NY-26

[aztec70]

You cons have some thinking to do here. If Ryan's budget plan is so popular how did Hochul (Dem.) get elected in this GOP district?

[AlwaysAnAztec]

I notice the lack of snappy comebacks.

[davdesid]

May 25, 2011 9:31:19 GMT -8 AlwaysAnAztec said:

I notice the lack of snappy comebacks.

Unlike you, some people actually have things to do in their lives at 9 am on a weekday.

I understand that Hochul ran against Medicare cuts, including those contained in Obamacare.

A false flag third party candidate siphoned votes from the Repub.

The previous Repub turned out to be a pervert.

Hochul didn't garner a majority.

Thump your chests, and spin yourselves dizzy. Where were you when Prosser beat Joanne Plop-a-Turd in Wisconsin for the state Supreme Court?

Wisconsin! The state that gave birth to the pubic sector unions!

Heh.

[AztecWilliam]

One of the key issues, perhaps THE key issue in 2012 (other than the quality of the presidential candidates) will be what the parties propose to do to get our national budget into the black and our national debt down to manageable levels. That means doing something about entitlements, especially Medicare. If something significant is not done, Medicare will collapse under its own weight in a few years. The Republicans have offered one proposed solution, the Democrats have not.

Well, that's not exactly correct. The Democrats have proposed setting up a committee that will use a meat axe to cut Medicare reimbursements down the road. That is another way of saying "rationing." The Ryan plan has offered another idea. It may not be the best, but at least it's a serious attempt to do something before it's too late.

The GOP has taken a chance by putting forth a plan that addresses the long term problem. It's easy to criticize such a plan since it represents change. Change can be, good in the long run but painful, or at least disorienting, in the short run.

It is troubling that one major party is seriously trying to deal with a crisis that is impossible to deny. Their plan may or may not be ideal, but at least they are making an effort. If the GOP wanted to get elected and nothing more, they would not have taken the risk of sponsoring a radical (and I use the term radical in the descriptive sense, not as a condemnation) plan.

The Democrats plan, other than to set up a rationing board, is to demagogue the other side in hopes of winning next year. When the bill comes due, they will of course be out of office and enjoying their comfortable federal retirement. The rest of us, including the unlucky party in power when the system is on the brink of collapse, will not be enjoying much of anything.

AzWm

[Bob Forsythe]

May 25, 2011 13:58:08 GMT -8 davdesid said:

May 25, 2011 9:31:19 GMT -8 AlwaysAnAztec said:

I notice the lack of snappy comebacks.

Unlike you, some people actually have things to do in their lives at 9 am on a weekday.

I understand that Hochul ran against Medicare cuts, including those contained in Obamacare.

A false flag third party candidate siphoned votes from the Repub.

The Teabagger siphoned some votes but what you don't understand is how rock hard Republican that district is. Without the Medicare argument, the Republican would have won despite a 3rd party challenge. Chris Lee won that district with 76% of the vote in 2008, which obviously was not a good year for Republicans.

One of the main problems with your arguments is how often you look for a quid pro quo - what happens in this election offsets what happened in that election. It doesn't work that way and it weakens your arguments. You should be offering arguments based upon it's merits, not attempting to argue apples and oranges by comparing a Supreme Court election in Wisconsin with a Congression race in Western New York. There is no comparison.

The Teabagger only got 9 percent of the vote in the 26th. If it were a normal election, without the Medicare argument and the election followed form, the Republican would have still received 65% of the vote. Instead of offering straw men arguments, try addressing the subject at hand.

=Bob

[Bob Forsythe]

May 25, 2011 16:22:37 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

One of the key issues, perhaps THE key issue in 2012 (other than the quality of the presidential candidates) will be what the parties propose to do to get our national budget into the black and our national debt down to manageable levels. That means doing something about entitlements, especially Medicare. If something significant is not done, Medicare will collapse under its own weight in a few years. The Republicans have offered one proposed solution, the Democrats have not.

Well, that's not exactly correct. The Democrats have proposed setting up a committee that will use a meat axe to cut Medicare reimbursements down the road. That is another way of saying "rationing." The Ryan plan has offered another idea. It may not be the best, but at least it's a serious attempt to do something before it's too late.

The GOP has taken a chance by putting forth a plan that addresses the long term problem. It's easy to criticize such a plan since it represents change. Change can be, good in the long run but painful, or at least disorienting, in the short run.

It is troubling that one major party is seriously trying to deal with a crisis that is impossible to deny. Their plan may or may not be ideal, but at least they are making an effort. If the GOP wanted to get elected and nothing more, they would not have taken the risk of sponsoring a radical (and I use the term radical in the descriptive sense, not as a condemnation) plan.

