Is Everyone In The Obama Administration Stuck On Stupid?

BeAChooser · 12th February 2010, 11:29 AM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ert-gibbs.html

Quote:

Gibbs defends Biden claim that Iraq is a great Obama achievement, though both men opposed it

February 12, 2010

DavidJames · 12th February 2010, 11:51 AM

What would the day be without another BAC ODS thread.

Praktik · 12th February 2010, 12:08 PM

I have no answer to the op, but I do wonder if BAC is stuck on "stuck on stupid" - variety ain't the spice of life BAC??

willhaven · 12th February 2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

Not sure they ever opposed that part of the deal.

joobz · 12th February 2010, 12:12 PM

And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out.

And here is what Biden said:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. "

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

headscratcher4 · 12th February 2010, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out.

And here is what Biden said:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. "

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

Seriously, were this to happen as Biden says, that would just be stupid. I mean instead of winding down this undclared war against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. but which has cost us over $1 Trillion and many thousands of lives, we plan on leaving -- just as Obama campaigned on (though, as you noted, not on the schedule he campaigned on). So, there he is too stupid Obama essentially carrying out -- or trying to -- one of the promises he made to the American people when he ran for president. Is he just to stupid to understand that with a little more effort on his part we could keep 138000 troops on the ground, pay hundreds of billions more to contractors, see a lot more kids burried in VA cemetaries and essentially occupy the country for 100 McCain years...God, Obama is just too stupid to breath.

fullflavormenthol · 12th February 2010, 01:43 PM

"Stuck on stupid" is stuck on stupid. Seriously we should combine all these BAC crap threads into one "Obama is a big mean stupid poopy head".

KingMerv00 · 12th February 2010, 02:45 PM

What catch phrase will he use next? Perhaps "You know what really grinds my gears?"

joobz · 12th February 2010, 03:29 PM

The first instance of BAC starting a thread with the "stuck on stupid" concept was
September 11, 2008. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123394

I think in the politics section, we must accept that we live in a post 9/11 time. A period when BAC became stuck on stuck on stupid. While we may all wish to go back to the days before 9/11, we can't. We are seemingly stuck with BeAChooser's stuck on stuck on stupid.

BeAChooser · 12th February 2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

And here is what Biden said:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. "

And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc.

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008.

joobz · 12th February 2010, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You snipped out my argument. That's not very nice. Here it is again.

Originally Posted by joobz

And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out.

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

willhaven · 12th February 2010, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength.

It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue.

1) Troop level increase (which put it on par with levels previously held).
2) Change in tactics with increased troop levels.
3) The Iraqi Awakening Councils. We paid folks to fight with us against Al Qaeda. Some meager percentage of these are getting folded into the Iraqi military and police force, but the lions share are ex militants that are no longer getting paid or will no longer be getting paid once the Iraqi government cuts off their funding (which used to be funded by us).
4) Muqtada al Sadr's ceasefire resulted in a major drop in violence. If he wanted to cause trouble again, he could easily snatch up some militants and struggle for power. He was popular amongst the locals.

#2 and #3 are problematic. If the funding cuts off for the Awakening Councils and al Sadr decides to wait for us to leave before causing problems, Iraq could easily see a major increase in violence.

It's not entirely due to us taking out all of the threats. Some of the threat was diverted, some was pacified. Hopefully they stay that way.

applecorped · 12th February 2010, 08:12 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/

"Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose."

Grasping at straws. A win is needed, even if on Bush's back.

BeAChooser · 12th February 2010, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.

BeAChooser · 12th February 2010, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by willhaven

It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue.

True, but without the extra troops and the perception those troops created that we were committed for the long haul, none of the other things would have mattered.

The troops were the core of the approach.

fess · 12th February 2010, 10:03 PM

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds.

Redtail · 12th February 2010, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by fess

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds.

Heh. I remember a similar thing started about Bush in 2002. Sadly the "OMGZ HE'S EVILS AND IZ GOING TO END AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!" kicked in and he won in 2004.

GreyICE · 13th February 2010, 12:27 AM

It's ironic the acronym for BACs favorite catch phrase is SOS - because that's what this is, a distress signal from a sinking ship. Only this one the coast guard doesn't give a rat's ass about. When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk.

Wildy · 13th February 2010, 01:28 AM

But we all know that's never going to happen.

BeAChooser · 13th February 2010, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk.

I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6191815.shtml

Quote:

February 9, 2010

Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender

Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

... snip ...

He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

... snip ...

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

GreyICE · 13th February 2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6191815.shtml

Has it ever occurred to you that your 'hard left' sources are often critical of these 'stupid leftists' that apparently they worship?

Didn't think so. Reality must be so much simpler in black and insane.

