Public Believes "Facts" that Don't Happen to Be True

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Best movie line ever...
 
spikedaddy99 said:
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Best movie line ever...
Click to expand...

Could not have cast a better person then Nicholson for that role:thumbsup:
 
We would be a lot safer and the war would be a lot closer to being won if the news media was put in the back lines. My son got back from Kandahar Air Base in May he was the assistant to a General they were getting rocket attacks almost every day and more than likely still are. He showed me a declassified map of where the rockets hit, pretty much the whole Base but the lame stream media doesn’t say any thing about that but if one solder smacks the enemy it would be all over the Obama news media how abusive our military is it’s a war it is suppose to be abusive.. But because it is a NATO base there are Afghani civilians are all over the place. My son and the other officers ate a lot of meals in their quarters and not in the mess hall due to the possibility of a bombing because the NATO officials wouldn't check out the civilians out
 
This is how the Democrats play the roll.

aussie7.jpg
 
Daddubo said:
We would be a lot safer and the war would be a lot closer to being won if the news media was put in the back lines. My son got back from Kandahar Air Base in May he was the assistant to a General they were getting rocket attacks almost every day and more than likely still are. He showed me a declassified map of where the rockets hit, pretty much the whole Base but the lame stream media doesn’t say any thing about that but if one solder smacks the enemy it would be all over the Obama news media how abusive our military is it’s a war it is suppose to be abusive.. But because it is a NATO base there are Afghani civilians are all over the place. My son and the other officers ate a lot of meals in their quarters and not in the mess hall due to the possibility of a bombing because the NATO officials wouldn't check out the civilians out
Click to expand...

The war would be closer to being won if, as you mentioned, the Press was put on the back line, and also if the world would get behind it More supportingly--also as you mentioned "NATO" It is amazing to me that there are folks--most well meaning--out there that don't realize that these people cannot be negotiated with and are out to KILL us. :huh: It really makes no sense--the quicker everyone understands this and gets behind our troops and efforts--the sooner the war can come to an end.
 
We need the whole Government behind them not just half our own Illinois senator Dick Durban called the baby killers and are running a Gulag or calling he Nazi’s. The Democrats would stand up and protect Taliban and Al Qaeda before they would stand up for the Military pretty sad.

aussie11.jpg
 
tdschafer said:
The fact is none of these guys has had our best interests at heart throughout their careers. I feel when I hit the voting booth I am always choosing between the lesser of two evils which is quite depressing. I can't remember any president that when controlling the house and senate did anything miraculous for our country.
Click to expand...

+1 agree.

tdschafer said:
The current administration is jamming their liberal socialist agenda down our throats without listening to the people of our country.
Click to expand...

Not agreeing quite as much.

Everyone on this forum predicted that the Democrats would attempt to pass health care reform and would have a liberal agenda. The Democrats CAMPAIGNED on passing health care reform and having a liberal agenda.

So. . .why are we outraged that they passed health care reform and had a liberal agenda?

Further. . .most people in 2008 recognized that the Democrats would lose lots of seats in 2010. Even lose majorities if the economy is bad. None of this should be a surprise to anyone.

I do hear that at least SOME Republicans are getting the correct message (hopefully, those voices will grow)

That message is: You need to display some competency if you are the party in power. The Republicans in 2006 lost Congress because of poor governance (debt mismanagement and bungling in the Iraq war). They didn't change course by 2008 and faced further loss of power as a result.

Hopefully (hopefully for all of us); some real leadership will emerge in the Republican party in the next two years. If they don't, and they squander this opportunity, then Obama will sail to a second term just like Clinton did in 1996 (unless Obama does something to bungle it)

Simply passing a new Tax Cut bill and passing a repeal of Obamacare won't be enough. Especially if they don't sugar coat these measures to avoid a simple Presidential Veto.
 
Maybe the war was on false pretenses. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was necessary anyway. Most people can't fathom the concept anyway. Heck, there were conscientious objectors in WWII! And there was very little question about what happened in Pearl Harbor, or what the Nazi's were up to in Europe. I think most will agree (including those of the country we invaded), that the world is a better place with Sadam out of power. Weapons of mass destruction or not...

