• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

US Government Shutdown

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Look if you can't show something is dung , claiming it to be is dishonest. If you can it is redundant. In other words only a failed argument has any need to do so. I have asked you if you wanted the link. Of course you did not. I ask again. I have seen the whole thing. I know what was said during it. Do you want the evidence or would that just get in the way of the narrative?

The housing market was not the cause of the bubble. It existed when no bubble did. It was the affordable housing acts by Carter and doubled down on by Clinton that caused it. It basically "unofficially mandated" that loans be given to those who could not pay for them. It was backed up by government money (excuse me our money or those of left that contribute these days) by the billions and billions. It was basically a government bad paper buy up to buy votes and hide the problem. It makes no difference whatever who controlled congress once a law is in effect. Hearings and votes that require both sides are necessary to get rid of laws. Even histories worst ones.

I have a 401K, nothing collapsed concerning it. Some were gutted to an extent by the housing bubble and not buy what Bush did to any large extent.

Of course he was intimidated. That is what liberals do. He nor republicans created the problem, liberals mandated its continuation and the best you got is a guy who feared them enough to keep up their failed policies going. That is like pointing to that 24 billion supposedly lost during the shutdown which Obama is partially responsible for directly as a distraction from the trillions he is spending without any end in sight. It is smoke and mirrors from liberal creation to when it all finally collapses and no more mirrors can be found (their will still be a lot of smoke left however).

He was wrong. Obama is wrong, knows it, doesn't care, nor do his gullible supporters. And only one of them is actually the president. In 2535 when we have killed each other, the last liberal left will blame it on Bush.

I do not expect liberals to acknowledge all data, ever. I am surprised they ever acknowledge data their faulty mathematics does not produce at all. Do you realize there is not enough money in existence to pay off all our liabilities? How is that sustainable? I am against borrowing more no matter who does it, but right now your side is doing so as fast as they can invent falsified math and you let them. My side is doing everything they can to stop this circus and being ridiculed for it by yours.

Wow, you should write a book, and let me suggest this title: "Rewritten History According to 1Robin". I'm sure it would be a best seller under the "Comedy" category.

I could recommend several books on what happened to cause the Great Recession, but you wouldn't be interested because they're written by economists, including two Nobel Prize winners. What you wrote above is nothing short of sheer nonsense, and I have to keep on pinching myself to wonder why I waste my time with someone who is so partisan and so willing to believe in the above fairy tales.

BTW, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know and I'll give you the titles/authors of the economic books I was referring to above.
 

McBell

Unbound
BTW, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know and I'll give you the titles/authors of the economic books I was referring to above.

If I ask pretty pretty please will you list them here for me?

Pretty Pretty Please?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If I ask pretty pretty please will you list them here for me?

Pretty Pretty Please?

Only since you asked so nicely :D :

"Freefall" by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner)

"The Return of Depression Economics" by Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner)

"Reckless!" by Byron Dorgan (economist and Senator)

"Aftershock" by Robert Reich (economist)

"That Used To Be Us" by Thomas Friedman (Pulitzer Prize winner) & Michael Mandelbaum (the latter teaches foreign policy at John Hopkins University)

"The Betrayal of the American Dream" by Donald Bartlett & James Steele (Pulitzer Prize winners)

If there's one of the batch I'd mostly recommend, it's "Freefall" because Stiglitz takes you step by step through the conditions that led to the Great Recession, but it does help with this book if you have at least somewhat of a macro-economics background. If you don't, Dorgan's book "Reckless" is probably a better choice.
 

McBell

Unbound
Only since you asked so nicely :D :

"Freefall" by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner)

"The Return of Depression Economics" by Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner)

"Reckless!" by Byron Dorgan (economist and Senator)

"Aftershock" by Robert Reich (economist)

"That Used To Be Us" by Thomas Friedman (Pulitzer Prize winner) & Michael Mandelbaum (the latter teaches foreign policy at John Hopkins University)

"The Betrayal of the American Dream" by Donald Bartlett & James Steele (Pulitzer Prize winners)

If there's one of the batch I'd mostly recommend, it's "Freefall" because Stiglitz takes you step by step through the conditions that led to the Great Recession, but it does help with this book if you have at least somewhat of a macro-economics background. If you don't, Dorgan's book "Reckless" is probably a better choice.

thank you.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Only since you asked so nicely :D :

"Freefall" by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner)

"The Return of Depression Economics" by Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner)

"Reckless!" by Byron Dorgan (economist and Senator)

"Aftershock" by Robert Reich (economist)

"That Used To Be Us" by Thomas Friedman (Pulitzer Prize winner) & Michael Mandelbaum (the latter teaches foreign policy at John Hopkins University)

"The Betrayal of the American Dream" by Donald Bartlett & James Steele (Pulitzer Prize winners)

If there's one of the batch I'd mostly recommend, it's "Freefall" because Stiglitz takes you step by step through the conditions that led to the Great Recession, but it does help with this book if you have at least somewhat of a macro-economics background. If you don't, Dorgan's book "Reckless" is probably a better choice.

