Silence is Deafening

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:


Debt -- not to be pedantic, oh ok, to be pedantic, the numbers were for the budget deficit which is separate from the national debt. It sucks to have such a deficit, but it's the price for economic recovery. It would have been nice for Obama to have had the luxury Bush had and begin his term with record surpluses. Unfortunately, thanks to Bush's economic policies, Obama started with record deficits and has to spend us out of the hole Bush put us in.

Odd, if the Obama projected deficits for the next ten years DOUBLES the national debt, I find it difficult to separate the two. So in one brief decade we are going to double the national debt accumulated over more than two centuries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why even bother to post something like this on DCUM. The kool-aid drinkers will never turn on Dear Leader.

There is no Kool-Aid left after 8 years of Bush; you drank it all.

I always love this statement. As you liberals love to point out, Bush left office with a 24% approval rating. Considering the fact half the country voted for Bush, at least some of the 76% who disapproved of him were conservatives and independents. I would include myself in that number, and every conservative that I know was unhappy with the GOP's spending ways over the last several years. I didn't even vote in the last election.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Odd, if the Obama projected deficits for the next ten years DOUBLES the national debt, I find it difficult to separate the two. So in one brief decade we are going to double the national debt accumulated over more than two centuries?

The national debt nearly doubled during Bush's 8 years in office. If he had had two more years, I'm sure he would have succeeded in doubling it. Again, Bush did that when he started with record budget surpluses. Obama started in a hole that was not of his own making. The way out of that hole is to spend. Let's face it, you don't really have an issue with deficits or debt. It's just a convenient criticism of Obama. If he had been a Republican increasing the debt via tax cuts for the rich (like Reagan and Bush) you wouldn't even mention the issue. You would be repeating the "trickle down" mantra to block out all other sounds. Obama is just doing "trickle up" instead. Not doing it enough if you ask me, but it's better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why even bother to post something like this on DCUM. The kool-aid drinkers will never turn on Dear Leader.

There is no Kool-Aid left after 8 years of Bush; you drank it all.

I always love this statement. As you liberals love to point out, Bush left office with a 24% approval rating. Considering the fact half the country voted for Bush, at least some of the 76% who disapproved of him were conservatives and independents. I would include myself in that number, and every conservative that I know was unhappy with the GOP's spending ways over the last several years. I didn't even vote in the last election.

And I always love conservatives who somehow feel that finally realizing Bush's mess exonerates them from responsibility from having voted for him--twice. There was enough evidence of his widespread wrongdoing in 2004; people who voted for him the second time have even more blood on their hands. And more Kool-Aid in their bellies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why even bother to post something like this on DCUM. The kool-aid drinkers will never turn on Dear Leader.

There is no Kool-Aid left after 8 years of Bush; you drank it all.

I always love this statement. As you liberals love to point out, Bush left office with a 24% approval rating. Considering the fact half the country voted for Bush, at least some of the 76% who disapproved of him were conservatives and independents. I would include myself in that number, and every conservative that I know was unhappy with the GOP's spending ways over the last several years. I didn't even vote in the last election.

Obama is tracking at the same rate Bush was at the same point in time. Look at the historical data, it is widely avaialble, time will tell what Obama will end his first term at. Being a daily reader of Real Clear Politics, it has been intersting to see the rise and fall of Obama. Most all editorials started out as glowing with a few negative ones sprinkled in, now most everything is pretty negative. I guess the love affair with the media right now is over.

Hey with democrats like this around, Obama sure has some winners:

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13203950? Damaging the DNC HQ in Denver and posing as a "right winger"-classic!

To the OP of course there is silence, for many of these posters, Obama is not just a leader, but it is a religion for them. Things aren't going so well, so I guess they'd rather keep quiet and hope that the change is coming soon.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
To the OP of course there is silence, for many of these posters, Obama is not just a leader, but it is a religion for them. Things aren't going so well, so I guess they'd rather keep quiet and hope that the change is coming soon.

This is bullshit. There is not one person here who has a religious attachment to Obama. There are plenty of opponents whose dislike of Obama is borderline psychotic (one poster confirmed that she believes Obama is the anti-Christ).

In many cases, conservatives are simply unable to rationally debate Obama's policies. They resort to outright lies (death panels, forged birth certificates, he's a Nazi communist) and attacks on his supporters (religious attachment, etc.). You guys will do anything to avoid addressing the facts. It's a pretty nice routine. Toss out a false assertion and when someone points out that it's not true, accuse them of being an Obamatron.

