Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
24 hours from doomsday; Is your food storage up to snuff?
Topic Started: Mar 1 2013, 03:24 AM (1,108 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:37 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Agree Neal,a case in point being despite the president's dire warning, the sky did not fall on his this morning. But he has now kicked that forecast down the road too, claiming sometime in the future we will be doomed. :smile:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:51 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:37 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Agree Neal,a case in point being despite the president's dire warning, the sky did not fall on his this morning. But he has now kicked that forecast down the road too, claiming sometime in the future we will be doomed. :smile:
A mild exaggeration, Pat? He hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that it won't be the well -off who are hurt by sequestration, it will be the poor and middle class, and the economy will most likely suffer as well. I agree that the administration has been hyping the whole thing, but reps are equally at fault when it comes to over-hyping something. Witness the gun nuts argument that the government is coming to take away all of our guns.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 03:00 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:51 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:37 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Agree Neal,a case in point being despite the president's dire warning, the sky did not fall on his this morning. But he has now kicked that forecast down the road too, claiming sometime in the future we will be doomed. :smile:
A mild exaggeration, Pat? He hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that it won't be the well -off who are hurt by sequestration, it will be the poor and middle class, and the economy will most likely suffer as well. I agree that the administration has been hyping the whole thing, but reps are equally at fault when it comes to over-hyping something. Witness the gun nuts argument that the government is coming to take away all of our guns.
Well of course I exaggerate at time. It's a weakness like pecan pie, something I can't kick.

I think the cuts will be absorbed, people will learn to adjust. And that will be that. We do need to do something about entitlements, but nobody in Washington has balls to deal with the big issues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 03:09 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 03:00 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:51 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:37 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Agree Neal,a case in point being despite the president's dire warning, the sky did not fall on his this morning. But he has now kicked that forecast down the road too, claiming sometime in the future we will be doomed. :smile:
A mild exaggeration, Pat? He hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that it won't be the well -off who are hurt by sequestration, it will be the poor and middle class, and the economy will most likely suffer as well. I agree that the administration has been hyping the whole thing, but reps are equally at fault when it comes to over-hyping something. Witness the gun nuts argument that the government is coming to take away all of our guns.
Well of course I exaggerate at time. It's a weakness like pecan pie, something I can't kick.

I think the cuts will be absorbed, people will learn to adjust. And that will be that. We do need to do something about entitlements, but nobody in Washington has balls to deal with the big issues.
I agree that if the cuts are left in place, we will have no alternative but to adjust. The question is whether the cuts will have been a good thing or a bad thing for the country. I saw General Odierno on Morning Joe this morning talking about the cuts to the military. I'm all for cuts to the military but here's some of what he said would happen to the Army alone. Helicopter pilots will be restricted to fewer hours of training, resulting in a shortage of qualified helo pilots. weapons replacement will be delayed. Training of combat troops will slow. Maintenance of equipment will be delayed and some other things I can't remember. Many government employees will be furloughed one day a week. That will result in a 20% pay cut. I would hate to have set myself up to live according to my means and then have to take a 20% cut in pay. Whether the number of layoffs will be as high as predicted, I don't know, but it will probably hurt the businesses that depend on those earners. I don't think we yet know what the results will be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I agree, we don't don't know what the end results will be. My experience however tells me that when there is less available, you adjust. And I think it would be odd for those facing cuts not to paint a bleak picture, they are the ones facing adjusting, which is not comfortable of our species.

The alternative to not dealing with spending is bleak too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 04:11 AM
I agree, we don't don't know what the end results will be. My experience however tells me that when there is less available, you adjust. And I think it would be odd for those facing cuts not to paint a bleak picture, they are the ones facing adjusting, which is not comfortable of our species.

The alternative to not dealing with spending is bleak too.
I agree, Pat, but we need to deal with the spending problem by addressing the spending problem. What they've done is the easy stuff which will hurt the poor and the middles class and avoided the real issue which is SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. They also need to reduce spending on the military to something comparable to what other countries spend. Doing that might entice those other countries to increase their own military spending instead of relying on the US taxpayer to support their defense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yep. I'm for means testing entitlements and think it would go a long ways towards shoring the programs up. And no games or under the table deals. That will be the difficult part.

And we do need to get military spending down to something that makes sense, we can't afford picking up the defense tab for the rest of the west.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?

Everything is somebody's opinion to an extent. Brew prefers to bring in Rupert Murdock. You don't wish to "argue" based on source. Neither of you touched the content.

For example.... did our president travel the nation insturcting the masses that the sky was about to fall and that it was the Republicans fault or didn't he? Did he sit down and talk with the Congress to debate and negotiate the sequester issue or didn't he?.... he did have time to sit in on the Al Sharpton's radio show for soft ball play. And he still is playing the blame game (playing the fiddle while Washington burns):

Quote:
 
A combative President Barack Obama blamed Republican lawmakers Friday for failing to stop automatic spending cuts that were to begin kicking in later in the day, calling the cuts "dumb, arbitrary."
from Huffington Post
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
did our president travel the nation insturcting the masses that the sky was about to fall and that it was the Republicans fault or didn't he?

Yes he did, and he was correct.

Quote:
 
Did he sit down and talk with the Congress to debate and negotiate the sequester issue or didn't he?....
That would have been difficult, since there was nobody there to talk to, and it would have been useless anyway, since the Reps were not prepared to talk about a balanced approach in any case.

Better to hit the road and gather public support.

Why do you keep asking the Pres to do the impossible?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis