Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on February 22, 2008, 01:43:44 PM
-
During tonight's debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:
You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon--supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
The truth:
The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.
Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.
The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.
"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."
He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.
As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.
At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed."
What ammunition?
40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.")
"We weren't able to train in the way we needed to train," he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.
They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.
We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."
So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.
Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.
"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."
"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.
The problem with all of this. Obama made it seem like it happened last week or still going on. It was 2003-2004. We were invading Iraq. Nobody had up armored humvess..nobody. There was no threat. Its only in the last 2 years have IEDs been a major problem or (bigger anyway) in Afghanistan anyway. Everybody uses Hilux trucks....everybody. Everybody is short of men. These guys were pulled for Iraq..so what. None of this matters..what matters is that Obama made it seem like it was last week.
-
I really hope this guy does not become Commander in Chief.
-
There's a good chance, either him or hillary and the crying game. Unless McCain stops looking like a toad.
-
The other thing this illustrates his how naive to the militray and its workings his campaign is. How many people had pass this up the chain to make it to his talking points. If I were him, with his record or lack there of, I'd make damm sure I understood how the Services work. Even just to be able to accurately relate this story. Captains don't command platoons..units don't use captured weapon as a day to day thing. Unless ur SOF, a normal anal Infantry unit Cdr would go ballistic if he saw guys using AKs on a regular basis. We'd also have heard this story before.
As a Tanker, we have M16-A2's. They are pretty hard to stash in a Tank. We came across some Marines that had found a stash of AK's (in the airborne configuration) with folding stocks. We grabed some and used em as we pushed toward Bagdad. We got rid of them as soon as more of the HQ elements caught up to the line units. This happened all over the place with tankers. The grunts had priority with 5.56 and we have 240-s that fire 7.62. It worked but u can't get away with shit like this unless ur in heavy combat because, again, the regualr army is anal as hell.
-
When Obama answered this question he specifically noted that it was when Afghanistan resources were diverted to the Iraq war. Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together would have realized this was a few years ago. The purpose of the story was to point out how Bush's poor judgement has affected the country. He actually ended the anecdote by noting that he advocated different policies over the past few years.
From HH's link:
The problem with all of this. Obama made it seem like it happened last week or still going on. It was 2003-2004. We were invading Iraq. Nobody had up armored humvess..nobody. There was no threat. Its only in the last 2 years have IEDs been a major problem or (bigger anyway) in Afghanistan anyway. Everybody uses Hilux trucks....everybody. Everybody is short of men. These guys were pulled for Iraq..so what. None of this matters..what matters is that Obama made it seem like it was last week.
WRONG.
From the captain's interview:
"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."
then there's this:
""we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.""
and this:
-
The other thing this illustrates his how naive to the militray and its workings his campaign is. How many people had pass this up the chain to make it to his talking points. If I were him, with his record or lack there of, I'd make damm sure I understood how the Services work. Even just to be able to accurately relate this story. Captains don't command platoons..units don't use captured weapon as a day to day thing. Unless ur SOF, a normal anal Infantry unit Cdr would go ballistic if he saw guys using AKs on a regular basis. We'd also have heard this story before.
As a Tanker, we have M16-A2's. They are pretty hard to stash in a Tank. We came across some Marines that had found a stash of AK's (in the airborne configuration) with folding stocks. We grabed some and used em as we pushed toward Bagdad. We got rid of them as soon as more of the HQ elements caught up to the line units. This happened all over the place with tankers. The grunts had priority with 5.56 and we have 240-s that fire 7.62. It worked but u can't get away with shit like this unless ur in heavy combat because, again, the regualr army is anal as hell.
I agree. He at least needs to be able to speak the language.
-
Very few units train with 40mm....they fam fire and thats it. Nobody had up-armored humvee's going into Iraq. There are guys from 10th Mountain, who was in charge over there at that time, roasting this guy. Um shit breaks....shit breaks all the time...I guess he just threw his mechanics under the bus. If that was his point he could have easily made it with an accurate annecdote. I think his point was not that this happened years ago but that Iraq has diverted resources period. He never gave a time frame..making it seem that this was a recent story.
-
I think his point was not that this happened years ago but that Iraq has diverted resources period. He never gave a time frame..making it seem that this was a recent story.
