Terrorism and Partisanship

[klunderbunker]

Ok, so some of you might remember Richard Reed. He was a man that around I believe Christmas 2001 tried to blow up a plane using a bomb in his shoes. He was caught and stopped and taken into custody. The Bush administration decided to try him in federal court and he plead guilty and will be in a supermax prison in Colorado for the rest of his life. I hadn't even heard a word about him since then and had completely forgotten about the story and him, which is another point to life in prison I guess.

Fine. That's perfectly fine with me. I like it. You'll rarely hear me say this, but Bush got this perfectly right. The man committed a crime over US soil and he was subject to American laws. He was given a full public trial just like anyone else would be given and he plead guilty which thousands of people do on a regular basis. Everything is fine here.

Fast forward to a few days ago when a man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit did in essence the same thing. The only difference is that he isn't an American citizen like Reed was. Just like Reed he was stopped and put into custody. The Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, chose to try him in a federal court. In other words, the Democratic administration followed the example set by the Republican administration.

And naturally the right or at least part of it, one of which of course being Dick Cheney, is upset at him over it. Apparently the bomber should have no rights to a trial by jury or anything such as that and should go before a military tribunal.

Now, this to me is ridiculous. Ok, the 2009 suspect isn't an American citizen. His crime occurred over American soil and involved American passengers. If you commit a crime in Mexico, you have no American rights in the case. You have whatever rights the Mexican constitution says you have. If one man who did the same thing was given a trial in a public court, why shouldn't this man get one as well? The Bush administration got it right and now apparently the same thing is wrong and the only thing I can think of is because Obama is a Democrat.

Does this sound like partisanship to you? It certainly does to me. For the life of me if McCain was the president and did exactly the same thing, I can't imagine the same response. If that's the case, then this is the kind of bullshit that gives the right the bad name it gets. This is the kind of thing that I complain about most of the time: one party fighting the other because it's the other party. That cripples a country and does nothing for the people of the country.

What do you guys think? Is this partisanship and playing politics, or is there a legit difference that I'm just missing?

 

[Razor]

It's partisanship. Plain and simple.

It's just like when Republicans sponsored a huge increase to Medicare for old people. They didn't mind. But now, when the Democrats try to expand Medicare, it's horrible. Of course, the Medicare expansion is in the middle of a huge and overly bulky Healthcare bill, but still.

Or, if you want to get a little closer to the base of the issue, you can look at the national debt. The Republicans completely did away with the surplus Clinton had developed and dug us in the whole another 7 trillion dollars. No Republican blinked twice. Now Obama does what a Democrat does, and spend money. Trillions of dollars, in fact. However, suddenly it's wrong. Suddenly spending trillions we don't have is a bad thing to do.

It's the classic case of "Sure, we were right when we did this. But now you're wrong for doing the exact same thing." Everyone will come up for excuses, but it's the same thing. If when they torture it's wrong, then when we torture it's wrong. If when they bomb innocents it's wrong, then when we bomb innocents it's wrong. This is nothing but typical politics.

One thing, though. I'd like to see the balls on the Republicans who dare say that it's the Democrat's fault that someone attempted to attack an airline on Christmas. If anyone even hinted at that about 9/11, they would be hunted down and killed.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Ok, so some of you might remember Richard Reed. He was a man that around I believe Christmas 2001 tried to blow up a plane using a bomb in his shoes. He was caught and stopped and taken into custody. The Bush administration decided to try him in federal court and he plead guilty and will be in a supermax prison in Colorado for the rest of his life. I hadn't even heard a word about him since then and had completely forgotten about the story and him, which is another point to life in prison I guess.

Fine. That's perfectly fine with me. I like it. You'll rarely hear me say this, but Bush got this perfectly right. The man committed a crime over US soil and he was subject to American laws. He was given a full public trial just like anyone else would be given and he plead guilty which thousands of people do on a regular basis. Everything is fine here.

I'm with you up to here. Reid was an idiot who failed miserably at his job of suicide bomber. His only job was to kill himself.

