MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Politics and Government > Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.  (Read 2593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sammy

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #60 on: December 08, 2012, 09:33:54 PM »

I guess it is what I said before.  I prefer that poster that I was Sammy.  But true and honest the hate and intolerance of years is the reason.  I know you don't want to hear that, but it is how I feel. 

Discussing things here used to be fun.  Even when it got heated it was okay, but it changed Sammy.  Look to the tone of posts.  There is no talking, it is either avoid by insult or a stance of my way or the highway.  I suppose when the passive aggressive stalker inserted into a calm and reasoned conversation with Will.  Maybe it was real and polite talk to flanders that was thrown back with insults and derision.  Maybe it was Livewire kicking the dog here added in (no he always has, just added to the rest.  Maybe it was the multiple personalities some chose to spew hate before the election. 

I can also look to myself Sammy.  I am still very happy in life.  My little guy is my world and things are good (except a major car repair ugg) I just find that now posting at MT makes me want to take a shower just by the association of the hate.

I have stayed away from much posting at all for quite awhile hoping that some here would grow up.  I tried acting like them and got grief just like today.  Funny how they can't see it...

Anyway, thanks for caring enough to ask. 
I can sympathize with major car repair. How much do you put into the old girl until it's time to move on? so far, we're just staying with the devil we know! And yet, and yet, some of those new cars are very appealing!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 09:43:18 PM by sammy »
Logged

Monique

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6394
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #61 on: December 08, 2012, 10:15:46 PM »

I think that anyone who bothers to talk with any seriousness here on MT about major issues that face our country wind up being chewed up and spit out one way or another. It's too much to tackle for one or even a few people. If you care, you are inevitably affected by the strain of trying to isolate and communicate your version of the truth and then being beaten over the head with it.

Many of the mighty have fallen. Just gotta take a breath, get back up, and try again. Sometimes as a different persona, even.
Logged

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9440
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2012, 11:10:47 PM »

I don't know the answer to that and honestly neither do you or anyone on this board. We can know what some of them say but in general we don't really know. The question I was asking was "if" the US did not ratify it will the rest of the UN nations not adopt it - it was actually a serious inquiry.
Why shouldn’t we know?  If it is that bad shouldn’t we be told the reason that it is rather than a bunch of kabuki?  What would happen if the U.S. doesn’t adopt?  To us probably no more or less than if it had passed.  However, since it has been said that it is modeled after our ADA (which I don’t know.  I read most of the treaty and it is mostly just legal mumbo jumbo saying that people with disabilities have the same rights as those that have no disabilities.  Our ADA says that we need handicapped access and such which I didn’t read in the treaty.)  then not ratifying seems to say that we don’t approve of our own laws and would seem to tell other countries that it isn’t valid or should be used or strived for.
When I said conspiracy theories and abortion and home schooling I meant that they are all shadowy excuses and not a reason.
Quote
I don't really follow your retort. My thoughts and feelings on the UN are not based in anything other than this. Until the UN decides clean house and become a tad more credible I have little use for them as a body. I don't see black helicopters nor do I think they are building camps in the US and I don't think the UN is responsible for the fluoride in our drinking water. But considering the membership that has been granted control on issues of Human and Women's rights - I would rather take a pass. Again, that is just me. More importantly, regarding this "treaty" as you have clearly agreed, the US is in many ways leading the way and I feel hopeful that some countries are following our example.

So, then we should not try to do anything that can improve the U.N. because they are backward on some things?   Wouldn’t us agreeing that people with disabilities have the rights of others be a GOOD thing to get the UN agreeing to?  Wouldn’t it also seem also that since the U.S. doesn’t want to sign on the excuse for others to not agree to it as well?
Quote
It did start about the treaty and that is fine. However as is often the case it becomes other issues on the periphery. In this instance the budget and the Senate addressing this is important. Understand, IMO, I do not see this treaty as having great importance the the American people (1) because we already have the ADA and (2) because I have disdain for the UN. As such, I find it sad that we can spend time and money on ensuring we have a vote regarding this but have went more than three years without a budget being passed. Now, that is just my opinion.