Then you didn't watch the debate. Unfortunately , the only 3 clips I could find posted on youtube are from people pushing a rightwing agenda, so unfortunately they are edited accordingly and out of context. But if you watch until the end of this one minute clip, you will get a better idea of what his point actually is.
Furthermore, a story about the taliban and diverting troops to iraq really doesn't require that he give a timeframe. More people would probably assume that it was an older story. A lot of people are unaware that that war is still going on.
-
I agree. He at least needs to be able to speak the language.
Yeah, 'cause all of our other presidents have done it so well? ::)
-
Just write in Ron Paul on the ballot, when you vote. ;D
-
Just write in Ron Paul on the ballot, when you vote. ;D
I'll have to see his scores on the ASVAB first.
-
Yeah, 'cause all of our other presidents have done it so well? ::)
I see. Prior faults justify present faults. ::)
-
I'll have to see his scores on the ASVAB first.
He's a doctor and was already in the military so I gues she would do better then the rest if he took one.
But anyway, you guys think that all presidents should have some military experience? I think so.
-
I see. Prior faults justify present faults. ::)
Didn't hear you join in the gripe-fest before? it's not like Bush didn't provide the opportunity for you to share this nugget before..... ::)
-
He's a doctor and was already in the military so I gues she would do better then the rest if he took one.
But anyway, you guys think that all presidents should have some military experience? I think so.
Lincoln and FDRoosevelt...the two greatest....did not have "military experience."
-
Didn't hear you join in the gripe-fest before? it's not like Bush didn't provide the opportunity for you to share this nugget before..... ::)
So what. This thread isn't about Bush. Or me. ::)
-
So what. This thread isn't about Bush. Or me. ::)
Everything you say says something about you.
Based on my posts about Obama, et al., people call me arrogant, hot-headed, one-sided, etc...and they're right to an extent.
You on the other hand have apparently mastered the "art" of being perfectly detached. How wonderful for us! ::)
-
Lincoln and FDRoosevelt...the two greatest....did not have "military experience."
The greatest according to you and a few other people who may study history, but it's just opinion.
Don't you think that having an actual experience in something might make you think things through a little more?
Example. Bush had actual war experience, he might not be dragging this war on forever or he might not even have sent the troops to Iraq on the info he had, etc... because he was in "the shit" or at least had some training.
-
Everything you say says something about you.
Based on my posts about Obama, et al., people call me arrogant, hot-headed, one-sided, etc...and they're right to an extent.
You on the other hand have apparently mastered the "art" of being perfectly detached. How wonderful for us! ::)
Not necessarily. Even if everything you said did say something about you, the topic of the thread is Obama.
I would add "Grammar Nazi" to that list. :)
I am NOT detached. I am quite upset that my view of the airport, mountains, and ocean has been obstructed by vog all day. Stupid volcano. >:(
-
The greatest according to you and a few other people who may study history, but it's just opinion.
Don't you think that having an actual experience in something might make you think things through a little more?
Example. Bush had actual war experience, he might not be dragging this war on forever or he might not even have sent the troops to Iraq on the info he had, etc... because he was in "the shit" or at least had some training.
It's not just opinion. That's being too subjective.
And having experience with war doesn't mean that you'll automatically be more prudent.
I have a close relative who did a tour with the Marine Corps in Iraq last year, and he came back all "pumped up" and ready to do it again. That's his "temperament" or whatever you want to call it.
Who knows what impact real military service would have had on Bush?....it might have made him more hawkish....
USGRant knew how to beat Lee (a great general, and a great man), but he was a lousy fuckin president.
-
Not necessarily. Even if everything you said did say something about you, the topic of the thread is Obama.
This thread is not just about Obama....it's also about posters' attitudes towards him.
If I came on here, and I felt that there was some degree of objectivity, I would be much more laid-back.
But there's something in the way you and some other people talk about him that doesn't sit right with me. I can't tell if people respond the way they do because of his race, or because of his relative youth, or because of his success.... It's not as obvious with you, but that might be because you're more sophisticated than our friend HH6.
-
This thread is not just about Obama....it's also about posters' attitudes towards him.
If I came on here, and I felt that there was some degree of objectivity, I would be much more laid-back.
But there's something in the way you and some other people talk about him that doesn't set right with me. I can't tell if people respond the way they do because of his race, or because of his relative youth, or because of his success.... It's not as obvious with you, but that might be because you're more sophisticated than our friend HH6.
Headhunter is a smart, educated patriot.