Fast forward to a few days ago when a man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit did in essence the same thing. The only difference is that he isn't an American citizen like Reed was. Just like Reed he was stopped and put into custody. The Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, chose to try him in a federal court. In other words, the Democratic administration followed the example set by the Republican administration.

Cheney also criticized the Bush administration for taking their eye off the ball on terror, so not partisan at all. It's just an old curmudgeon keeping alive slim hopes for the nomination on 2012.

And naturally the right or at least part of it, one of which of course being Dick Cheney, is upset at him over it. Apparently the bomber should have no rights to a trial by jury or anything such as that and should go before a military tribunal.

I think he should too. I think Reid should have as well. Wait, is this thread turning into you applauding Bush and me jeering him? Weird. Anyway, terrorism is an act of war. It's not like we were going to capture the emperor of Japan and try him in federal court for Pearl Harbor. I am in favor of killing him on the spot. My sources tell me this isn't politically beneficial or "humane" though.

Now, this to me is ridiculous. Ok, the 2009 suspect isn't an American citizen. His crime occurred over American soil and involved American passengers. If you commit a crime in Mexico, you have no American rights in the case. You have whatever rights the Mexican constitution says you have. If one man who did the same thing was given a trial in a public court, why shouldn't this man get one as well? The Bush administration got it right and now apparently the same thing is wrong and the only thing I can think of is because Obama is a Democrat.

It just depends on whether this is a crime or a war crime. If someone commits an act of war against the US, there is precedent to use military tribunals.

Does this sound like partisanship to you? It certainly does to me. For the life of me if McCain was the president and did exactly the same thing, I can't imagine the same response.

I can. Cheney hates McCain. Furthermore, I think Cheney is going to continue to bash the Obama administration because he is gaining support in far right circles for a Presidential run in 2012. It's all politics and it amazes me that people listen to him. Cheney is a brilliant man, but the second he let his Chief of Staff take the fall for him, I lost respect for him. I wish he would have come out and said, "Yeah, I outed Valerie Plame. She is a lying bitch and the last thing I want is her in a position to deliver more bad analysis to the US. I outed her because she is a national security threat and a stupid cunt." But, my sources also tell me that this is not politically beneficial.

If that's the case, then this is the kind of bullshit that gives the right the bad name it gets. This is the kind of thing that I complain about most of the time: one party fighting the other because it's the other party. That cripples a country and does nothing for the people of the country.

Really, I am more sickened by one party bribing the other party. Enjoy your government funded gold plated toilet seats Nebraska!

What do you guys think? Is this partisanship and playing politics, or is there a legit difference that I'm just missing?[/quote]

It's the opening salvos of the 2012 Republican primaries. I believe the 2016 primaries start on St. Patrick's Day.

It's partisanship. Plain and simple.

You guys are being partisan. Cheney is being delusional.

It's just like when Republicans sponsored a huge increase to Medicare for old people. They didn't mind. But now, when the Democrats try to expand Medicare, it's horrible. Of course, the Medicare expansion is in the middle of a huge and overly bulky Healthcare bill, but still.

The Republicans sponsored beefing up Medicare because doctors are waiting five years for payment from the government for some services. Yea! More government mismanagement on the way.

Or, if you want to get a little closer to the base of the issue, you can look at the national debt. The Republicans completely did away with the surplus Clinton had developed and dug us in the whole another 7 trillion dollars. No Republican blinked twice. Now Obama does what a Democrat does, and spend money. Trillions of dollars, in fact. However, suddenly it's wrong. Suddenly spending trillions we don't have is a bad thing to do.

The Republicans did away with the surplus because we went to war. Furthermore, there should be no surplus. That money is for services and protections to citizens of the US. If the money is not used, it should be returned. That money belongs to the people of the US, not to Congress. And seven trillion dollars is a load of horseshit. When Bush took over, the national debt was seven trillion. In eight years, he took it nine trillion. In two hours, Obama has taken it to eleven trillion. This thread should be called "Watch Razor call the kettle black."