I think we can trust people to try and work together or at the least we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. It does seem that there has been movement, no? As I related earlier the House has taken action to remove "tea party" folks from leadership roles and Sen. McConnell (bless his heart) has made an initial offering that appears to be based on the Simpson-Bowles Commission and that seems like a start, yeah.

Congress can work on more than one thing at a time.  If your theory was correct then why did the Republican’s in the house spend so much time on abortion bills (more than 30) and other things that have no hope of passing the Senate?  I don’t think it does anything good OR BAD for the American people.  It is for other countries improvement, and I wonder why some think that would be a bad thing.

Again the budget thing.  I see no point in talking about it.  Things changed from the last hostage taking.  One is that Obama learned that he can’t start with an offer that the other side SHOULD agree to and have it moved even more to the right.  Second he is refusing to do the work of the R’s.  Last time they said “what cuts do you offer” and asked more after.  This time he said no way and told R’s they had to come up with the cuts they want to see instead.  The only thing that is absolutely clear is that the R’s apparently will do anything to keep tax increases from happening to the rich, even eliminate tax cuts for the rest to get it as they DID vote before.  Frankly I am tired of all the “fiscal cliff” crap.  It isn’t a cliff.  It is an agreed bill with the R’s.  All taxes go up and cuts happen to a lot of places including the military.  That is the rub though, cuts are good until it is the bloated military.  So, I say let the taxes go up and the cuts happen just like the R’s agreed to.  It will slow the economic growth, but if cuts are that damned important, then they will happen come Jan 1.
Quote
It is difficult as there are some strong personalities here from both sides. For me . . . there are a few posters that I don't agree with normally but enjoy exchanging opinions with them as I really do think I can learn more from them or at a minimum gain a better understanding. Those that tend to be beyond the pail . . . I just ignore.
Most on the right complain abundantly that FF is hyper partisan, abrasive, and insulting as well as closed minded.  They hate him.  The problem is that MT has a group of individuals equal to what they hate and refuse to see it.  And it isn’t one person but many.  Frankly, from the right you are the exception and I really don’t see you as a moderate.  I see a Republican of the late 70’s that one can work with.  I suppose that the bigger problem is that even nationally those like you appear to be an extreme minority and those that are the rights version of FF the vast majority.  How can one expect that they will work in Washington when the same hate and intolerance is here and refuses?  I suppose part is that I have been here a few more days than you and have seen the decline in civility and the increase in “my way or the highway”.
Quote
Again, speaking only for me the only reason that I am not bothered by the treaty not beings passed is simple; (1) we already have the ADA (which, BTW, as the father of a child who falls under the ADA, I feel pretty comfortable with it) which extends equal rights and protections (just ask the City of Monroe why they had to change the sidewalks). (2) I feel very uncomfortable with were we are as a country and am very concerned about the "fiscal cliff". Because of this I honestly feel like the House, Senate and WH should be sequestered at Camp David and should not nothing (except eat) until this issue as solved.
To be honest I have no stake in it.  I have been technically handicapped since I was 8 but never claimed it.  I tried to live as a “normal” person until it wore me out to far, and still I do not choose to call myself handicapped.  My grandson is autistic which is handicapped, but I don’t see it changing anything for him.. for good OR bad.  However, can opposing agreement to the treaty that we negotiated send the message that we don’t think other countries should be like us?