I don't believe anyone mentioned Obama's race in this thread. I was talking about his lack of military experience and how he sounded pretty bad when talking about the military. That only highlights his lack of experience. But my main problem with him isn't his lack of experience, it's his ideas. He's really not a friend of the business community. He wants to play class warfare. I think he's a borderline socialist.
-
Headhunter is a smart, educated patriot.
We'll have to disagree on that. I thought he was fine, until he made his ridiculous posts about Obama's name, relatives, and "endorsements"....then I realized that his America has very little in common with mine. Also, what "smart" person thinks like that?
I don't believe anyone mentioned Obama's race in this thread.
Maybe it's just the general tone of the place. There's like a thousand "No one will vote for a black" posts on the G&O.
I was talking about his lack of military experience and how he sounded pretty bad when talking about the military. That only highlights his lack of experience.
There's no "experience" that prepares you for being president. See Herbert Hoover......
But my main problem with him isn't his lack of experience, it's his ideas. He's really not a friend of the business community. He wants to play class warfare. I think he's a borderline socialist.
I really don't understand this perspective. I've worked hard to get where I am, and I'm not about to let someone take what I've earned away from me. But I will invest in our future...a better-educated/healthier population ultimately means more $ in my pockets.
-
I'll have to see his scores on the ASVAB first.
RP = Army captain or something like that, right?
-
We'll have to disagree on that. I thought he was fine, until he made his ridiculous posts about Obama's name, relatives, and "endorsements"....then I realized that his America has very little in common with mine. Also, what "smart" person thinks like that?
Maybe it's just the general tone of the place. There's like a thousand "No one will vote for a black" posts on the G&O.
There's no "experience" that prepares you for being president. See Herbert Hoover......
I really don't understand this perspective. I've worked hard to get where I am, and I'm not about to let someone take what I've earned away from me. But I will invest in our future...a better-educated/healthier population ultimately means more $ in my pockets.
Headhunter is a college graduate, is serving his country, and has served in combat. He gets major (so to speak) props in my book. If you can't respect what he has done and is doing for your country then you have a problem.
Saying "no one" will vote for a half black man is an overstatement, but I've said many times his ethnic background will prevent him from being president. We'll have to see how this plays out, but we still have race issues in this country.
I think a person with military experience is better suited to be Commander in Chief than someone who has never served.
If you don't want someone taking what you have earned, then why support Obama? Haven't you been listening to him? He is all about redistribution of wealth, like any big government liberal. He wants to "roll back" tax cuts for "the wealthy." He wants to raise taxes on businesses too. He wants to give as much government money (i.e., our tax dollars) to as many people as possible. He wants a government takeover of the entire healthcare system.
I don't have a problem with investing in our future, but we already do that. If we didn't write a single new law or change any existing laws everyone in this country would still have unlimited potential. What we need (at least me anyway) is for the government to stay out of our way as much as possible, unless it's performing necessary services (e.g., defense, public safety, roads, etc.).
-
Obama's claim being questioned. http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/22/military-questions-obamas-claim-that-under-equipped-troops-used-taliban-weapons/
-
his ethnic background will prevent him from being president. We'll have to see how this plays out, but we still have race issues in this country.
Independents are ignoring his ethnic background and choosing him in the primaries.
Democrats are choosing him over Hilary 2 to 1 in the last ten primaries. (33% margin of victory)
They're ignoring his ethnic background so far.
I think a person with military experience is better suited to be Commander in Chief than someone who has never served.
Why did you vote for Clinton over Bush 1 and Dole?
-
There's a good chance, either him or hillary and the crying game. Unless McCain stops looking like a toad.
I watched that debate. All I could do was cringe as Obama continued on all night with his "ideology". We're in DEEP DOO DOO if this man becomes president. :(
-
The other thing this illustrates his how naive to the militray and its workings his campaign is.
Throw in Economy, Polity, and Society as well. The guy will be worse than Bush.
Total lack of knowledge, and his wife lacks self respect for America "I'm finally proud of what America has become"
-
I watched that debate. All I could do was cringe as Obama continued on all night with his "ideology". We're in DEEP DOO DOO if this man becomes president. :(
mccain admits he knows jack shit about the economy.
so we're fuct either way.
-
mccain admits he knows jack shit about the economy.
so we're fuct either way.