The Democrats plan, other than to set up a rationing board, is to demagogue the other side in hopes of winning next year. When the bill comes due, they will of course be out of office and enjoying their comfortable federal retirement. The rest of us, including the unlucky party in power when the system is on the brink of collapse, will not be enjoying much of anything.

AzWm

The Medicare arguments may well work, but I always find it interesting that you proclaim yourself to be a Libertarian but never mention defense cuts. This:

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282781-Can-We-Cut-quot-Defense-quot-Spending

reports on the findings of a joint effort by Ron Paul and Barney Frank - rather odd political bedfellows but two people who I think have correctly assessed the situation. I agree with both of them that it's damn well passed time when we need to "project American power". Say anything against that projection and you get labeled as one who "blames America first", but that projection can easily be portrayed as imperialism by the rest of the world. This is the proposed DOD budget for 2012:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_Breakdown_for_2012

As a self-proclaimed Libertarian, how in the Hell can you support more than a trillion bucks in annual DOD spending when libertarian leaders are railing against that level of spending? The only thing I can think is you're a Small L libertarian who votes for the Libertarian Party's candidate while agreeing with pretty much everything the Republicans do.

=Bob

[davdesid]

>>>You should be offering arguments based upon it's merits, not attempting to argue apples and oranges by comparing a Supreme Court election in Wisconsin with a Congression race in Western New York. There is no comparison.<<<the =Perfesser

Maybe you should be telling that to Harry Reid. He was thumping his chest touting that "the People of America" have spoken, using this congressional district to back up his assertion. Well, if some obscure district in NY is representative of the American People, I suppose an entire state could just as easily be claimed as representing the American People. And don't forget, the Demagogue in NY-26 still failed to garner a majority.

Also, the so-called "Teabagger" was a false flag. He's a life long Democrat who poured 3 million dollars into his campaign. There is no such thing as a formal "Tea Party". Anyone can describe themself as such, even liars.

Speaking of Reid, I have to wonder if he made a tactical error by allowing a vote on the Ryan budget. It went down 57-40, and now the Demagogues have deprived themselves of an issue to demagogue.

Speaking of apples, the Senate also shot down O' Bamster's budget blueprint by a whopping 97-0!

How 'bout them apples?

[AztecWilliam]

Actually, Bob, I have posted on the topic of defense department cuts on at least a couple of occasions (can't remember in which threads). For instance, I'm sure we could cut back on the number of personnel we have stationed in Europe and elsewhere.

It's embarrassing that Europe, 66 years after the end of World War II still can't maintain a credible defense structure. They need to defend themselves and stop depending on the U.S.

Furthermore, we need to stay out of armed conflicts except under very unusual circumstances. (I believe that the Persian Gulf War a case in which our vital interests were involved.)

If I were in charge, I would scale back the Army somewhat. We need relatively small, fast, mobile forces capable of getting into and out of situations rapidly. That means brigades of special troops, not necessarily whole divisions.

I would maintain the Air Force about where it is, but I would not let the Navy fall behind. It takes years to design and build ships. As under Carter, I don't think that we are committed to building enough new ships to replace the old ones being decommissioned.

AzWm




.

[inevitec]

May 26, 2011 16:31:40 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Actually, Bob, I have posted on the topic of defense department cuts on at least a couple of occasions (can't remember in which threads). For instance, I'm sure we could cut back on the number of personnel we have stationed in Europe and elsewhere.

It's embarrassing that Europe, 66 years after the end of World War II still can't maintain a credible defense structure. They need to defend themselves and stop depending on the U.S.

Furthermore, we need to stay out of armed conflicts except under very unusual circumstances. (I believe that the Persian Gulf War a case in which our vital interests were involved.)

If I were in charge, I would scale back the Army somewhat. We need relatively small, fast, mobile forces capable of getting into and out of situations rapidly. That means brigades of special troops, not necessarily whole divisions.

I would maintain the Air Force about where it is, but I would not let the Navy fall behind. It takes years to design and build ships. As under Carter, I don't think that we are committed to building enough new ships to replace the old ones being decommissioned.

AzWm




.

"It takes years to design and build ships." That explains why the Navy spent all their time on ships and none on families when I was growing up.

[aztecwin]

May 27, 2011 15:28:32 GMT -8 @inevitec said:

May 26, 2011 16:31:40 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Actually, Bob, I have posted on the topic of defense department cuts on at least a couple of occasions (can't remember in which threads). For instance, I'm sure we could cut back on the number of personnel we have stationed in Europe and elsewhere.