And again the budget…  Let’s go off the cliff…  sequester won’t help because those at the top can’t control the rest.  Primarily Boehner can’t control the teas that refuse any compromise.  If Obama agrees to Ss cuts then he loses Dems.  I don’t see the big deal.  Let the cliff happen.  Cuts agreed to by R’s happen, tax increases happen.  Life will go on.
Quote
I can't explain why Pres. Bush has his folks work hard on this treaty. Who knows, maybe he wanted to show leadership in the world on how to treat folks with disabilities. Maybe he felt this would be a great example to highlight the ADA. Not sure at all but I do know that there has always been a large segment of people that seem to have no good use for the UN and as I have said before I count myself in that group for whole host of reason and none of which fall into "conspiracy theories". IMO, asking the UN to be the "arbiter" of how to treat people humanly is a bit like asking Sylvester to babysit Tweety.

I found nothing that gives the U.N. control over anyone.  Those agreeing say that they will work toward laws (however they are made in the respective country’s) to make the handicapped have the same rights as anyone else.  Really not much more than that.  Nothing I saw about wheelchair access or anything like that.  Just the rights of everyone else.  If something like that makes the UN worse….
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9440
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2012, 11:13:10 PM »

I think that anyone who bothers to talk with any seriousness here on MT about major issues that face our country wind up being chewed up and spit out one way or another. It's too much to tackle for one or even a few people. If you care, you are inevitably affected by the strain of trying to isolate and communicate your version of the truth and then being beaten over the head with it.

Many of the mighty have fallen. Just gotta take a breath, get back up, and try again. Sometimes as a different persona, even.

I know you have been there M.  Yes, i agree that sometimes ya gotta take a breather.  But you know well how much they hate FF and yet they are the exact same thing and won't see it.  is it wrong to want them to change rather than just leave?  Seems that hope is sometimes not a good thing.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9440
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2012, 11:24:33 PM »

I can sympathize with major car repair. How much do you put into the old girl until it's time to move on? so far, we're just staying with the devil we know! And yet, and yet, some of those new cars are very appealing!

I try to drive a car into the ground.  My last one was still going strong with hardly any repairs but was rusted out very bad.  Because it was I was getting pulled over on fishing trips once or twice a month.  It was getting ridiculous.  So, just because of that I got a new used one and the fishing trips stopped.  Sad, I wanted to drive it until it died. 

I have a big van and it is often packed full of people.  It is a great vehicle and like it a lot.  Most of what repairs I have done was cam shaft sensor about every 6 months.  I couldn't figure out why until the cam shaft bent.  So, threw a used one in and good to go again.  But it wasn't too cheap, but still a better option than getting a newer one.

I had a loaner car for the time it was getting fixed and I about died.  Getting in and out was horrifically painful and I couldn't take as many people along.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #65 on: December 09, 2012, 01:52:39 AM »

Why shouldn’t we know?  If it is that bad shouldn’t we be told the reason that it is rather than a bunch of kabuki?  What would happen if the U.S. doesn’t adopt?  To us probably no more or less than if it had passed.  However, since it has been said that it is modeled after our ADA (which I don’t know.  I read most of the treaty and it is mostly just legal mumbo jumbo saying that people with disabilities have the same rights as those that have no disabilities.  Our ADA says that we need handicapped access and such which I didn’t read in the treaty.)  then not ratifying seems to say that we don’t approve of our own laws and would seem to tell other countries that it isn’t valid or should be used or strived for.
When I said conspiracy theories and abortion and home schooling I meant that they are all shadowy excuses and not a reason.

I imagine we could learn all of the reasons that folks did not vote in favor of it but I would assume they are varied and some of them I would wager are pretty silly reasons.  If I were a Senator and could vote I would not have voted in favor of it.  However, my objects are simply the moral ambiguity that I believe defines the UN regarding Human and Women's rights.  I wish that we were a more powerful force at the UN in addressing this but at this point we are not. 

I don't see it as we don't approve of our own laws but rather a disagreement with the body (UN) offering this treaty.  That would be my reason and not a reflection on what others think. 

So, then we should not try to do anything that can improve the U.N. because they are backward on some things?   Wouldn’t us agreeing that people with disabilities have the rights of others be a GOOD thing to get the UN agreeing to?  Wouldn’t it also seem also that since the U.S. doesn’t want to sign on the excuse for others to not agree to it as well?