KoihimeNakamura · 13th February 2010, 01:58 PM

You know you just also linked a blog, right?

ETA: Not to say blogs are bad, but I will remain a bit more skeptical of political conclusions of bloggers like I would a reporter - typically speaking there's an axe to grind.

BeAChooser · 13th February 2010, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Rika

You know you just also linked a blog, right?

Well this isn't from the blog but from the CBS News website, and concerns the author I quoted above:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524942.shtml

Quote:

(CBS) Mark Knoller is an award-winning White House Correspondent for CBS News. He reports for CBS Radio News, as well as The Saturday Early Show. He also contributes to the weekend editions of the CBS Evening News and Up To The Minute.

During his career as a reporter, he has covered every President since Gerald Ford. Knoller came to CBS News in 1988 after 13 years as a correspondent with the Associated Press Radio Network, where he was on the front lines of national news coverage -- everything from Presidential campaigns and hurricanes to the death and funeral of Elvis Presley.

After serving three years as Assignment Manager in the CBS News Washington bureau, Knoller was assigned to the White House, where he covered the last year of the George Bush Presidency and every day of Bill Clinton's. In fact, he has logged more miles covering President Clinton that any other member of the White House press corps. He is now covering the presidency of George W. Bush.

He has earned a reputation as one of the leading reporters on the White House beat. He has been honored with a number of AP Awards and with the Merriman Smith Award for Deadline Reporting on the Presidency, bestowed by the White House Correspondents' Association.

joobz · 13th February 2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing.

Except Obama's method was to force the issue to avoid a never ending skirmish.
It's not unusual that when US presence wasn't "definite" that the militias started to back down.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.

Yup. So?

MattusMaximus · 13th February 2010, 07:12 PM

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?

fullflavormenthol · 13th February 2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?

You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far."

GreyICE · 13th February 2010, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?

Surrealistic humor.

dc1971 · 13th February 2010, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc.

And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008.

What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no?

dc1971 · 13th February 2010, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?

Because his name suggests that we have a choice!!

dc1971 · 13th February 2010, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.

So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with?

(**realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question**)

daredelvis · 13th February 2010, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far."

That, and the dearth of leftysarg initiated threads.

Daredelvis

GreyICE · 13th February 2010, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by dc1971

Because his name suggests that we have a choice!!

Oh, I thought it was an inspiration to guess what motivated the postings. I'm guessing for this one as 0.13 - reasonably moderate, by standards of these things.

BeAChooser · 14th February 2010, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no?

Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically?

BeAChooser · 14th February 2010, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with?

(**realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question**)

Actually, your problem is that isn't the topic of the OP.

dc1971 · 14th February 2010, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically?

Now where did I say anything about you being FALSE?

dc1971 · 14th February 2010, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Actually, your problem is that isn't the topic of the OP.

Mr. Chooser...

Quote from Robert Gibbs: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

joobz · 14th February 2010, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

Mr. Chooser...

Quote from Robert Gibbs: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

BAC reasoning:
If Iraq is successful, it is because of Bush's policies.
If Iraq is unsuccessful, it is Obama's fault.

dc1971 · 14th February 2010, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

BAC reasoning:
If Iraq is successful, it is because of Bush's policies.
If Iraq is unsuccessful, it is Obama's fault.

Typical conservative mindset!

BeAChooser · 14th February 2010, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by dc1971

I'm confused, what is he saying here that is so wrong or so "stuck on stupid"??

More to the point of the OP, what is Gibbs saying that can be laid at the feet of the Obama and Biden as something that they actually accomplished, rather than something they tried on numerous occasions to prevent? What Gibbs said is equivalent to saying a person who survives a murder attempt should thank the attempted murderer for saving his/her life.

dc1971 · 14th February 2010, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

More to the point of the OP, what is Gibbs saying that can be laid at the feet of the Obama and Biden as something that they actually accomplished, rather than something they tried on numerous occasions to prevent? What Gibbs said is equivalent to saying a person who survives a murder attempt should thank the attempted murderer for saving his/her life.

Nope, that's not what it's saying at all! Please answer MY question first! What is Gibbs saying that is so wrong?