What saddens me is thinking of what could have been prevented by responding sooner and with more sincerity to the many attacks on our liberties during previous Presidencies. Perhaps the twin towers - and all the lives that perished within them - would still be here today.

Bless our soldiers who fight for our freedoms.
 
comsnark said:
+1 agree.



Not agreeing quite as much.

Everyone on this forum predicted that the Democrats would attempt to pass health care reform and would have a liberal agenda. The Democrats CAMPAIGNED on passing health care reform and having a liberal agenda.

So. . .why are we outraged that they passed health care reform and had a liberal agenda?

Further. . .most people in 2008 recognized that the Democrats would lose lots of seats in 2010. Even lose majorities if the economy is bad. None of this should be a surprise to anyone.

I do hear that at least SOME Republicans are getting the correct message (hopefully, those voices will grow)

That message is: You need to display some competency if you are the party in power. The Republicans in 2006 lost Congress because of poor governance (debt mismanagement and bungling in the Iraq war). They didn't change course by 2008 and faced further loss of power as a result.

Hopefully (hopefully for all of us); some real leadership will emerge in the Republican party in the next two years. If they don't, and they squander this opportunity, then Obama will sail to a second term just like Clinton did in 1996 (unless Obama does something to bungle it)

Simply passing a new Tax Cut bill and passing a repeal of Obamacare won't be enough. Especially if they don't sugar coat these measures to avoid a simple Presidential Veto.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Democrat party campaigned on the health care issue, and many other things. Things like working on a bi-partisan basis with the Republicans (fail), a more open legislative process (fail), fiscal responsibility (FAIL), shutting Gitmo (fail), ending the Iraq war (fail), etc (fail).

The health care issue deserves a little more comment than "he campaigned on it, so why is everyone so upset?". It wasn't that health care didn't need reform (whatever you think that word means), but it was HOW it was done. Think about it. He was elected with 53% of the vote, yet 60% of the American people were against the health bill before it was rammed down our throats. If you claim 53% is some sort of mandate, then what is 60%? Chopped liver?

Obama grossly and negligently mismanaged the health care reform effort. The public is rightfully outraged and will begin to put this right on Tuesday. For anyone, even liberals, to think that this health bill is some sort of positive accomplishment just boggles my mind. I don't understand why they don't understand this. Any rational person can see that Obama (as the British so politely put it) made a complete hash of it.
 
mddickens said:
Yes, the Democrat party campaigned on the health care issue, and many other things. Things like working on a bi-partisan basis with the Republicans (fail), a more open legislative process (fail), fiscal responsibility (FAIL), shutting Gitmo (fail), ending the Iraq war (fail), etc (fail).

The health care issue deserves a little more comment than "he campaigned on it, so why is everyone so upset?". It wasn't that health care didn't need reform (whatever you think that word means), but it was HOW it was done. Think about it. He was elected with 53% of the vote, yet 60% of the American people were against the health bill before it was rammed down our throats. If you claim 53% is some sort of mandate, then what is 60%? Chopped liver?

Obama grossly and negligently mismanaged the health care reform effort. The public is rightfully outraged and will begin to put this right on Tuesday. For anyone, even liberals, to think that this health bill is some sort of positive accomplishment just boggles my mind. I don't understand why they don't understand this. Any rational person can see that Obama (as the British so politely put it) made a complete hash of it.
Click to expand...

+1 :thumbsup: I strongly agree!
 
Ok.. . . are we having fun yet?

mddickens said:
Yes, the Democrat party campaigned on the health care issue, and many other things. Things like working on a bi-partisan basis with the Republicans (fail), a more open legislative process (fail), fiscal responsibility (FAIL), shutting Gitmo (fail), ending the Iraq war (fail), etc (fail)
Click to expand...

He said "Bi-Partisan ship". Makes me laugh! In all honesty, I think BiPartisianship died in this country around 1998. Who actually expected any Republicans to agree to ANYTHING in the last two years?

That was obvious as soon as the Economy tanked in 2008. With a tanking economy, McCain had little chance of victory, and the OBVIOUS and STATED Republican strategy was to oppose everything in the hopes that they could blame a poor economy on the Democrats in 2010.

Working like a charm.

Of course, there was the risk that the Democrats would get lucky. . or compentent. . but that was a pretty safe bet, wasn't it?

