Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 20)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  17  18  19  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm always fascinated by your damage control attempts, G3.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Congress cannot tie its own hands..."...

... Now that is better, the problem for democratic congressmen will be deciding which social programs to cut in order to re-allocate $3,000,000,000,000 to maintain Obama's foreign policy. The economy coming out of the last four years does not have the strength to buy both guns, and butter, which is why sequestration kicked in.

Romney's point in this debate was that a healthy economy *is* necessary to a strong foreign policy, and the military that Barry was assuming to be at his disposal (should he be elected), cannot co-exist with the BFD.

He was right, and Obama was wrong.

[ October 23, 2012, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.
quote:
For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets
More or fewer than it used in 1916?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
... Now that is better, the problem for democratic congressmen will be deciding which social programs to cut in order to re-allocate $3,000,000,000,000 to maintain Obama's foreign policy. The economy coming out of the last four years does not have the strength to buy both guns, and butter, which is why sequestration kicked in.


That's pure nonsense. Sequestration is scheduled to kick in because congress declared that it would kick in if no other compromise was reached as a condition on lifting the debt ceiling (which is an absurd political theatre artifact of the 1920's in and of itself and, after the last tussle, should be declared outright unconstitutional since it has proven that it only serves as a direct violation of the 14th amendment). Congress created it, congress can nullify it simply by passing a budget that overrides it.

Congress has no need to re-allocate anything to work around sequestration, it simple has to override it with legislation that removes it from the budget.

quote:
Romney's point in this debate was that a healthy economy *is* necessary to a strong foreign policy, and the military that Barry was assuming to be at his disposal (should he be elected), cannot co-exist with the BFD.
Which is irrelevant, because the point of comparison was between Obama's proposed military budget, based on the actual stated needs of the military and Romney's budget, based entirely on political posturing and with pretty much no input from the current top brass (in fact, going directly against their wishes to trim down and improve efficiency and effectiveness).

Either policy assumes that it would boot out the inane sequestration compromise and instead replace it with a more coherent budget.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G#, I'm in London and didn't see the debate. I read the transcript and 3 different UK newspapers who gave multiple opinions/assessments of who "won". It's pretty unanimous that Obama beat out "Obama lite". He was crisp, forceful and sensible. Whenever Romney agreed with Obama they felt he might be an acceptable substitute. If you give the UK a vote and a handful of electors, there's no doubt that they'd ring them up for Obama.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I knew it.

All the economy needs is a sprinkle of Pyrtolin's magic fairy dust, and this "absurd" sequestration act that was passed in a bi-partisan vote, then signed into law by Barry, can go away. Everything will be sunshine, and roses.

As an aside, Obama, congressional democrats, and even Paul Ryan wanted defense to be a part of the sequestration compact. Guess who openly, and aggressively opposed it? You guessed... Mitt Romney.

[ October 23, 2012, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it a little disturbing how many things Romney disagrees with his own VP choice on? Of course, Romney wasn't there so his opinions didn't carry much weight at the time and he had no skin in the game. He can say anything, and come to think of it, he does.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No "skin" in the game? Ya, Romney had no idea that his public statements could be used against him in the campaign.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is the Navy Shrinking?

ROMNEY: Our Navy is old - excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

The Washington Post gave this claim three Pinocchios.

ABC News' Luis Martinez has the facts:

There are currently 285 ships in the Navy's fleet.

A report by Naval History and Heritage Command provides a look at the decrease in the number of Navy ships over the past 50 years since the peak during World War II.

According to this study in 1917 the U.S. Navy had 245 ships. From that date on until 2003 the Navy maintained more than 300 ships in the fleet. The number of ships in the fleet fell to its lowest point in 2006 when there were 278 ships in the fleet. Since then the number of ships has increased to the current 285.

Beginning in 2011 the U.S. Navy began adding two new submarines a year instead of the one a year it had been buying. The Navy is expected to add two Virginia Class attack submarines a year through fiscal year 2016. Romney aides have said he would like to see three new Virginia attack submarines added per year.

Obama replied:

"But I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

"And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home."

"And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward because it just doesn't work."

