The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

I think its great to see so many people politically motivated for what is hopefully the right reasons, even if I disagree with their positions. That is if I could figure out what those positions were. The dude from FreedomWorks who was one of the organizers of the event said 450K and I'd take that number at their word.

Ah yes, people stand for nothing when it's not wailing on George W. Bush's policies. I get it.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I know she is a columnist, and here writing an op-ed piece, but why is it that liberals and thier supports inthe msm (and by that I mean almost all the msm) are always the first ones to interject race into everything?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

 

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

 

You know, when Obama said in his speech "It's a lie, plain and simple", maybe I heard a few unspoken words too, like "It's a lie, plain and simple, you honkey mo-fo!"

[StrangeSox]

Ah yes, I'm sure it's some f***ing conspiracy. GMAFB.

 

Wait, which way is the conspiracy going?

 

The only source for the 2M number was a Malkin blog post of a twitter. This is why I hate twitters and blogs.

[Rex Kickass]

Ah yes, people stand for nothing when it's not wailing on George W. Bush's policies. I get it.

 

Actually, I didn't say they don't stand for anything. I just didn't exactly see a singular cause that brought out people. If it wasn't healthcare, it was the bailout, or the deficit, or this, or that.

 

What I'm saying is that they don't exactly have a specific agenda that they are pushing - at least as far as I can see.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, I didn't say they don't stand for anything. I just didn't exactly see a singular cause that brought out people. If it wasn't healthcare, it was the bailout, or the deficit, or this, or that.

 

What I'm saying is that they don't exactly have a specific agenda that they are pushing - at least as far as I can see.

The main theme is, too much government (or more specifically, too much spending by government). Then of course there are any number of offshoot themes orbiting around that.

 

[BigSqwert]

The main theme is, too much government (or more specifically, too much spending by government). Then of course there are any number of offshoot themes orbiting around that.

Which is why it's funny. Where were these people 11 months ago?

Edited September 14, 2009 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is why it's funny. Where were these people 11 months ago?

I'm not sure I'd say its funny, I think its a good thing. But I agree with you that a lot of people making a lot of noise about it now, didn't seem to care when it was the Republicans spending too much money, or when we decided to go into a pointless $1T war.

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm not sure I'd say its funny, I think its a good thing.

I say it's funny because it's obviously a disguise for being ultra-partisan. It's only an outrage if there's a "D" after the President's title. But I guess it works both ways.

[NorthSideSox72]

I say it's funny because it's obviously a disguise for being ultra-partisan. It's only an outrage if there's a "D" after the President's title. But I guess it works both ways.

It does work both ways, and for some of them, it is indeed about being stupidly partisan. That doesn't mean its everyone, and it doesn't mean the root cause isn't something worth attention. We can't keep spending like this without seriously jeapordizing the future for everyone.

 

[southsider2k5]

I say it's funny because it's obviously a disguise for being ultra-partisan. It's only an outrage if there's a "D" after the President's title. But I guess it works both ways.

 

The same people who were saying the deficits were too big at $300 billion are now saying $2 trillion is OK, so yes, it works both ways.

[NorthSideSox72]

The same people who were saying the deficits were too big at $300 billion are now saying $2 trillion is OK, so yes, it works both ways.

I'm not sure I've seen any of those. They probably exist, but I haven't seen or heard such a thing. The Dems who were being overly partisan in the past usually chose other issues to complain about.

 

[EvilMonkey]

 

 

 

 

Oops? NY office also 'busted'. "Honesty is not gonna get you the house!"

[WilliamTell]

Something "big" is supposed to come out tomorrow involving ACORN. That's what some people on Hannity said tonight. We'll see if and what tomorrow.

[kapkomet]

Something "big" is supposed to come out tomorrow involving ACORN. That's what some people on Hannity said tonight. We'll see if and what tomorrow.

Meh.

 

The Senate cut off some of their funding. Little Dick Durbin voted against this.

 

[Balta1701]

Meh.

 

The Senate cut off some of their funding. Little Dick Durbin voted against this.

I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world.

[kapkomet]

I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world.

Why do you have our country so much? Gees. The banks (almost) DESTROYED THE WORLD! OMG LOLERZ!

 

But Barackus the Great "saved" us. He "brought us from the brink". LMAO.

 

Kaperbole ™.

[southsider2k5]

I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world.

 

Then again if we fought wars to win, instead of for the press, like we should, there would be no need for groups to operate outside of the functions of the US government.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world.

Agree on the first, disagree on the second. Why on earth would a bank want to destroy the world?

 

[Cknolls]

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/14/senat...-housing-funds/

 

 

Burris and Durbin, representing OUR interests. What a joke and embarrassment to Illinois.

[lostfan]

Then again if we fought wars to win, instead of for the press, like we should, there would be no need for groups to operate outside of the functions of the US government.

We do fight wars to win. The press (global press) gets in the way. Which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. It enforces positive behavior when war criminals and such are exposed, but the hyperbole and untruths mean the military has to play to the public and at times be risk-averse.

[Balta1701]

Why on earth would a bank want to destroy the world?

G.S. made a killing at it

[chunk23]

We use Xe to do our fighting because that provides plausible deniability when they commit war crimes and atrocities. The increased privatization also is largely because of people like Cheney and his connections with Halliburton.

[NorthSideSox72]

We use Xe to do our fighting because that provides plausible deniability when they commit war crimes and atrocities. The increased privatization also is largely because of people like Cheney and his connections with Halliburton.

Partially true on the second, but the first sentence has very little basis in reality. And I've done some reading on Blackwater and other companies of that ilk, as well as talked to people who have been around them on the ground in Iraq. The primary reasons for using them, in order of importance, in my experience, are:

 

1. Simple personnel math - without a draft or a much larger armed forces, as we are engaged in two major conflicts, we needed to take on more boots to make it work, and the answer was was these guys.

 

2. The political implications of having fewer actual military forces on the ground are better.

 

3. Contractors are a lot easier to take on and let go.

 

4. These private contractors could do things that fell between the legal cracks (this is sort of like your first sentence, but not exactly).

 

5. These private contractors could do the work for cheaper.

 

[chunk23]

Private contractors definitely don't work for cheaper. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mercenary.htm

 

The reason former soldiers become PMCs is because they can earn up to 400% of what they made in the military.

 

http://www.bushleagueofnations.com/chapter...Nations-Ch7.pdf

 

 

The increased use of PMCs is because they can get away with a lot more legally, they provide plausible deniability, and the further merging of the MIC into the goverment and the corruption that comes with it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Private contractors definitely don't work for cheaper. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mercenary.htm

 

The reason former soldiers become PMCs is because they can earn up to 400% of what they made in the military.

 

http://www.bushleagueofnations.com/chapter...Nations-Ch7.pdf

 

 

The increased use of PMCs is because they can get away with a lot more legally, they provide plausible deniability, and the further merging of the MIC into the goverment and the corruption that comes with it.

You are making a false assumption. You are thinking that because the individual contractor makes more money than they do as a soldier, that means they cost more. The opposite is true. Soldiers are paid very little, but the expense TO GOVERNMENT is much higher because of all the various overhead associated with the military generally. The contractors don't have that burden, so the companies can pay their folks more, but pay a metric f***ton less for the overall delivery of service, and thereby charge the government less.