His words? If so is that not a good thing? He will have the best advisors the House can staff. Question, that is a plus suppose you don't know about something, are you not going to ask for the best help possible?
-
mccain admits he knows jack shit about the economy.
so we're fuct either way.
An intelligent cabinet (perhaps Ron Paul overseeing the dinero?) remedies that situation. Not exactly rocket science.
-
I'd like to once again thank calmus for calling me ignorant. Can u lefties do anything more then call people names....I have yet to see u post one argument for Obama beyond his own bs message of hope and change. This thread was about what Obama said. Ur in the minority if u thought that people think he ment 5-6 years agao. It was not presented like that at all. Further, since ur attacking me continually, what exactly are ur credentials. Education level/job experience etc. If u don't want to tell us, fine but don't attack mine.
-
Can u lefties do anything more then call people names
kinda poor etiquette to call someone out for calling names... and call them a name in the same sentence.
-
IMO, HH6 is very right - Obama doesn't have experience and his plans are theory at best.
His strength is that he's a good decision maker.
He can surround himself with the best and most experienced thinkers in the country.
But his ability to MAKE DECISIONS is what matters most.
JFK made the decision to back down when USSR set up missiles in our backyard, compromising turkish assets 6 months later quietly to save face and diffuse the cuba standoff. That was good decision making, espesically as the groupthink military men around him sat there in a bunker with hard-ons, begging him to launch on russia.
The ability to make good decisions is what I want most in a leader.
Obama can make good decisions. I don't think anyone can deny that, can they?
-
His words? If so is that not a good thing? He will have the best advisors the House can staff. Question, that is a plus suppose you don't know about something, are you not going to ask for the best help possible?
Ron PAul made McCain look like a tool when he asked him a simple question about the Plunge Protection Team at a debate. McCain admits to knowing little about the economy and then in other rally's said he is very well versed on the economy. I guess that means he's somewhere in the middle? ::) Just like everything else he talks about, his knowledge on stuff depends on when and where he was at the time.
-
An intelligent cabinet (perhaps Ron Paul overseeing the dinero?) remedies that situation. Not exactly rocket science.
Ron Paul would never work with McCain, they are complete opposites and it goes against most of what he believes in.
-
Independents are ignoring his ethnic background and choosing him in the primaries.
Democrats are choosing him over Hilary 2 to 1 in the last ten primaries. (33% margin of victory)
They're ignoring his ethnic background so far.
Why did you vote for Clinton over Bush 1 and Dole?
Bush Sr. lost me when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Plus I thought Clinton overall was a better candidate. Same with Dole. Clinton was overall a better candidate IMO.
Why did you lie, repeatedly, about voting for Bush Sr.?
-
I watched that debate. All I could do was cringe as Obama continued on all night with his "ideology". We're in DEEP DOO DOO if this man becomes president. :(
Yep. Deep kim chee too.
-
Ron PAul made McCain look like a tool when he asked him a simple question about the Plunge Protection Team at a debate. McCain admits to knowing little about the economy and then in other rally's said he is very well versed on the economy. I guess that means he's somewhere in the middle? ::) Just like everything else he talks about, his knowledge on stuff depends on when and where he was at the time.
Wow interesting Ron Paul brought up PPT, wow everyone is in shock and awe. McCain could and should care less about PPT, he won't be the one looking at ticker tapes throughout the day. You said it yourself he is well versed on the economy, do you even know how the white house works? I'll put it to you this way it is like a business and not all CEOs know everything that is why they hire people to fill in the gaps sherlock.
-
Wow interesting Ron Paul brought up PPT, wow everyone is in shock and awe. McCain could and should care less about PPT, he won't be the one looking at ticker tapes throughout the day. You said it yourself he is well versed on the economy, do you even know how the white house works? I'll put it to you this way it is like a business and not all CEOs know everything that is why they hire people to fill in the gaps sherlock.
I didnt say McCain had to be on the trading floor. You think that it wouldn't be important for someone who wants to be president to even know what the PPT is or does? ok. ::)
By the way, I didn't say Mccain was well versed on the economy, I'm telling you what he said about himself, but his own opinion of his own knowledge on the matter of economics changes like the weather.
I aslo think the federal government should do as little as possible to manage the economy, they only fuck things up
-
Bush Sr. lost me when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Plus I thought Clinton overall was a better candidate. Same with Dole. Clinton was overall a better candidate IMO.
