Democrats versus Republicans

[xort]

As for SSA. It was promised, when concieved, that there would not be any taxes on SSA nor would there be any raids on SSA to fund the general budget.

Both of those promises were broken when the house, the senate & the president were all run by democrats. This is what scares me the most, that if obama gets elected we will likely have all three houses governed by liberal democrats with no checks to stop them. SSA & the health care system will be changed forever and not for the better.

[PBzeer]

Remember xort, what is important, is that we have CHANGE!

[PBzeer]

And let us not forget, the underlying premise of any government program, from the left or right, is that YOU are unable to take care of yourself. That you need the government to provide for you. That you need the government to tell you what is best for you.

Without that basic premise, there is no reason for government involvement in one's everyday life.

There are certain, and enumerated functions within the Constitution, that the Federal government is supposed, even obligated, to perform. Social programs are not one of those functions.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

To quote a famous conservative of whom I'm sure most here are familar with

"well.. there you go again"

Prestigious means corrupt?

Why do I bother?

First of all, quoting that line, in this context, borders on blasphemy.

lol

Second, it can't be that I'm the first person you've met that holds this view of academia so, what's up?

Last: Where do you think all the absurd ideas around us come from, and how do you think they trickle into the culture?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Ronald Reagan knew when to cut his losses. For example, he got the hell out of Lebanon when it became clear it was going to become a deep endless pit full of quicksand. We need someone with that kind of judgment right around now.

But that was after a long tradition of us being there and doing nothing to help Lebanon fight the being that was undermining her efforts to modernize, namely, Iran.

We left, oh, Causeless One, without extracting an unforgettable price for the slaughter of American Marines. That error, and a whole collection of similar errors, is why our enemies are emboldened.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by PorFin

4. If you are implying that officers who have attended your so-called "corrupt" schools have been subverted by these institutions, I sincerely hope that you don't really believe that the officers are morons who cannot think for themselves. In fact, I'd have to say that you've probably got it backwards. Many of these schools seek out the military officers largely because they bring a different perspective to the table. Unlike most of their peers in the classroom, the military officers often have actual real-world practical experience in the field of study. This improves the quality of discussions in graduate seminars, and thus the relative value of the degree program as a whole.

No jab. This was an honest Q.

I certainly don't think they're morons, but I certainly think that, after a century of influence on education by the mentality that currently runs our universities, less and less of us are able to think.

It's a relatively simple thing to show that the methods being taught throughout the better schools are less and less anchored in proper foundations. (Conservative journals and magazines take them to task all the time.)

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

First of all, quoting that line, in this context, borders on blasphemy.

lol

Second, it can't be that I'm the first person you've met that holds this view of academia so, what's up?

Last: Where do you think all the absurd ideas around us come from, and how do you think they trickle into the culture?

Porfin already posted at length on your statement that Military officers got degrees from corrupt university's.

Funny how you direct your comment to me and not his fact filled post.

On the other hand, it's not funny, it's normal. It didn't trickle into the culture - it's standard hyperbole from you. That's hardly the culture I grew up in.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

But that was after a long tradition of us being there and doing nothing to help Lebanon fight the being that was undermining her efforts to modernize, namely, Iran.

We left, oh, Causeless One, without extracting an unforgettable price for the slaughter of American Marines. That error, and a whole collection of similar errors, is why our enemies are emboldened.

It was a civil war, we were there from 1982 to 1984 as part of a multinational peace keeping force. I was there on October 23rd, 1983 when the two truck bombs hit our barracks and the French barracks (most folks forget the second truck). I was there digging the bodies out amid sniper and mortar attacks.

The French, BTW sent in an airstrike in retaliation; largely we did nothing because there was open dispute on who conducted the attack, then as now there is no clear proof.
As to the 'tradition'
Ike sent 15000 troops in in 1958 during the previous civil war, and when it settled down pulled them out a few months later.
The French had a much longer 'tradition' in Lebanon than did the U.S.

I agree with Ragnar, withdrawing in Feb 84 emboldened the terrorist based groups responsible (some dispute it, but I firmly believe it was Iran's surrogates in the then unannounced Hezbollah (Hezbollah when public in 1985)) and caused much of the ensuing grief and bloodshed we still see today.

Clinton pulling out of Somalia has had much the same effect there.

When you go in on a mission, you complete it, irregardless of whether or not the reason to go in was right in hindsight. As to Iraq, Hussien could have prevented a invasion by following the terms of the U.N. He choose not to because he (not the U.S.) misjudged the determination and political will power to clean his ass up.

[PBzeer]

Oddly enough, terrorist actions were treated as crimminal acts by the Clinton Administration, necessitating only police action. The consequences are evident. Continued terrorist activity in and against the US, culminating in 9/11. Bush though, treated 9/11 as what it was, a terrorist action and his resultant policies have taken the "action" to their backyard, rather than ours. Personally, I'd rather have those who are trained to be involved in fighting doing the fighting, rather than having American civilians killed in terroist actions on American soil.

[sailaway21]

Well, that about does it for "government programs that work". I particularly liked the part where their efficiency was trumpeted. As if the average citizen couldn't take the exact same money he deposits into SSI and receive a better return. And the last I checked, the Red Cross was a private outfit.

The bottom line is that there are no government programs more efficient than the US military, and we know how inefficient they are. We tolerate that inefficiency for that dark day when our lives hang in the balance and only military might can sustain us. Pretty much like every day since the 11th of September 2001.

To the extent that anyone would bring up a government program as the first and best way to help people, the person is engaging in either sophistry or is making a sophmoric argument. How many jokes do you reckopn are out there where the punch line is, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

So, we know it doesn't work, let's pour more money into it. That's your Democratic logic. You guys should concentrate on funding the broken programs you started 70 years ago. In the meantime, we'll get by while you take care of that. Call us when you've got it up and running.