AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Homosexuals can visit their partners in the hospital for starters. The end of DADT is on the horizon too

They have always been able to.
Its NEVER been illegal to visit a sick friend in the hospital.

And DADT is something that should have been abolished years ago.
I havent seen anything concrete from this administration about abolishing it, have you?

Quote:

Oh and you know what is also on the horizon? Troops coming home from Iraq

Wait a minute.
That reduction of force agreement was made by President Bush, NOT Obama.
All he has done is possibly increase the timetable.
And Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan, so he really isnt cutting our combat troops, just repositioning them.

Quote:

Also, people with pre-existing conditions now have new liberties such as being able to switch jobs easier because they aren't tied down to their current job because of their condition.

But children with preexisting conditions arent covered, and there was no reform of healthcare.
All that was done was change health insurance rules.
Where is the healthcare reform that Obama promised?

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats) are working to curtail our liberty, our constitutional government, and our capitalist economy.

Specifically,Odems in violation of the Constitution are transferring wealth from those who earned it to those who haven't earned it. By doing that they reduce the oppoerunities for my grandchildren to grow and prosper.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You've yet to demonstrate how in any way how Americans (any of us) have lost any specific freedoms or liberties because of Obama. I defy you to tell me a single freedom you have lost you over-dramatic whiner

This is too funny.
Werent you one of the ones crying about the "lost freedoms or liberties" under Bush.
You never backed up that claim then, now you are demanding that ican and Okie back up their claims.

You cant have it both ways.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You've yet to demonstrate how in any way how Americans (any of us) have lost any specific freedoms or liberties because of Obama. I defy you to tell me a single freedom you have lost you over-dramatic whiner

This is too funny.
Werent you one of the ones crying about the "lost freedoms or liberties" under Bush.
You never backed up that claim then, now you are demanding that ican and Okie back up their claims.

You cant have it both ways.

Bush specifically sought to invalidate YOUR 4th amendment rights. This isn't even a question of debate; that's what his NSA was doing.

Now that you have an example for him, why don't we hear a right that Obama has taken away?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Quote:

Actually, both. What the Social Democrats constantly must forget is that the two are interrelated. This because if they (Social Democrats) acknowleded this they would have to explain the reason behind their affinity for taxes and ever more taxes (greater governmental control over all citizens lives). If the Social Democrats were completely honest they would simply vanish in short order.

I don't know why you refer to them as 'social democrats,' but a large reason that we have an affinity for taxes is the Republican tendency to run up gigantic deficits with no plans for paying for them at all. You may recall that Bush did exactly this: Tax cuts for the rich, 2 wars, Medicare part D - all unfunded. Not even a plan for how they would be pay for.

How, exactly did YOU think these things were going to be paid for when your leaders were passing them? Or did you just not give a **** until the Democrats got into office?

Obama is busy cleaning up the messes left by your leaders, the same way that Clinton cleaned up the mess left by the last round of Republicans. Perhaps if you had a single president that you could point to which had displayed an ounce of fiscal responsibility, you'd have more of a leg to stand on. As things are, the most you can say about Republicans is that they are WORSE then Democrats - they spend as much or more but with no plan to pay for it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Bush specifically sought to invalidate YOUR 4th amendment rights

So you are saying that Bush TRIED to do something and was not successful.
That is not the same as actually doing it, and you know it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Bush specifically sought to invalidate YOUR 4th amendment rights

So you are saying that Bush TRIED to do something and was not successful.
That is not the same as actually doing it, and you know it.

We know for a fact that they were successful in doing so, thanks to cases where the government inadvertently revealed that they had spied on people.

So, your assessment above is incorrect. They absolutely succeeded in doing so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats) are working to reduce our liberty, our constitutional government. and our capitalist economy. The Odems are doing this by transferring money and other property from those who earned it, and giving it to those who have not earned it.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Whose personal liberty and freedom has the left expanded?

Homosexuals can visit their partners in the hospital for starters.

T
K
O

I am really sick of this being some sort of gay rights issue. It isn't. This allows an individual to name someone, regardless of the relationship, to the status equal to a family member. Friend, neighbor, lawyer or whatever.

Fair enough. This is quite important to the LGBT community though, and while this may have implications outside of that community, we shouldn't omit how this effects them dramatically and is a step forward in gay couples having their relationships protected by the state.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Oh and you know what is also on the horizon? Troops coming home from Iraq

Wait a minute.
That reduction of force agreement was made by President Bush, NOT Obama.
All he has done is possibly increase the timetable.
And Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan, so he really isnt cutting our combat troops, just repositioning them.

That's not bad spin MM.