We should try to do things, yes, and I believe we are in someway.  I know that Amb. Rice has caught a great deal of flak but she has not been gravely ineffective.  I don't see it as giving others coverage to not sign on when one considers that our ADA and Civil Rights Laws already extend to meet what is being expressed.  I would say in this instance we are more of a vanguard for human rights than we give ourselves credit. 

Congress can work on more than one thing at a time.  If your theory was correct then why did the Republicans in the house spend so much time on abortion bills (more than 30) and other things that have no hope of passing the Senate?  I don't think it does anything good OR BAD for the American people.  It is for other countries improvement, and I wonder why some think that would be a bad thing.

True.  The House spent a great deal of time on ignorant legislation, that's a given.  That said, they did pass a budget.  Why send bills to the Senate that have no chance of passing?  Politics, plain and simple, IMO.  It gave some house members the ability to return to there district and say, "hey, look what I did".  Which was not much except waste time, money and continue to drive a social wedge between much of the American people. 

I don't see it as a good thing to hope other countries become more "humane".  Having said that we also have items that we could address that, IMO, if we wanted to work towards "humanity" issue we could and it would have a greater impact.  Consider our treatment of prisoners and the manner in which we prosecute drug crimes. 

Again the budget thing.  I see no point in talking about it.  Things changed from the last hostage taking.  One is that Obama learned that he can't start with an offer that the other side SHOULD agree to and have it moved even more to the right.  Second he is refusing to do the work of the R’s.  Last time they said “what cuts do you offer” and asked more after.  This time he said no way and told R’s they had to come up with the cuts they want to see instead.  The only thing that is absolutely clear is that the R’s apparently will do anything to keep tax increases from happening to the rich, even eliminate tax cuts for the rest to get it as they DID vote before.  Frankly I am tired of all the fiscal cliff” crap.  It isn't a cliff.  It is an agreed bill with the R’s.  All taxes go up and cuts happen to a lot of places including the military.  That is the rub though, cuts are good until it is the bloated military.  So, I say let the taxes go up and the cuts happen just like the R’s agreed to.  It will slow the economic growth, but if cuts are that damned important, then they will happen come Jan 1.Most on the right complain abundantly that FF is hyper partisan, abrasive, and insulting as well as closed minded.  They hate him.  The problem is that MT has a group of individuals equal to what they hate and refuse to see it.  And it isn't one person but many.  Frankly, from the right you are the exception and I really don't see you as a moderate.  I see a Republican of the late 70’s that one can work with.  I suppose that the bigger problem is that even nationally those like you appear to be an extreme minority and those that are the rights version of FF the vast majority.  How can one expect that they will work in Washington when the same hate and intolerance is here and refuses?  I suppose part is that I have been here a few more days than you and have seen the decline in civility and the increase in “my way or the highway”.To be honest I have no stake in it.  I have been technically handicapped since I was 8 but never claimed it.  I tried to live as a “normal” person until it wore me out to far, and still I do not choose to call myself handicapped.  My grandson is autistic which is handicapped, but I don’t see it changing anything for him.. for good OR bad.  However, can opposing agreement to the treaty that we negotiated send the message that we don’t think other countries should be like us?

But we do have a stake in this, all of us.  I believe the bill that was passed and would begin in January was something neither group really wanted.  I believe the Senate Republicans signaled this over the summer when they agreed to raise tax rates on those making over 250,000.00 having said that I also believe if the cuts occur it will have a negative impact on all of us.  Couple the possibility of a slowdown with the fact that we have over 47 million citizens already receiving assistance and the knowledge that 73% of the new hires in employment since July have been government employees (Fed, State, Local) along with our 16 Trillion deficit, to me it places us on an unsustainable path and it is troublesome. 

