Obama Failure Thread Part VI

Aaaaaaaaawwwwww. Poor widdle diddums is butthurt.

 

Arent you up past your bedtime?

 

Also from that article (emphasis mine)

I don't see the gotcha? assuming there was a gotcha...25% of our bridges being deficient is still kind of crazy to me

 

Especially since many if not most of them are now over 20 years more deficient.

A certain urgency on some of them would seem appropriate even if the overall numbers have improved.

 

I've always been upset that a CCC wasn't set up along with the unemployment extensions. With some localized exceptions, the workforce development and voc rehab aspect of unemployment has been a joke. A day or two a week of people showing they're actually ready and able to work would have gone a long way.

 

You'll have to take the time to explain to me why highway fatality reductions have anything to do with the state of our roadways and not everything to do with seat belts, airbags, child seats, and better car design. Also, the article itself does not discuss bridge analysis - how many of those bridges are inspected every year? If not all, are they sampled randomly?

 

This is where you big government types are so damn sneaky. You first say, "we don't want your cars, we just want a simple regulation that people who make cars have to provide seat belts." Then we head down the slippery slope (hindered by those damn anti-lock brakes you make us have) and before you know it, we are required to wear the damn things and you even MANDATE that we go out and buy ANOTHER seat for our babies when there is a perfectly good seat already in the car -- a seat that will hold 9 or 10 babies and not just one (if we weren't required to strap em down.) And you don't want us to believe that next you will be taking our cars away! How in God's name will we stand up to the US army tanks rolling down our streets if we can't meet them head on with our Hyundai Sonatas? The Tree of Liberty must be watered with 10W 30 from time to time.

 

What's the mystery? Libertarians hate public works projects. If we were meant to have good roads, the invisible hand of the market would build them for us.

 

It is an Obama failure that people don't know this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, every living thing at Fox News including the rodents (yes I am referring to Hannity). They all say that Obama ONLY talks about raising taxes. That he is a one trick pony and that he never talks about specific cuts. That he got his tax cuts and now he is not giving the promised spending cuts but wants only higher taxes.

He has cut a ton of spending. Government employment has gone way down. The tax cuts he got were a third of the spending cuts (not counting the war savings.) So, if there is to be more deficit reduction than it should be another mix of cuts and revenues.

The funny thing is that the republicans ENTIRE message for the entire Obama presidency is spending cuts, and then they complain that Obama is cutting. It's their frickin issue.

 

If your point is that government construction projects are not perfect, ergo government sucks, then that argument is beneath you. If your argument is that Warmth contributes to bad construction projects...

 

I have no problem with drone surveillance any more than satellite surveillance and if we were asked there at the bequest of the Nigerese government then there's nothing illegal about it. Bombing is a problem; surveillance is an integral part of espionage and always will be. The key word in your sentence is "unarmed" and I think calling someone a war criminal for flying unarmed aircraft in a country with the consent of the host country is poorly-worded at best and flat-out ignorant at worst.

 

Bailing out the banks did that.

Not really tax credits yes, but not tax cuts.

remember the tax money does not belong to the government it belongs to the people so cutting taxes just means the government taking less money from the people, it does not equate to giving free money to people.

But I do agree the Obama-Bush tax cuts did not help the economy as much as Republicans claim they do.

That is why we should have fully repealed the full bush-Obama tax cuts.

Well they did pay it all back, so it was a soft loan (low interest rates). So it was not free money for the banks.

 

Mostly to help the French in Mali (a good thing) but yes if we start hell firing missiles with out UN sanction and or African Union sanction then it is bad.

Well I assume we will hellfire some people here and there.

 

I know that Brummie has pointed out that you apparently either did not read the article you posted or do not understand what is actually happening in Nigeria but let's assume that you're still ranting about any drone programs in general.

Yeah, how dare Obama actually try to fight terrorism intelligently by replacing Bush's failed ground occupation against the wrong target with a program that actually hits terrorists at an incredibly lower cost in terms of money and human lives?

Bush and the PNAC lied to the world in order to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians by invading and occupying the wrong country among many other outrages and that's apparently OK with you. Obama kills approximately 1,400 civilians while actually hitting AQ and Taliban terrorists and suddenly he's Augusto Pinochet, Suharto and Fernando Romeo Lucas García all rolled into one. Nice false equivalence there, Matt.

Well, you take solace in the fact that Osama bin Laden agreed with you that the US should stop all drones strikes:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-16/...rone-strikes-year-bin-bin-laden?_s=PM:OPINION

Or are you upset that Obama has done a better job with drones than Bush did? According to The New America Foundation analysis of the drone campaign in Pakistan found that:

"-- The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%.

-- Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been rising over the life of the drone program. The number of militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush."

At the end of the day, this is one of the best takes I've seen yet on the whole drone argument. I highly recommend that people on all sides of the debate read this one in full:

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-s...e-attacks?tmpl=component&layout=default&page=

We need a reasonable increase in checks and transparency in AUMF. I don't see anyone in P&CE arguing against more checks and transparency. But drones themselves are still the best answer we have in dealing with terrorists right now. You can say that "trade" or sports and cultural contacts will help reduce terrorism and maybe they can in the very long run but they're not much of an answer for anyone who belongs to the Church of What's Happening Now.

If it makes you feel better, I have found one excellent argument for being against drones, namely that Charles Krauthammer is for them:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinio...cle_f1eec5b5-32d0-5d1f-8c8f-c395b9710aef.html

You mean these liberals?

http://www.examiner.com/list/top-12...pose-president-obama-s-drone-kill-list-policy

Then again, maybe you should ask this guy. He seems to think "liberals" hate drones:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...-critics-of-drone-standards-are-simply-wrong/

Of course, there's this reaction from the best news source in the country:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/jon-stewart-obama-drone-memos_n_2741018.html

On a more serious note:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

That said:

When will you libertarians stand up to the insanity and hypocrisy of Ron Paul?

When will you libertarians stop acting as shills for the interests of the top 0.01% of the population against the rest of us?

Some related questions:

When will 'conservatives' stand up to Grover Norquist and also the racists and religious extremists in their midst?

When will all the wingnuts who cheered as Bush ran roughshod over civil liberties in the wake of 9/11, including signing AUMF way back in 2001, and only suddenly started crying about AUMF and drones once Obama took office admit that their opposition to drone attacks is motivated by partisan party politics and not on any concerns about civil rights?

When will all the wingnuts who cheered on Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and subsequent deficit spending when it was unneeded and suddenly became deficit hawks in January 2009 admit that their bleating about deficit spending that has actually done good for our economy is motivated by partisan party politics and not on any concerns about fiscal responsibility?

 

Point of order: in a democracy (and last I looked, we're still busily telling the rest of the world we're a participatory democracy) the government IS the people. Ergo, tax money is still owned by the people. Or do you believe that we are really ruled by a foreign power?

 

Oh no! It's the BIG ONE! I'm coming to see you, Elizabeth! Oh...my heart.....
*hopefully, you're old enough for a Fred Sanford joke.

 

Well this is fine for communist people like you, but some crazy people think that their money belongs to them not to the government (aka the people).

 

I'd think a capitalist running dog like you would have no problems separating "ownership" and "control". Or are you some kind of crypto-bolshevik who doesn't own any stocks?

 

Well it that is the difference then, when government cuts taxes people like you think that is the government giving money to the people. As a capitalist dog I disagree.