It's embarrassing that Europe, 66 years after the end of World War II still can't maintain a credible defense structure. They need to defend themselves and stop depending on the U.S.

Furthermore, we need to stay out of armed conflicts except under very unusual circumstances. (I believe that the Persian Gulf War a case in which our vital interests were involved.)

If I were in charge, I would scale back the Army somewhat. We need relatively small, fast, mobile forces capable of getting into and out of situations rapidly. That means brigades of special troops, not necessarily whole divisions.

I would maintain the Air Force about where it is, but I would not let the Navy fall behind. It takes years to design and build ships. As under Carter, I don't think that we are committed to building enough new ships to replace the old ones being decommissioned.

AzWm




.

"It takes years to design and build ships." That explains why the Navy spent all their time on ships and none on families when I was growing up.

Poor Baby!

[inevitec]

May 25, 2011 16:22:37 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

One of the key issues, perhaps THE key issue in 2012 (other than the quality of the presidential candidates) will be what the parties propose to do to get our national budget into the black and our national debt down to manageable levels. That means doing something about entitlements, especially Medicare. If something significant is not done, Medicare will collapse under its own weight in a few years. The Republicans have offered one proposed solution, the Democrats have not.

Well, that's not exactly correct. The Democrats have proposed setting up a committee that will use a meat axe to cut Medicare reimbursements down the road. That is another way of saying "rationing." The Ryan plan has offered another idea. It may not be the best, but at least it's a serious attempt to do something before it's too late.

The GOP has taken a chance by putting forth a plan that addresses the long term problem. It's easy to criticize such a plan since it represents change. Change can be, good in the long run but painful, or at least disorienting, in the short run.

It is troubling that one major party is seriously trying to deal with a crisis that is impossible to deny. Their plan may or may not be ideal, but at least they are making an effort. If the GOP wanted to get elected and nothing more, they would not have taken the risk of sponsoring a radical (and I use the term radical in the descriptive sense, not as a condemnation) plan.

The Democrats plan, other than to set up a rationing board, is to demagogue the other side in hopes of winning next year. When the bill comes due, they will of course be out of office and enjoying their comfortable federal retirement. The rest of us, including the unlucky party in power when the system is on the brink of collapse, will not be enjoying much of anything.

AzWm

The problem with Republicans is that they appear to want to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations on one hand and then they tell the rest of America to suck it up, because they are not economically independent enough, or there is not enough money for that kind of waste.

And that is why you lost NY-26.

And if the Democrats frame the message with savvy (a seriously open question-I admit) the right is gonna get "effed" in the posterior for it next year.

[Bob Forsythe]

Maybe you should be telling that to Harry Reid. He was thumping his chest touting that "the People of America" have spoken, using this congressional district to back up his assertion. Well, if some obscure district in NY is representative of the American People, I suppose an entire state could just as easily be claimed as representing the American People. And don't forget, the Demagogue in NY-26 still failed to garner a majority.

That "obscure district" basically encompasses the burbs in Erie County and Monroe County. It is overwhelming white and has been Republican for a very long time (this is Jack Kemp's district we're discussing. But please feel free to offer your ignorance about my home state again.

Also, the so-called "Teabagger" was a false flag. He's a life long Democrat who poured 3 million dollars into his campaign. There is no such thing as a formal "Tea Party". Anyone can describe themself as such, even liars.

Who farking cares what his political affiliation is? I offered the argument that Lee won a huge majority of the vote in 2008 and all you offer in return is pap. It doesn't matter what the teabagger's affiliation was - in a normal year, without the Medicare debate, the Republicant candidate would have still won hands down. The problem is I nailed your sorry, saggy ass and you have no response other than your usual bull$#!+.

Speaking of Reid, I have to wonder if he made a tactical error by allowing a vote on the Ryan budget. It went down 57-40, and now the Demagogues have deprived themselves of an issue to demagogue.

Nice try at deflecting. But in response, how does it take away the issue? 40 Senators voted for Ryan and any and all of them who are up for reelection next year will be demagogued up one side and down the other. Hey, it's your southern, regional party who started it. Don't bitch because the Democrats are using your tactics against you.

Speaking of apples, the Senate also shot down O' Bamster's budget blueprint by a whopping 97-0!

How 'bout them apples?

Dave, I understand that in your dotage it's difficult to stay on point. If you want to start a thread about the Senate vote I'll be happy to address it, but at this point you're just engaging in what I criticized you for doing. You continue to believe you can offer a quid pro quo that makes your point when in actuality it just detracts from your point because most everyone on here recognizes that your offering apples when you should be arguing oranges.