It's the classic case of "Sure, we were right when we did this. But now you're wrong for doing the exact same thing." Everyone will come up for excuses, but it's the same thing. If when they torture it's wrong, then when we torture it's wrong. If when they bomb innocents it's wrong, then when we bomb innocents it's wrong. This is nothing but typical politics.

Great analysis. Now, why do you chastise the Republican for running up the national debt, but say nothing when Obama's one year deficit is as big as all the damage the last administration did in eight years?

One thing, though. I'd like to see the balls on the Republicans who dare say that it's the Democrat's fault that someone attempted to attack an airline on Christmas. If anyone even hinted at that about 9/11, they would be hunted down and killed.

Wow, accusing the right of things they haven't even done yet. And, by the way, there are plenty of people on the left who said Bush bombed the buildings himself, and that is far worse than the hypothetical you just mentioned.

 

[Razor]

You guys are being partisan. Cheney is being delusional.

Partisan? Where? No, wait. Don't answer that. I'm sure you'll tell me in this here post of yours.

The Republicans sponsored beefing up Medicare because doctors are waiting five years for payment from the government for some services. Yea! More government mismanagement on the way.

That doesn't excuse them being against government expansion of Medicare to close the "doughnut hole" made when Medicare recipients run over their allotted money for prescription drugs in a year. People were being forced to simply not get needed medications until the next year started. Democrats try to close it, and "Oh my god. Communists!"

The Republicans did away with the surplus because we went to war.

Oh, right. That war in Afghanistan and the illegal war raged on faulty evidence. I'm sorry, didn't think of that excuse for digging us in the hole trillions of dollars while arguing that we just couldn't afford to give more money to our public schools.

Furthermore, there should be no surplus. That money is for services and protections to citizens of the US. If the money is not used, it should be returned. That money belongs to the people of the US, not to Congress.

Well, you know, that surplus would be spent back into projects like our schools or paying off the trillions of debt that our lovely friends China hold. But that will only happen if we actually spend less than we take in from taxes. Of course, that would require a stop to the outrageous experimental military spending and other, incredulous wastes of money like NASA.

And seven trillion dollars is a load of horseshit. When Bush took over, the national debt was seven trillion. In eight years, he took it nine trillion. In two hours, Obama has taken it to eleven trillion. This thread should be called "Watch Razor call the kettle black."
Great analysis. Now, why do you chastise the Republican for running up the national debt, but say nothing when Obama's one year deficit is as big as all the damage the last administration did in eight years?

I'm not calling the kettle black, by any means. Obama is a Democrat, and what do we Democrats do? We spend money. We spend money to try and better the lives of our citizens. Obama's platform wasn't "I'm going to take office and cut spending." So he spending trillions fits quite neatly into his agenda. It's what he promised to do.

However, what were Bush and the Republicans promising to do? Cut taxes and big government? Hmmmm....they created an entirely new Department of Homeland Security, gave the government nearly unlimited authority to just wiretap innocent, random Americans, and spent trillions of trillions of dollars.

But, you know. It's only bad when the Democrats spend all of that money.

Wow, accusing the right of things they haven't even done yet. And, by the way, there are plenty of people on the left who said Bush bombed the buildings himself, and that is far worse than the hypothetical you just mentioned.

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney led a GOP offensive to assail President Obama's leadership on national security, charging that the American people are less safe because, Cheney believes, Obama is "pretending" that the United States is not at war with terrorists.

"We are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe," Cheney, one of Obama's strongest critics, said in a statement to Politico. "Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency -- social transformation -- the restructuring of American society."

Source

Oh? That quote up above is Cheney blaming Obama in not so many words. It's no better than when the Republicans made their "Vote for Kerry and we will be attacked again" rounds 5 years ago. And don't forget his not so subtle attack that Obama is trying to force societal rules we don't hold. Because, you know, Obama doesn't hate the gays.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Partisan? Where? No, wait. Don't answer that. I'm sure you'll tell me in this here post of yours.

And, I'm going to do a better job of it in this post.

That doesn't excuse them being against government expansion of Medicare to close the "doughnut hole" made when Medicare recipients run over their allotted money for prescription drugs in a year. People were being forced to simply not get needed medications until the next year started. Democrats try to close it, and "Oh my god. Communists!"

