Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

otisptoadwater wrote: 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.

Exactly! Look long and hard at the people YOU elected and the policies they enacted. They left a quagmire. I don't like the current situation any more than you do. It's a vicious cycle that seems unending. Don't put me in the Obama camp on this one. That's plain disingenuous on your part. If you're looking for an argument in that regard, go back a few years to the very beginning. Take stock of what happened, and how it is being dealt with by the current administration, and maybe then we can talk. I'm all for ending our involvement in the Middle East, not protracting it. Where SHOULD the money come from (if you support the posits you've made)? Basically what you've done with this post is pose a common conservative conundrum regarding taxes to pay for BS or not providing taxes to pay for more BS. As for the Ebola thingy, if Repubs had allowed the nominee for surgeon general to move forward, perhaps an Ebola Czar wouldn't have been necessary. Also, from what I've seen there have been numerous conservatives speaking out against Obama naming any more "Czars" to address issues this nation faces, and are now criticizing him for not appointing an Ebola Czar sooner? WTF!

ZHawke wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: 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.

Exactly! Look long and hard at the people YOU elected and the policies they enacted. They left a quagmire. I don't like the current situation any more than you do. It's a vicious cycle that seems unending. Don't put me in the Obama camp on this one. That's plain disingenuous on your part. If you're looking for an argument in that regard, go back a few years to the very beginning. Take stock of what happened, and how it is being dealt with by the current administration, and maybe then we can talk. I'm all for ending our involvement in the Middle East, not protracting it. Where SHOULD the money come from (if you support the posits you've made)? Basically what you've done with this post is pose a common conservative conundrum regarding taxes to pay for BS or not providing taxes to pay for more BS. As for the Ebola thingy, if Repubs had allowed the nominee for surgeon general to move forward, perhaps an Ebola Czar wouldn't have been necessary. Also, from what I've seen there have been numerous conservatives speaking out against Obama naming any more "Czars" to address issues this nation faces, and are now criticizing him for not appointing an Ebola Czar sooner? WTF!

So if I had to distill your comments down to a single line your reply amounts to "blame Bush." Really? I thought you wanted to engage in a real debate...

Not a "real" debate by your definition, apparently. Rather, I'll participate in a serious debate.

No one is saying "blame Bush", although his administration is arguably more responsible for us being in the quagmires that are Iraq, Afghanistan, and, by extension now, ISIS/ISIL. That's something conservatives all too often get very defensive about. In point of fact, there are many now alleging Bush/Cheney are more responsible for the formation of ISIS/ISIL than anyone, past and/or present. That means absolutely nothing in the overall scheme of things as to what actions should, or should not be taken now.

The problem is what do we do now. Playing the blame game, as you are apparently engaging in, won't get the job done. I really don't care if Obama is responsible for getting it done or if it's someone else of a more conservative persuasion. The U.S. engaged in these wars. The U.S. must own that fact. The U.S. now must also figure out a way to end them somehow - whether that be by boots on the ground or the ongoing air and drone strikes that have proven oh so effective thus far, and the U.S. must ultimately figure out a freakin' way to PAY for them.

Is it really all that hard for you to understand it's the U.S. that is involved - not Obama? I've watched your posts for some time now and your focused political venom toward the Obama administration. Whether you like Obama or not isn't the issue. This is our administration for better or worse (wedding bells anyone?). Come up with some solutions instead of living in your fear of the guy in the White House.

ZHawke wrote: ... if Repubs had allowed the nominee for surgeon general to move forward, perhaps an Ebola Czar wouldn't have been necessary...

ROTFL Unlike you I do pull out remarks to comment on while ignoring the rest of a post.

Thanks for the laugh. I just could not find the emoticon or I would fill a line or two.

An ebola czar is not necessary, besides we already have one.



"Today's Boston Globe inadvertently told the truth about the Ebola Czar. "His task as Ebola czar is to build a coordinated and visible response amid increasing concerns that the government has lacked one."

Note that he is tasked to build a visible response, not an effective one."

www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msg...9764072&srchtxt=czar

ZHawke wrote: Not a "real" debate by your definition, apparently. Rather, I'll participate in a serious debate.

No one is saying "blame Bush", although his administration is arguably more responsible for us being in the quagmires that are Iraq, Afghanistan, and, by extension now, ISIS/ISIL. That's something conservatives all too often get very defensive about. In point of fact, there are many now alleging Bush/Cheney are more responsible for the formation of ISIS/ISIL than anyone, past and/or present. That means absolutely nothing in the overall scheme of things as to what actions should, or should not be taken now.

The problem is what do we do now. Playing the blame game, as you are apparently engaging in, won't get the job done. I really don't care if Obama is responsible for getting it done or if it's someone else of a more conservative persuasion. The U.S. engaged in these wars. The U.S. must own that fact. The U.S. now must also figure out a way to end them somehow - whether that be by boots on the ground or the ongoing air and drone strikes that have proven oh so effective thus far, and the U.S. must ultimately figure out a freakin' way to PAY for them.

Is it really all that hard for you to understand it's the U.S. that is involved - not Obama? I've watched your posts for some time now and your focused political venom toward the Obama administration. Whether you like Obama or not isn't the issue. This is our administration for better or worse (wedding bells anyone?). Come up with some solutions instead of living in your fear of the guy in the White House.

