The Republican Thread

[pettie4sox]

People will figure it out. I was well below the poverty line for 18 months of my life and after realizing how much I hated that existence I decided I would stop being poor. Suffering makes people stronger, being poor makes you want to be rich... pretty simple stuff. Toughen em up a little, make them sweat it out for a year or so and they'll get awfully creative in finding new ways of making money.

 

That was the most anti climatic response ever.

 

That is not the Duke Nukem I know.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

but you let the Bourgeoisie purchase every seat of power and confiscate all weapons.

It'll just be upper middle class white people who feel guilty driving their Prius' to the nearest Unitarian Church and pledging to donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Hardly a revolution.

[mr_genius]

It'll just be upper middle class white people who feel guilty driving their Prius' to the nearest Unitarian Church and pledging to donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016.

 

¡Viva la Revolución!

[Reddy]

People will figure it out. I was well below the poverty line for 18 months of my life and after realizing how much I hated that existence I decided I would stop being poor. Suffering makes people stronger, being poor makes you want to be rich... pretty simple stuff. Toughen em up a little, make them sweat it out for a year or so and they'll get awfully creative in finding new ways of making money.

Wait! But you said poor prople on welfare DON'T want to be rich! Which is it? You're John Kerrying all over the place.

[DukeNukeEm]

Wait! But you said poor prople on welfare DON'T want to be rich! Which is it? You're John Kerrying all over the place.

I never brought rich into the discussion.

 

What I'm saying is if you cut this net out from under them that enables them to do basically nothing and get by they'll be forced to find some way of making money. Some will get jobs, some will find some scheme, some will resort to crime (in an ideal world however the 2A deters that path). Either way, no matter what happens, the people who actually earn their living wont have to shoulder this burden of handing them free s***.

 

This same basic idea applies to business and the epic welfare packages they receive in the form of corrupt contracts and straight up handouts.

[Reddy]

I never brought rich into the discussion.

 

What I'm saying is if you cut this net out from under them that enables them to do basically nothing and get by they'll be forced to find some way of making money. Some will get jobs, some will find some scheme, some will resort to crime (in an ideal world however the 2A deters that path). Either way, no matter what happens, the people who actually earn their living wont have to shoulder this burden of handing them free s***.

 

This same basic idea applies to business and the epic welfare packages they receive in the form of corrupt contracts and straight up handouts.

You had a net too, but somehow you still wanted to better yourself, make more money, and get out of poverty. Are you really so arrogant to think you're the exception?

[Balta1701]

I never brought rich into the discussion.

 

What I'm saying is if you cut this net out from under them that enables them to do basically nothing and get by they'll be forced to find some way of making money. Some will get jobs, some will find some scheme, some will resort to crime (in an ideal world however the 2A deters that path). Either way, no matter what happens, the people who actually earn their living wont have to shoulder this burden of handing them free s***.

 

This same basic idea applies to business and the epic welfare packages they receive in the form of corrupt contracts and straight up handouts.

You know what? We actually tried this. We made "Welfare" much stingier in the late 90's. You could only stay on it so long, there were very strict limits to who qualified.

 

The end result has been fewer people on welfare, but slow and steady increases in poverty, children in poverty, and people in deep poverty over time. That includes poverty increases during the last so-called economic expansion as well, not just from the collapse. A decent number (~20% of the recipients) simply fall off the map after their time runs out, and presumably wind up on the streets.

 

Resorting to crime, btw, is far, far, far more expensive than people on welfare.

[Jake]

No projections are "for-sure," but that's a good starting point. It will unquestionably have a negative impact on the economy and, based on everything we've seen from Europe, will actually make the deficits worse. Of course politicians are trying to dramatize it, but it's foolish to minimize the impact in the way your chart did. This is going to have a real effect on real people and is the dumbest thing we can be doing right now in such a weak economy.

 

Here's the CBO, which projects a 1.4% knock on GDP growth. That's huge.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43961

 

And the CBO is about our best guess. They are non-partisan and have a pristine reputation. They can always be wrong, but they are pretty great and as good on a consistent basis as you can ask for.

 

I never brought rich into the discussion.

 

What I'm saying is if you cut this net out from under them that enables them to do basically nothing and get by they'll be forced to find some way of making money. Some will get jobs, some will find some scheme, some will resort to crime (in an ideal world however the 2A deters that path). Either way, no matter what happens, the people who actually earn their living wont have to shoulder this burden of handing them free s***.

 

This same basic idea applies to business and the epic welfare packages they receive in the form of corrupt contracts and straight up handouts.

 

lol! Deters it as much as it enables it, you mean. It solves a problem created by itself, except it doesn't even do that satisfactorily.