It's all very well and good to list books by economists, but every idiot knows that, because some economists say one thing, and other economists say exactly the opposite, no economists are ever right -- and especially not any economists whose findings support the liberal position. Every idiot knows that. Literally -- every idiot.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's all very well and good to list books by economists, but every idiot knows that, because some economists say one thing, and other economists say exactly the opposite, no economists are ever right -- and especially not any economists whose findings support the liberal position. Every idiot knows that. Literally -- every idiot.

Not all economists are created equal, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Secondly, this is also why reading different economists coming from different perspectives is so important, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Thirdly, it is not just liberal economists that cannot be fully trusted, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Fourthly, if one has taken classes on economics and read a variety of books on the subject, they are less apt to be hoodwinked, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. And finally, be careful when pointing your finger at what you think are "idiots", to use your terminology, because there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Not all economists are created equal, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Secondly, this is also why reading different economists coming from different perspectives is so important, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Thirdly, it is not just liberal economists that cannot be fully trusted, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. Fourthly, if one has taken classes on economics and read a variety of books on the subject, they are less apt to be hoodwinked, and every "idiot", to use your terminology, should know that. And finally, be careful when pointing your finger at what you think are "idiots", to use your terminology, because there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.

I see I failed to make my sarcasm apparent enough. My apologies. It's sometimes hard to convey the tone when using just the written word.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Wow, you should write a book, and let me suggest this title: "Rewritten History According to 1Robin". I'm sure it would be a best seller under the "Comedy" category.

I could recommend several books on what happened to cause the Great Recession, but you wouldn't be interested because they're written by economists, including two Nobel Prize winners. What you wrote above is nothing short of sheer nonsense, and I have to keep on pinching myself to wonder why I waste my time with someone who is so partisan and so willing to believe in the above fairy tales.

BTW, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know and I'll give you the titles/authors of the economic books I was referring to above.
Until you show an interest in the links to the hearings that prove what I claimed, it is hard for me to take your evaluations of my posts seriously.

However as for the shutdown someone sent me an article you might find interesting.


Who Shut Down the Government?

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.
Who Shut Down the Government? - Thomas Sowell - Page full
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
"The Shutdown was so magnificent, run beautifully. I'm so proud of these Republicans"
-Ann Coulter

:faint:
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I see I failed to make my sarcasm apparent enough. My apologies. It's sometimes hard to convey the tone when using just the written word.

And sorry I jumped on you for this, and you're right, it's easy to mistake what a person is trying to say if you can't see the emotions on their face.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
What a bucket of dung the above is, and one can determine as such by just using sheer logic alone. In 2002, the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency, and yet the Democrats somehow miraculously not only caused the bubble but then somehow miraculously stopped the Republicans from doing anything about it? Wow, you really do believe in miracles, don't you? :rolleyes:

Instead, reality is quite different. First of all, presidents from Eisenhower on used the housing market to bolster the country economically, but the real problem crept in starting in 1999 with changes to Glass-Steagall that allowed the banks to speculate more than they were able to in the past. This change was proposed by Phil Gramm, a Republican, and was signed on by both Clinton and the Republicans. The single largest group to oppose it were the Keynesian economists, with Krugman and Drogan (D.-ND) just being two of them.

And this was made even more of a problem when the Bush administration through Paulson allowed banks to use their accounts to invest in the shadow-banking system, which eventually killed so many 401K's when the market collapsed.

According to Alan Greenspan, a Republican appointed conservative economist, he realized that we were in trouble starting in 2005 but was afraid to act, and he also told a congressional investigation carried on C-Span that I watched that he had been operating from a faulty paradigm whereas he believed that investment industry could be trusted to self-regulate. He also testified that the shadow-banking system was so complicated that even he couldn't keep up with it, and that the lack of adequate regulation essentially brought its demise.

On top of this, Bush in a press conference in the summer of 2008 stated that the banking system was sound, and that we had nothing to worry about, meanwhile proposing nothing to alter a worsening situation.

I didn't quote nor comment on the rest of your post, which is no more "logical" than the part I quoted above, but it's no less bizarre.

