Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

Saw this and thought of ya'll:

Yeah right. How is that Hope and Change working out?

ZHawke wrote: Saw this and thought of ya'll:

Am I afraid or just being realistic? No one ever grabs the chain on the chainsaw while it's running because most of us understand why that's a bad idea; how many of us were and are against Obamacare because the mechanics of the law don't add up to the promises that have been made? Sure, it would be awesome if everyone in the the US could just walk into a doctor's office or a hospital and get the care they need no matter if they make a fortune or they are wards of the state. The reality of the situation is that isn't how our system works. If you want something you have to pay for it, if you can't pay then you have to settle for what the Government and Charities can provide.

If you want to change how the Government works and make things more fair then you're in the business of enacting Socialism. Understand what that really means; Socialists believe that everyone should get the menial amount of wealth, every comrade gets the same share no matter what they contribute. You could be a PHD and breaking new ground in technology or digging ditches and paving roads; should those two individuals receive the same slice of the pie or should the innovators and high contributors get a larger share of the wealth because their work creates more wealth and does more for the population of the nation?

HEARTLESS wrote: Yeah right. How is that Hope and Change working out?

A LOT better than the "miss me yet" idiocy of those who pine for the good old Bush days.

otisptoadwater wrote: The reality of the situation is that isn't how our system works. If you want something you have to pay for it, if you can't pay then you have to settle for what the Government and Charities can provide.

This is one of the very few times I will actually deliberately take something out of context and ask you how are those two unfunded wars workin' out for ya?

Just like the current Odumbo wars.

ZHawke wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: The reality of the situation is that isn't how our system works. If you want something you have to pay for it, if you can't pay then you have to settle for what the Government and Charities can provide.

This is one of the very few times I will actually deliberately take something out of context and ask you how are those two unfunded wars workin' out for ya?

Interesting question since your guy is in charge now and has been for SIX years. He pulled our troops out of Iraq and he's planning to get our guys out of Afghanistan but that plan seems to be very liquid and the Afghans seem to recognize that not having us there is going to cause instability.

In the meanwhile have a look at how great our efforts to bring democracy to places like Libya, Egypt, and Syria are going. How's that ISIS/ISIL/whatever they are called today situation going for you? Funny how Barry was all about ending wars around the world back in 2008 and now he's the one telling us we have to be involved in defeating ISIS. Contradiction there?

BTW, GITMO is still open and now it's open at Barry's direction.

HEARTLESS wrote: Just like the current Odumbo wars.

How, then, do you propose they be paid for?

otisptoadwater wrote: Interesting question since your guy is in charge now and has been for SIX years. He pulled our troops out of Iraq and he's planning to get our guys out of Afghanistan but that plan seems to be very liquid and the Afghans seem to recognize that not having us there is going to cause instability.

In the meanwhile have a look at how great our efforts to bring democracy to places like Libya, Egypt, and Syria are going. How's that ISIS/ISIL/whatever they are called today situation going for you? Funny how Barry was all about ending wars around the world back in 2008 and now he's the one telling us we have to be involved in defeating ISIS. Contradiction there?

BTW, GITMO is still open and now it's open at Barry's direction.

First, he's not "my guy". Second, he pulled out the troops as a direct and required action of something that G.W. entered into. Third, I agree the plan has turned out to be very "liquid". I don't like it. Never have, never will. Fourth, why is it incumbent upon us to "bring democracy" anywhere. Imperialism isn't the same thing as bringing democracy in my world view. Fifth, take a look into the "collateral damages" thread for more on ISIS and the "threat" posed by terrorism in the Middle East. And, finally, sixth, what does GITMO have to do with anything?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Just like the current Odumbo wars.

How, then, do you propose they be paid for?

So you don't want to pay taxes to fund wars that the Republicans started but you're ok with raping the American middle class so almost everyone can have health care (be they citizens or be they not)? I guess if you're on board with that plan then sending troops (but only as "advisers", right?) to fight ISIS/ISIL isn't a big deal because that's not "war"? In the meanwhile let's recall the National Guard and Reserves to help out with efforts to control Ebola in north west Africa because there aren't enough active duty personnel anymore to perform that mission. Where is that money coming from, Obama's stash? Resources are finite and when you go to the well one too many times you'll figure out there isn't anything left to get. Wonder why that is? Have a long hard look at the people you have elected and the policies they have enacted.