I have plenty of criticisms of Obama. But, since they come from the left and don't include accusations that he is Hitler, they are probably confusing to you.

[Anonymous]

Any leader fixing our broken health care system is going to get flak from every corner of America, for the simple reason that the public does not want to make the tough choices necessary to fix it. They want it all, and they don't want to pay for it. But they will complain about the broken system, too.

Leadership sometimes means taking an unpopular position and bringing the public around to it. Even Dick Cheney has said as much.

So if everyone is squealing, that's just fine for now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess everyone is on vacation?



End of Life counseling -- Leave it to Republicans draw their line in the sand at living wills. No need to let individuals decide their own fates. As the Terri Schiavo case showed, Republicans will make those decisions for us.

I thought the issue was Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, and her husband as guardian made that decision? His decision was contested by her family members who also felt strongly, but in the other direction. I have no issue with end of life counseling--I do not think we should urge people to hurry themselves along though; just present all the options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess everyone is on vacation?



End of Life counseling -- Leave it to Republicans draw their line in the sand at living wills. No need to let individuals decide their own fates. As the Terri Schiavo case showed, Republicans will make those decisions for us.

I thought the issue was Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, and her husband as guardian made that decision? His decision was contested by her family members who also felt strongly, but in the other direction. I have no issue with end of life counseling--I do not think we should urge people to hurry themselves along though; just present all the options.

He's referring to Congress' meddling in the Terri Schiavo case. Republicans subpoenaed the family and passed a law to put the case in the federal courts, all in the hopes of preventing the husband from withdrawing life support. Between this and end of life counseling, the pattern is clear. They do not want people to be able to decide enough is enough when you are at the end of your life.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I thought the issue was Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, and her husband as guardian made that decision? His decision was contested by her family members who also felt strongly, but in the other direction. I have no issue with end of life counseling--I do not think we should urge people to hurry themselves along though; just present all the options.

Correct. Terri Schiavo did not have a living will and her case illustrates the importance of having one. Rather than leaving the matter to Schiavo's family or the courts, Republicans attempted to pass a law keeping her alive. In other words, Republican Congressmen put themselves in charge of the decision.

Republicans have described a proposal to have Medicaid pay for consulting sessions about end of life issues (sessions specifically requested by a patient) as a "death panel". A book discussing living wills for veterans has been called a "death book". Clearly, many Republicans oppose living wills and the sort of end of life counseling with which you have no problem. Or, more accurately, many Republicans also have no problem with it, but are happy to cynically and dishonestly scare people as a means of opposing health reform.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought the issue was Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, and her husband as guardian made that decision? His decision was contested by her family members who also felt strongly, but in the other direction. I have no issue with end of life counseling--I do not think we should urge people to hurry themselves along though; just present all the options.

Correct. Terri Schiavo did not have a living will and her case illustrates the importance of having one. Rather than leaving the matter to Schiavo's family or the courts, Republicans attempted to pass a law keeping her alive. In other words, Republican Congressmen put themselves in charge of the decision.

Republicans have described a proposal to have Medicaid pay for consulting sessions about end of life issues (sessions specifically requested by a patient) as a "death panel". A book discussing living wills for veterans has been called a "death book". Clearly, many Republicans oppose living wills and the sort of end of life counseling with which you have no problem. Or, more accurately, many Republicans also have no problem with it, but are happy to cynically and dishonestly scare people as a means of opposing health reform.

Jeff, I agree with you about the need for living wills. My father recently passed away and I am so glad that we knew what his wishes were throughout the course of his illness. However, I do think some of the language in the VA book needs revision. Some of the questions do not seem appropriate for a veteran who may be vulnerable due to PTSD or serious physical injury.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I agree with you about the need for living wills. My father recently passed away and I am so glad that we knew what his wishes were throughout the course of his illness. However, I do think some of the language in the VA book needs revision. Some of the questions do not seem appropriate for a veteran who may be vulnerable due to PTSD or serious physical injury.

I think just about everyone is in agreement that the book needs some revision. See the Obama administration's response here:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/obama-admin-fires-back-at-right-wing-with-detailed-rebuttal-of-death-book-claim/

The fact sheet linked to on that page is also interesting, if a bit confusing.