Good post. The whole problem in a nutshell.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Good post. The whole problem in a nutshell.

If you loved what liberals did with the housing bubble you ought to be in high heaven with Obama care's virtues.

1. It was said to lower our private insurance premiums. This is a lie. It has doubled many, added at least 50% to almost all and lowered none unless coverage was drastically reduced.
2. It was said to save us money. That was probably a lie. It is not even going yet and is estimated to cost in the trillions.
3. It was said to improve health care. A lie. Even doctors with sons halfway through are counseling their children to get out of the medical field but the hundreds. Not to mention the ones that gave up servicing Medicare and Medicaid where they were allowed to.
4. It was said to be easy to access. probably a lie. It has a several hundred billion dollar web site that never works. Of course Obama denied responsibility even though the regime mandated only weeks for testing and went against the private companies recommendations.
5. It was said to be the will of the people. A lie. It has had majority rejection almost everyday it has been an issue and it is getting worse marks than ever currently.
6. It was said we could keep our own insurance. A lie. The government exceeding it power has mandated private companies offer additional services they can not pay for. hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices have been issued.
7. It was said to be constitutional. A lie. It had to be turned into a tax to even make it legal. Payment for a service is not a tax. It is a lie.
8. It was said to not ration health care. Thousands of horror stories concerning rationing already existed in all government health care programs. It can't be avoided.
9. It has been claimed as a right. That is a lie and incoherent as well. Who granted that right? Who had it to grant? On what basis?
10. I am getting disgusted doing this and the list will never end.

So call the thing that produced the above good, or blame it on Bush, and lets move on to the next nail in the coffin.
 

McBell

Unbound
If you loved what liberals did with the housing bubble you ought to be in high heaven with Obama care's virtues.

1. It was said to lower our private insurance premiums. This is a lie. It has doubled many, added at least 50% to almost all and lowered none unless coverage was drastically reduced.
2. It was said to save us money. That was probably a lie. It is not even going yet and is estimated to cost in the trillions.
3. It was said to improve health care. A lie. Even doctors with sons halfway through are counseling their children to get out of the medical field but the hundreds. Not to mention the ones that gave up servicing Medicare and Medicaid where they were allowed to.
4. It was said to be easy to access. probably a lie. It has a several hundred billion dollar web site that never works. Of course Obama denied responsibility even though the regime mandated only weeks for testing and went against the private companies recommendations.
5. It was said to be the will of the people. A lie. It has had majority rejection almost everyday it has been an issue and it is getting worse marks than ever currently.
6. It was said we could keep our own insurance. A lie. The government exceeding it power has mandated private companies offer additional services they can not pay for. hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices have been issued.
7. It was said to be constitutional. A lie. It had to be turned into a tax to even make it legal. Payment for a service is not a tax. It is a lie.
8. It was said to not ration health care. Thousands of horror stories concerning rationing already existed in all government health care programs. It can't be avoided.
9. It has been claimed as a right. That is a lie and incoherent as well. Who granted that right? Who had it to grant? On what basis?
10. I am getting disgusted doing this and the list will never end.

So call the thing that produced the above good, or blame it on Bush, and lets move on to the next nail in the coffin.

How about you support each claim with the ACA?
I have asked hundreds of people on both sides and not a single one has presented from the ACA that which supports their claim.
Will you be the first?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
If you loved what liberals did with the housing bubble you ought to be in high heaven with Obama care's virtues.

Please back this one up.....As I recall President Bush and his administration's policy of deregulation etc. was a key factor in the bubble and it bursting. I will submit that both sides have dirty hands in this...but try not to paint the picture that liberals are to blame...unless you can back it up.

1. It was said to lower our private insurance premiums. This is a lie. It has doubled many, added at least 50% to almost all and lowered none unless coverage was drastically reduced.
The CBO has already spoken on this. Many state run exchanges are showing premiums being advertised for less than they would before the ACA. Yes...some high cost will be on the young as they enter the market but the young can opt for the bronze package because many of them don't need the silver or gold plans.

2. It was said to save us money. That was probably a lie. It is not even going yet and is estimated to cost in the trillions.
Aspects of the ACA have been in effect for years now. I have three kids that are still on my insurance. Over the past three years that has saved me thousands of dollars. Case in point. Two of my daughters have kids. Their hospital bills are a far cry cheaper than what they would have been without that provision (them being on my insurance until 26)..

3. It was said to improve health care. A lie.
The fact that one can no longer be denied insurance due to a preexisting condition is an improvement all unto itself.