Wait, so it's a bad idea to make people pay for some of their own medication? You're right! It should all be free for everyone! That way, the government can take even longer to pay the doctors and pharmacies that they already don't pay. My dad is on Medicare. He has to spend a whole $500 dollars of his own money on the $10,000 of medication he takes a year. How dare they....

Oh, right. That war in Afghanistan and the illegal war raged on faulty evidence.

So which is it? Is it illegal or is it based on bad intelligence? Because, if it was bad intelligence then he acted to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a man who gassed his own citizens and attacked a neighboring country for fun. And, since international law is a joke at best, and nonexistent in reality, your claim that it is an illegal war is another lefty yawnfest that means nothing in real life but incites horror and outrage amongst the unwashed youth. Seriously, get off the Howard Dean fax.

What was this thread about again? Oh, right, Cheney vs. Obama. I knew you would try to pull Bush into this because it's an easy way to rally support for Obama. Hell, instead of using his policy, which he can't, to garner support, all he has to do is mention the other side to get Keith Olberman erect and yacking.

I'm sorry, didn't think of that excuse for digging us in the hole trillions of dollars while arguing that we just couldn't afford to give more money to our public schools.

Because that's what Clinton was using the surplus for? Once again though, we're talking about Obama. I don't understand how Clinton's greatness justifies Obama's policy of cower and appease.

Well, you know, that surplus would be spent back into projects like our schools or paying off the trillions of debt that our lovely friends China hold.

Would it? Under who? Clinton never had any intention of paying the debt back with it. He held in an account. Bush came in and said that if Clinton wasn't going to use the money he was going to give it back to the people because flooding the market with gift money leads to tax revenue and people getting jobs.

But that will only happen if we actually spend less than we take in from taxes. Of course, that would require a stop to the outrageous experimental military spending and other, incredulous wastes of money like NASA.

Right, so you're defending Obama and then calling for responsible spending? You should pick a side because all you've done so far is straddle the fence and appeal to the masses instead of taking a direct stand on the issue. Sounds like someone else....

I'm not calling the kettle black, by any means. Obama is a Democrat, and what do we Democrats do? We spend money. We spend money to try and better the lives of our citizens. Obama's platform wasn't "I'm going to take office and cut spending." So he spending trillions fits quite neatly into his agenda. It's what he promised to do.

Then why are you defending it? Earlier you were calling for responsible spending? Furthermore, you asked for money to be spent on schools. Is he doing that? Why did he borrow a trillion dollars and decide to spend $150,000,000 of it? 10% unemployment, eight hundred fifty billion dollars in his pocket, and yet, he is focused on fucking health care? If he wanted to help people, he would be creating jobs!!!! Unfortunately, all he wants to do is pass a leftist agenda, socializing every industry he can so that Americans are so dependent upon the government that they can never vote Republican. $150,000,000,000 with a B to create 30,000 jobs. By my Blackberry's math, that equals FIVE MILLION dollars per job created. Way to go. Please, tell me how this makes him any better than Bush, who created 2.4 million jobs? Please, don't tell me how Democrats spend money and help the people. Democrats spend money and help themselves.

However, what were Bush and the Republicans promising to do? Cut taxes and big government? Hmmmm....they created an entirely new Department of Homeland Security, gave the government nearly unlimited authority to just wiretap innocent, random Americans, and spent trillions of trillions of dollars.

Sorry for adapting to the times. Maybe he should have focused on health care while we were under attack. That's what Obama's track record signals he would do.

But, you know. It's only bad when the Democrats spend all of that money.

Bad when they both do. At least Bush spent it on pressing needs.

Source

Oh? That quote up above is Cheney blaming Obama in not so many words. It's no better than when the Republicans made their "Vote for Kerry and we will be attacked again" rounds 5 years ago. And don't forget his not so subtle attack that Obama is trying to force societal rules we don't hold. Because, you know, Obama doesn't hate the gays.