=Bob

[davdesid]

May 27, 2011 15:54:45 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Maybe you should be telling that to Harry Reid. He was thumping his chest touting that "the People of America" have spoken, using this congressional district to back up his assertion. Well, if some obscure district in NY is representative of the American People, I suppose an entire state could just as easily be claimed as representing the American People. And don't forget, the Demagogue in NY-26 still failed to garner a majority.

That "obscure district" basically encompasses the burbs in Erie County and Monroe County. It is overwhelming white and has been Republican for a very long time (this is Jack Kemp's district we're discussing. But please feel free to offer your ignorance about my home state again.

Also, the so-called "Teabagger" was a false flag. He's a life long Democrat who poured 3 million dollars into his campaign. There is no such thing as a formal "Tea Party". Anyone can describe themself as such, even liars.

Who farking cares what his political affiliation is? I offered the argument that Lee won a huge majority of the vote in 2008 and all you offer in return is pap. It doesn't matter what the teabagger's affiliation was - in a normal year, without the Medicare debate, the Republicant candidate would have still won hands down. The problem is I nailed your sorry, saggy ass and you have no response other than your usual bull$#!+.

Speaking of Reid, I have to wonder if he made a tactical error by allowing a vote on the Ryan budget. It went down 57-40, and now the Demagogues have deprived themselves of an issue to demagogue.

Nice try at deflecting. But in response, how does it take away the issue? 40 Senators voted for Ryan and any and all of them who are up for reelection next year will be demagogued up one side and down the other. Hey, it's your southern, regional party who started it. Don't bitch because the Democrats are using your tactics against you.

Speaking of apples, the Senate also shot down O' Bamster's budget blueprint by a whopping 97-0!

How 'bout them apples?

Dave, I understand that in your dotage it's difficult to stay on point. If you want to start a thread about the Senate vote I'll be happy to address it, but at this point you're just engaging in what I criticized you for doing. You continue to believe you can offer a quid pro quo that makes your point when in actuality it just detracts from your point because most everyone on here recognizes that your offering apples when you should be arguing oranges.

=Bob

Apples, oranges....

Your party offers NOTHING...

www.nationalreview.com/corner/268246/party-doing-nothing-veronique-de-rugy

[Bob Forsythe]

May 26, 2011 16:31:40 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Actually, Bob, I have posted on the topic of defense department cuts on at least a couple of occasions (can't remember in which threads). For instance, I'm sure we could cut back on the number of personnel we have stationed in Europe and elsewhere.

It's embarrassing that Europe, 66 years after the end of World War II still can't maintain a credible defense structure. They need to defend themselves and stop depending on the U.S.

Furthermore, we need to stay out of armed conflicts except under very unusual circumstances. (I believe that the Persian Gulf War a case in which our vital interests were involved.)

If I were in charge, I would scale back the Army somewhat. We need relatively small, fast, mobile forces capable of getting into and out of situations rapidly. That means brigades of special troops, not necessarily whole divisions.

I would maintain the Air Force about where it is, but I would not let the Navy fall behind. It takes years to design and build ships. As under Carter, I don't think that we are committed to building enough new ships to replace the old ones being decommissioned.

AzWm
.

Okay. I will argue, as we go along, that we should cut the DOD budget in half. You get to argue why we should cut it "somewhat", but "somewhat" for the Army and keep the Air Force and Nav as they stand - no mention of the Marines, Will? Most likely reasonable given that the Marines mission is not to occupy countries.

I will start. You offer the libertarian line about bases in Europe but you fail to recognize that this country has upwards of 700 bases in 120 countries:

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._military_bases_overseas

Please explain to me why, outside of Korea, which I support, Ramstein, because of its medical facilities and Diego Garcia we need any overseas bases at all.

I will proffer you this in debate - every empire that has vanished did so because imperialism is such a drain on any country that engages in it the military expenditures eventually bankrupts the country.

I would argue that the military and the defense industry in general offers a ton of job opportunities to young people that they wouldn't otherwise have because our corporations have shipped all the decent paying jobs to places like China, Malaysia, India and Indonesia.

What are we left with, William, other than manufacturing weapons? And without a huge military, who could those weapon makers sell their products to given laws against selling them to other countries?

The ball is in your court.

=Bob

[Bob Forsythe]

May 27, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

May 27, 2011 15:28:32 GMT -8 @inevitec said:

"It takes years to design and build ships." That explains why the Navy spent all their time on ships and none on families when I was growing up.

Poor Baby!

I spent a lot of time talking to "Navy brats" my first several years here. Your kids may or may not resent it but a lot of kids did. But what the hey - you retired at 38, when I'm sure your children were still fairly young, so I guess they didn't much suffer from the trauma of their father being gone for 6 months of every year.