Why did you lie, repeatedly, about voting for Bush Sr.?
I was too young to vote for Bush Sr, I was only in high school. But I certainly did support him.
Being a 2-time liberal voter like you are, your opinion on republican standpoints is very skewed. You support neocon agenda now - you don't really understand Reagan conservatism.
You're a lib in wolf's clothing, BB.
-
I watched that debate. All I could do was cringe as Obama continued on all night with his "ideology". We're in DEEP DOO DOO if this man becomes president. :(
frankly i donno how much more deeper doo doo could be in with our current situation. But it's all in how you look at it, like a roman caesar handing out grain to quite down the riots.
BOHICA
- it will be 1980 all over again.
-
Yep. Deep kim chee too.
That was the first full debate that I got to see. Sen. Clinton schooled Sen. Obama, in my opinion. He's very empty.
-
Headhunter is a college graduate, is serving his country, and has served in combat. He gets major (so to speak) props in my book. If you can't respect what he has done and is doing for your country then you have a problem.
So getting a degree from Degreemill U and serving in combat mean that you can't be a bigot? Hmmm...interesting. If you support him after his ridiculous assertions about Obama's name and religion, you're the one with the "problem."
I think a person with military experience is better suited to be Commander in Chief than someone who has never served.
Based on what? FDRoosevelt did more than fine during the most serious war our country has ever fought.
If you don't want someone taking what you have earned, then why support Obama? Haven't you been listening to him? He is all about redistribution of wealth, like any big government liberal. He wants to "roll back" tax cuts for "the wealthy." He wants to raise taxes on businesses too. He wants to give as much government money (i.e., our tax dollars) to as many people as possible. He wants a government takeover of the entire healthcare system.
His health care plan, if implemented, will be a boon to American business because it will lower premiums overall. Do you realize how crippling to American business health care costs are? The premiums are so high because we have to pay for the costs of providing care to the uninsured.
The uninsured do not get care until it's too "late," in that it's much more expensive to fix something that's broken. Better to have a plan that allows preventive care.
Unlike michael Moore's fantasies, most hospitals do not turn away people who need life-saving procedures. They usually do the procedure and pass the cost on to those who can afford it. Like businesses.
About taxes. He said he will reverse Bush's tax cuts, which will put us back at Clinton's level. My dad has been an oncologist for the last 24 years. I never once heard him complain about taxes during Clinton's presidency.....so I don't foresee a crippling tax burden under Obama.
Corporations can do a million different things to reduce their tax burden (I know this because of the work I do). I'm not worried about them.
I don't have a problem with investing in our future, but we already do that. If we didn't write a single new law or change any existing laws everyone in this country would still have unlimited potential. What we need (at least me anyway) is for the government to stay out of our way as much as possible, unless it's performing necessary services (e.g., defense, public safety, roads, etc.).
This is extremely naive. I don't even know where to begin.
-
I was too young to vote for Bush Sr, I was only in high school. But I certainly did support him.
O Rly?
Quote
I voted for Bush, Dole, Bush2, and Bush2. i also voted for Jeb once or twice in my state.
Quote from: 240 is Back on October 15, 2007, 06:29:04 PM
I voted for Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush. yes, I'm a repub.
Why did you say you voted for Bush Sr. if you were only 16 when he was elected?
-
So getting a degree from Degreemill U and serving in combat mean that you can't be a bigot? Hmmm...interesting. If you support him after his ridiculous assertions about Obama's name and religion, you're the one with the "problem."
Based on what? FDRoosevelt did more than fine during the most serious war our country has ever fought.
His health care plan, if implemented, will be a boon to American business because it will lower premiums overall. Do you realize how crippling to American business health care costs are? The premiums are so high because we have to pay for the costs of providing care to the uninsured.
The uninsured do not get care until it's too "late," in that it's much more expensive to fix something that's broken. Better to have a plan that allows preventive care.
Unlike michael Moore's fantasies, most hospitals do not turn away people who need life-saving procedures. They usually do the procedure and pass the cost on to those who can afford it. Like businesses.
About taxes. He said he will reverse Bush's tax cuts, which will put us back at Clinton's level. My dad has been an oncologist for the last 24 years. I never once heard him complain about taxes during Clinton's presidency.....so I don't foresee a crippling tax burden under Obama.
Corporations can do a million different things to reduce their tax burden (I know this because of the work I do). I'm not worried about them.