Are you sure you're not another alias for LJ or that dipsh*t VL?! Seriously, I'm fully on board with the need to reign in the spending of the Federal Gubment. I lose a lot of money out of every paycheck to feed the ever growing pig that is the Federal Gubment and I have every intention of holding every politician (be they R's or D's) responsible for how my tax money is being spent.
Call it what ever you want to call it, at the end of the day too many of our citizens are takers, not makers. The collective "we" are far too wiling to settle for less and just collect what the Gubment hands out.

You are correct that I'm not a fan of Obama, I wasn't a fan of Clinton or her husband either and it didn't hurt my feelings to see them leave the White House. I'm planning a big party for the 2016 elections to see Barry out and on his way too.

As for solutions, you are the majority and you elected a man who was going to solve every problem in the world - I'm not seeing any evidence that ANYTHING has gotten better. By Barry's measuring stick we should all be driving electric cars, using solar and wind power in our homes, and there shouldn't be any wars anywhere in the world. To that last point, would you care to address why Barry started several wars? ISIS, Libya, Egypt come to mind. Then there's the stuff happening in the Crimea and North Korea's increasing aggression under Kim Jong Un's administration.

I expect your deflections but I'd really appreciate some honest insight to the questions I have posed above. If you aren't going to address the specific questions then I'm going to treat you like I treated archer and LJ, you're not willing to engage in the logic just the emotional side of the argument.

i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed...jpg?resize=558%2C413


i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed...jpg?resize=558%2C413

BB, the irony must escape you when you come right down to it. The fact is Republicans blocked the administration's nomination for Surgeon General. Whether or not we "have one" currently isn't even the issue. It's whether or not we need one. Conservatives have been very vocal in their criticism of much too plentiful Czars before the Ebola scare. Now they are calling for an Ebola Czar and appear to be angry that Obama didn't appoint one sooner. Seems kind of like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario to me.

ZHawke wrote: BB, the irony must escape you when you come right down to it. The fact is Republicans blocked the administration's nomination for Surgeon General. Whether or not we "have one" currently isn't even the issue. It's whether or not we need one. Conservatives have been very vocal in their criticism of much too plentiful Czars before the Ebola scare. Now they are calling for an Ebola Czar and appear to be angry that Obama didn't appoint one sooner. Seems kind of like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario to me.

Are they? Which ones? I have not seen or heard of it but like you I am taking advantage of the warm and sunny days.

ZHawke wrote: Conservatives have been very vocal in their criticism of much too plentiful Czars before the Ebola scare. Now they are calling for an Ebola Czar and appear to be angry that Obama didn't appoint one sooner. Seems kind of like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario to me.

No, Conservatives just want to see action when threats are apparent, one of the roles of the Federal Government is to protect the domestic infrastructure and our population. Branding Conservatives reactions to inaction to known threats on the Government's part as criticism is very telling about your orientation; Obama and his current administration can do no wrong in your eyes. Some suggested reading: The Pollyanna Principal.

otisptoadwater wrote: Are you sure you're not another alias for LJ or that dipsh*t VL?!

Get a grip. If I were, I wouldn't be dignifying your tripe with anything but derision. That you choose to compare posters in these kinds of forums speaks to your close-mindedness, not mine.

otisptoadwater wrote: I'm fully on board with the need to reign in the spending of the Federal Gubment. I lose a lot of money out of every paycheck to feed the ever growing pig that is the Federal Gubment and I have every intention of holding every politician (be they R's or D's) responsible for how my tax money is being spent.

Good on you. The only problem I see with that line of reasoning is with regard to how we can expect to pay for the unfunded wars we're currently engaged in, no matter who started them or who is continuing them. Tax cuts for the wealthiest in the nation isn't the answer, in my opinion, and that's what we saw during the Bush years. That the Obama administration hasn't done anything to address that issue is something I have a huge problem with.

otisptoadwater wrote: You are correct that I'm not a fan of Obama, I wasn't a fan of Clinton or her husband either and it didn't hurt my feelings to see them leave the White House. I'm planning a big party for the 2016 elections to see Barry out and on his way too.

I don't care.

otisptoadwater wrote: As for solutions, you are the majority and you elected a man who was going to solve every problem in the world - I'm not seeing any evidence that ANYTHING has gotten better. By Barry's measuring stick we should all be driving electric cars, using solar and wind power in our homes, and there shouldn't be any wars anywhere in the world. To that last point, would you care to address why Barry started several wars? ISIS, Libya, Egypt come to mind. Then there's the stuff happening in the Crimea and North Korea's increasing aggression under Kim Jong Un's administration.

Who elected this man? I certainly didn't. Your assumption that "I" am the majority, and that "I" elected Obama is just that - an assumption. And therein lies the fallacy of any argument/debate you may put forward. You do not know me. You do not know how I cast my vote, and I'm not about to divulge that information to someone like you. As far as the last part of this diatribe is concerned, ISIS/ISIL was arguably started by Bush/Cheney. Both Libya and Egypt? Really? Wars? How so? The Crimea? Again, really? Kim Jong Un's administration? How long has North Korea been a thorn in the side of the U.S.? We are still technically "at war" with North Korea. Kim Jong Un is just a continuation of that. C'mon. You can't really be serious, can you?

otisptoadwater wrote: I expect your deflections but I'd really appreciate some honest insight to the questions I have posed above. If you aren't going to address the specific questions then I'm going to treat you like I treated archer and LJ, you're not willing to engage in the logic just the emotional side of the argument.

I can't help if you consider my answers deflections. And, for the record, I really don't care one way or the other. Nor do I care how you treat me. I'm not LJ or Archer. Who are you? Do I really need to seek your approval on anything? That's the way you come across, as if your consideration(s) of me really matter to anyone but yourself?