=Bob

[inevitec]

May 27, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

May 27, 2011 15:28:32 GMT -8 @inevitec said:

"It takes years to design and build ships." That explains why the Navy spent all their time on ships and none on families when I was growing up.

Poor Baby!

I had no say about my sacrifice for my country. I got stuck with it and believe me I paid. The Navy was not very good at supporting the families, back then. I have been told, however, that they have improved.

[Bob Forsythe]

May 27, 2011 16:01:52 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Apples, oranges....

Your party offers NOTHING...

www.nationalreview.com/corner/268246/party-doing-nothing-veronique-de-rugy

And in the end, this is what you have to offer - nothing except a link to a right-wing website because you have no argument aside from the wasted time you spend on the net instead of actually thinking.

There was a time that I believed you were intelligent but that time has passed because its become clear that all you are capable of offering are links instead of offering intelligent arguments based upon what you've learned - which apparently is pretty close to nothing.

I'm sorry, Dave, but offering this or that website is pathetic. Offering websites instead of rational arguments suggests a lack of intelligence and I find it rather sad that you would lower yourself to that level.

But that's your MO - instead of offering arguments, you rely upon websites. I have no doubt that you lack understanding of how that diminishes your arguments but maybe you should figure it out.

Sooner or later you have to actually offer an argument rather than just pointing to what this or that Democrat said or did. It's really rather pathetic that the best you can do is offer an apples and oranges argument instead od engaging in intelligent discourse.

But what do I know? Maybe if you'd ever engaged in academic discourse you might have figured out that offering this or that link will never cut it. Maybe if you'd ever been required to write a dissertation you'd understand how it works.

But what the Hell - I'm sure it was far easier to impress the blue collar workers you supervised than it was to engage in discourse in university.

As I've written in the past, you wouldn't have wanted me working for you because pretty much everything you believe in is bull$#!+. That's not ideological; it's simply a dislike of your arrogance.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

May 27, 2011 16:18:22 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

May 27, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Poor Baby!

I spent a lot of time talking to "Navy brats" my first several years here. Your kids may or may not resent it but a lot of kids did. But what the hey - you retired at 38, when I'm sure your children were still fairly young, so I guess they didn't much suffer from the trauma of their father being gone for 6 months of every year.

=Bob

You have no idea about this subject. You have no point of reference. You have no sense!

[aztecwin]

May 27, 2011 17:55:59 GMT -8 @inevitec said:

May 27, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Poor Baby!

I had no say about my sacrifice for my country. I got stuck with it and believe me I paid. The Navy was not very good at supporting the families, back then. I have been told, however, that they have improved.

Just what was your sacrifice? Looks to me like "back then" was better than now. How many food stamp families were around "back then"? We did not make much, but we ate well and made do with what we had. We raised healthy and happy families. Sure we were deployed a lot and spent year with our families overseas, but we grew stronger and closer by the experience. If your experience was not like that, the problem was not the Navy. It was internal to your situation and you want to place the blame.

[inevitec]

May 28, 2011 6:59:29 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

May 27, 2011 17:55:59 GMT -8 @inevitec said:

I had no say about my sacrifice for my country. I got stuck with it and believe me I paid. The Navy was not very good at supporting the families, back then. I have been told, however, that they have improved.

Just what was your sacrifice? Looks to me like "back then" was better than now. How many food stamp families were around "back then"? We did not make much, but we ate well and made do with what we had. We raised healthy and happy families. Sure we were deployed a lot and spent year with our families overseas, but we grew stronger and closer by the experience. If your experience was not like that, the problem was not the Navy. It was internal to your situation and you want to place the blame.

You were deployed remember? I wasn't. I was looking from the other end. I think I am pretty observant. I saw deployments wreck marriages, alienate children, cause drug and alcohol abuse, neglect and cause great unhappiness. I have talked with other Navy families and they agree. In fact, I did not see much happiness in Navy families except in those who avoided contact with the Navy and refused to move around, despite their involvement. I went years without venturing near a Naval facility.

The attrition rate after the first deployment in the Navy was horrible, back then. The Navy infrastructure did not care. In my case, which was complicated, the Navy knew my situation, but did nothing.

I can remember being hassled repeatedly by Naval authorities, watching my brother arrested walking down a street on a base because his hair was too long and watched an active process for neglecting families as policy.

The Navy made me a real tough SOB. I owe the Navy Nothing. And, I am asking nothing from them. But as I said, I believe that the Navy has improved. I admire what sailors do, but because I understood what was happening to me my view of the Navy was, and is, complex.