This is extremely naive. I don't even know where to begin.
Degreemillu..I went to the oldest private Military school in the the country. I have a masters and working on number 2..again u haven't a clue what ur taking about. . Maybe u have alot of white guilt and feel u need to vote for Obama. He was a muslim...was...I don't have to like him dumbass. I also don't have to like paying for everybodies health care. If u don't work hard and can't afford healthcare...thats not my problem. Maybe if ur buddy Edwards wasn't sueing for everything and lawsuits were capped, American business wouldn't have to shell out billions for healthcare. Maybe if the average American wasn't an overweight lardball, they wouldn't need so much healthcare. Again not my problem. This guy will bankrupt us. My parents weren't doctors so maybe they didn't feel the same about Bill and his taxes. Thats a great example by the way...my dad was a well established doctor so he didn't mind the extra taxes. ::)
-
Degreemillu..I went to the oldest private Military school in the the country. I have a masters and working on number 2..again u haven't a clue what ur taking about. . Maybe u have alot of white guilt and feel u need to vote for Obama. He was a muslim...was...I don't have to like him dumbass. I also don't have to like paying for everybodies health care. If u don't work hard and can't afford healthcare...thats not my problem. Maybe if ur buddy Edwards wasn't sueing for everything and lawsuits were capped, American business wouldn't have to shell out billions for healthcare. Maybe if the average American wasn't an overweight lardball, they wouldn't need so much healthcare. Again not my problem. This guy will bankrupt us. My parents weren't doctors so maybe they didn't feel the same about Bill and his taxes. Thats a great example by the way...my dad was a well established doctor so he didn't mind the extra taxes. ::)
Thats seems to be a problem............A republican problem. ::)
-
Paying more money for worthless people is not my problem.....I'm not paying for a socialist utopia.
-
His words? If so is that not a good thing? He will have the best advisors the House can staff. Question, that is a plus suppose you don't know about something, are you not going to ask for the best help possible?
Bush promised us the best advisors as well back in 2000. We all saw how that worked.
-
Paying more money for worthless people is not my problem.....I'm not paying for a socialist utopia.
Thats what youve been doing for 8 years.... ::)
-
That was the first full debate that I got to see. Sen. Clinton schooled Sen. Obama, in my opinion. He's very empty.
I agree. Not a lot of substance. And when he does talk substance he's Ted Kennedy.
-
Thats what youve been doing for 8 years.... ::)
Hahahaha.....great response to a dumb statement. ;D
HH6 just likes paying millionaires to fuck it all up for the rest of us.
-
So getting a degree from Degreemill U and serving in combat mean that you can't be a bigot? Hmmm...interesting. If you support him after his ridiculous assertions about Obama's name and religion, you're the one with the "problem."
Based on what? FDRoosevelt did more than fine during the most serious war our country has ever fought.
His health care plan, if implemented, will be a boon to American business because it will lower premiums overall. Do you realize how crippling to American business health care costs are? The premiums are so high because we have to pay for the costs of providing care to the uninsured.
The uninsured do not get care until it's too "late," in that it's much more expensive to fix something that's broken. Better to have a plan that allows preventive care.
Unlike michael Moore's fantasies, most hospitals do not turn away people who need life-saving procedures. They usually do the procedure and pass the cost on to those who can afford it. Like businesses.
About taxes. He said he will reverse Bush's tax cuts, which will put us back at Clinton's level. My dad has been an oncologist for the last 24 years. I never once heard him complain about taxes during Clinton's presidency.....so I don't foresee a crippling tax burden under Obama.
Corporations can do a million different things to reduce their tax burden (I know this because of the work I do). I'm not worried about them.
This is extremely naive. I don't even know where to begin.
On what basis do you conclude his undergrad and grad degrees are from a diploma mill?
If you can't understand how a person with military experience would have an advantage over a person without military experience when leading the armed forces then I can't help you.
There is no way on God's green earth that a government controlled healthcare system is going to save us money. I don't believe that for one instant. The federal government is not very efficient. I think it would be a disaster. I think we would wind up like Canada, where they take about half of what you earn after your income gets over about $100,000.
Yeah, corporations do a lot of things to reduce their tax burden, including passing increased costs along to consumers (I know this because of the work I do).
Re your last comment: ::)
-
BB you know alot about what "wont" work. Do you have thoughts on what "Will" work?????