That's great. Your point? I already said Cheney is an old curmudgeon who's opinion doesn't really matter except to the fringe far right. Thanks for tying Cheney into the end of your post. You could have made it a straight attack on Bush that solves about as much Obama does when he does it. Either way, neither of you are improving anything. Those three sentences at the end sure made it on topic, huh?

 

[Razor]

And, I'm going to do a better job of it in this post.

I dunno....you might be getting a little confused. I'll show you how in a bit.

Wait, so it's a bad idea to make people pay for some of their own medication? You're right! It should all be free for everyone! That way, the government can take even longer to pay the doctors and pharmacies that they already don't pay. My dad is on Medicare. He has to spend a whole $500 dollars of his own money on the $10,000 of medication he takes a year. How dare they....

They're on Medicare because...wait for it....they can't afford to pay for their medication! Your dad, the one who pays 500 dollars of what I'm assuming are co-pays a year on 10,000 of medication? Imagine if he fell into the doughnut hole and had to pay, say, full-price for a fifth of that medication. That's still 2,000 dollars of medication he would normally only be paying what, 20 bucks for? 50?

So which is it? Is it illegal or is it based on bad intelligence?

Well, the "bad intelligence" led to a war waged on a lie, making it illegal. If Iraq attacked us, then wow. Legal war. Tis why NATO is helping us in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are bad people who are responsible for terrorist attacks around the world. We didn't lie about that, and the war there is well-founded.

Now, the war in Iraq? It's illegal because we had no reason to be there. And to top it all off, Bush lied to everyone about why he was going in. Of course, you can't really blame the man. We wouldn't have let him anywhere near Iraq if we knew he was there to finish what his dad started.

Because, if it was bad intelligence then he acted to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a man who gassed his own citizens and attacked a neighboring country for fun. And, since international law is a joke at best, and nonexistent in reality, your claim that it is an illegal war is another lefty yawnfest that means nothing in real life but incites horror and outrage amongst the unwashed youth. Seriously, get off the Howard Dean fax.

I explained why it was illegal up above. Bush knew that his evidence was a lie, as the British PM has stated himself. Therefore, he wasted trillions of dollars on an extra war we had no reason to be fighting. See how I tied in that argument to the actual thread topic? Damn I'm good.

What was this thread about again? Oh, right, Cheney vs. Obama. I knew you would try to pull Bush into this because it's an easy way to rally support for Obama. Hell, instead of using his policy, which he can't, to garner support, all he has to do is mention the other side to get Keith Olberman erect and yacking.

It was partisanship. Sure, Cheney is a belligerent old fool, but I chose to argue the overall folly of the Republican machine. And wow, the head Republican for the last 8 years was Bush. Sorry. If the lead Republican was Bill Clinton then he'd be in my crosshairs right now.

Because that's what Clinton was using the surplus for? Once again though, we're talking about Obama. I don't understand how Clinton's greatness justifies Obama's policy of cower and appease.

Wait, that's Obama's policy? I thought his policy was "Don't make people hate us when they have no need to." Just because Obama isn't threatening the EU into helping him with nukes and missiles doesn't mean he's a weak president. It means he knows how to actually speak to people, not just shout threats.

Would it? Under who? Clinton never had any intention of paying the debt back with it. He held in an account. Bush came in and said that if Clinton wasn't going to use the money he was going to give it back to the people because flooding the market with gift money leads to tax revenue and people getting jobs.

Yeah, the surplus would be used to spend down the debt. That's what everyone always argues to use it for. Bush flooded the market with gift money while at the same time cutting taxes and deregulating, leading you to a great economic boom for the last 2 years. ....Oh...wait...

Right, so you're defending Obama and then calling for responsible spending? You should pick a side because all you've done so far is straddle the fence and appeal to the masses instead of taking a direct stand on the issue. Sounds like someone else....

I never said either side was wrong. I said the Republicans are wrong to criticize the Democrats for spending when they wasted just as much. Though, the Democrats have never honestly said they wouldn't spend any money, for the record.

