Jump to content
I saw no moral superiority. Quite the contrary.
The one thing that's clear is that the shut down is entirely a Republican issue. If Boehner brings a clean CR to the floor of the House, it passes.
The reporting I saw indicated that the surrender and destroy concept had been discussed by both Obama and Kerry with their Russian counterparts many months before Kerry's comments.
I suspect that the entire matter was stage managed by the US and Russia in an effort to get Assad's chemicals away from him, without the Russians appearing to have abandoned him. The way things went down, the Russians appear to have seized on an "unintended" opening to "save" Assad. If that's the case, more power to Obama and Kerry for being willing to look outflanked, if it results in a better potential outcome without loss of American lives. I'm tired of youngsters dying to show how tough our various presidents think they are.
As between Russia and the US, I think Russia is much more threatened by extremists getting their hands on Assad's chemical weapons, yet absent the threat of a US attack, none of this comes to pass and Russia has no opportunity to broker a deal. This result is good for Russia and certainly good for us.
As for no "final outcome" on Iran, or Syria for that matter, of course many things can go wrong, but for my part - and I would think yours as well given your screen name - talking that has promise of achieving the 100% goal, is always better than our young men and women fighting and dying for a suboptimal result.
Odd that after a week in which it appears Syria's chemical weapons will be surrendered and destroyed, and Iran is signalling that it's prepared for serious talks on its nuclear program - all without the loss of s single American life or even firing a single shot - you deem Obama and Kerry as "weakest in foreign" policy.
As things stand right now, what don't you like about that outcome?
As predicted the Congressional (House) Republicans couldn't care less about what the public wants - they seem bent on a government shut down even though all polling indicates that the public doesn't want the government shut down over defunding Obamacare.
They - like their supporters - are hypocrites.
In fact, most of the polling indicates that the public like the idea of universal healthcare - they just want Obamacare fixed, not defunded.
Sorry Tea Party, as in 2012, you lose again.
You ask: "Do you really think Republicans want their own and their country's health care and economies ruined just in order to "destroy this President's legacy"?"
Absolutely, and it started before Obama took office. There was something about a black, Democratic progressive that drove them insane from the moment the election results were in.
Congressional Republicans have been substantially more interested in avoiding a Tea Party primary opponent than governing in an even remotely responsible way. And I don't hate Congressional Republicans, but my contempt for them as a group couldn't be stronger.
As for the rest, when the "best health care options" include no health care for so many, I'd question the use of the word "best."
Who knew? However, I'm not sure I see the terrible governmental imposition of applying for premium free part A. Thereafter, nothing says you have to use it (other than perhaps your private insurance company which will want to use Medicare for part of what the insurance company would otherwise be liable for).
We have a nine other amendments in the Bill of Rights, all of which are subject to some limitations; yet for some reason there can be no restraints on guns? That's simply incorrect.
Moreover, you must not have seen my immigration example, because you ignored it.
No, the conservative right values the will of the people only in the less and less frequent cases when the majority of people agree with them. The rest of the time ideology comes well ahead of the will of the people.
Let's watch the upcoming CR and debt limit fights and see how many people want the government shut down or the US to default on its debts as compared to what the Tea Party does in the House and Senate.
"Are you aware that if I were to refuse to apply for Medicare when I reach 65, not only would I not get back the tens of thousands of dollars that have been extracted from me for that program, but I would also lose my Social Security benefits, for which I've ostensibly been paying many tens of thousands of $$ more all my life?"
This is surprising. Do you have any authority for this statement?
I'm curious why the will of the "people" seems so compelling to those on the right opposed to Obamacare; while those on the right are willing to ignore the will of the people who overwhelmingly favor tighter gun control laws and immigration reform?
Moreover, those opposed to Obamacare have yet to propose anything to replace it that will address our inefficient, under serving, yet terribly expensive current health care system. Do the opponents of Obamacare have anything to offer other than their opposition to it?
Most of the political analyses I've read have indicated that Republicans are using the issue to keep their base fired up, while having no real desire to repeal it, as they see it as a good wedge issue in 2014 and 2016, and repeal might actually force them to come up with their own plan. We all know that Congressional Republicans have no interest in actually governing if that might result in doing anything that will upset the Tea Party.
Last login: Monday, December 9, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.