-
BB you know alot about what "wont" work. Do you have thoughts on what "Will" work?????
In what context?
-
"Just write in Ron Paul on the ballot, when you vote".
He may not be the most presidential but I agree with more of his ideas than anyone else running.
America was not built on big government and outrageous taxes. We need to stop excessive government spending by both sides, including inefficient domestic programs and wars that are not necessary.
Obama is an excellent orator and he inspires a wide range of people. The guy is impressive, no doubt. But if you look at the details of his platforms, nearly every one involves injecting more taxpayer's $. I agree something needs to be done about healthcare...but the government does not have to control healthcare. I like giving tax breaks to companies that do not outsource (Obama & Clinton). However, Obama does believe in redistribution of wealth, which in many ways, is against the American way of hard work, ambition, creativity, and opportunity. He is not a moderate democrat...his policies are definitely to the left.
I say create opportunities...real opportunities, but not handouts.
-
"Just write in Ron Paul on the ballot, when you vote".
He may not be the most presidential but I agree with more of his ideas than anyone else running.
America was not built on big government and outrageous taxes. We need to stop excessive government spending by both sides, including inefficient domestic programs and wars that are not necessary.
Obama is an excellent orator and he inspires a wide range of people. The guy is impressive, no doubt. But if you look at the details of his platforms, nearly every one involves injecting more taxpayer's $. I agree something needs to be done about healthcare...but the government does not have to control healthcare. I like giving tax breaks to companies that do not outsource (Obama & Clinton). However, Obama does believe in redistribution of wealth, which in many ways, is against the American way of hard work, ambition, creativity, and opportunity. He is not a moderate democrat...his policies are definitely to the left.
I say create opportunities...real opportunities, but not handouts.
Well said dude. Where have you been?
-
On what basis do you conclude his undergrad and grad degrees are from a diploma mill?
Maybe because he thinks and expresses himself like someone who attended one?
If you can't understand how a person with military experience would have an advantage over a person without military experience when leading the armed forces then I can't help you.
Yeah....whatever. Some mysterious reason that only the chosen can understand.
There is no way on God's green earth that a government controlled healthcare system is going to save us money. I don't believe that for one instant. The federal government is not very efficient. I think it would be a disaster. I think we would wind up like Canada, where they take about half of what you earn after your income gets over about $100,000.
Oh, really? have any studies to back up your "belief"? The federal government is not going to run the whole system like some foreign governments do. Obama's plan just calls for the government to provide a floor on coverage, not a ceiling. And it's less radical than Hillary's. I don't plan to give up any of my coverage, I just want others to have more.
And where are you getting the "like Canada" part? He never once said he was going to drastically increase taxes, just that he'd roll back the Bush tax cuts. One more instance of your naivete to think that any Congress would legislate drastic increases.....
Yeah, corporations do a lot of things to reduce their tax burden, including passing increased costs along to consumers (I know this because of the work I do).
Yeah, I'm sure you do lots of cutting edge corporate work in Honolulu. ::) Your broad and accurate generalizations re: the economy have me fully convinced. ::) Why do you give a shit about how the consumer is affected anyway? I thought you were all about making sure big business continued on its merry way. No new laws, rules, etc. ::)
-
Maybe because he thinks and expresses himself like someone who attended one?
Yeah....whatever. Some mysterious reason that only the chosen can understand.
Oh, really? have any studies to back up your "belief"? The federal government is not going to run the whole system like some foreign governments do. Obama's plan just calls for the government to provide a floor on coverage, not a ceiling. And it's less radical than Hillary's. I don't plan to give up any of my coverage, I just want others to have more.
And where are you getting the "like Canada" part? He never once said he was going to drastically increase taxes, just that he'd roll back the Bush tax cuts. One more instance of your naivete to think that any Congress would legislate drastic increases.....
Yeah, I'm sure you do lots of cutting edge corporate work in Honolulu. ::) Your broad and accurate generalizations re: the economy have me fully convinced. ::) Why do you give a shit about how the consumer is affected anyway? I thought you were all about making sure big business continued on its merry way. No new laws, rules, etc. ::)
Yes, only the chosen can understand how military experience can help someone be Commander in Chief. ::)
My day-to-day experience tells me the government is inefficient. How old are you?