And ABC News' Luis Martinez adds that yes, the U.S. military - both the Army and Marines still use bayonets.

ABC Debate 3 fact check

I would note Obama's use of the word "fewer" as regards the horses and bayonettes.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the Budget Control Act of 2011 Wiki:
quote:
The agreement also specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress failed to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling but this would trigger across-the-board cuts ("sequestrations"[note 1]).[3] These cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee.
Hmmm... no reference to fairy dust. Do both Obama and Romney have budget proposals to address the required $1.2 trillion in cuts?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He changes his mind so often that nothing he said in the past matters, so why believe him on this? Etch-a-sketch, right? The man was 100% behind a woman's right to choose for 20 years before he was, you know, really really against it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
SCHIEFFER: What if -- what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, "Our bombers are on the way. We're going to bomb Iran."

What do you --

ROMNEY: Bob, let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of --

Because after all Bibi was elected for life... I can't believe he got to dodge this.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
All the economy needs is a sprinkle of Pyrtolin's magic fairy dust, and this "absurd" sequestration act that was passed in a bi-partisan vote, then signed into law by Barry, can go away. Everything will be sunshine, and roses.

Glad to see that you're resorting to invective and giving up on pretending to have a substantial argument, nevermind even a remote command of the facts at hand.

quote:
As an aside, Obama, congressional democrats, and even Paul Ryan wanted defense to be a part of the sequestration compact. Guess who openly, and aggressively opposed it? You guessed... Mitt Romney.
Indeed- because if defense had not been in the sequestration, the Republicans would have no motive to overturn it. The entire point of the sequestration agreement was to present an eventuality that was so reprehensible to both parties that they'd be forced to negotiate a better solution. While that failed in the short term, that's why both parties are still reasonably sure that some kind of compromise to replace or simply repeal it will be worked out either after the election or retroactively immediately after the next Congressional session begins.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

During the Reagan years, do you know that we had a 500 ship navy, which included the 12 carrier battle groups that Barry just discovered?

DD,

Obama doesn't believe in Pyrtolin's fairy dust either, which is why he wanted defense on the chopping block.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everything is on the chopping block, except for some very basic programs. Otherwise, it wouldn't work as an incentive.

You do follow that, right? Of course Romney wouldn't want his favoured expenditures on the block; I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people believe that defense is a "very basic program", and judging by the look on Barry's face when Romney confronted him on this point... the president is among those believers.

Why do you think he said "It won't happen"? Forget the fact that he participated in setting up the scenario that he now has no constitutional power to avoid.

[ October 23, 2012, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
VL,

During the Reagan years, do you know that we had a 500 ship navy, which included the 12 carrier battle groups that Barry just discovered?


And we also had a Soviet Union to fight. That is no longer the case.

How many carrier groups does Russia have?

How many carrier groups does China have?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Some people believe that defense is a "very basic program", and judging by the look on Barry's face when Romney confronted him on this point... the president is among those believers.

The cuts to defense are explicitly listed as a line item for sequestration. Money can't be shuffled out of anything else to prevent them as long as the sequestration law is in place, because the law states that defense must directly be cut, not that a given quantity must be cut overall.

quote:
Why do you think he said "It won't happen"? Forget the fact that he participated in setting up the scenario that he now has no constitutional power to avoid.
Because he's confident that congress will reach a deal that stops it even if it's just repealing the sequestration.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note I did not say "all very basic programs". noel: It should be noted that the very basic programs that were included were agreed to by both side; whereas some other very basic programs that could not be agreed to were not exempt.

As to your second point, the president has as much constitutional power to avoid sequestration as he had constitutional power to create the situation. I'm surprised you don't understand this either.

As to why do I think he said "it won't happen" - maybe you should try answering that question yourself; you have so many such questions, and in many cases the answers are quite obvious. In this particular case others have already spoon fed you the answer. Try just a bit harder, noel.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

We are dependent upon our navy in a way that the continental powers simply are not. Romney appears to understand this, as does Obama. Where they differ, as shown in striking relief last night, is in the perceived relationship that we have with Russia.