I'll gladly give W his credit on this part. I'll also remind you that when people were calling Obama's timetable to end the war in Iraq crazy, Bush ended up adopting the timetable. Just saying.

In the end, I'll just be happy to have one less war. I'll give Bush a little credit back, sure. Plans and action right? Bush's plan that was announced after Obama campaigned on the idea, and later Obama assumed control of said plan and has been executing it. In the end, Obama will have missed his 16 month goal, but damn if I'm not forgiving of the error if we are out of Iraq.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You've yet to demonstrate how in any way how Americans (any of us) have lost any specific freedoms or liberties because of Obama. I defy you to tell me a single freedom you have lost you over-dramatic whiner

This is too funny.
Werent you one of the ones crying about the "lost freedoms or liberties" under Bush.
You never backed up that claim then, now you are demanding that ican and Okie back up their claims.

You cant have it both ways.

The hell I didn't back up my claim then.

Unwarranted wiretaps, hello?

It's not having it both ways. I'm perfectly willing to participate in a comparison of civil liberties and freedoms that have been effected by the two administrations. It's more than fair, and I'm very confident that the result is overwhelmingly in favor of the Dems being far more protective of liberties and freedoms.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Well, if the comparison is going to be between Bush and Obama, I'd say they are tied.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

A value added tax would be murder, in many different ways, but primarily because it would hit business and continue to maintain the uneven playing field that exists now because of the income taxes on businesses here in this country.

And here I thought that the Republican line was that businesses didn't pay taxes - they just pass them along.

So which one is it? Are businesses burdened by taxes, or are the consumers?

Cycloptichorn

Sheesh, it is hard not to be sarcastic. Seriously, do you have any reasoning power whatsoever, cyclops? I will try to be patient and explain. Sure, it is a fact that businesses pass on the cost of doing business in their products and services, so yes, the consumer ultimately pays the taxes on businesses. But if you had placed just an ounce of worthwhile thought into the issue, you would also realize that businesses do compete and it may make a difference where a business chooses to manufacture its goods, because taxes may be less if they manufacture something offshore, and also it obviously makes a difference in prices of competing products by different companies if some companies are subject to more taxes or less taxes by virtue of where they are located. So if this country burdens its businesses with a VAT, then it is entirely logical that they will lose business to their competition that is not subject to the VAT. As I understand it, a VAT collects tax at every level of transaction from the origination of materials to the finished product, at every level of transaction, from the purchase of raw materials to the manufacture, wholesale, distribution, and retail of a product.

A value added tax would be murder on commerce. It does make me wonder if Obama is intentionally trying to kill the economy in this country so that he can nationalize everything. Either that or he is just plain stupid. And cyclops, if you don't care if more domestic businesses are driven off shore or if more foreign manufacturers drive domestic businesses out of business, then go for it, favor the VAT, but it only demonstrates your own stupidity.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush specifically sought to invalidate YOUR 4th amendment rights. This isn't even a question of debate; that's what his NSA was doing.

Now that you have an example for him, why don't we hear a right that Obama has taken away?

This is another claim of yours that is NOT true. Bush's NSA monitored, via telephone wiretapping, international phone calls in America's self-defense to detect those calls that were between al-Qaeda members and their supporters. The purpose of this monitoring was to detect well in advance any plans for terrorist attacks on Americans. This monitoring did not in anyway make Americans less secure. On the contrary, this monitoring made Americans more "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" by anyone.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats) are reducing our liberty, our constitutional government, and our capitalist economy. The Odems are doing this by taking money and other property from those who earned it, and giving it to those who have not earned it.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19256&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
HEALTH CARE WILL COVER MORE, COST MORE
ObamaCare is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve President Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned:

The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill -- Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings -- could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020.

But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare:

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative; enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent.

Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

Source: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "Report says health care will cover more, cost more," Associated Press/Yahoo News, April 23, 2010.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

This is another claim of yours that is NOT true. Bush's NSA monitored, via telephone wiretapping, international phone calls

Bush's NSA was caught tapping DOMESTIC phone calls, not just international ones. Which of course you know, but just don't give a **** about.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

DOMESTIC phone calls between terrorists suspects.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

His justice department could have simply declared YOU to be a terrorist suspect and then wiretap you. There was AND IS STILL no accountibility to the FISA court, who actually requires some evidence of suspected terror activity.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

DOMESTIC phone calls between terrorists suspects.

Thank you, the honorable President George W. Bush. By the way, we miss you, George. Alot. It was nice to have responsible and trustworthy adults in Washington, instead of what we have now.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, Bush's NSA also tapped the domestic only calls of those people who were found via tapped international calls to domestic phones to have been in telephone conversations with al-Qaeda.

Excellent!

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know