So now you know what kind of work I do? lol. :) You haven't exactly blown me away. It's not like you're Decker or something . . . . You spend half your time attacking people’s grammar and spelling. ::)
I care about consumers and I care about business (with one or two exceptions). I don't believe we should be pitting anyone against each other. If government tries to be punitive with business the consumer will suffer. I happen to be a consumer too, just like everyone else.
-
My day-to-day experience tells me the government is inefficient.
No one's disputing that government is inefficient. Even as inefficient as a government managed system would be, all the studies I've seen indicate that it will still save be more economical than our current system in the long run because of the access to preventive care.
But, I'm glad that your day-to-day experience allows you to divine what the results of a new system will be.... ::)
Decker suffers fools more than I do (don't know if he does it gladly), so I'm not surprised you prefer his style. I, on the other hand, get annoyed when people who express themselves like eighth graders pass judgment on their better (Obama).
-
No one's disputing that government is inefficient. Even as inefficient as a government managed system would be, all the studies I've seen indicate that it will still save be more economical than our current system in the long run because of the access to preventive care.
But, I'm glad that your day-to-day experience allows you to divine what the results of a new system will be.... ::)
Decker suffers fools more than I do (don't know if he does it gladly), so I'm not surprised you prefer his style. I, on the other hand, get annoyed when people who express themselves like eighth graders pass judgment on their better (Obama).
So the government is inefficient, is nearly bankrupt, but the government can somehow manage the entire healthcare system and save us all money, while ensure everyone gets quality healthcare. Sorry. Not buying.
I have no divine revelation. Just an opinion. This is an opinion board, by the way. ::)
I'm not talking about Decker's style. I'm talking about substance. I don't agree with hardly anything he says politically, but he is articulate, smart, and can stick to the issues. Easy to have exchanges with someone like that. Much more difficult to take someone seriously who constantly highlights someone's misspelled words or attacks them personally. You seem like a smart guy, but that gets lost when you do things like become a grammar Nazi, particularly when many of the people on here are trying to work and post at the same time.
And dude who gives a rip if you get annoyed by things being posted on a friggin message board. This is an anonymous message board. If what people say on this board upsets you then you need to rearrange your priorities.
-
So the government is inefficient, is nearly bankrupt, but the government can somehow manage the entire healthcare system and save us all money, while ensure everyone gets quality healthcare. Sorry. Not buying.
Yeah, the Republic Kings of deficit spending (REAGAN and Bush II) have left us with a nice legacy... that dynamic will change if the Dems have an iota of sense. It won't be a perfect system, just an improvement on what we have.
You seem like a smart guy, but that gets lost when you do things like become a grammar Nazi, particularly when many of the people on here are trying to work and post at the same time.
If what people say on this board upsets you then you need to rearrange your priorities.
When I'm at work, no matter how busy I am, I still remember how to spell, use basic grammar...etc. I didn't know that was an unusual skill.
On the subway, on planes, at the gym.... I hear the most ignorant crap, and I bite my tongue. I come on here and read the same bullshit, and I don't bite my tongue. That doesn't mean I have to rearrange my priorities.
-
No one's disputing that government is inefficient. Even as inefficient as a government managed system would be, all the studies I've seen indicate that it will still save be more economical than our current system in the long run because of the access to preventive care.
But, I'm glad that your day-to-day experience allows you to divine what the results of a new system will be.... ::)
Decker suffers fools more than I do (don't know if he does it gladly), so I'm not surprised you prefer his style. I, on the other hand, get annoyed when people who express themselves like eighth graders pass judgment on their better (Obama).
You should dispute this b/c there is indisputable proof that Social Security provides more benefits with lower administrative costs than those of private insurers. Administrative costs for the private companies run from 11% upto 19% of assets. The admin costs for Social Security are less 1% of assets. And we get so much more from Social Security--Life, retirement, disability, medical protections.
The government is not inefficient just b/c it is the government. That ol' right wing chestnut dies hard...but it should die.
-
That ol' right wing chestnut dies hard...but it should die.
Read the first two sentences of that post again. Don't think you would disagree.
-
Read the first two sentences of that post again. Don't think you would disagree.
Although I used your quote, I didn't think you'd answer. The stuff I wrote was an 'invitation' to Beach Bum to defend his view. But you do state that 'no one's disputing that gov. is inefficient...' but that in the case of UHC the gov's inefficiency is better than the privatized services.
I would still disagree with that sentence. But that's picking nits or nitpicking or whatever the hell it is.