Then why are you defending it? Earlier you were calling for responsible spending? Furthermore, you asked for money to be spent on schools. Is he doing that? Why did he borrow a trillion dollars and decide to spend $150,000,000 of it? 10% unemployment, eight hundred fifty billion dollars in his pocket, and yet, he is focused on fucking health care? If he wanted to help people, he would be creating jobs!!!! Unfortunately, all he wants to do is pass a leftist agenda, socializing every industry he can so that Americans are so dependent upon the government that they can never vote Republican. $150,000,000,000 with a B to create 30,000 jobs. By my Blackberry's math, that equals FIVE MILLION dollars per job created. Way to go. Please, tell me how this makes him any better than Bush, who created 2.4 million jobs? Please, don't tell me how Democrats spend money and help the people. Democrats spend money and help themselves.

I'm arguing for Republicans not to rag on Democrats for spending, when they spent just as much. Now, Democrats are focusing on Healthcare at the moment, which will help out millions if the Republicans stop stepping up and acting like they suddenly understand the national debt better than the Congressional Budget Office.

You know the good thing about Obama only being in office for 9 months? He has another 3 years to reign before you can start making outlandish comparisons against Bush, who had 8 years in office.

Sorry for adapting to the times. Maybe he should have focused on health care while we were under attack. That's what Obama's track record signals he would do.

Lulz. Cutting our rights as outlined in the Constitution and actually going back on everything his party stands for is "adapting to the times?" Authorizing limitless and warrantless wire tapping is illegal and never right. Expanding government the way he did is exactly the opposite of that supposed part of the Republican platform that says they don't like big government. But then again, they're always right when they do something. That's why when the Democrats do the exact same thing it's Communist, but when Republicans do it it's just "adapting to the times."

Bad when they both do. At least Bush spent it on pressing needs.

That war in Iraq was not pressing, the Department of Homeland Security wasn't pressing, tax cuts to the rich wasn't pressing, the bailouts weren't pressing. The military spending I'll give you, because we had a legit war in Afghanistan to fight.

That's great. Your point? I already said Cheney is an old curmudgeon who's opinion doesn't really matter except to the fringe far right.

Didn't you say something about....oh, I don't know....

Wow, accusing the right of things they haven't even done yet.

You said the Republicans never attacked Obama and said he was essentially responsible for the attempted attacks. I, quite predictably, backed up my claim and proved you wrong. That's my point. The Republicans like to attack Democrats when the Democrats are doing exactly what the Republicans did years before.

Thanks for tying Cheney into the end of your post. You could have made it a straight attack on Bush that solves about as much Obama does when he does it. Either way, neither of you are improving anything. Those three sentences at the end sure made it on topic, huh?

I thought my topic was how the Republicans attack Democrats when the Democrats do what the Republicans did? I'm sorry if you're confused and don't think the leader of the Republicans for the past 8 years was their president, President George W. Bush. You know, that dude who set stem cell research back 10 years.

But, you know. When Republicans spend outlandish sums of money it's merely looking out for the nation's security. When the Democrats do it it's Communist. I think that's exactly what KB was hinting at, by the way.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Alright, so I wrote this up earlier and it disappeared on me, so let's try this again.

I dunno....you might be getting a little confused. I'll show you how in a bit.

Not so fast my friend. [/corso]

They're on Medicare because...wait for it....they can't afford to pay for their medication! Your dad, the one who pays 500 dollars of what I'm assuming are co-pays a year on 10,000 of medication? Imagine if he fell into the doughnut hole and had to pay, say, full-price for a fifth of that medication. That's still 2,000 dollars of medication he would normally only be paying what, 20 bucks for? 50?

OK, so I handle my dad's medical expenses. He pays $500 a year, period. That is $40 a month, and that's it. He's on Medicare. The donut hole that you have greatly exaggerated (along with most of the statistics you present). This is where you insert some quote from a magazine. It doesn't matter. I deal with it on a daily basis.

Well, the "bad intelligence" led to a war waged on a lie, making it illegal. If Iraq attacked us, then wow. Legal war. Tis why NATO is helping us in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are bad people who are responsible for terrorist attacks around the world. We didn't lie about that, and the war there is well-founded.

