Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - A question for the Obama apologists

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - A question for the Obama apologists (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=83727)

detbuch

10-02-2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1015961)

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas.

Oh? I never heard that before. Something new . . . or something you have observed by your more realistic understanding of contexts? I double checked the official guide on how and for what Congress people act--the Constitution. It lists 18 things in which Congress has the responsibility to act. None of the 18 says that members are to be concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. Each of the 18 are enumerated as duties not agendas. And they are very specific, not encumbered by conflicting or various "sides."

This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President,

The House behavior to which you refer was about the funding of a law which was imperfectly written, and which itself has been an "agenda" of progressives for a century. An agenda that is not listed as one of the 18 ways on which Congress is supposed to act. And, yes, Congress can override Supreme Court decisions. It is actually the final arbiter of what is federal law, not the SCOTUS.

I understand, however, that you have no truck with such notions. The Constitution, for you, is an outdated document which was written in a different context than that in which we currently live. High sounding concepts such as liberty, especially individual liberty, no longer apply. We are all totally interdependent in such a way that individualism is an obstacle to efficient social order and good governance thereof. And it is through government, highly centralized and staffed with expert bureaucrats, that we must achieve what is good for all.

The "perception" that a Cruze could be acting honorably to perform his Constitutional duty to country and constituents is probably for you, naïve. Your reading of the relevant context, with its variables and relative agendas, is that what he is doing is only for a run at the presidency.

House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Actually, the Tea Party has felt that it has been back stabbed by Republicans whom they helped to victory, and who have abandoned promises that helped them get elected. Any new candidates the Tea Party runs to replace back stabbing Congress people will be to right the ship.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

Yes, yes, the "perspective" thing. I know, I know, the official guide to what the POTUS's perspective should be is irrelevant. That perspective is much narrower than what modern presidents must have. They are responsible for so much more, just about everything, so that one person couldn't actually handle it and do it well--that jack of all trades but master of none syndrome. So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Really?

buckman

10-03-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016027)

Curious if you affectionately refer to your information sources as your "dealer".

-spence

Ok. That did get a chuckle out of me but what I said is fact
Look up the word . It helps understand reality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Raven

10-03-2013 03:48 PM

when i flush the toilet
i think of Obama

spence

10-03-2013 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1016043)

So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

basswipe

10-03-2013 04:38 PM

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Sea Dangles

10-03-2013 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016150)

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

10-03-2013 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 1016154)

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

detbuch

10-03-2013 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016158)

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

"Doomsday mission"? Are you reneging on your devotion to "perspectives"? Cruz has a broader perspective than "Republican after Republican" who want to end the budget impasse. What budget? The continuing resolution is a means to AVOID a budget. Raising the debt ceiling is a means to spend, again, even more money than the government has.

And Obamacare does the same. And it is not popular or desired by a majority of citizens.

Anonymous quotes to the contrary, the mess republicans are in is the mess that everybody is in, and that mess includes obamacare, which Republicans didn't vote for. It is not Republicans who have not passed budgets, it is not Republicans who passed Obamacare, but it is Republicans who have also contributed to the debt and also maintained business as usual for the Federal Gvt.

Who cares if they believe they'll get blamed for it all. Most people, including me, don't give a rat's behind if they do. What tea partiers and constitutionalists care about is getting rid of debt, getting rid of oppressive tyrannical mandates (including Obamacare), restoring principled constitutional gvt. and making this, again, a country of free, responsible people, not a populace who must depend on government bureaucracy to sustain their lives.

Cruz's broader "perspective" includes all of that. I have heard him speak on talk shows and he says a lot more than is represented in the article you cite. And the perspective from which he speaks is not a "doomsday mission," but a restoration to sanity and a brighter, once again flourishing nation of individuals who can innovate and produce far more than herds and groups who are all prodded into one way by centralized regulations.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

As for Obamacare and should it be repealed, read from the same issue of Politico that you cite this article by one of the progressive's favorite billionaires, Warren Buffet: http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/o...e=t-oc-buffett

Fishpart

10-04-2013 06:01 AM

Politico, now there is an unbiased source. Should be named Pravda...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

10-04-2013 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1016157)

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps your drive by pot shots aren't conducive towards thinking.

