What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Patman said:
I don't doubt that taxes constrict businesses and constrict the economy... most of these businesses take their money and feed it back into further improvements because they want a bigger slice... this a healthy phenomena.

That being said, on the micro-level, yes risks change the equation, but generally people will still chase the next dollar.

Now of course, if you increase the rates on business income then you can push a company into the negative territory as its always income - expenses.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is healthy, we should make sure we're all distinguishing between efficiency, growth and expansion. Any company should pursue efficiency and theat certainly is the pursuit of dollars, albeit ones that are already in your P&L. Growth is good, requires primarily variable expense, can be retracted and it is possible to estimate the tax impacts.

This discussion started regarding taxes, regulation and the general mood of business to invest. Expansion isn't variable expense alone...I think folks might be thinking that expansion is the same as growth...while a company that expands may grow revenues, they also grow debt and expenses.

I know some will discount the other unquantifiable factors but for a small business, those are real considerations...sometimes people would prefer to buy a beach house or a sports car vs. open up another office and increase the workload.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

dxmnkd316 said:
If they didn't approve of the war they should have voted against it. One more reason I miss Paul Wellstone despite him being pretty far left. He didn't bull**** you like the current government.
Click to expand...

This is totally fair. Back when the Neocons were whipping up war fever for their own agenda, the Dems could and should have stood up and been counted. It would have been a short-term political hit, but (1) long-term it would have been politically smart, and (2) whatever the political consequences, nobody should EVER allow themselves to be stampeded into a war.

Anybody who was in a position to cast a vote against the war and didn't can't backtrack now and say they were against. The best they can do is say "I was wrong and it's a terrible tragedy, now let's try and undo some of the damage."

Obama himself has an out in that he wasn't there to cast a vote, but a lot of Dems don't and they now look as hypocritical as Republicans claiming to be against deficits.

As ye sow so shall ye reap.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
This is totally fair. Back when the Neocons were whipping up war fever for their own agenda, the Dems could and should have stood up and been counted. It would have been a short-term political hit, but (1) long-term it would have been smart, and (2) whatever the political consequences, nobody should EVER allow themselves to be stampeded into a war.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you're not voting for what you and your constituents believe, you're worthless to this grand experiment.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Agreed. A lot of Democrats deserve blame for not having the courage of their convictions, or for not having convictions, period.

In their defense - mind you, I'm not saying this excuses their failures - it's impossible to have a public debate about foreign policy in this country.

We've been telling ourselves fairy tales for so long that any political stance that doesn't fit neatly into "loves America, hates America" is political poison. The subsequent self-flagellation by Democrats doesn't remove one iota of responsibility from the Bush administration.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
If they voted yes then they approved or they lack a spine. You pick one as they are the only options.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think you're carrying it too far. A lot of Dems voted to save their backsides, knowing that they would wrongly be pilloried for failing to support the troops.

Should they have demonstrated higher character? Absolutely. But let's not kid ourselves here - the average politician in each party is a self-serving opportunist. There's nothing particularly "Democratic" about that failing.

So . . . yeah, it's fair to criticize them. But focusing on the spinelessness of congressional Democrats is a pretty convenient smokescreen, obscuring the folks who actually made the call, don't you think?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
If they voted yes then they approved or they lack a spine. You pick one as they are the only options.
Click to expand...

If they voted they no they would have been the party of no. And you can't say to no to things in Washington.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
If they voted yes then they approved or they lack a spine. You pick one as they are the only options.
Click to expand...

The third option is they cared about something else more that they were log-rolling for, but in this case I think it's pretty obvious they lack a spine.

Since Vietnam, the Dems have never been able to stand up against the GOP and point out imperialism makes us less safe, not more. The GOP may be hopelessly inept in governing, but they at least have the ability to say unpopular things they believe. They're helped by being more ideologically pure and having financial sources who are coldly real politik, but it's still irritating that the Dems never point out that the "patriotism" offered by the other side is just gorillas screeching and throwing feces, and the brief spike of initial public support is just the mob huddling in fear and wanting daddy to fix everything.

And because they don't, they have zero bona fides when the wars inevitably turn into ruinously expensive bloodbaths and the perpetrators slink away into the dark (or book deals).
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
On the subject of spending tax dollars on pointless endeavors, wake me up when Obama spends 3 trillion to kill 3 thousand patriots.
Click to expand...

Who are you calling a patriot?

It's also gratifying to hear Kepler and others argue that gutless, spineless, neo-commie libs in our congress merely lack the determination to speak the truth. "If only. . ."

