Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • Shocking: Republicans to push again for automatic spending cuts, but will shield their stuff from the cuts



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • get permlink
  • Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left

    What are tags?
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 09:38:27.0 login to vote score 1
    Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
    czarangelus 646 2012-04-13 09:38:29.0 login to vote score 1
    Chance of liberals rolling over and accepting it as status quo: 100%
    czarangelus 646 2012-04-13 09:39:07.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.


    eddyatwork 998 2012-04-13 09:43:07.0 login to vote score 7
    so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.

    The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 09:48:58.0 login to vote score 0
    It's shocking to cut spending instead of raise spending. Democrats don't know what it means to cut spending.

    I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 09:51:41.0 login to vote score 0
    eddyatwork: The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.

    Yes. And we certainly wouldn't want to compromise.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 10:05:20.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: Yes. And we certainly wouldn't want to compromise.

    Only if you compromise more.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 10:14:22.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: Only if you compromise more.

    Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 10:17:42.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?

    I don't know. The consensus is that usually the other person should be sending all the money they make to the government in taxes.

    Somehow if you're a conservative this makes you small government though.
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-13 10:22:21.0 login to vote score -1
    so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?

    Pay-out cuts to medicare and SS that take effect immediately would be pretty nice.
    bunnythor 544 2012-04-13 11:13:33.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?

    Well, I would like to cut the military by 80%+, cut tax rates in half while removing all exemptions and loopholes, and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA medical benefit by implementing a single-payer system in their place.

    But I'm sure we could find a middle ground.

    \ I would also increase the budgets for the NIH, NASA, the NSF, the DoE, the DoT, and the EPA by tenfold, but that's fiddling spare change and probably not worth bringing up at this point.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 11:19:00.0 login to vote score 1
    What we need is an initiative for profit. I don't see anyone championing any sort of emergent technology with any seriousness.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:19:56.0 login to vote score 1
    wow.. $26.1billion a year.. what's that... 1 fucking % of our deficit spend per year???????


    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:20:43.0 login to vote score 2
    flashlv: It's shocking to cut spending instead of raise spending. Democrats don't know what it means to cut spending.

    I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.


    i wish you knew more than stupid talking points

    bunnythor 544 2012-04-13 11:25:32.0 login to vote score 1
    baron muchhumpin: i wish you knew more than stupid talking points

    I wish you knew better than to give him attention.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 11:26:00.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: i wish you knew more than stupid talking points

    Not sure what you mean.

    How is that a talking point?
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:26:52.0 login to vote score 2
    bunnythor: I wish you knew better than to give him attention.

    i'm on a con-call.. got time :)
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:27:35.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: Not sure what you mean.
    How is that a talking point?


    the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years

    sloth 222 2012-04-13 11:36:31.0 login to vote score 1
    baron muchhumpin: the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years

    Wasn't there a budget surplus back in 1999, 2000, and 2001?
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 11:37:11.0 login to vote score 0
    eddyatwork: The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.

    Indeed. Everybody wants to cut stuff that doesn't help them.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:38:54.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Wasn't there a budget surplus back in 1999, 2000, and 2001?

    posted on that yesterday. There was a surplus 1 year, which was nullified by other increases


    sloth 222 2012-04-13 11:44:58.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: posted on that yesterday. There was a surplus 1 year, which was nullified by other increases

    [image removed]


    Well, wouldn't you count that as lowering the deficit?
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:47:40.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Well, wouldn't you count that as lowering the deficit?

    SVR is that you?

    and the "surplus" lasted for how long? 18 seconds?

    and it wasn't from cuts as much as it was from rising tides on a roaring economy just before it imploded

    sloth 222 2012-04-13 11:51:45.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: and it wasn't from cuts as much as it was from rising tides on a roaring economy just before it imploded

    Well, this is true. there was also a bit of a peace dividend thing going on there with military base closings, but, yeah, most of it was just a rising economy. Of course, then you have to ask why the economy was doing so well...
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:52:31.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Well, this is true. there was also a bit of a peace dividend thing going on there with military base closings, but, yeah, most of it was just a rising economy. Of course, then you have to ask why the economy was doing so well...

    unregulated capitalism

    gradivus 3607 2012-04-13 11:52:44.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?

    90%.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 11:55:16.0 login to vote score 0
    gradivus: 90%.

    i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see

    Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous

    get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc

    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 11:56:53.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years

    They just recently proposed spending cuts, does that work for you? I believe this article says that as well.

    The democrats will not allow spending cuts in certain areas where it needs to happen. The same can be said for Republicans not wanting other couts in areas where it needs to happen.

