PDA

View Full Version : Do We Believe Anymore?



TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 05:46 AM
We live in an age of disbelief, in which citizens increasingly do not believe what their government says or, for that matter, what is accepted as true by popular culture.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/do-we-believe-anymore/?singlepage=true

A well written article that explains why many voters have become disillusioned with government and Obama in particular.

Gonzo
10-23-2012, 07:54 AM
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/do-we-believe-anymore/?singlepage=true

A well written article that explains why many voters have become disillusioned with government and Obama in particular.
I probably would have bothered to read it if you didn't include this final part, indicating that it's likely a partisan nonsense piece (which led me to looking up what pj media was, further supporting that). People are disillusioned with government, but it most certainly isn't limited to Obama.

Tetragrammaton
10-23-2012, 11:42 AM
The last two Presidential elections had higher turnout percentages than any other elections in the last thirty years. People are more engaged than ever.

phins_4_ever
10-23-2012, 01:02 PM
Another partisan, second rated hack site. The USA was founded on January 20, 2009. It is all Obama. Before him everything was fine. We know.

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 04:00 PM
Well I wouldn't want to burst the bubble of any you Progressive posters on this thread. If you want to dismiss this article as being partisan, than it's your loss.

Obama happens to be the man in charge, and people are really upset with how the government has handled things as of late. It doesn't help that the mainstream media hasn't done their part either in getting to the bottom of various issues.

You can stick your head in the sand, and go "la la la la," but when push comes to shove it's apparent that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo. People are tired of being lied to, because it has become so apparent that the government and media don't necessarily have our best interests at heart.

Locke
10-23-2012, 04:18 PM
Well I wouldn't want to burst the bubble of any you Progressive posters on this thread. If you want to dismiss this article as being partisan, than it's your loss.

Obama happens to be the man in charge, and people are really upset with how the government has handled things as of late. It doesn't help that the mainstream media hasn't done their part either in getting to the bottom of various issues.

You can stick your head in the sand, and go "la la la la," but when push comes to shove it's apparent that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo. People are tired of being lied to, because it has become so apparent that the government and media don't necessarily have our best interests at heart.

Or we can understand that Obama is just one piece of the entire government, and notice that you couldn't help but single him out. Sure makes it difficult to take seriously when you are discounting a Republican Senate and an evenly split House. Objectivity is something you'd do well to learn...

phins_4_ever
10-23-2012, 04:32 PM
Well I wouldn't want to burst the bubble of any you Progressive posters on this thread. If you want to dismiss this article as being partisan, than it's your loss.

Obama happens to be the man in charge, and people are really upset with how the government has handled things as of late. It doesn't help that the mainstream media hasn't done their part either in getting to the bottom of various issues.

You can stick your head in the sand, and go "la la la la," but when push comes to shove it's apparent that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo. People are tired of being lied to, because it has become so apparent that the government and media don't necessarily have our best interests at heart.

Romney is the Uber-Liar. He puts lieing into the Stratosphere. Yeah, you sure make a good choice there.


But in the mean time I will
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/headinthesand-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 05:05 PM
Or we can understand that Obama is just one piece of the entire government, and notice that you couldn't help but single him out. Sure makes it difficult to take seriously when you are discounting a Republican Senate and an evenly split House. Objectivity is something you'd do well to learn...

I do understand that Obama is just one piece of the puzzle, however, he is a very important piece. He has the power to veto bills sent to him from Congress, and the ability to make executive orders, and in his case, summarily dismiss decisions made by Congress. He is Commander in Chief, and is the Leader of the Free World.

It's election season, and Obama is the poster child for what has become a fundamentally weak party, and one that merely places blame at the feet of Republicans rather than come up with solutions. So far Obama's only solutions have been to grow the government in hopes that it can take of the issues through stimulus money, and the creation of an overburdening healthcare system which is already leading companies to change their hiring processes and/or lay off people before it's been officially enacted.