12th February 2010, 11:29 AM	#1
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Is Everyone In The Obama Administration Stuck On Stupid? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ert-gibbs.html Quote: Gibbs defends Biden claim that Iraq is a great Obama achievement, though both men opposed it February 12, 2010
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

12th February 2010, 12:12 PM	#5
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out. And here is what Biden said: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. " So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 12:45 PM	#6
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by joobz And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out. And here is what Biden said: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. " So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)... Seriously, were this to happen as Biden says, that would just be stupid. I mean instead of winding down this undclared war against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. but which has cost us over $1 Trillion and many thousands of lives, we plan on leaving -- just as Obama campaigned on (though, as you noted, not on the schedule he campaigned on). So, there he is too stupid Obama essentially carrying out -- or trying to -- one of the promises he made to the American people when he ran for president. Is he just to stupid to understand that with a little more effort on his part we could keep 138000 troops on the ground, pay hundreds of billions more to contractors, see a lot more kids burried in VA cemetaries and essentially occupy the country for 100 McCain years...God, Obama is just too stupid to breath.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

12th February 2010, 02:45 PM	#8
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	What catch phrase will he use next? Perhaps "You know what really grinds my gears?"
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

12th February 2010, 03:29 PM	#9
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	The first instance of BAC starting a thread with the "stuck on stupid" concept was September 11, 2008. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123394 I think in the politics section, we must accept that we live in a post 9/11 time. A period when BAC became stuck on stuck on stupid. While we may all wish to go back to the days before 9/11, we can't. We are seemingly stuck with BeAChooser's stuck on stuck on stupid.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 11:51 AM	#2
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	What would the day be without another BAC ODS thread.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

12th February 2010, 12:08 PM	#3
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	I have no answer to the op, but I do wonder if BAC is stuck on "stuck on stupid" - variety ain't the spice of life BAC??
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

12th February 2010, 12:10 PM	#4
willhaven Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,004	Quote: I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. Not sure they ever opposed that part of the deal.

12th February 2010, 01:43 PM	#7
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	"Stuck on stupid" is stuck on stupid. Seriously we should combine all these BAC crap threads into one "Obama is a big mean stupid poopy head".

12th February 2010, 03:39 PM	#10
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by joobz And here is what Biden said: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. " And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc. And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

12th February 2010, 04:47 PM	#11
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by BeAChooser You snipped out my argument. That's not very nice. Here it is again. Originally Posted by joobz And yet, so many people though Obama was going to "ruin" the "achievements in Iraq" by pulling troupes out. So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)...
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

12th February 2010, 05:43 PM	#12
willhaven Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,004	Originally Posted by BeAChooser And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue. 1) Troop level increase (which put it on par with levels previously held). 2) Change in tactics with increased troop levels. 3) The Iraqi Awakening Councils. We paid folks to fight with us against Al Qaeda. Some meager percentage of these are getting folded into the Iraqi military and police force, but the lions share are ex militants that are no longer getting paid or will no longer be getting paid once the Iraqi government cuts off their funding (which used to be funded by us). 4) Muqtada al Sadr's ceasefire resulted in a major drop in violence. If he wanted to cause trouble again, he could easily snatch up some militants and struggle for power. He was popular amongst the locals. #2 and #3 are problematic. If the funding cuts off for the Awakening Councils and al Sadr decides to wait for us to leave before causing problems, Iraq could easily see a major increase in violence. It's not entirely due to us taking out all of the threats. Some of the threat was diverted, some was pacified. Hopefully they stay that way.

12th February 2010, 08:12 PM	#13
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,631	http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/ "Biden said a "troop surge" will not work. Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose." Grasping at straws. A win is needed, even if on Bush's back.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

12th February 2010, 09:45 PM	#14
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by joobz So they are pulling out troups (Although not as many as they'd claimed) while maintaining Iraqi stability (which republicans claimed wouldn't happen)... Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

12th February 2010, 09:47 PM	#15
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by willhaven It wasn't just the troop levels that caused the surge to work. It was, to my knowledge, a 4 part issue. True, but without the extra troops and the perception those troops created that we were committed for the long haul, none of the other things would have mattered. The troops were the core of the approach.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

12th February 2010, 10:03 PM	#16
fess Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Hiding in the sticks. Posts: 1,041	Countdown until Obama leaves Office 1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds.

12th February 2010, 10:47 PM	#17
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by fess Countdown until Obama leaves Office 1072 Days, 09 Hours, 57 Minutes, 24 Seconds. Heh. I remember a similar thing started about Bush in 2002. Sadly the "OMGZ HE'S EVILS AND IZ GOING TO END AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!" kicked in and he won in 2004.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

13th February 2010, 12:27 AM	#18
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	It's ironic the acronym for BACs favorite catch phrase is SOS - because that's what this is, a distress signal from a sinking ship. Only this one the coast guard doesn't give a rat's ass about. When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

13th February 2010, 01:28 AM	#19
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,921	But we all know that's never going to happen.
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

13th February 2010, 12:53 PM	#20
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by GreyICE When you've been sending out an SOS for two years with this little response, it's probably about time to admit your boat is sunk. I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6191815.shtml Quote: February 9, 2010 Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties. "Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said. It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup. ... snip ... He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country." ... snip ... When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th February 2010, 01:04 PM	#21
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by BeAChooser I don't know about that, GreyICE. When even such hard left media sources like CBS start telling the public the truth about Obama (see below), I'd say the bloom is coming off the rose. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6191815.shtml Has it ever occurred to you that your 'hard left' sources are often critical of these 'stupid leftists' that apparently they worship? Didn't think so. Reality must be so much simpler in black and insane.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