Affordable Care Act: Obamacare & Health Reform Facts | Kaiser Permanente

Health Care Law Essential Benefits Fact Sheet - AARP

How the Health Care Law is Making a Difference for the People of Virginia | HHS.gov/healthcare

Even doctors with sons halfway through are counseling their children to get out of the medical field but the hundreds. Not to mention the ones that gave up servicing Medicare and Medicaid where they were allowed to.
Evidence please....

4. It was said to be easy to access. probably a lie. It has a several hundred billion dollar web site that never works. Of course Obama denied responsibility even though the regime mandated only weeks for testing and went against the private companies recommendations.
Website is a mess. I'll give you that...but let's not forget that back in 2006 when Medicare Part D (unfunded mind you) by Republicans rolled out it too suffered many of the same problems with the site and enrollment.

Flashback: GOP Wanted To 'Fix' Medicare Part D After 'Horrendous' Rollout
"This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on Feb. 15, 2006. "My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches."

"Rather than trying to scare and confuse seniors, I would hope that we can work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is wrong with the program and if we can make some changes to fix it, let us do it and let us do it on a bipartisan basis," Barton pleaded during an Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on March 6, 2006. "We owe that to all of the millions of Medicare beneficiaries."
Republican Rep. Nathan Deal, now the governor of Georgia, cautioned critics that "most significant programs" have problems early on, and that's no reason to give up on them.
"Like most significant programs, the new benefit has not gone without a few isolated glitches and unexpected problems," he said at the same hearing. "But I believe that if there is anything wrong with the plan, most of it has been fixed and that that hasn't can be fixed over time."
"Any time something is new, there is going to be some glitches," Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) said on April 6, 2006. "No matter what one does in life, when it is something new in learning the ropes of it, it is going to take a little adjustment."
Medicare Drug Plan Finder: Still Waiting

HHS Works to Fix Drug Plan Woes

At this point I'm going to stop replying to your misconceptions...because it's as if I'm doing your homework for you.....:shrug:
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
How about you support each claim with the ACA?
I have asked hundreds of people on both sides and not a single one has presented from the ACA that which supports their claim.
Will you be the first?
Who are you? That avatar never discusses the issues, ever. Which claim do you want evidence for? Once provided will you concede the point? At least one claim was from my memory over several years of talk radio call ins. That one at least has no provable evidence. I think most have but at least one does not. Pick your poison.
 

McBell

Unbound
Who are you? That avatar never discusses the issues, ever. Which claim do you want evidence for? Once provided will you concede the point? At least one claim was from my memory over several years of talk radio call ins. That one at least has no provable evidence. I think most have but at least one does not. Pick your poison.

So, you, the one who does the most whining about people not presenting evidence....


I didn't think you were going to support your claims.
Something tells me you are not going to want to discuss that issue, are you?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Please back this one up.....As I recall President Bush and his administration's policy of deregulation etc. was a key factor in the bubble and it bursting. I will submit that both sides have dirty hands in this...but try not to paint the picture that liberals are to blame...unless you can back it up.
I have already posted what took place in the housing market and who did it. Carter began putting out money behind loans made to people who could not afford them to but votes, and make his dismal economy look better (the same as with Obama and his fuzzy math in unemployment numbers), Clinton massive increased the appropriations involved with the plan. The bubble was at bursting state before Bush 2 was elected. In 2002 a hearing was held where Republicans told the liberals that the bubble they created was about to burst. They whined, yelled, and moaned that that was just trying to find problems, the read stats that showed how good the program was doing, the brought in experts, they circled the wagon on lies. Within a few years their house of cards came down and they obligatorily blamed in on Bush. Now I do not the Bush did what should have been done to fix it but if the liberals had let the conservatives do it there way there would have been no bubble to burst. Now Obama outside a few spurious, anemic changes is doing the same thing that caused the problem again. I gave up providing the link to that hearing as no one on the left bothered looking into it. Wonder why?

The CBO has already spoken on this. Many state run exchanges are showing premiums being advertised for less than they would before the ACA. Yes...some high cost will be on the young as they enter the market but the young can opt for the bronze package because many of them don't need the silver or gold plans.
I hear them all morning and afternoon talking of NOTHING except massive increases for themselves and everyone they know. The same is true of my family. It is not even debatable. When the Government tells a company it must provide more coverage must do so longer, and include crap like paternity care and condoms to 70 year old women, take all preexisting illnesses, and never touch tort reform, there is no other possibility than massive rate increases and dropped coverage.