The major issue in politics, IMO, is the name calling and the very "absolute" positions taken.  That one side is good and one is bad is ignorant and corrosive.  Have you ever read the book, A National Party No More by Zell Miller?  If not you should take a look at it.  I find it a great expression of my feelings about politics.  This isn't all that new but has grown worse.  In my opinion it began to be corrosive on a personal level thanks to Lee Atwater and has gotten worse.  Over the last few years the Sal Alinski book Rules For Radicals has gotten a great deal of "play" in the media but the truth is that there is some truth to it.  In his book he wrote that one needs to define the enemy in the terms you wish others to see them and that once you sell this narrative then they (the enemy) spends all there time trying to change that instead of trying to work for solutions.  This really is nothing different than what was done to Gov. Dukakis.  Sure he was left leaning but that was already known.  But one ad was put out that made him look "soft" and boom . . . he spent all his time trying to change that perception.  Remember when he did the photo op in a tank?  I see the difference now as being it has filtered down to the average voter that is interested in politics and that is where it is not only wrong but ignorant and divisive. 

Consider that you rarely see elected officials speak in terms of working with others.  It always seems snarky, judgemental or "I'm right, there wrong" and that is just fantasy.  Do you remember when Chuck Schumer did a press conference regarding the "Bush Tax Cuts" and he held up a muffler and sitting beside him was a Lexus.  His argument was that someone making 40,000.00 a year would get enough of a tax cut to purchase a muffler and someone making 1,000,000.00 a year would get enough to buy a Lexus.  OK, but that person making 1,000,000.00 pays a hell of a lot more in taxes, no?  It's the visual, the rhetoric, the venom of it that is wrong. 

I think we have grown to the point that words are losing power.  Hate is such a horrible word but it gets used like window dressing and this will not benefit anyone.  What we need, IMO, is not only a change in business of politics but an end to the money involved.  Corporate funding, Union Funding and Individual Donor funding needs to either be capped or eliminated.  Until guys like Jim DeMint can be as venomous as he has yet leave for a 1,000,000.00 a year job nothing will change.  I also think we need to learn to be adults again. 

And again the budget  Let’s go off the cliff…  sequester won’t help because those at the top can’t control the rest.  Primarily Boehner can’t control the teas that refuse any compromise.  If Obama agrees to Ss cuts then he loses Dems.  I don’t see the big deal.  Let the cliff happen.  Cuts agreed to by R’s happen, tax increases happen.  Life will go on.
I found nothing that gives the U.N. control over anyone.  Those agreeing say that they will work toward laws (however they are made in the respective countries) to make the handicapped have the same rights as anyone else.  Really not much more than that.  Nothing I saw about wheelchair access or anything like that.  Just the rights of everyone else.  If something like that makes the UN worse.

You have to be supportive of Speaker Boehner's removal of many of the Tea Party folks from leadership roles.  It is a start, good for him.  Both sides are going to have to upset the base and do so for the benefit of the entire country, IMO.  Pres. Obama is in a great position at this point as he will not be on another ballot.  Be the leader he promised and offer cuts across the board.  Here is an idea; lets just freeze federal spending for a three years (excluding natural disasters and God forbid a war), increase all taxes on all income levels by two percent and then reassess after twenty-four months.  Simple, reasonable and would never happen because it will not give the polar sides the cross to bear to the voters, IMO, and that is the real problem. 

Instead what we get are always, "side shows" and rhetoric that is undefined and, IMO, divisive.  The thing that I remain confused about is the "fair share" argument.  Can it just be defined, already, ya know.  How much should any person or corporation pay in taxes?  40%, 50%, 60%?  We don't know.  I read an article from LA Times that discussed the tax increases there and anyone making 250,000.00 or more will pay between 52 - 58% in taxes between Federal, State, Local, FICA, SSI and so on.  That seems pretty crazy to me.  Do these folks make "good money"?  Sure but then again . . . they work for it.  I had a friend in college (Jason Dunn) that got drafted by the Phil. Eagles and in his first year he made over 300,000.00.  Good money.  But in talking with him when he came back to Richmond for a visit one of the things he talked about was that while he made "good money" he also paid federal taxes, State taxes (KY) (like the rest of us) but then had to pay city / municipal taxes in every place the team played (preseason included).  His argument was that "yeah, I make good money but I pay out more than what you know".  I won't defend the wealthy but I will listen to the argument and see if it has merit. 

Consider that for me, just this year I had to cash out a retirement plan to pay off some bills left over from my divorce.  While it is great that I had this plan to do so it was not a "pre tax" plan so I had already paid taxes on that amount before placing it in the plan.  Cashing it out I then had to pay the Federal and State taxes and will also pay a 20% penalty because I took it out early.  Not being a wealthy guy, hell right now I find myself looking for work, that is frustrating.  Partly because the tax code benefits the wealthy as they can hire the right accountants and so on.  But partly because I wonder, "just how much is a fair share for Uncle Sugar". 

I don't believe this treaty makes the UN worse.  I think it could be a good thing.  I also don't believe that it gives the UN any control over the US.  My issues have been and will remain the hypocrisy within the UN and I hope we work to address that in the future. 

 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #66 on: December 09, 2012, 07:49:11 AM »

Here's something I've learned, it doesn't really matter what's on paper, rights have to be defended, and this system is set up to favor the rich.
Logged

blue2

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3771
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #67 on: December 09, 2012, 11:01:53 AM »

Will,  I hear you on the retirement plans.  I'm not wealthy by any means but what i have bonds well with my SS and I do pretty well.  I just don't like all the nonsense of taxing us to death because we have more money than someone that didn't plan and sacrifice like we did.
I think you are mistaken about the role of the UN in the United States.  I believe obama and a lot of his his liberal friends welcome the UN.  They really believe it will strength our relationship with the radical muslims in the other part of the world.
Logged

The Fuzz

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17718
  • Fish Lake Michigan!
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #68 on: December 09, 2012, 11:44:48 AM »

I believe obama and a lot of his his liberal friends welcome the UN.  They really believe it will strength our relationship with the radical muslims in the other part of the world.

It's the One World Government indoctrination process our elected officials have bought into and now trying to force down other country's throats through the UN.  "Do like we do or we will naval blockade you, or cut off our billion of aid dollars we give you!"  Brother.....and we wonder why we are hated around the globe.
Logged
Support the local economy as much as possible!

TLaitur

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 512
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #69 on: December 09, 2012, 12:42:47 PM »

It seems ironic that those countries that hate us or make no attempt rein in that hatred from their citizens sure come to us when they need aid.

Don't give 'em one penny. They can hate us for free, from now on!
Logged

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #70 on: December 09, 2012, 01:36:32 PM »

Will,  I hear you on the retirement plans.  I'm not wealthy by any means but what i have bonds well with my SS and I do pretty well.  I just don't like all the nonsense of taxing us to death because we have more money than someone that didn't plan and sacrifice like we did.
I think you are mistaken about the role of the UN in the United States.  I believe obama and a lot of his his liberal friends welcome the UN.  They really believe it will strength our relationship with the radical muslims in the other part of the world.

Yeah . . . the retirement "cash out" sucked but . . . it is good to have the weight of those bills off so I guess in the end it worked.  Plus, not everyone was is in the position where they could get money from a plan to do this so I have to take an optimistic view of it. 

I struggle with labels of "liberal", "conservative" and so on.  My take is that those labels have changed over the years and have become nearly meaningless.  I consider myself more middle of the road than most folks although I am very socially liberal (I would support gay marriage, the legalization of many drugs (tax revenue, baby), agree with gays / lesbian in the Military, dislike theological intrusion into government, believe hole hearted in a "social safety net") but at the sametime I lean conservative on fiscal issues (please, please, please stop spending more than you have in your wallet).  That said the labels today are not what they were when I was growing up nor are they what they were classically defined as.  Recall that we consider "socialism" a "liberal" concept but Mr. Hitler was one heck of a socialist in many aspects.  Republicans tend to get there panties in a bunch over things like the EPA, forgetting that we have Pres. Nixon to thank for it.  Republicans get angry over the Dep. of Education but fail to remember that since Pres. Carter created this department they (Republicans) have offered just as many, if not more, initiatives thought the DOE than Democrats (think; 1000 points of light, no child left behind).  Republicans whine about government intrusion but seem not to like the reminder that the greatest intrusion into our lives came under Pres. Bush with the Patriot Act (think Dep. of Homeland Security and so on). 

While I find myself disliking the UN, I also feel that if we are going to be a member we darn sure need to be more forceful at addressing the hypocrisy within the organization (considering we pay the yeoman's portion of bills).  I don't believe in the threats to our national sovereignty that some have expressed because I have not seen a tangable example to this point.  I think the LOST treaty (Law of the Sea) comes close but has never been ratified by our Congress and ironically it has been shepherded by Republicans in addition to Democrats. 

I have pretty set opinions regarding islam and specifically what we refer to as "radical islam".  However, I don't see Pres. Obama as kowtowing to them.  I see the Pres. and his administration as much more middle of the road and even more right wing than I.  Consider the Presidents use of drones (more than Pres. Bush) or his actions in Libya (without congressional approval).  Domestically, I think the Pres. has been a mixed bag.  He has gotten credit when due but has also gotten hammered for things already in progress when he took office.  Republicans at with indignation over TARP and the Auto Bail Out (which used TARP funds) but fail to recall this all began with Pres. Bush. 

I do hope that both sides can become adults for a few days and get something done that will benefit the forward progress of America.  If not, I fear that we are heading down a horrible road of unsustainable and nearly ALL the elected officials are to blame. 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

blue2

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3771
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #71 on: December 09, 2012, 02:17:50 PM »

That was a good read Will..almost what i had you pegged as although you express a lttle more liberal opinion on some issues.   I an not offended with the gay lesbian movement other than a lot of them with the in your face approach.

I almost believe at this point obama us trying to dimish the role of the republicans forever instead of fixing our problem.  His views and programs mean that much to him.  He will leave the country if he has to.   He doesn't care about us.
Logged

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #72 on: December 09, 2012, 03:58:40 PM »

That was a good read Will..almost what i had you pegged as although you express a lttle more liberal opinion on some issues.   I an not offended with the gay lesbian movement other than a lot of them with the in your face approach.

I almost believe at this point obama us trying to dimish the role of the republicans forever instead of fixing our problem.  His views and programs mean that much to him.  He will leave the country if he has to.   He doesn't care about us.

Thanks.  From an political standpoint Pres. Obama should be trying to minimize the Republican party as much as possible if he believes in what his party approved as a platform than he should want his party in control, same with the Republicans.  That much I feel fine with but in fairness, I think Republicans (and Liberation's, Green Party and so on) should all be doing that if they honestly believe the platform they have is the best direction for the country.  Not saying to never compromise but honestly saying if you feel your direction is best then, "sell, sell, sell" and part of that is communicating why the other product is inferior. 

I believe Pres. Obama wants what is best for the US.  His opinions and directions may vary from what I believe to be the correct direction but I don't question his desire to see a better America based on the view of what the means to him.  Where could you go if you disagree with his direction?  Canada, UK, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, South America?  All are much more liberal than America and have more difficult immigration laws than we do.  IMO, at the end of the day we are not a perfect union but we are a work in progress (several hundred years behind in terms of age of many of our allies) and we will be fine in the end, if and it is a big if, we can begin to "work" again as a country and end the bickering. 
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

blue2

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3771
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #73 on: December 09, 2012, 07:19:22 PM »