Again, if you want to play the "objective" game. You would do well to point out some of the flaws that your own party possesses as well as strengths to be completely credible. Even Romney was able to find some shared ground with Obama in his handling of Syria, and his placing of sanctions on Iran. However, most leftist posters, like yourself, pretend that you will see both sides of the argument when you really only want to preach to your fellow Democrats or tear down anyone who is running on the right. Even I will admit that my party has flaws, but demagoguery on the left is amazing.

JackFinfan
10-23-2012, 05:14 PM
You can stick your head in the sand, and go "la la la la," but when push comes to shove it's apparent that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo. People are tired of being lied to, because it has become so apparent that the government and media don't necessarily have our best interests at heart.

If you vote for Romney because you prefer his policies than that's both perfectly normal & reasonable. But to suggest that people would vote for Romney, because they are sick of being lied to is delusional. Any person with a fraction of independent thought and 10 minutes of research could find dozens of issues where Romney has lied or flip flopped (just as bad as lying) to the American people. All politicians lie; both Obama & Romney are far from an exception to that rule.

Locke
10-23-2012, 05:23 PM
I do understand that Obama is just one piece of the puzzle, however, he is a very important piece. He has the power to veto bills sent to him from Congress, and the ability to make executive orders, and in his case, summarily dismiss decisions made by Congress. He is Commander in Chief, and is the Leader of the Free World.

It's election season, and Obama is the poster child for what has become a fundamentally weak party, and one that merely places blame at the feet of Republicans rather than come up with solutions. So far Obama's only solutions have been to grow the government in hopes that it can take of the issues through stimulus money, and the creation of an overburdening healthcare system which is already leading companies to change their hiring processes and/or lay off people before it's been officially enacted.

Again, if you want to play the "objective" game. You would do well to point out some of the flaws that your own party possesses as well as strengths to be completely credible. Even Romney was able to find some shared ground with Obama in his handling of Syria, and his placing of sanctions on Iran. However, most leftist posters, like yourself, pretend that you will see both sides of the argument when you really only want to preach to your fellow Democrats or tear down anyone who is running on the right. Even I will admit that my party has flaws, but demagoguery on the left is amazing.

I'm a registered Independent. I don't have a party. In fact, a quick post history search would net you quite a few quotes from me calling the Democrats cowardly and weak for letting the Republicans bully them despite having the majority in both the House and Senate when Obama first took office. Or showing disapproval for that piece of junk healthcare plan. Or disgust for the continued military initiatives around the middle east.

Once again, you live in this black-and-white world where everyone is either with you or against you...

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 05:25 PM
Well I wouldn't want to burst the bubble of any you Progressive posters on this thread. If you want to dismiss this article as being partisan, than it's your loss.

Obama happens to be the man in charge, and people are really upset with how the government has handled things as of late. It doesn't help that the mainstream media hasn't done their part either in getting to the bottom of various issues.

You can stick your head in the sand, and go "la la la la," but when push comes to shove it's apparent that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo. People are tired of being lied to, because it has become so apparent that the government and media don't necessarily have our best interests at heart.

Romney is the Uber-Liar. He puts lieing into the Stratosphere. Yeah, you sure make a good choice there.



But in the mean time I will
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/headinthesand-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Without knowing what specific lies you are talking about, this becomes your typical straw-man argument. I know many on the left are unsure how Romney plans to pull off his big plans, such as lowering taxes while at the same time lowering our debt. However, he has a track record that shows he's capable of doing just that. If Romney-Ryan were to go into the specifics, I am sure your eyes would just glaze over. Again, it's pitting Keynesian economics vs Supply-Side economics, and the latter usually wins out.

As for lies, Obama was spewing them left and right last night. He was to bring back jobs, and help cut down energy costs... yet he outsourced oil drilling jobs to South America. The Keystone Pipeline falls in that category as well. Just one example of many... EPA regulations that have yet to be enacted will hurt Ohio whose steel industry has been doing well due to increase in "fracking," will be hurt if Obama were to win a second term. It goes against his green agenda. Plus, I love how Obama considered the massive layoffs in our defense sector as speculative, and yet his administration has told the defense companies that they will pay all legal fees as a result of their violating WARN.