I expect "bipartisianship" to be banned as a curse word by the FCC in the next year. Certainly, "no compromise" seems to be the buzz phrase of most candidates this year.

As for the other items: I wasn't claiming Obama as a ringing success. I was merely pointing out that healthcare reform was a major campaign point of the Democrats: Did you *expect* them to walk away from it?

mddickens said:
The health care issue deserves a little more comment than "he campaigned on it, so why is everyone so upset?". It wasn't that health care didn't need reform (whatever you think that word means), but it was HOW it was done. Think about it. He was elected with 53% of the vote, yet 60% of the American people were against the health bill before it was rammed down our throats. If you claim 53% is some sort of mandate, then what is 60%?
Click to expand...

May I ask where is this 60% number coming from?

The most rightwing pollster I know of, Rausman, put the disapproval number at 54% when Obama signed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

A slightly less biased source puts *current* (9/25) disapproval at around 40%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/25/politics/main6899989.shtml, with more people favoring EXPANSION than SCALING BACK the law.

I suspect we could have fun throwing different polls around, couldn't we? You cover fox news, and I will cover huffington post. :)

mddickens said:
Obama grossly and negligently mismanaged the health care reform effort.
Click to expand...

On this point, I actually agree. His mistake was letting Pelosi and Reid run the thing, while he stayed aloof. He should have not let the back room weasels in his party craft the bill. He should have been in front, and far more open. Trying to get Republicans to vote for the bill was also a mistake from the start: it was obvious they were going to act as spoilers.

mddickens said:
The public is rightfully outraged and will begin to put this right on Tuesday. For anyone, even liberals, to think that this health bill is some sort of positive accomplishment just boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

Lots of reason to be outraged. Huge spending without positive economic results, however, are the most telling factor in this election. It's too bad that elections are digital "Throw the bums out / Keep the bums in" affairs, and can't give more nuanced results.


We could also have a long debate on both Health Care and Iraq. . . but that is slightly off topic for this thread.
 
comsnark said:
Ok.. . . are we having fun yet?



He said "Bi-Partisan ship". Makes me laugh! In all honesty, I think BiPartisianship died in this country around 1998. Who actually expected any Republicans to agree to ANYTHING in the last two years?

That was obvious as soon as the Economy tanked in 2008. With a tanking economy, McCain had little chance of victory, and the OBVIOUS and STATED Republican strategy was to oppose everything in the hopes that they could blame a poor economy on the Democrats in 2010.

Working like a charm.

Of course, there was the risk that the Democrats would get lucky. . or compentent. . but that was a pretty safe bet, wasn't it?

I expect "bipartisianship" to be banned as a curse word by the FCC in the next year. Certainly, "no compromise" seems to be the buzz phrase of most candidates this year.

As for the other items: I wasn't claiming Obama as a ringing success. I was merely pointing out that healthcare reform was a major campaign point of the Democrats: Did you *expect* them to walk away from it?



May I ask where is this 60% number coming from?

The most rightwing pollster I know of, Rausman, put the disapproval number at 54% when Obama signed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

A slightly less biased source puts *current* (9/25) disapproval at around 40%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/25/politics/main6899989.shtml, with more people favoring EXPANSION than SCALING BACK the law.

I suspect we could have fun throwing different polls around, couldn't we? You cover fox news, and I will cover huffington post. :)



On this point, I actually agree. His mistake was letting Pelosi and Reid run the thing, while he stayed aloof. He should have not let the back room weasels in his party craft the bill. He should have been in front, and far more open. Trying to get Republicans to vote for the bill was also a mistake from the start: it was obvious they were going to act as spoilers.



Lots of reason to be outraged. Huge spending without positive economic results, however, are the most telling factor in this election. It's too bad that elections are digital "Throw the bums out / Keep the bums in" affairs, and can't give more nuanced results.


We could also have a long debate on both Health Care and Iraq. . . but that is slightly off topic for this thread.
Click to expand...

The Republicans voting no to everything does not make any difference at all whether it was a stated objective or not. Whatever the Dems wanted they rammed through and that is that.

Obama did campaign on Healthcare "Reform". I think many of the people that went and pulled the Obama handle probably didn't realize "reform" was going to mean a overhaul of everything.