Perfecrt example of liberal perfidy: John Kerry and the vote to fund our troops in Iraq. When it looked like Howard Dean was surging into the lead for the Dem nomination, Kerry suddenly took a hard turn to the left, arguing that Congress should withhold funds to prosecute the war. This, of course, was familiar territory for the big deal "war hero" who (to hear his supporters tell it) rivaled Sergeant York.

As a political ploy, claiming to want the funds to be raised through tax hikes appealed to his anti-American base.

Kerry had said that anyone voting against funding an army in the field shouldn't be president. He was right. Except, because of his fear of Dean, he voted against the funding on final passage. And he and his botox and his incredibly _itchy wife didn't get to occupy the WH, did they?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm referring to the men and women who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. If only their commitment to country had been matched by their leaders'...
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
I'm referring to the men and women who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. If only their commitment to country had been matched by their leaders'...
Click to expand...

I agree that they're patriots. But your formulation that we spent 3 trillion dollars "to kill them" is perverse, but typical.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm not going to claim that nothing good came of Bush-era counterterrorism policy. I'll even admit that at least some good things *did* come from it. But at what cost???

It's sorta like this:


Hi, Daddy . . . I'm really sorry to ask you for this. I know you just gave me money to help me buy a car . . . but I'm broke. Can you send more money?

What happened? Why are you broke?

You told me I needed new oil every 3 months, remember?

Uh, yes. That's right. You should change your oil. You're not broke because you got an oil change ?!?

Not exactly

Of course not. So what happened???

I couldn't remember where you said to go, so I traded the car in for a new one.

Wait, what?!? You bought another new car?!? Are you kidding me?!? :mad:

Why are you yelling, daddy? The oil is new, just like you said. You always do this. You told me I needed new oil. I got new oil :rolleyes:

Bush counterterrorism wasn't completely ineffective. But it sure as hell wasn't very smart. But it's okay, we can still celebrate the lives of the young men and women. And it's not like we're operating under budget constraints or anything...
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

dxmnkd316 said:
Are you ****ing dense? If they didn't approve of the war they should have voted against it. One more reason I miss Paul Wellstone despite him being pretty far left. He didn't bull**** you like the current government.
Click to expand...

Amen. I didn't live in Minnesota prior to his far-too-soon passing, but I respected the heck out of Paul Wellstone. Almost never agreed with him, but boy did I ever appreciate his demeanor. He told you what he meant and he meant what he said. A rare find anywhere these days, let alone on the Hill.

Jim DeMint is probably the closest the Senate has to Paul Wellstone today in this respect, but I'm not sure he's quite on the level that Wellstone was.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
Amen. I didn't live in Minnesota prior to his far-too-soon passing, but I respected the heck out of Paul Wellstone. Almost never agreed with him, but boy did I ever appreciate his demeanor. He told you what he meant and he meant what he said. A rare find anywhere these days, let alone on the Hill.

Jim DeMint is probably the closest the Senate has to Paul Wellstone today in this respect, but I'm not sure he's quite on the level that Wellstone was.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I admired Wellstone. Another guy not afraid to tell you how the cow ate the cabbage was Barry Goldwater. On one occasion, Jerry Falwell suggested "all good Christians ought to pray for Senator Goldwater's soul."

Well, the media couldn't wait to ask Barry for a response, and he didn't let them down. He said: "All good Christians should kick Falwell right in the azz."

In the post Watergate era, there was a lot of hand wringing about the "appearance of impropriety." Goldwater appeared on "Meet the Press" and was questioned about whether it was proper for him to accept rides on corporate planes occasionally. He responded: "My vote in the Senate isn't for sale for a g.d. plane ride."
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-p...slim-islamic-plot-kill-pope-ap-finds-street-c

This shouldn't come as a surprise. If they had succeeded, it wouldn't have been a "terrorist attack," it would have been "a man caused disaster."
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind slanted coverage on this or the omissions.

these acts of terror, or plots (successful or thwarted) have been done in the name of Islam. What is the point in omitting that fact? who are they trying to placate? Are they afraid of reprisals? or do they think we westerners and our way of life is to blame for the terrorism, or both?

in regard to the cartoonist who's gone into hiding due to her "draw a picture of the prophet" idea...that's just awful. the FBI should be protecting her 24-7 and should also be making bold and dare I say it, BRASH statements that any nutters that come looking for her will be killed. period. certainly the nutters won't be seeking her out to discuss anything, so...

it's pretty scary to me how it seems more and more that Islam is incompatible with Freedom of Speech/western ideals.

if that last bit gets me slammed, so be it. I don't think anyone should expect moving to another country won't involve assimilation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top