Just remember how much "flexibility" Obama would have with a second term. I'd just prefer he had no flexibility at all and retire.

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 06:04 PM
I'm a registered Independent. I don't have a party. In fact, a quick post history search would net you quite a few quotes from me calling the Democrats cowardly and weak for letting the Republicans bully them despite having the majority in both the House and Senate when Obama first took office. Or showing disapproval for that piece of junk healthcare plan. Or disgust for the continued military initiatives around the middle east.

Once again, you live in this black-and-white world where everyone is either with you or against you...

If you are so Independent, than why the rooting interest to see Democrats stand up to Republicans. If anything, you should have been happy to [see] the Republicans stand their ground considering they were in the minority. I must have missed your post criticizing Obamacare. Since that is Obama's main accomplishment from his first term, and you are obviously against opposed to it, then I assume you won't be voting for the man. On the contrary, you spend much of your time on these threads defending Progressive policies and ideas. At the very least you might be voting for Gary Johnson since he is more sympathetic to your disgust of continued military initiatives in the middle east. I don't see you endorsing Gary, and see you more as an Obama apologist.

Most of your posts seem to oppose those that are more conservative, why else would you post in one of the neighboring threads that you enjoy debating Statler versus other conservative posters on here. While it may be presumptuous of me to assume that you are Democrat, you are definitely left-leaning, and even being an Independent doesn't make you any more objective. You are more like a Progessive that's in denial.

Here's a brief sample of "objective" quotes by you:


I think it's also important to point out that giving the local governments all this power has several dangers in of itself.

Now I know you haven't been reading these boards. Too many liars come out of the woodwork during election season. You have some work to do if you want to catch Statler though...


Love me some ignorant idiots. Way to make all Republicans look stupid...


I love when these Republican loud mouths show up, act belligerent, get called out on their bullsh*t, then start acting like they are in middle school again.

Don't see you saying the same things about Democrats... so don't pretend you don't play favorites.

phins_4_ever
10-23-2012, 06:31 PM
Without know what specific lies you are talking about, this becomes your typical straw-man argument. I know many on the left are unsure how Romney plans to pull off his big plans, such as lowering taxes while at the same time lowering our debt. However, he has a track record that shows he's capable of doing just that. If Romney-Ryan were to go into the specifics, I am sure your eyes would just glaze over. Again, it's pitting Keynesian economics vs Supply-Side economics, and the latter usually wins out.

As for lies, Obama was spewing them left and right last night. He was to bring back jobs, and help cut down energy costs... yet he outsourced oil drilling jobs to South America. The Keystone Pipeline falls in that category as well. Just one example of many... EPA regulations that have yet to be enacted will hurt Ohio whose steel industry has been doing well due to increase in "fracking," will be hurt if Obama were to win a second term. It goes against his green agenda. Plus, I love how Obama considered the massive layoffs in our defense sector as speculative, and yet his administration has told the defense companies that they will pay all legal fees as a result of their violating WARN.

Just remember how much "flexibility" Obama would have with a second term. I'd just prefer he had no flexibility at all and retire.

You have no clue whatsoever. If the defense sector has to layoff people it is with the Republicans. They put that budget forth last year. It was the only budget which would have gotten approval because Democrats and Obama were not interested in a government shut down. Any other budget proposal was threatened with filibusters by the rightest of the right of the Republican party and a subsequent government shutdown was n the horizon.