So, you're using the fact that you are a blind lefty as proof that there was a lie? Funny. I don't call a man a liar until I have proof. It's called honor.

Now, the war in Iraq? It's illegal because we had no reason to be there. And to top it all off, Bush lied to everyone about why he was going in. Of course, you can't really blame the man. We wouldn't have let him anywhere near Iraq if we knew he was there to finish what his dad started.

Again, calling him a liar. This is straight off the Howard Dean talking points fax from this morning isn't it? Well, it doesn't surprise me. Why make a good argument when you could just bash Bush and appeal to the uneducated masses. You know who lies? Obama. Healthcare is revenue neutral. False. There will be not tax increases to pay for healthcare by the middle class. False. These are real lies. There is proof he said it, and legislation that goes the other way. Plus, by increasing taxes on the insurance companies the way he wants to, he make sit nearly impossible for people to keep their current health coverage, because the prices will rise. Another lie.

I explained why it was illegal up above.

Actually, you didn't. You said it was illegal because Bush lied, and you can't fucking prove that. You are a great lefty. You haven't told the truth once.

Bush knew that his evidence was a lie, as the British PM has stated himself.

Bush knew it was a lie because someone else who went to war with him said it was? Do you not see the fallacy in your weak argument?

Therefore, he wasted trillions of dollars on an extra war we had no reason to be fighting. See how I tied in that argument to the actual thread topic? Damn I'm good.

Another lie Razor. Trillions? It's actually less than one trillion in Iraq. Stop exaggerating to make it look like you're making a good argument. There is more unspent stimulus money that could be putting people to work than the US spent in Iraq. But, hey, why find people jobs when we could be giving health care, I'm sorry, forcing people who don't want insurance to get it.

It was partisanship. Sure, Cheney is a belligerent old fool, but I chose to argue the overall folly of the Republican machine. And wow, the head Republican for the last 8 years was Bush. Sorry. If the lead Republican was Bill Clinton then he'd be in my crosshairs right now.

Partisan politics are bad, but I would talking bad about Clinton if he were a Republican. That's an entirely hypocritical arguments. Besides, Clinton pretty much was a Republican. Tax cuts, trickle down, overusing the military....check, check, check. By the way, before you continue talking about Bush's use of the military, remember that Clinton deployed troops more times to completely worthless causes like Somalia and Rwanda than any President before or since.

Wait, that's Obama's policy? I thought his policy was "Don't make people hate us when they have no need to." Just because Obama isn't threatening the EU into helping him with nukes and missiles doesn't mean he's a weak president. It means he knows how to actually speak to people, not just shout threats.

1. All he knows how to do is speak. Acting is completely beyond him.

2. Is he not pissing anyone off by ordering sojourns into Pakistani territory against their wishes. I guess he figures since we only have one ally over there, it's not that important to have them like us.

Yeah, the surplus would be used to spend down the debt. That's what everyone always argues to use it for. Bush flooded the market with gift money while at the same time cutting taxes and deregulating, leading you to a great economic boom for the last 2 years. ....Oh...wait...

This is pure bullshit. First of all, if it was so important for Clinton to pay down the defecit, he would never have approved a budget for 2001 (in 2000, when he was still the President) without defecit payments. He allowed that money to sit unspent, which is irresponsible. That money doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the people, and once Bush got in office, that's where it went. Furthermore, the economy was fine, Dow 14,000, until two years ago, when who took control of Congress? The same worthless fucks who don't care that unemployment is over 10% right now, that's who.

Don't sit here and bash Republicans when the Democrats are doing a far worse job. Obama is a laughable President. He can't get anything passed with his party in power. How outlandish must his agenda be for the people who rode his coattails to by trying to distance themselves from him this quickly. He has already been rendered impotent, devoid of all political capital. He remains popular with leftists and ******s though, so he's got that going for him.

I never said either side was wrong.

Actually, that's all you've said. I, at least, have the courtesy to tell you that Cheney is belligerent fool. You don't even acknowledge Obama's deficiencies as a President. All you do is make excuses for him.