-spence

spence

10-04-2013 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1016196)

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

buckman

10-04-2013 07:06 AM

[QUOTE=spence;1016210]I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence[/
Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

10-04-2013 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1016214)

Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

Piscator

10-04-2013 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016219)

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

10-04-2013 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016219)

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

10-04-2013 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1016225)

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

10-04-2013 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016227)

There were laws passed, specifically, to ensure that Congress the Senate staffers and the president are taking care of them protected. If not , then why pass those amendments .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

justplugit

10-04-2013 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 1016224)

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And before we turn this page, the answer is ?????????????? :D

fishbones

10-04-2013 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016227)

Spence, please show us which polls you've seen that indicated most of the public doesn't want it defunded. You always ask for proof if someone posts something you don't agree with. It should be expected of you as well.

detbuch

10-04-2013 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016210)

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

Your drive-by opinion needs some proof or evidence other than your "perception."

Is ego not a portion of courage? Most of the "great" men of history would be perceived as being driven by ego. Are you implying that ego is bad? Perhaps you perceive that your opinions or actions are devoid of ego. Perhaps your own arrogance blinds you to those perceptions and opinions of others as if what you propose without some proofs is obviously true. That is ego and arrogance of a high order.

And "political anarchy"? What we have now is an anarchy. Our government does not operate by consistent principles, and it has abandoned the constitutional structure which provided those principles. A structure which provided the rule of law rather than rule by men. Rule by men rather than law is anarchy. What Cruz is attempting is a restoration of principles that promote individual freedom and the rule of law, not anarchy. See this article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Public opinion can be a useful guide in deciding legislation, but only if it is informed by principle and truth, not misguided by spin and lies. Cruz's behavior is backed by principal and constitutional order. If that makes him an attractive candidate for President, I say hooray!

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

Yes, by definition, it gives you more to spend. And the U.S. Gvt. takes in monthly enough to pay current bills. But the constant expansion of government has constantly required more money. And the need to abandon budgets and the borrowing of more money. And the debt that has been accrued by constantly borrowing has become impossible to pay unless the borrowing stops.

And your perception of Tea Party "threats" are perceived by them as means to fiscal and legislative sanity. If sanity is a threat, so be it. Wasn't the so-called government "shutdown" a threat to avoid any compromise?

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting that those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

spence

10-04-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1016242)

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/war...-on-obamacare/

-spence

spence

10-04-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1016237)

Use your Google, plenty of information out there.

-spence

spence

10-04-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1016228)

Initially Congress was automatically exempt from the exchanges because they already had insurance...then Republicans amended the bill to force Congress on the exchanges while keeping their existing employer contributions.

There is no there there. This is wingnut talking point fluffery.

-spence

spence

10-04-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishpart (Post 1016202)

Politico, now there is an unbiased source. Should be named Pravda...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet another example of what's wrong.

-spence

detbuch

10-04-2013 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016245)

Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/war...-on-obamacare/

-spence

Interesting. Yes, taking out of context has been around for a long time. By all "sides."

But, according to factcheck, Buffet actually did say "unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much. [Actually, various predictions now say that it does--costs will substantially rise.] And he actually did say in a response to a question if he was in favor of scrapping this and going back to start over, "I would be if I were President Obama."

Though he preferred it to the status quo, he also said "I would rather see a plan C that really attacks cost . . . The American Public is not behind this bill." He seems to support the bill as "a step in the right direction" but not an answer to health care costs. So a compromise on it to "improve" it is another way of saying come up with something different. Which is not so different than what Republicans, or even Cruz, are saying.

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.

How about answering the rest of my post.

spence

10-05-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1016228)

This is for you buck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fox-news-host/

“As it turns out, it looks as if more personnel were sent in to the World War II memorial to keep people out than the State Department sent to Benghazi.”

Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

10-06-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1016378)

Leave it you you to make a joke of Benghazi and WW2 vets in the same post ... Really ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

10-06-2013 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1016501)

Leave it you you to make a joke of Benghazi and WW2 vets in the same post ... Really ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not me, that was Fox News...

-spence

spence

10-06-2013 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1016255)

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.

That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

spence

10-06-2013 05:04 PM

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page