Now let's talk about Keystone pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline already existsts. It carries sand tar oil from Canada to the US. The project on hold is the Keystone Pipeline XL, an extension. The problem with that is that the proposed line is going through an area where a huge underground lake, the Ogallala Aquifier, ranging from South Dakota to Texas, is. This aquafier is providing drinking water to millions of people and about 20-25% of the water used for the US agriculture harvest. A leak and the consquences are devastating.
The Keystone Pipeline will create temporary jobs for a year during constructrion but long term jobs range from 200 to 600. It also will not lower energy costs as
a) the builder and operator is TransCanada
b) tar sand oil is more expensive to convert into useable oil

Romney has never balanced a budget without increasing taxes and fees. He may not have to increase income taxes but his record in MA shows that he increased fees such as marriage licenses, vehicle licenses, driver licenses etc (including some taxes) which in some cases doubled. Who do you think is going to be hurt by that?
The Olympics he did not balance the budget either. He received government funding (local and federal) to the tune of some 600 Million dollars. Without that the Olympics would have had a shortfall as well.
His jobs record is: firing and outsourcing.

Yeah, the left is clueless about the Romney/Ryan big plans. But so is the right. Or can you tell me?

Locke
10-23-2012, 07:36 PM
If you are so Independent, than why the rooting interest to see Democrats stand up to Republicans. If anything, you should have been happy to the Republicans stand their ground considering they were in the minority. I must have missed your post criticizing Obamacare. Since that is Obama's main accomplishment from his first term, and you are obviously against opposed to it, then I assume you won't be voting for the man. On the contrary, you spend much of your time on these threads defending Progressive policies and ideas. At the very least you might be voting for Gary Johnson since he is more sympathetic to your disgust of continued military initiatives in the middle east. I don't see you endorsing Gary, and see you more as an Obama apologist.

Most of your posts seem to oppose those that are more conservative, why else would you post in one of the neighboring threads that you enjoy debating Statler versus other conservative posters on here. While it may be presumptuous of me to assume that you are Democrat, you are definitely left-leaning, and even being an Independent doesn't make you any more objective. You are more like a Progessive that's in denial.

Normally I ignore bull**** like this, but since you're coming in here all high and mighty, I'll go ahead and address this ridiculous excuse of a post.

"If anything I should have been happy to the Republicans stand their ground"? First, learn English, or at the very least proof read your posts. Second, doesn't it seem necessary to know my position on healthcare before telling me how I should have felt? If you had bothered to ask, I would have said the original bill with the single-payer system, as well as the public option, was exactly what I wanted. I didn't care if McCain, Obama, Jesus, Mohamed, Shiva, or Ganesh passed it. All I cared about was a halfway decent healthcare bill. Instead we got this piece of garbage that does nothing but line the pockets of health insurance companies. So, do you still think I should have been happy the Republicans were being ****ing stupid about this whole thing? Or do you realize you should have asked my position on it first?

Do you also feel like telling me why I should be voting Gary Johnson? Since you know me so well? Or maybe it would interest you to know my father worked for Gary Johnson's company here in New Mexico when he was Governor and was part of a large unlawful termination lawsuit against the man? Still think I should vote for the one candidate I may actually have a lower opinion of that Mitt Romney?

How am I an Obama apologist? Care to make another half-assed attempt to pull up some quotes showing me defending the guy? Like some of the other intelligent people here, I'll go ahead and point out when some of you Neo-cons are talking blithering horse **** about the guy, but I don't defend him without regard to the truth. The man has been a disappointment. So much so that if they didn't pick the biggest clown they could find to run against him, he'd be an easily defeated one term President, and deservedly so. But he isn't a socialist, marxist, nigerian, or whatever the buzzword of the day is. If your party of retards had half a brain, they'd have given Huntsman the nomination, and I'd be voting Republican in 2 weeks. But no, that would involve using your ****ing brains, which we've learned over the past few years is something that excludes you from being a Republican politician and talking head.


Here's a brief sample of "objective" quotes by you:



Don't see you saying the same things about Democrats... so don't pretend you don't play favorites.

How are the first 2 quotes partisan? Good job, you found me calling a stupid person stupid. That isn't partisan. If anything, feel free to call me an elitist. I hate when stupid and ignorant people show up and start spewing garbage. The second 2 quotes are directed at specific Republicans. The first was the specific dumbass in that article that kept harassing the Democrat's office in Florida. The second was directed at cuzinvinny, because let's be honest, that guy shouldn't have been allowed on his mommy's computer. You show me a Democrat that shows up and starts acting like those guys, I'll say the exact same thing about them. In fact, I did in that thread that talked about the black actress from Clueless getting death threats because she is voting for Romney. It just so happens that the only retards that show up flapping their gums are Fox News guzzling Republicans. Now I wonder why that is...?

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 08:48 PM
@ Locke

Well it looks like I must have gotten under your skin for you to be unable to ignore my previous post, because I am sure you usually take the high ground. :rolleyes2:

I corrected my previous post to include my omitted word. Mea culpa. Real life intervened and I didn't get a chance to proof read it before running out the door. You still managed to get the point I was making regardless.

Again, very Progressive of you to be so concerned about how it's going to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Actually, it will line the pockets of those in government since they are the ones running Obamacare. All those penalties and taxes... yeah that goes to Uncle Sam. If anything it hurts private health insurance companies. Your retort only solidifies my opinion that you are anti-Obamacare not because you worried how it affects the average tax payer, so much as the rich get richer.

Again, I don't know to profess to know you so well. I was simply piggy-backing on what you said about not wanting to be involved in the middle east. I believe Ron Paul (a Libertarian) took the stance that we should not be involved over there as well. By extension, I assume that Gary Johnson (a fellow Libertarian) would feel the same as you. Ergo, if this was an important issue to you, there should have been a fleeting moment where you might have thought Gary Johnson is my guy because you are so "objective."

You know what... I am not going to bother to pull quotes. I think most of your posts speak for themselves. Including those posted in this thread, such as defending Obama as not being a socialist blah blah blah. Thanks for proving my point.

Lastly, yes Huntsman. He was the Republican all Progressives wanted to win. I believe he was hand selected by Obama to serve as our ambassador to China. You know that same China that Romney was haranguing throughout the entire debate process. Obviously Huntsman was ineffective at getting China to play fair. Huntsman is a RINO, plain and simple. Sorry the Republicans were unable to cater to your every whim, but in the end you are left with a businessman or community organizer since you have summarily dismissed Gary Johnson due to your "daddy issues."

irish fin fan
10-23-2012, 09:12 PM
I do understand that Obama is just one piece of the puzzle, however, he is a very important piece. He has the power to veto bills sent to him from Congress, and the ability to make executive orders, and in his case, summarily dismiss decisions made by Congress. He is Commander in Chief, and is the Leader of the Free World.

It's election season, and Obama is the poster child for what has become a fundamentally weak party, and one that merely places blame at the feet of Republicans rather than come up with solutions. So far Obama's only solutions have been to grow the government in hopes that it can take of the issues through stimulus money, and the creation of an overburdening healthcare system which is already leading companies to change their hiring processes and/or lay off people before it's been officially enacted.

Again, if you want to play the "objective" game. You would do well to point out some of the flaws that your own party possesses as well as strengths to be completely credible. Even Romney was able to find some shared ground with Obama in his handling of Syria, and his placing of sanctions on Iran. However, most leftist posters, like yourself, pretend that you will see both sides of the argument when you really only want to preach to your fellow Democrats or tear down anyone who is running on the right. Even I will admit that my party has flaws, but demagoguery on the left is amazing.

The amount of contradictions in your post is stunning.

TrojanFin
10-23-2012, 10:41 PM
You have no clue whatsoever. If the defense sector has to layoff people it is with the Republicans. They put that budget forth last year. It was the only budget which would have gotten approval because Democrats and Obama were not interested in a government shut down. Any other budget proposal was threatened with filibusters by the rightest of the right of the Republican party and a subsequent government shutdown was n the horizon.

Yes the party that Romney claims would never support downsizing our military backed legislation that would do just that. That doesn’t make any sense.