I said the Republicans are wrong to criticize the Democrats for spending when they wasted just as much. Though, the Democrats have never honestly said they wouldn't spend any money, for the record.

It's wrong to spend too much money on shit unless you tell people you're going to do it? Great argument Razor. That makes me think that the right planted you within the leftist community to make the right look better.

I'm arguing for Republicans not to rag on Democrats for spending, when they spent just as much. Now, Democrats are focusing on Healthcare at the moment, which will help out millions if the Republicans stop stepping up and acting like they suddenly understand the national debt better than the Congressional Budget Office.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, the CBO has given fifteen different estimates on the cost of national healthcare, and they all range in the trillionS.

You know the good thing about Obama only being in office for 9 months? He has another 3 years to reign before you can start making outlandish comparisons against Bush, who had 8 years in office.

Why don't you all get together and decide when it's OK to question his inability to be President. A President's first hundred days are his most effective. Let's see what he did....

Closed Gitmo with no where to put them.
Pissed off every 9/11 family by not listening to their pleas to keep the culprits out of America.
Appointed a tax dodger to head the treasury.

Wow, you're right, he's done nothing to be criticized for.

Lulz. Cutting our rights as outlined in the Constitution and actually going back on everything his party stands for is "adapting to the times?"

I'm glad you brought up the Constitution. Please tell me where it gives the government the right to socialize the automobile, healthcare, and mortgage industries.

Authorizing limitless and warrantless wire tapping is illegal and never right.

But it accomplishes something. Taking the auto industry away from the shareholders and giving implicit power to the Unions is unAmerican and harmful to the economy.

Expanding government the way he did is exactly the opposite of that supposed part of the Republican platform that says they don't like big government. But then again, they're always right when they do something. That's why when the Democrats do the exact same thing it's Communist, but when Republicans do it it's just "adapting to the times."

Right. So it's OK for the Democrats to do it to get back at the Republicans? Really mature, Razor. They were both wrong, but the Homeland Security Department serves a purpose, cap and tax is the stupidest piece of legislation ever. All it will do is raise prices to the consumer and make it more difficult to obtain goods, leading to massive inflation.

That war in Iraq was not pressing, the Department of Homeland Security wasn't pressing, tax cuts to the rich wasn't pressing, the bailouts weren't pressing. The military spending I'll give you, because we had a legit war in Afghanistan to fight.

The bailouts were very pressing. Ask anyone who had money in a failed bank and lost everything. If not for the bailouts, that would have happened to every bank, and every American. The rest of it, not so much, but neither is cap and tax, national healthcare costing trillions of dollars to benefit about 13 people, taking control of private industry away, or national healthcare when there is over 10% unemployment. The stimulus is sitting there unused while Democrats infight over how much the government should spend per murdered baby.

You said the Republicans never attacked Obama and said he was essentially responsible for the attempted attacks.

No I didn't. I revel in the right's attacks on Obama, because they have the common courtesy to do the media's job. Unfortunately, they can't see with their faces in Obama's crotch.

I, quite predictably, backed up my claim and proved you wrong. That's my point. The Republicans like to attack Democrats when the Democrats are doing exactly what the Republicans did years before.

You have proven nothing except that you speak right off the talking points, don't understand the economy in the least, and maintain that it's OK for the Dems to spend money because the right did it.

I thought my topic was how the Republicans attack Democrats when the Democrats do what the Republicans did? I'm sorry if you're confused and don't think the leader of the Republicans for the past 8 years was their president, President George W. Bush. You know, that dude who set stem cell research back 10 years.

Stem cell research wasn't illegal. Bush just wanted people to *gasp* pay for something for themselves. Furthermore, you're still on this, "It's our turn to waste money," argument, which is weak and absurd.

But, you know. When Republicans spend outlandish sums of money it's merely looking out for the nation's security. When the Democrats do it it's Communist. I think that's exactly what KB was hinting at, by the way.

That's kind of right. The right spends outlandish money on national security, the left spends on taking over industry so the government can control the economy. You're finally right about something.