 

[Balta1701]

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has led an actual talking filibuster today of the nomination of Intelligence Chief Brennan, focused mostly on the issue of drones and the targeted assassination program. He's over 4 hours so far.

 

I pretty much think everything quoted in this article sounds spot on. No idea what else he's talked about, but he's due some credit for this move.

 

#filiblizzard

[DukeNukeEm]

God bless Rand Paul for this, actually bringing some attention to the issue of our president's obsession with using drone strikes as a police tool. I know the liberals love it, socialism needs ways to kill its people in order to succeed and how else do you get rid of gun owners, but its just really great to see how fidgety it makes all these Senators.

[StrangeSox]

 

edit: Rand Paul is awful 99% of the time, but he had some other vote recently that I was in favor of

Edited March 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

filibuster is still going

[farmteam]

filibuster is still going

Still going.

 

Never imagined I'd be watching C-Span2 at 10:30 at night.

[farmteam]

I agree with Paul's points in general here today, but that was a random incursion on an executive power right there. Not for the Senate to say how the President may execute powers that are wholly his.

[Jake]

I don't like Rand Paul, but Obama's handling of this and pretty much all drone issues are puzzling. Has he gone completely paranoid? He's going all in on a program that shouldn't matter much to him. If he goes forward with a plan to create some sort of oversight on this program he'll look like a hero, instead he looks like a guy with very dubious motives.

[dasox24]

That was really fun to watch. Not very often do we get to see an actual talking filibuster take place. Congress is usually so damn boring. It's about time someone made it interesting. I couldn't turn off C-SPAN, which is something I never thought I'd say.

[DukeNukeEm]

I agree with Paul's points in general here today, but that was a random incursion on an executive power right there. Not for the Senate to say how the President may execute powers that are wholly his.

Actually the power to carry out the criminal justice system lies with the courts, not Obama. He cant indiscriminately bomb US citizens, nobody can.

[Reddy]

for the first and last time, I agree with Rand Paul.

 

Obama and his drones are frankly disturbing as hell.

[southsider2k5]

After we sent Dennis Rodman over there, NK now wants to nuke us over sanctions.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/n...;comm_ref=false

[farmteam]

Actually the power to carry out the criminal justice system lies with the courts, not Obama. He cant indiscriminately bomb US citizens, nobody can.

Uh...I know? That's why I said I agreed with Paul's points in general during his filibuster. I was referring to a specific one or two sentence tangent he went on at the time I made that post.

[Balta1701]

I don't like Rand Paul, but Obama's handling of this and pretty much all drone issues are puzzling. Has he gone completely paranoid? He's going all in on a program that shouldn't matter much to him. If he goes forward with a plan to create some sort of oversight on this program he'll look like a hero, instead he looks like a guy with very dubious motives.

I don't know where the President himself stands on this, but I'll bet you that the air force and the CIA absolutely love this program. It gives them a new toy where they're able to flex their muscles in the military conflict, and it allows them a degree of safety and detachment that they never had before.

 

I would bet that there are some very powerful people in those organizations who would be very, very angry if the President started supporting restrictions on the program.

 

Agreed totally on the need for oversight from my side though.

[Reddy]

I don't know where the President himself stands on this, but I'll bet you that the air force and the CIA absolutely love this program. It gives them a new toy where they're able to flex their muscles in the military conflict, and it allows them a degree of safety and detachment that they never had before.

 

I would bet that there are some very powerful people in those organizations who would be very, very angry if the President started supporting restrictions on the program.

 

Agreed totally on the need for oversight from my side though.

 

i think this is an example of the president listening to the joint chiefs a little too well... he's giving them exactly what they're asking for without considering the ramifications. but if he IS considering the ramifications... then... well... suddenly the hitler moniker may be more appropriate than I ever thought... lol

[Jake]

The President Will Not Bomb US Citizens on US Soil

 

Dear Senator Paul:

 

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

 

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

[Balta1701]

What you said is not what AG Holder said. What you said is "The President will not bomb US Citizens on US Soil". Read it again. He explicitly adds the clause "not engaged in combat".

 

The problem comes about if the only person who can decide whether someone is "engaged in combat" is the President.

[DukeNukeEm]

The President Will Not Bomb US Citizens on US Soil

Except if they label you a terrorist you are engaged in combat on US soil. That's literally all it takes, they just say "yousa terrorist bud" and Mr. Drone rams some ordinance 10 feet up your ass. No courts, no due process, no oversight, not even a f***ing law that allows them to do this... just call you a terrorist and Obama with his pet Holder feel entitled to kill you.

Edited March 7, 2013 by DukeNukeEm