Obama thinks that he is on a whispered secrets basis with Putin. He is an idiot.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD,

Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

3 oceans, actually. And those 3 oceans haven't really changed as much in the past 30 years as has the nature of naval military risks and requirements.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
DD,

Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.

Yes, but it seemed like you did not in your previous post, so I wanted to make sure that was clear to you [Smile]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.

And sufficient representatives in the House do not want sequestration to happen that it's safe to be confident that, outside of the shadow of the election, or at the worst, after the new term begins, they'll scramble pretty quickly to find a compromise that resolves the situation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, you are agreeing that Obama has surrendered power over this issue to the House, and that last night's categorical statement was pulled from his backside, correct?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?

No, but the majority it can be counted on to want to make a deal to avoid sequestration, particularly once they no longer have to worry about playing to the extremes and can count on having two years (or being a lame duck) to give them time to spin away from any compromises they make.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So, you are agreeing that Obama has surrendered power over this issue to the House, and that last night's categorical statement was pulled from his backside, correct?

Surrendered? The "power" here has always lain with the House and Senate working out a mutually agreeable solution. And if one is not reached, then that reflects poorly on them and not the President for assuming that they'll do their job properly here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?

So, you really don't understand what Obama's statement meant? Try harder. It's even been explained to you again.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...

Obama will comply, correct?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

We are dependent upon our navy in a way that the continental powers simply are not. Romney appears to understand this, as does Obama. Where they differ, as shown in striking relief last night, is in the perceived relationship that we have with Russia.

Obama thinks that he is on a whispered secrets basis with Putin. He is an idiot.

You understand that Russia sits between two oceans and its European side has two sea borders?
You understand that Russia only has three major cities and the second largest of these could be taken out by a handful of ships in the gulf of Finland? We are NOT more dependant on our navy than Russia.

Don't try BS arguments.Our 12 carrier groups exist to allow us to project our power globally, they are far in excess of what we need to to protect our nation.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama: "There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did but you'd say them louder and somehow that would make a difference."
He had Williard's number here.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We are not more dependent on our navy...?

No, you are wrong.

Our international trade is much more dependent upon free navigation of the Atlantic, and Pacific, and a look at the composition of the respective force structuring will tell you as much.

As you have pointed out, they have only one carrier, but alot of attack subs that shadow our carrier groups. The Kursk was a carrier killer. Do you know what the function of carriers has been since world war two?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"We are not more dependent on our navy...?

No, you are wrong.

Our international trade is much more dependent upon free navigation of the Atlantic, and Pacific, and a look at the composition of the respective force structuring will tell you as much.


Well now that's a better argument.

If you are talking about protecting our economic concerns yes, we are more dependant.

If you are talking about existential threats, the US could lose all of its major coastal cities and survive, as could China. Russia couldn't.

We really shouldn't be talking about defense cuts until we discuss what the purpose of our military is, and we have as a nation allowed ourselves to be dependent on global trade.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that you are missing the point VL.

In time of conflict "international trade" means unobstructed transport of war material. The sole purpose of Russia's blue water navy, which is of recent vintage, is to prevent us from doing that.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...


You seem to forget that the Senate is involved here as well.

quote:

Obama will comply, correct?

You don't seem to understand how negotiation and compromise work; especially since the House has already effectively tried a few variations on that and the Senate has rejected it. The House will need to stop posturing and actually put some work into a mutually agreeable solution to get its job done here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You do not seem to understand that defense should have never been used ad a bargaining chip.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I think that you are missing the point VL.

In time of conflict "international trade" means unobstructed transport of war material. The sole purpose of Russia's blue water navy, which is of recent vintage, is to prevent us from doing that.

What does that have to do with our national defense?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
You do not seem to understand that defense should have never been used ad a bargaining chip.

Nor should have the debt ceiling. , but that's neither here nor there. If the GOP representatives actually want to prevent the cuts, then they'll actually have to offer something reasonable in exchange. Or at least simply agree to throw out the idea of sequestration completely and give up just a little on trying to sandbag the economy for their own political gain.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

Are we dependent on foreign oil in a way that life-threatening consequences follow from a prolonged interruption of that flow?

Your response to that question will answer the other one.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  17  18  19  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1