13th February 2010, 01:58 PM	#22
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,849	You know you just also linked a blog, right? ETA: Not to say blogs are bad, but I will remain a bit more skeptical of political conclusions of bloggers like I would a reporter - typically speaking there's an axe to grind.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

13th February 2010, 02:23 PM	#23
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Rika You know you just also linked a blog, right? Well this isn't from the blog but from the CBS News website, and concerns the author I quoted above: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524942.shtml Quote: (CBS) Mark Knoller is an award-winning White House Correspondent for CBS News. He reports for CBS Radio News, as well as The Saturday Early Show. He also contributes to the weekend editions of the CBS Evening News and Up To The Minute. During his career as a reporter, he has covered every President since Gerald Ford. Knoller came to CBS News in 1988 after 13 years as a correspondent with the Associated Press Radio Network, where he was on the front lines of national news coverage -- everything from Presidential campaigns and hurricanes to the death and funeral of Elvis Presley. After serving three years as Assignment Manager in the CBS News Washington bureau, Knoller was assigned to the White House, where he covered the last year of the George Bush Presidency and every day of Bill Clinton's. In fact, he has logged more miles covering President Clinton that any other member of the White House press corps. He is now covering the presidency of George W. Bush. He has earned a reputation as one of the leading reporters on the White House beat. He has been honored with a number of AP Awards and with the Merriman Smith Award for Deadline Reporting on the Presidency, bestowed by the White House Correspondents' Association.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th February 2010, 03:39 PM	#24
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. Except Obama's method was to force the issue to avoid a never ending skirmish. It's not unusual that when US presence wasn't "definite" that the militias started to back down. Originally Posted by BeAChooser What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated. Yup. So?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

13th February 2010, 07:12 PM	#25
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

13th February 2010, 07:52 PM	#26
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far."

13th February 2010, 08:08 PM	#27
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? Surrealistic humor.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

13th February 2010, 08:11 PM	#28
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by BeAChooser And in what way is any of that an accomplishment of the Obama administration? It a matter of record that it was the Bush administration which negotiated the pullout deal for American troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by June 2009, and a complete withdrawal by December 2011. Did you really expect that Bush would just let those troops sit in the desert for two years? Of course most were to be coming home soon after withdrawing from the cities etc. And the ONLY reason you will see a stable, representative government in Iraq is because Bush did what Biden, Obama and the democrat establishment (and base) were deadset against back in 2007/2008 ... namely, surged our troop strength. In fact, Obama was so Stuck On Stupid that he even told a journalist after it was apparent to all (even him) that the surge worked, that even knowing how successful the surge would be, he'd still have been against it back in 2007/2008. What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no?
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033

13th February 2010, 08:12 PM	#29
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? Because his name suggests that we have a choice!!
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033

13th February 2010, 08:16 PM	#30
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Not true. Republicans didn't claim we couldn't pull troops out. In fact, the Bush administration is the one that negotiated the withdrawal. They planned on a withdrawal that's not all that different (if at all) then the one that Obama is continuing. What republicans were against was the withdraw all troops "immediatedly" nonsense that Obama and his base often spouted. Especially Obama's statements that he'd withdraw the troops no matter what conditions in the country were like ... no matter how it deteriorated. So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with? (realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question)
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033

13th February 2010, 08:18 PM	#31
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,866	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Why does anyone bother even replying to BAC's threads anymore? Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol You got me. Personally I do just to feel the love of both liberals and conservatives coming together to unite in saying that hyper-partisan politics is tearing us apart. In a strange way BAC brings all parties together to say.."hey you are going too far." That, and the dearth of leftysarg initiated threads. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

13th February 2010, 08:30 PM	#32
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by dc1971 Because his name suggests that we have a choice!! Oh, I thought it was an inspiration to guess what motivated the postings. I'm guessing for this one as 0.13 - reasonably moderate, by standards of these things.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

14th February 2010, 12:26 AM	#33
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by dc1971 What I'm reading here, it seems to me that you listen to conservative talk radio on a regular basis, no? Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

14th February 2010, 12:28 AM	#34
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by dc1971 So answer me this, Mr. Chooser... Why are/were there ANY troops over there to begin with? (realizing this is the JREF forum, and not the Sean Hannity forum, I'm safe from getting booted for asking such a question) Actually, your problem is that isn't the topic of the OP.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

14th February 2010, 06:49 AM	#35
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Are you trying to suggest that anything I stated is false. What, specifically? Now where did I say anything about you being FALSE?
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033