    Any military spending cuts would result in many job losses, but probably necessary.

    Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 11:57:33.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see

    Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous

    get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc


    So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 12:00:32.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?

    of course! when have i ever said otherwise?

    federal spending = deficit spending = my tax money

    sloth 222 2012-04-13 12:01:37.0 login to vote score 0
    flashlv: So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?

    Not all jobs are created equal.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 12:01:40.0 login to vote score 1
    flashlv:
    Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.


    poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil

    disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans


    gradivus 3607 2012-04-13 12:01:40.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see

    Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous

    get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc


    We just need the marines, they do everything anyway.


    sloth 222 2012-04-13 12:09:23.0 login to vote score 3
    baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil

    disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans


    To be fair, the "if you're not with us you're with the enemy" attitude is pretty prevalent here.
    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 12:11:35.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil

    disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans


    i think the reason I do that is because many bn'ers believe that if you think one thing about a group or support something that happens once with a certain group, like police for me, that you agree or disagree with everything.

    Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 12:12:51.0 login to vote score 3
    flashlv: i think the reason I do that is because many bn'ers believe that if you think one thing about a group or support something that happens once with a certain group, like police for me, that you agree or disagree with everything.

    Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.


    a good first step would be taking responsibility for your own actions and not doing "but they do it too!!!" wahhhhh


    flashlv 1657 2012-04-13 12:23:07.0 login to vote score -1
    baron muchhumpin: a good first step would be taking responsibility for your own actions and not doing "but they do it too!!!" wahhhhh

    Yup, and I'll keep mocking your hypocrisy :/
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:24:15.0 login to vote score 0
    bunnythor: I would also increase the budgets for the NIH, NASA, the NSF, the DoE, the DoT, and the EPA by tenfold, but that's fiddling spare change and probably not worth bringing up at this point.

    Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:25:29.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil

    disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans


    Nah, it's your constant defense of the Democrats that kind of points to your agreeing with them.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 12:27:24.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?

    Costs minus expected returns such as new technologies developed, or just costs?
    vic rattlehead 1283 2012-04-13 12:27:26.0 login to vote score 0
    Did not read any of this, just wanted to say:

    Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.
    fatsean 3838 2012-04-13 12:29:57.0 login to vote score 0
    vic rattlehead: Did not read any of this, just wanted to say:

    Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.


    Today's Democrats are hardly radical and activist, unfortunately. They're pretty moderate and limp.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 12:33:09.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Nah, it's your constant defense of the Democrats that kind of points to your agreeing with them.

    hmm.. i do occasionally defend them, but really i disagree with the 100% lopsided view that people like you and phil usually take

    the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias

    bunnythor 544 2012-04-13 12:41:51.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?

    Give cites to my hyperbole? Shirley, you jest!
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 12:47:01.0 login to vote score 1
    fatsean: Today's Democrats are hardly radical and activist, unfortunately. They're pretty moderate and limp.

    Compared to when? The Dems have rarely been the party of radical and activist activity - they've actually been the more politically conservative party more often than not.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:49:07.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: hmm.. i do occasionally defend them, but really i disagree with the 100% lopsided view that people like you and phil usually take

    the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias


    No, you occasionally pay lip service to saying both sides are bad while consistently attacking Republicans and defending and voting for Democrats.

    I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:50:55.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: Costs minus expected returns such as new technologies developed, or just costs?

    Costs. You see, we're broke. We're more than broke, we're in debt over our eyeballs.

    Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 12:51:00.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: Compared to when? The Dems have rarely been the party of radical and activist activity - they've actually been the more politically conservative party more often than not.

    The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 12:51:34.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Costs. You see, we're broke. We're more than broke, we're in debt over our eyeballs.

    Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...


    No, not really. I'm not talking about buying a house. I'm talking about creating markets and products that people buy, which gets you money.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 12:52:08.0 login to vote score 2
    And also robot sex maids.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:54:03.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?

    You really want to go back to decades old Democrat positions?


    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 12:54:38.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: No, not really. I'm not talking about buying a house. I'm talking about creating markets and products that people buy, which gets you money.

    People buy products and furnish homes. That's a market, and much money was made by the government off the boom.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 12:55:35.0 login to vote score 1
    sabine: The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?

    The New Deal was, for the most part, about the minimum change that could be made to hold the country together. The Great Society I'll grant you was a pretty radical agenda. Too bad so much of it went unfunded due to Vietnam.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 12:57:22.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: You really want to go back to decades old Democrat positions?

    I was trying to back up "activist", not "paragons of virtue".
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 12:59:48.0 login to vote score 0
    So, anyway, you went back to 1945 and found two cases for the Dems being the more radical and less conservative party. Now...segregation? The push to impose religion onto the public schools and courthouses? Welfare reform? Judicial reform?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 13:02:12.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: People buy products and furnish homes. That's a market, and much money was made by the government off the boom.

    Yes, thanks to government initiative lots of fuckin' money was made on it. Of course jackoffs went too far with it, but that is absolutely not a reason for the government not to encourage new technology.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 13:03:49.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: Now...segregation? The push to impose religion onto the public schools and courthouses?

    Is it fair to characterize both of those as more regional than partisan?

    sloth: Welfare reform? Judicial reform?

    Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative. Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 13:13:45.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Is it fair to characterize both of those as more regional than partisan?

    Most probably.

    sabine: Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative.

    I was counting it as Republican-initiated radicalism/progressivism.

    sabine: Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.

    Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 13:19:23.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: I was counting it as Republican-initiated radicalism/progressivism.

    Gotcha. In that case, I guess I have to flip around and say that it's atavistic radicalism.

    sloth: Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.

    Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 13:31:38.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Gotcha. In that case, I guess I have to flip around and say that it's atavistic radicalism.

    Yep.

    sabine: Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.

    Zackly. Radical proposals all. Though I'm not sure anyone has actually suggested a massive road privatization scheme - have they? Did this happen without me noticing?
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 13:38:18.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: I'm not sure anyone has actually suggested a massive road privatization scheme - have they?

    "Massive" would be a wee overstatement, but part of I-90 outside Chicago (the Chicago Skyway) is now private, and IIRC Indiana and Ohio have similar plans in the works.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 13:50:49.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: "Massive" would be a wee overstatement, but part of I-90 outside Chicago (the Chicago Skyway) is now private, and IIRC Indiana and Ohio have similar plans in the works.

    Mmkay. Strange. These are stretches of limited access highway with tolls?
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 13:56:41.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: These are stretches of limited access highway with tolls?

    Well, I guess a bridge would qualify as extremely "limited access". It's part of the interstate highway system, as is the Indiana Toll Road that it connects to, presumably they were both originally built with federal highway money, and now they're both leased to and operated by private companies.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 13:58:29.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Well, I guess a bridge would qualify as extremely "limited access". It's part of the interstate highway system, as is the Indiana Toll Road that it connects to, presumably they were both originally built with federal highway money, and now they're both leased to and operated by private companies.

    Oh - the road itself hasn't been sold, just the operation of the tolls leased out?
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 14:01:47.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Oh - the road itself hasn't been sold, just the operation of the tolls leased out?

    It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 14:03:32.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.

    Well...ok then.
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 14:13:01.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.

    On my mom's side there someone owns the land some hospital is on on a 99 yr lease. I don't see the point as they have nothing to do with it except owning it.
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 14:54:30.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: On my mom's side there someone owns the land some hospital is on on a 99 yr lease. I don't see the point as they have nothing to do with it except owning it.

    ...and collecting the rent on it?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 14:55:46.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: ...and collecting the rent on it?

    Yeah. Why not sell? Why would the hospital go out of it's way to enrich some people that don't contribute to it in any way?
    sloth 222 2012-04-13 14:57:05.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: Yeah. Why not sell? Why would the hospital go out of it's way to enrich some people that don't contribute to it in any way?

    Maybe they couldn't afford to buy it outright at the time it was built? Or they didn't really want to own the land?
    surfnazi 932 2012-04-13 15:00:32.0 login to vote score 1
    sloth: Maybe they couldn't afford to buy it outright at the time it was built? Or they didn't really want to own the land?

    Or like every other money deal that ever happens here, people have to cheat and steal from everyone else because everyone's palms are covered in grease.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 17:58:51.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: No, you occasionally pay lip service to saying both sides are bad while consistently attacking Republicans and defending and voting for Democrats.

    I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.


    as i've stated NUMEROUS times, I WILL NOT support republicans UNTIL THEY DROP THE SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT

    until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD


    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 19:29:41.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: as i've stated NUMEROUS times, I WILL NOT support republicans UNTIL THEY DROP THE SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT

    until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD


    Okay me too. And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.

    But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 19:37:53.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Okay me too. And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.

    But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.


    the fact that you blame the DEMs for the out of control spending is laughable

    both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending

    saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes

    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 19:39:50.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: the fact that you blame the DEMs for the out of control spending is laughable

    both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending

    saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes


    I didn't say I blamed just them the Repubs are responsible too. Here, in fact, let me quote you this post I made as the very first post in this thread:

    so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.

    So yes, when I said "Okay, me too." I was agreeing with you not to vote for the Repubs. I was then adding in why I wouldn't vote for the Dems.

    Nice try though!
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 19:40:46.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.
    .


    and you also said that, so yaaaaa
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 19:43:20.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: and you also said that, so yaaaaa

    Yes. So I, in fact, won't support either side.

    Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?

    Right?

    Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 19:44:40.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Yes. So I, in fact, won't support either side.

    Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?
    Right?
    Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.


    your wording of your other post implies that the republicans ARE interested in fiscal responsibility

    which isn't true

    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 19:46:25.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: your wording of your other post implies that the republicans ARE interested in fiscal responsibility

    which isn't true


    No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort, sorry. And if it was confusing you can read my earlier post. Which clearly and completely states my position before you try to pretend I'm implying something different.

    Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 19:52:12.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort, sorry. And if it was confusing you can read my earlier post. Which clearly and completely states my position before you try to pretend I'm implying something different.
    Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.


    yes, i have a bias against republicans today. Your original post is accurate but you do have a habit of walking a line against DEMs so I will read more into your posts than maybe they deserve

    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 19:59:22.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: yes, i have a bias against republicans today. Your original post is accurate but you do have a habit of walking a line against DEMs so I will read more into your posts than maybe they deserve

    I walk a line against Dem and Rep voter. As a Dem voter you would see that. In addition bN leans heavily Dem.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 20:03:24.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: As a Dem voter anti-republican voter you would see that.

    Sure.

    Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living

    I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name

    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:06:02.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: Sure.

    Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living

    I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name


    Romney and Obama would have virtually identical policies.

    Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 20:07:21.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Romney and Obama would have virtually identical policies.

    Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.


    except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills


    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:11:24.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills

    Parties can have internal differences, and in fact some Republicans don't support those things.
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 20:12:03.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Parties can have internal differences, and in fact some Republicans don't support those things.

    anecdotal

    the party line is to support those things

    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:12:47.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills

    I mean, you're voting for a Republican apparently. Do you support those things?
    baron muchhumpin 4248 2012-04-13 20:14:28.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: I mean, you're voting for a Republican apparently. Do you support those things?

    no, i don't. And Brown hasn't been speaking about those things either, he's just done his job which is why i'm willing to vote for him


    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:17:58.0 login to vote score 0
    baron muchhumpin: no, i don't. And Brown hasn't been speaking about those things either, he's just done his job which is why i'm willing to vote for him

    I have similar feelings towards voting for any Republican. They are all corrupt, they are all the same party. The differences are minor in the scheme of the long term damage they do the nation.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 20:23:35.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: some Republicans don't support those things

    Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:25:21.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.

    Gary Johnson? I don't know about Ron Paul.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:26:26.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.

    The point is, that those things won't mean anything when the budget falls apart to do anything about them. It's a smokescreen.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 20:30:12.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Gary Johnson? I don't know about Ron Paul.

    Too bad Johnson got forced out of the tent. RON PAUL was the one running ads blasting Santorum for voting for Title X funding, and co-sponsored a bill that would deny all Title X funding to any entity *cough Planned Parenthood cough* that provides abortions.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:31:50.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Too bad Johnson got forced out of the tent. RON PAUL was the one running ads blasting Santorum for voting for Title X funding, and co-sponsored a bill that would deny all Title X funding to any entity *cough Planned Parenthood cough* that provides abortions.

    So wait, RON PAUL attacked RICK SANTORUM for something that Republicans don't do?
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 20:34:03.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: So wait, RON PAUL attacked RICK SANTORUM for something that Republicans don't do?

    It's not a very fair attack.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:36:05.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: It's not a very fair attack.

    RON PAUL is a disappointment. He talks a good game but doesn't followup. A lot like BARACK OBAMA.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 20:41:45.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: A lot like BARACK OBAMA.

    My main point is that I often hear tales of these Republicans that aren't beholden to the people who effectively want a Christian version of the Taliban, yet even the country-club fiscons like Romney seem to feel the need to at least pretend like they agree. I would really like to see the Republican party say "all y'all theocrat wannabes and bedsheet hood wearers can go hang out in the Constitution Party, because you're dragging us down. We want to focus strictly on sound fiscal management".
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:44:07.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: My main point is that I often hear tales of these Republicans that aren't beholden to the people who effectively want a Christian version of the Taliban, yet even the country-club fiscons like Romney seem to feel the need to at least pretend like they agree. I would really like to see the Republican party say "all y'all theocrat wannabes and bedsheet hood wearers can go hang out in the Constitution Party, because you're dragging us down. We want to focus strictly on sound fiscal management".

    Yes, and we hear tales of Democrats that aren't beholden to banks, Wall Street, and the MIC.

    Suckers keep voting for both, so I guess the stories work.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 20:46:09.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Yes, and we hear tales of Democrats that aren't beholden to banks, Wall Street, and the MIC.

    Hollywood or organized labor I would buy, but those three examples don't seem to me particularly strong.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-13 20:55:50.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Hollywood or organized labor I would buy, but those three examples don't seem to me particularly strong.

    True, that's why the Democratic Presidential candidates have all proposed plans reducing the TBTF banks, kicking Geithner out of the Treasury, and slashing the DOD budget.
    sabine 745 2012-04-13 22:47:26.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: True, that's why the Democratic Presidential candidates have all proposed plans reducing the TBTF banks, kicking Geithner out of the Treasury, and slashing the DOD budget.

    Here's a list of the most partisan "industries". Banks are actually on the "R" list (although that doesn't count investment banks, who are pretty bipartisan and float around a fair amount). Defense skews R (but is comparatively tiny).

    The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 00:33:47.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Here's a list of the most partisan "industries". Banks are actually on the "R" list (although that doesn't count investment banks, who are pretty bipartisan and float around a fair amount). Defense skews R (but is comparatively tiny).

    The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.


    Well, let's ignore investment banks and the RIAA. Good idea.
    sabine 745 2012-04-14 00:37:18.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Well, let's ignore investment banks and the RIAA. Good idea.

    I consider the RIAA part of "Hollywood". Investment banks seem to me equal opportunity politician purchasers.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 00:44:55.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I consider the RIAA part of "Hollywood". Investment banks seem to me equal opportunity politician purchasers.

    All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.
    sabine 745 2012-04-14 00:49:32.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.

    Sorry it sounded that way.

    Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 00:53:54.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Sorry it sounded that way.

    Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.


    Except you were responding to a similar post. Your partisanship is sad.
    sabine 745 2012-04-14 01:09:47.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Your partisanship is sad.

    How is suggesting that X, Y, and Z are stronger evidence for your case than A, B, and C are partisan?
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 02:16:12.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: How is suggesting that X, Y, and Z are stronger evidence for your case than A, B, and C are partisan?

    Because X, Y, and Z are "Democrats are better at balancing the budget and protecting our civil liberties" which is scant at best and insulting at worst.

    Sad.

    But really, enjoy your second Democratic administration. I am sure all your dreams will come true.
    someone who may or may not be So vote Democratic 2012-04-14 02:22:49.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.

    How dare someone else do that as that's your job.
    sabine 745 2012-04-14 10:02:29.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Because X, Y, and Z are "Democrats are better at balancing the budget and protecting our civil liberties" which is scant at best and insulting at worst.

    Umm, no, X, Y and Z were "labor unions, lawyers, and movie studios" as opposed to "commercial banks, investment banks, and defense contractors".
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 11:19:38.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Umm, no, X, Y and Z were "labor unions, lawyers, and movie studios" as opposed to "commercial banks, investment banks, and defense contractors".

    One word: Tim Geithner.
    code_7 6865 2012-04-14 11:43:12.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: One word: Tim Geithner.

    That is a very problematic word...

    And, I think GS is still putting a lot of money into the President's reelection bid.
    xomber 4626 2012-04-14 12:04:21.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?

    Last time I looked you could double NIH with 2% of the military budget.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 14:37:51.0 login to vote score 0
    xomber: Last time I looked you could double NIH with 2% of the military budget.

    And you can kill 100% of the military budget and still not close the deficit...
    xomber 4626 2012-04-14 15:16:17.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: And you can kill 100% of the military budget and still not close the deficit...

    But the price of cheese in China still is reasonable.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 15:37:26.0 login to vote score 0
    xomber: But the price of cheese in China still is reasonable.

    The deficit is quite relevant in my opinion, though I agree it is irrelevant to our leaders.
    sabine 745 2012-04-14 17:34:09.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: One word: Tim Geithner.

    Three equally important words: Gramm/Leach/Bliley. The political influence of the finance industry is bipartisan.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-14 23:45:24.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: Three equally important words: Gramm/Leach/Bliley. The political influence of the finance industry is bipartisan.

    And.... I never said it wasn't.
    sabine 745 2012-04-15 00:37:42.0 login to vote score -1
    so vote republican: And.... I never said it wasn't.

    You called me partisan for saying that.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-04-15 01:30:12.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: You called me partisan for saying that.

    Nope. I called believing that there was a significant difference in the parties with respect to it partisan.

    If you don't think the difference was significant I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
    If you logged in, you could post here.