Now let's talk about Keystone pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline already existsts. It carries sand tar oil from Canada to the US. The project on hold is the Keystone Pipeline XL, an extension. The problem with that is that the proposed line is going through an area where a huge underground lake, the Ogallala Aquifier, ranging from South Dakota to Texas, is. This aquafier is providing drinking water to millions of people and about 20-25% of the water used for the US agriculture harvest. A leak and the consquences are devastating.
The Keystone Pipeline will create temporary jobs for a year during constructrion but long term jobs range from 200 to 600. It also will not lower energy costs as
a) the builder and operator is TransCanada
b) tar sand oil is more expensive to convert into useable oil

I find it funny that you completely ignore my statement about the outsourcing of oil drilling to South America.

Yes, the point of contention is in fact the Keystone Pipeline XL. Thanks for clarifying that.


They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer)and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#cite_note-TransCanada-5893-22)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#cite_note-23)

The US State Department estimates that the pipeline will create 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#cite_note-81)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#cite_note-55


Conventional oil has been cheap and unconventional oil [i.e. tar sand oil] has been expensive to harvest and refine into usable fuel. But that situation has recently turned upside down and looks to stay that way.
Technological advancements have reduced the cost to produce usable fuel from unconventional energy resources [i.e. tar sand oil]. A number of factors continue to point in the direction of ever increasing demand for already stressed conventional oil resources. And persistent demand pressures on ever harder to find conventional oil resources promise to maintain a constant upward pressure on price. All of which is causing renewed interest in developing unconventional oil energy resources.

http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/energy-resources.html

So again jobs would have been created, environmental disasters avoided, and the technology is now in place to make the conversion of “unconventional” oil economically feasible.


Romney has never balanced a budget without increasing taxes and fees. He may not have to increase income taxes but his record in MA shows that he increased fees such as marriage licenses, vehicle licenses, driver licenses etc (including some taxes) which in some cases doubled. Who do you think is going to be hurt by that?


“In broad strokes, he did pretty much what every other governor has done -- he raised revenues and cut spending,” Widmer said. “It’s probably the right thing to do, to have a balanced approach.”

Romney also took on natural allies in the business community when he undertook an effort to change the business tax code by closing what he called “loopholes.” It was a controversial step, but Romney said the rules allowed many companies to avoid paying taxes at a time when the state could hardly afford it. Some banks, for example, avoided taxes by sheltering holdings in Real Estate Investment Trusts.

***
“It was not in any way a tax increase,” he said. “It was a clarification of what you could do and what you couldn’t do.”

I don’t think Romney going after loopholes affects your average citizen as much as it does companies and wealthier individuals. It also simplifies taxes and encourages everyone to pay their fair share.


The Olympics he did not balance the budget either. He received government funding (local and federal) to the tune of some 600 Million dollars. Without that the Olympics would have had a shortfall as well.
His jobs record is: firing and outsourcing.

I don’t want to rehash all this, other than to say if it was so easy why wasn’t somebody else able to step up to the plate and do exactly what he did during the Olympics. If nothing else he took over for what was a corrupt regime and got things back on track.

“Firing and outsourcing.” You might want to say lay-offs, because firing suggests there was merit to get rid of people. Again, honestly show me a Fortune 500 company that has never had to lay-off people. I go back to previous point about drilling in South America or examine more carefully Obama’s Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competiveness, Jeff Immelt.

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/07/17/phyllis_schlafly/page/full/


Yeah, the left is clueless about the Romney/Ryan big plans. But so is the right. Or can you tell me?

Like Romney said, attacking him is not a strategy. Obama might as well throw his hands up in the air and say I don’t know how to fix this. At least the right has some ideas that are worth trying. As for the specifics, I am sure the details and the facts/figures would make War & Peace look like a pamphlet, especially with something as complicated as the National Debt. Furthermore, R&R want bi-partisan support and with something as complicated as our tax code etc. it may take some time to ferret out all the loopholes and where budget cuts need to be made.

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------


The amount of contradictions in your post is stunning.