I don't want to belabor this thing but what Obama thinks is best doesn't necessarily agree with what the people that are paying the bills think.  Sure the entitled bunch living off the government go along with him and voted for him and he won.  Obama wants everyone equal and is going to try to tax the rich to where they aren't rich anymore.  But what he doesn't get is they are going to move their money and the government will get less..
Logged

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: Senate Republicans hate the handicapped.
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2012, 12:19:05 PM »

I don't want to belabor this thing but what Obama thinks is best doesn't necessarily agree with what the people that are paying the bills think.  Sure the entitled bunch living off the government go along with him and voted for him and he won.  Obama wants everyone equal and is going to try to tax the rich to where they aren't rich anymore.  But what he doesn't get is they are going to move their money and the government will get less..


Some people may move there money into accounts / shelters to protect them from higher taxes.  Shoot it seems that some companies are already doing this with the impending tax rate increases next year.  That said, I also think in general most won't.  What will happen is the same thing that happens regarding freedom.  By that I mean, where can they really go?  Canada, UK and so on? 

I don't read that the Pres. wants everyone equal in terms of success but equal in terms of opportunity.  I think it is a noble cause but even that is difficult at best.  The President himself, benefited from a prosperous upbringing and advanced education.  I think he is smart enough to know that equality of outcome is impossible however equality of opportunity (in some manner) is "nearly" achievable.  In fairness though a kid that graduated from Detroit Country Day and Brown Univ. will have a "leg up" against a kid that graduated from a public school and a public university. 

I don't think that Pres. Obama won simply because of the "entitled bunch living off the government".  Consider that there was only 3,476,405 vote difference. 

Even if ALL those folks who receive assistance voted for the Pres. that is not an overwhelming margin when you consider that it is estimated that nearly 49% of all American households receive sometype of government assistance (SSI, SSDI, SNAP, Section 8, HUD, Medicare / Medicaide, Unemployment, TAFN). 

If you just look at "means tested" programs (Medicaide, SNAP, Housing) the number is actually 35% of all American Household's.  Republicans have used the "47%" (actually it was 49% in 2010 according to the Mercatus Center at George Mason Univ.) but this is at best ill informed and at worse "deceptive" as once programs like SSI, Medicare and Unemployment are taken out of the overall equation (and I believe it is "fair" to do this as SSI and Medicare are promised programs that seniors paid into and Unemployment (if approved) was also paid into by employers and employees) the real percentage of Americans receiving means tested assistance is 16% of all households.  (BTW, the numbers from George Mason Univ. are from 2010 and with the "increase" in those eligible wouldn't it seem even more people would have voted for Pres. Obama if the so called, "47%" were really in the tank for him?)

Had just that 16% of households voted for Pres. Obama (which is impossible because many of them are under voting age or are unable to vote) that would have been only 49,880,000 people and Pres. Obama received over 60,000,000 votes, which BTW, is 9 million less than what he received in 2008 (Gov. Romney received 2.5 million less than Sen. McCain so, 11.5 million less people voted).  If you include "ALL" programs as voting for Pres. Obama (which again is impossible due to age and voting restrictions) that would have been a vote of 152,782,000.  If this were possible then Pres. Obama should be worried as he only received 60,000,000 of that 152 million or 39% of that group.     

I know all of this is hypothetical but I think that it is an interesting discussion.  I do not believe the "47%" is a winning argument for Republicans once the data is actually looked at.  Consider that had all these folks turned out the race would not have been as close as 3.5 million votes, Pres. Obama would have won in a landslide of epic proportions.  Consider also that Republicans using this "47%" argument seem to forget that they still hold the House and a majority of State Governors.  In essence, IMO, the logic is flawed.   

Anyhow, I know this is a "wonky" post but I believe that perspective needs to be placed on just who and how America people are voting for.  Pres. Obama was the better candidate in the eyes of the American electorate. 

George Mason Univ.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/nation-of-dependents-analysis.pdf
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:26:03 PM by Will Sweat »
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up