Opposition to Obamacare will just grow over time as people find more and more about the bad stuff coming out due to this bill. This week it is FSA cutbacks, people are also starting to get their new premium costs for next year. Some people too ignorant to realize the damage now won't feel it until they get pushed in to Obamacare or get fined because they decided against buying insurance.

The vast majority of Americans are (at least for now) privately insured. There was already a system in place to handle people with no insurance called MEDICAID. So, why not just FIX MEDICAID?

The one thing I have in common with Obama is that I don't know what all is in the bill. We seem to be getting a new suprise every week.
 
Don’t forget November 2!


“Take Out the Trash Day”​






It will soon be payback time!
Forward the lists below to everyone you know!

The following senators voted against making English the official language of America :

Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT) Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.
They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas: Brownback (R)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Maryland: Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)



Massachusetts: Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana: Baucus (D)
Nebraska: Hagel (R)
Nevada: Reid (D)
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D)
New York: Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich (R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (D)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D)
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION - UNLESS THEY DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FOREIGN WORKERS WHO DIDN'T PAY A DIME INTO IT! - MUSLIMS TAKING OVER - HIGHER AND HIGHER TAXES - BABY KILLING - DENIAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR SENIORS - GUN CONFISCATION - SUPER RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS - CONFISCATION OF YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND REAL ESTATE - SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM ABOLISHING THE CONSTITUTION ENTIRELY - AND MORE






​
Don’t forget November 2!
“Take Out the Trash Day”​
 
sfergson727 said:
Poll after poll during the whole push for Obamacare showed 60 percent and more were against Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Seriously. I did a few minutes (minutes, not hours) of searching. I didn't find those polls. Admittedly, after I found the Rausman poll, I stopped looking since he generally is a right end outlier in the polls.

Ok. . after a bit more searching I found this: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

The fun part is this line:
The initial top-line shows only 39% of registered voters favoring the bill, to 59% opposing it. However a follow-up question finds that 43% oppose it on the grounds that it is too liberal, while 13% oppose it on the grounds that it is not liberal enough. So another way of looking at the data is that 43% oppose it for being too liberal, 39% favor it, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough, with another 3% who oppose it for some indeterminate reasons.
Click to expand...



sfergson727 said:
They weren't GOP polls, they weren't slanted in anyway.
Click to expand...

Unslanted poll? I didn't think anybody did those anymore! :grin:
 
comsnark said:
Seriously. I did a few minutes (minutes, not hours) of searching. I didn't find those polls. Admittedly, after I found the Rausman poll, I stopped looking since he generally is a right end outlier in the polls.

Ok. . after a bit more searching I found this: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

The fun part is this line:


Unslanted poll? I didn't think anybody did those anymore! :grin:
Click to expand...

CNN is basicly a Obama station along with CNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR and on an on so no trust there but good try.
 
comsnark said:
"I saw it on TV"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130867126
Click to expand...

Really? NPR?

So the editor of that article does not think that an estate tax is a tax if it only affects the "Rich"-- I see this as a Tax

So putting a Tax on Cell-phone 911 calls is not a tax because one already exist for land lines? -- I see this as a Tax.

Those aren’t "Barley True's" those are truths--A tax is a tax. And in regards to the Estate tax, that is one of the stupidest taxes out there. Not sure on how true it is but there were a lot of people saying that it was good the Steinbrenner died this year otherwise the Steinbrenner family would have had to sell the team. True or not, it is interesting.

When the NPR article stated that Cantor said, “Spending More combined...”I figured he meant, “More Debt combined” so I went to the Politifact site and read their article. Although Cantor said spent and still says spent the fact is (According to Politifact) that Obama has/will caused more debt by 2013 then all previous administrations combined.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/oct/27/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-tells-jon-stewart-us-spent-more-past-t/

Now correct me if I am wrong, if we have debt, don't we have to "Spend Down" that debt. and if Obama has caused more debt than all administrations combined, doesn't that mean we have to spend to repay that debt? So in a sense, Cantor is correct--Obama is causing us to spend more than all administrations combined.

See how NPR conveniently left that out of their article?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,205
Messages
1,428,556
Members
61,109
Latest member
Minnervos
Back
Top