The insight of your post is equally stunning.

phins_4_ever
10-24-2012, 12:41 AM
Yes the party that Romney claims would never support downsizing our military backed legislation that would do just that. That doesn’t make any sense.


No it doesn't. But as for the last 4 years the Republican party was first for something before they were against it. I will only address a couple of items because I am getting sick of you throwing out links and quotes and not following through with the citations. You at least should make sure that the quote you are using with the citation is actually supporting your case. The reason why Wiki is using citations is to show where their info comes from regardless of the entire contents of such reference.


Ryan defends sequester budget vote
Paul Ryan is defending a past vote on something both he and Mitt Romney oppose, the potential for a sequester of defense funds.Romney said this weekend it was a "mistake" for congressional Republicans to agree to the possibility of a series of budget cuts -- including defense cuts -- that kick in early next year if Congress is unable to agree on a debt reduction deal.



http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/ryan-defends-sequester-vote/1#.UIdjyoaz6pQ

In this article it is said that the Democrats and Obama did nothing but those are coming from Ryan. So there is no surprise. The reason why I posted this link is to show you that they are quite guilty. I refuse to go any further educating you on the Romney/Ryan and the Republicans. Now if you like to learn more about this entire process and how it came to the Sequester vote you need to inform yourself about last year's budget talks and the possibility of a government shut down. I simply refuse to be your educator. And please stay away from hack jobs like Breitbart, Fox News etc.
You can start here: http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration and go from there. It is your chance to learn something. And when you educated yourself you are welcome to come back to me and we can start a debate.


I find it funny that you completely ignore my statement about the outsourcing of oil drilling to South America.

Yes, the point of contention is in fact the Keystone Pipeline XL. Thanks for clarifying that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#cite_note-55
http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/energy-resources.html

So again jobs would have been created, environmental disasters avoided, and the technology is now in place to make the conversion of “unconventional” oil economically feasible.

You know that Wikipedia puts in citation numbers. If you go to the reference you will see that the estimated job number is a middle of the road number and it is noted in the reference as temporary employment. Fixed employment will stand much much lower because once the pipeline is build there is no need for thousands of employees. As a matter of fact the article questions some of the high estimations.

This is a link of the citation in Wikipedia (the link you have provided).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361212/keystone-pipeline-how-many-jobs-really-at-stake/
The 5000-6000 is one of many numbers of temporary jobs thrown around.

There are debates well worth discussing and continuing but if someone says "Obama gets rid of defense workers" without a clue how it came about and how guilty the party is that the person is supporting, or when someone is putting up quotes and references with further citations and doesn't check through with the reference listed, it just makes no sense debating anything. I can't trust your references without rechecking them. Google is a fine thing but it does not free you from actual research. Wiki while a great source of information is just a summary of multiple references. You are just not worth my time.

TrojanFin
10-24-2012, 02:32 AM
You have no clue whatsoever. If the defense sector has to layoff people it is with the Republicans. They put that budget forth last year. It was the only budget which would have gotten approval because Democrats and Obama were not interested in a government shut down. Any other budget proposal was threatened with filibusters by the rightest of the right of the Republican party and a subsequent government shutdown was n the horizon.

It is disingenuous to blame Republicans, since it was the lack of cooperation by Democrats that made possible across the board cuts that happened to include National Defense.

Essentially, budget cuts in regards to our National Defense are merely an unfortunate consequence of sequestration since neither party was able to agree on a budget deal. So Republicans are indirectly responsible for the lack of military funding in the same way Democrats will be indirectly responsible for cuts to their beloved social programs.

Neither party would intentionally reduce funding for programs they care about, but partisan politics played a critical role in what will ultimately lead to mass layoffs by defense contractors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-explained/


Again, you don’t really address the obvious question of how Federal contractors will skirt the WARN Act at the insistence of the Obama Administration, and how any and all legal fees will be paid by them (i.e. us the taxpayers) due to cancellation of contracts (i.e. layoffs).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/09/30/obama-administration-tells-contractors-facing-sequestration-to-not-warn-employees-about-potential-layoffs/

This sounds politically expedient if you ask me. Unfortunately, you can’t blame Republicans for the actions taken here.

