show up in Chicago and put on a show. Itll send the same message, who cares where they are meeting, if your goal is to create mischief you dont need world leaders there.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Its sends a bad message.

 

Are we now afraid of protests?

agreed. they're hiding from the People.

[southsideirish71]

agreed. they're hiding from the People.

 

Sure because the people have access to the summit itself.

[StrangeSox]

There won't be large protests on the streets outside the meetings now. They're hiding.

[Soxbadger]

Yep brings you back to a simpler time when the rich hid behind their castle walls as the peasants tilled the field.

 

People are upset, people are mad, its from all parts of society. So during these times, the hope would be that the 8 most powerful countries would face the people and tell them that they hear their concerns. Not hide away behind the military might of the most powerful country in the world.

 

What message does that send?

 

We sit int he US and condemn the actions of other nations as they deal with protests. And yet we have a chance to show the world how to handle protests, how to allow peaceful assembly and we hide in fear.

 

Its okay, bad things might happen.

 

[Balta1701]

Yep brings you back to a simpler time when the rich hid behind their castle walls as the peasants tilled the field.

 

People are upset, people are mad, its from all parts of society. So during these times, the hope would be that the 8 most powerful countries would face the people and tell them that they hear their concerns. Not hide away behind the military might of the most powerful country in the world.

 

What message does that send?

 

We sit int he US and condemn the actions of other nations as they deal with protests. And yet we have a chance to show the world how to handle protests, how to allow peaceful assembly and we hide in fear.

 

Its okay, bad things might happen.

What sends the worst message...Seattle 98, armed guards in the streets and infiltrating protests to prevent Seattle 98, or having the meetings at military institutions?

[southsider2k5]

Yep brings you back to a simpler time when the rich hid behind their castle walls as the peasants tilled the field.

 

People are upset, people are mad, its from all parts of society. So during these times, the hope would be that the 8 most powerful countries would face the people and tell them that they hear their concerns. Not hide away behind the military might of the most powerful country in the world.

 

What message does that send?

 

We sit int he US and condemn the actions of other nations as they deal with protests. And yet we have a chance to show the world how to handle protests, how to allow peaceful assembly and we hide in fear.

 

Its okay, bad things might happen.

 

Except they won't be peaceful, and that is the problem.

[NorthSideSox72]

Remember folks, the G8 moved, but NATO and ISF are still happening here. NATO will draw protests too, that is in late May.

 

[Soxbadger]

How do you know they wont be peaceful?

 

Because all I see here is the slippery slope reasoning that removes protest in general. Protests are dangerous, the only way to protect people is to stop protests. Isnt that the natural end to this?

 

Freedom comes at a cost, sometimes we will be less safe, sometimes bad things will happen, but that is the bargain.

[StrangeSox]

Seattle '98 was a good thing

[southsider2k5]

How do you know they wont be peaceful?

 

Because all I see here is the slippery slope reasoning that removes protest in general. Protests are dangerous, the only way to protect people is to stop protests. Isnt that the natural end to this?

 

Freedom comes at a cost, sometimes we will be less safe, sometimes bad things will happen, but that is the bargain.

 

When you have a history of violence, then yes, people should be worried you will be again violent.

[Soxbadger]

Who has a history of violence?

 

People?

[southsider2k5]

Who has a history of violence?

 

People?

 

The groups that protest at the G summits

[Soxbadger]

So, instead of going out and stopping the criminals, we instead create rules that punish everyone?

 

I dont support that type of Govt.

[Balta1701]

So, instead of going out and stopping the criminals, we instead create rules that punish everyone?

 

I dont support that type of Govt.

Who exactly is getting punished when a G8 summit gets moved?

[southsider2k5]

So, instead of going out and stopping the criminals, we instead create rules that punish everyone?

 

I dont support that type of Govt.

 

By punish everyone, are you worrying about the people who get their business vandalized, or do they not count?

[Soxbadger]

Business getting vandalized.

 

Thats a crime right?

 

So if, a protester did that, they could be arrested and sent to jail, correct? They could be forced to pay restitution, correct? They could be sued in civil court for the damage, correct? And they may even have insurance to protect them from damage, correct?

 

So I count 3 ways that the business owner can be made whole if a crime is committed (same rules that apply to any business at any time).

 

To me it seems that businesses have been able to operate for the last 200+ years in the US, only having the protections described above. And at the end of the day, freedom > money. I can put a price on your damages, hard to put a price on your inability to make your opinion heard.