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations
16 million Americans to lose health care coverage under Obamacare

Aspects of the ACA have been in effect for years now. I have three kids that are still on my insurance. Over the past three years that has saved me thousands of dollars. Case in point. Two of my daughters have kids. Their hospital bills are a far cry cheaper than what they would have been without that provision (them being on my insurance until 26)..
It might be cheaper for you bunch a bunch of other people have had to pay for it. Why are they not working and on their own policy? The money they should be paying for the own policies or spending for their own procedures is coming from someone else. You do not seem so un-intelligent as to believe in "Obama's Stash" but you do not seem to understand that someone must pay. They are either dropping people like you or are placing the costs that millions of people in that circumstance produce on others. Never before has the well been drier and never before has the demand been greater. From my experience your an exception and probably will not be for long.

Let me make one thing clear before some moral high ground rhetoric is used. I wish everyone had perfect health care. However it is can or can't be afforded. I am not for a benefit given to a few bringing down the whole nation.


The fact that one can no longer be denied insurance due to a preexisting condition is an improvement all unto itself.
It sure is a benefit, right up until the hundreds of billions it costs finally picks the last dollar off China's money tree. There are lots of good things to have, a phone, a car, a rifle, a petting zoo, and a car that runs on garbage. However reality is not fantasy island. Things make economic sense or economic black holes. This one costs more and functions less with every day just as every conservative predicted years before the liberals starting lining up to suckle.

Evidence please....
This one is the culmination of people who called in to radio shows over the past several years. Evidence does not exist to provide. Are you suggesting this is not occurring quite frequently. Here are some related links.


“Every single day, people are talking about retiring early, getting out of clinical medicine, or going into hospital administration, where you don’t have to think about patient care anymore,” said Dr. Richard Armstrong, a Michigan surgeon and chief operating officer of Docs 4 Patient Care, which opposes the Affordable Care Act. Even physicians with no plans for career change are worried about the profession for reasons related to Obamacare. A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that 77 percent were pessimistic about the future of medicine.
Read more: 'Obamacare' health care reform ALREADY forcing doctors to close practices - Washington Times
Obamacare, doctor shortage could crash health care system - CNN.com
Docs resisting ObamaCare | New York Post
40 Percent Of Doctor Practices Unsure About Obamacare Exchanges - Forbes

Website is a mess. I'll give you that...but let's not forget that back in 2006 when Medicare Part D (unfunded mind you) by Republicans rolled out it too suffered many of the same problems with the site and enrollment.
I can of course allow for new glitches to get out if this was the only problem area. However when it is one in a sting of dozens and dozens of things we that have no worked or cost massive amounts more that we were told, it is simply proof they have no idea what they are doing and are doing it with the most important 1/6 of our economy. We found the student with the worst grades in history and gave him a nuclear reactor powering a medical laser and he is going to do eye surgery but can't read the instructions so far.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-medicare-part-d-obamacare
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-medicare-part-d-obamacare I will grant you this one without checking, however it is never a defense of X to condemn Y.



At this point I'm going to stop replying to your misconceptions...because it's as if I'm doing your homework for you.....:shrug:
Stop doing my "homework", your getting all the answers wrong and the nations report card for the first time is a F+. When you have defended the programs and economic insanity used to buy votes until we bleed out and the Congo would not buy our debt and that nation looks like a Watts riot I am certain you would still think everyone but you was wrong. Respond, don't respond, whatever.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
So, you, the one who does the most whining about people not presenting evidence....


I didn't think you were going to support your claims.
Something tells me you are not going to want to discuss that issue, are you?

I did not even comprehend this, but a tiny fraction of the same evidence you would have found if desired is presented above.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The shutdown is definitely a result of corrupt journalism, something the government isn't designed to prevent. The problem is that the Christians (including the Baptists) have been distracted from following politics and from reading economic literature. They believe that God is just going to take care of everything, so they avoid any issue except abortion, gay marriage and supporting the party that sides with them on those single issues. All the other issues can go to hell, and these voters become playing cards that can be manipulated. The Republicans haven't even been faithful to them, constantly betraying them on the issue of abortion and gay marriage. Sure they act like they're going to do something against abortion or against gay marriage, but when the vote finally comes somehow it never works out. Sorry, but its the single issue voter Christian's fault that the government shut down, because they weren't holding their representatives and journalists accountable. They are single issue voters and multiple issue ignorers. What happened after the Republicans won the house? First thing, Boehner kicked the staunch conservatives off of the most important committees after the last election, supposedly to keep things moving. It was a betrayal, but what could Christians do about it? Nothing.
 
Last edited:
Top