P.S. Sorry my citation process doesn't work for you. It's really only an issue when using wiki, and I figure what I am writing is a post not a dissertation. I have mainly attempted to find non-partisan sources, but sometimes I find that the mainstream press will not touch certain stories. Consequently, don't summarily dismiss sources such as (i.e. Fox News, Breitbart etc.) if the stories are substantiated by facts and data. It would close-minded of you not to make such information admissible when debating. Finally, I never asked for you to be my educator. You would only feel that I would be "properly educated" if I agreed with you. I obviously don't on many issues, so we'll agree to disagree.

phins_4_ever
10-24-2012, 08:43 AM
It is disingenuous to blame Republicans, since it was the lack of cooperation by Democrats that made possible across the board cuts that happened to include National Defense.

Essentially, budget cuts in regards to our National Defense are merely an unfortunate consequence of sequestration since neither party was able to agree on a budget deal. So Republicans are indirectly responsible for the lack of military funding in the same way Democrats will be indirectly responsible for cuts to their beloved social programs.

Neither party would intentionally reduce funding for programs they care about, but partisan politics played a critical role in what will ultimately lead to mass layoffs by defense contractors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-explained/


Again, you don’t really address the obvious question of how Federal contractors will skirt the WARN Act at the insistence of the Obama Administration, and how any and all legal fees will be paid by them (i.e. us the taxpayers) due to cancellation of contracts (i.e. layoffs).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/09/30/obama-administration-tells-contractors-facing-sequestration-to-not-warn-employees-about-potential-layoffs/

This sounds politically expedient if you ask me. Unfortunately, you can’t blame Republicans for the actions taken here.

P.S. Sorry my citation process doesn't work for you. It's really only an issue when using wiki, and I figure what I am writing is a post not a dissertation. I have mainly attempted to find non-partisan sources, but sometimes I find that the mainstream press will not touch certain stories. Consequently, don't summarily dismiss sources such as (i.e. Fox News, Breitbart etc.) if the stories are substantiated by facts and data. It would close-minded of you not to make such information admissible when debating. Finally, I never asked for you to be my educator. You would only feel that I would be "properly educated" if I agreed with you. I obviously don't on many issues, so we'll agree to disagree.

I believe that we worked ourselves through the WARN in another thread. I even posted a WH memo on the issue. The WH did notify the contractors that if they send out warnings prematurely by law they will be responsible for all litigation and liability cost and not the tax payers. Thus the defense contractors stopped the notification process for layoffs.
With all the garbage threads created in the last couple weeks I am not willing to wade through all the threads to look for it though. I believe my closing summary was that this is so typical of the greed of capitalism these days: when they do profits keep your hands out but if I am in trouble I want government money. Something to that extend. Though we disagreed in that thread it was a pretty good debate.

For the budget talks of 2011: I followed this whole thing very closely. It was not the Democrats nor the moderate Republicans who held the country hostage. It was the teaparty wing of the Republicans who was not willing for a bi-partisan proposal. The WH and the Democrats put several proposals in which revenue increases and cuts would force a debt reduction. The WH even broke ranks with the mainstream Democrats y including some cuts in entitlement programs. But the teaparty wing lead by Ryan was just not willing to negotiate. The sequester is an end result of the most partisan proposal with complete disregard for the good of the country.

But we had that discussion in the very same thread.

Listen, don't take my criticism to harsh. Maybe the education part was a little over the top. Sorry for that. But the volume of garbage posted these days mostly without links is just too much. And if a link is posted it comes from a partisan hack site where you are forced to make the research for them. Heck at one point I even had to create an argument for our right members here because their argumentation was flawed and they were incompetent to make their own research. I truly apologize if I went a little overboard.
I really don't mind disagreement. Our discussion just came on the tail after wading through a bunch of crap threads here.