Democrats Almost Unanimously Want Afghan Withdrawal

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;795673 wrote:It's hard to talk about withdrawing from Afghanistan when we are secretly bombing other Middle East countries. What does this make it, war #4? I thought Obama was hope and change and bringing the troops home, not starting even more conflicts in the ME? Liberals, what's going on?
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=2&hp

  
  Anyone that followed Obama's history on foreign policy knew he wasn't all about peace and love. I've said it time and time again, he is a Realist. (It's why I voted for him) He is not afraid to use force. He never said he would bring the troops home, just move them over the Afghanistan. He justified getting out of Iraq as it was distracting us from the real war.
  
  Honestly, other than Af/Pak, Yemen is the hot bed for terrorists, AQAP has launched several attacks against the U.S. So, drones and a covert war are fine with me as long as it keeps AQAP confined.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;796449 wrote:He's not the peace loving marxist liberal that QuakerOats pretends him to be that's what happened. Liberals were duped. He's a pragmatist.

  Perhaps so on a foreign policy front. Domestic policy? The Bammer is an obvious leftist.
  
  Instead of marching in the street and insisting that he return his Nobel Peace Prize, the anti-war flower children will still vote for him in 2012.
• BoatShoes

  believer;797153 wrote:Perhaps so on a foreign policy front. Domestic policy? The Bammer is an obvious leftist.
  
  Instead of marching in the street and insisting that he return his Nobel Peace Prize, the anti-war flower children will still vote for him in 2012.

  
  Just because his domestic polices are to the left of Murray Rothbard does not mean he is a "leftist." I've shown multiple times why this is this case but you refuse to see. The most left wing thing he has done would be the Healthcare Bill and that was more Conservative than Richard Nixon's healthcare plan and more fiscally responsible than the Socialist expansion of the welfare state done with the Medicare Prescript Drug Improvement and Modernization and Improvement Act passed by the Republicans in 2003 (even Paul Ryan voted for it, Gasp!). Because he desired a bump up in taxes from 35% up to 39.6% does not make him a leftist unless Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon are also all leftists. At what point are you going to bring evidence to the table as opposed to unsupported assertions? If a person is not a militant, fundamentalist, unwavering conservative on every issue it does not make them a leftist and yet more and more I'm seeing this from people on the right. Chris Christie can't even come out and say whether or not he believes in Evolution out of fear of being labeled a RINO! He recently came out and barely supported AGW and it was immediate calls of "Guess he's just another RINO! Support Palin!"
• jmog

  BoatShoes;794516 wrote:See now you're a smart guy but all you're demonstrating by saying that you're more upset about the 2009-2011 budget deficits is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of government deficit spending in normative orthodox economics. It is not the size of deficits that should be a concern but the when of deficits. The time you should be upset is when we are running deficits when we have 4% unemployment, not 9-10% in a liquidity trap with interest rates at the zero bound!
  
  And furthermore, you have to acknowledge that half of those deficits run by Obama are the result of cuts in revenue which is the desirable conservative fiscal policy!
  
  
  
  And this right here is why people like Footwedge don't take Conservatives seriously. Every Conservative I know has been like "Oh, well, I disagreed with Bush too..." but where was the anger???
  
  Footwedge is a Ron Paul guy and was all about TEA parties before it was cool to do so and Hannity started giving them coverage. I'm sure he's seen it for several decades. The average republican doesn't give a damn about deficits until they don't have the presidency. It is really that simple. In fact, because our country ran deficits at the wrong time, we lacked the political capital to have large enough deficits that would have actually have turned the recession around as opposed to merely prevent a depression. the 2009 budget deficit should have been twice as big.
  
  If Conservatives during the Bush years really had a problem with debt increases, when they had the Congress and the presidency they could have passed a law that required matching spending cuts if you're going to cut revenue. If they were really Conservative, they would not have put money on the credit card once they decided to drastically cut revenue in 2001. But no, the concern back then was "don't want to pay off the debt too fast" and "deficits don't matter, ask Ronny Reagan."
  
  
  
  If all these Conservatives want to say that they care about deficits, those tax cuts that they passed should have been offset by spending reductions. They always say that borrowing increases and spending increases ought to be offset by spending cuts. Well, the same ought to hold true for revenue cuts. Otherwise, revenue cuts do contribute to the deficit despite they're saying otherwise. I can virtually guarantee that neither Jmog nor Writerbuckeye were making these demands back then. And no Writer, most of Obama's fiscal stimulus was 1. Aid to States and 2. Cuts in Revenue! (what you love!) which is why Martin Feldstein came out against it because take relief is a bad stimulus! But, Obama doesn't have the political balls to tell Republicans that their lies are wrong and caves. Austan Goolsby just resigned and stated as much; how Obama and he's boys would not listen to economic sense because he didn't want to upset Republicans. What a joke! Don't sit here and act like you would have supported more socialist direct spending! C'mooooon!
  
  
  
  If we're to take you guys seriously, the 10 years of Afghan war that footwedge has been against from the start and now Writerbuckeye is pretending he was, should have been offset by spending cuts just like they're trying to do with the Debt ceiling now (which is insanity). But no, they make their living running deficits and then suddenly get mad when major deficit was finally justifiable
  
  Footwedge is onto you.
  
  Though I disagree with Footwedge's beliefs on Hard Money, etc. he and other paleo-conservatives are the only ones I will take seriously.
  
  And furthermore, though Footwedge has made it clear his distaste for Obama's policies, why would he constantly trump them up here when this place is an anti-Obama circle-jerk?? I'm sure he spends time around more libertarian sites where they share their contempt for Republicans and Democrats as a whole. If he wants to convince people toward his way of thinking, in this place anyway, would he not be better served to try and convince Conservatives of what he believes to be the error of their ways?

  
  Mr. Boatshoes, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
  
  
  Anyone can copy/paste some BS from a website.
  
  You can believe me that I was pissed about Bush's deficits or not believe me, I could give a rats behind. All I said is that the level of deficits don't compare. I was just as upset with Bush's fiscal actions as I am with Obamas.
  
  I am actually with you on the fact that "mainstream" republicans were/are just as bad fiscally as the democrats. You will not hear me argue with you on that.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog;797850 wrote:Mr. Boatshoes, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  
  2 points for the Billy Madison reference hahaha.
• Footwedge

  jmog;794294 wrote:Year-Budget Deficit
  2007-$167 billion
  2008-$459 billion
  2009-$1.7 trillion
  2010-$1.1 trillion
  2011-$972 billion
  
  You do realize that Obama took office in January of 2009 right? Please show me how the "levels" of deficits are remotely close.This year, the projected deficit is the lowest under Obama (partially due to talks in the repub House right now) and it is STILL twice the highest it ever was under Bush.
  
  Again, I hated Bush's deficit spending, but to even compare his levels to Obama's is laughable at best.

  Just as I thought....you don't understand when the fiscal years actually take place. 2/3 of the 2009 budget that you cited were under Bush's budget. I told you to watch what you spew....but you ignored my warning. Check your facts before you post next time.
• jmog

  Footwedge;798447 wrote:Just as I thought....you don't understand when the fiscal years actually take place. 2/3 of the 2009 budget that you cited were under Bush's budget. I told you to watch what you spew....but you ignored my warning. Check your facts before you post next time.

  
  And like I said, Bush was a moron fiscally as well as Obama, but so far the 2 don't compare.