Syria?

[Moonshot_1]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Why would the store want to force a Mom who is covered by her spouse's insurance and only wants to work 35 hours a week or less, work full time status and provide benefits that she would likely have to pay some percentage of the cost?

The point is that there are a number of people who don't want to be full time. Maybe this is a 2nd job.

Maybe it's a high school kid that can't work at full time status.

And Obamacare just cuts their legs out from under them.

[RP#62]

Not all of his base is still enamored with Obamacare:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/01/Citing-Obamacare-40-000-Longshoremen-Quit-the-AFL-CIO

[The emperor has no clothes]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Why would the store want to force a Mom who is covered by her spouse's insurance and only wants to work 35 hours a week or less, work full time status and provide benefits that she would likely have to pay some percentage of the cost?

The point is that there are a number of people who don't want to be full time. Maybe this is a 2nd job.

Maybe it's a high school kid that can't work at full time status.

And Obamacare just cuts their legs out from under them.

The issue is employers are keeping people at part time because they don`t want to provide insurance. They are not forcing people to go fulltime that don`t want it. It`s all about maximizing profit. And I get that, but we`ve got figure out a way to provide healthcare for people.

[Serk]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Why would the store want to force a Mom who is covered by her spouse's insurance and only wants to work 35 hours a week or less, work full time status and provide benefits that she would likely have to pay some percentage of the cost?

The point is that there are a number of people who don't want to be full time. Maybe this is a 2nd job.

Maybe it's a high school kid that can't work at full time status.

And Obamacare just cuts their legs out from under them.

The issue is employers are keeping people at part time because they don`t want to provide insurance. They are not forcing people to go fulltime that don`t want it. It`s all about maximizing profit. And I get that, but we`ve got figure out a way to provide healthcare for people.

Well, if we have to figure out a way to force health insurance on everyone or not is a debatable issue, but the solution that Obamacare presents is kind of silly... Should we wipe out homelessness by making it illegal to not own a home? (Kinda like Columbia, SC is trying to do, I guess...)

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sorry to hijack from Syria to healthcare

[Serk]

Sorry to hijack from Syria to healthcare

LOL!!! I was just coming right back after my post to say the exact same thing! See, we can agree on SOME things at least! 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sorry to hijack from Syria to healthcare

LOL!!! I was just coming right back after my post to say the exact same thing! See, we can agree on SOME things at least! 

Oh I bet we probably agree on a lot of things. Just doing my part to keep the general board unruly

[hubcapsc]

Should we wipe out homelessness by making it illegal to not own a home? (Kinda like Columbia, SC is trying to do, I guess...)

This is longer than the media hits you'll get on google, but that's how it goes...

http://www.columbiasc.net/depts/city_council/downloads/08_13_2013_Agenda_Items/Homeless_Advisory_Committee_Final_Report_7_29_13_v2.pdf

-Mike

[BF]

It's interesting a thread about Syria is actually a whiny thread about our President, and Obamacare. 

First of all on Syria:  I don't think it is in our national interest to let anyone let alone women and children be gassed by the hundreds in broad daylight and do nothing about it.  It's amazing how conservatives turn from hawks to doves as soon as a democrat is in office.  When there is a conservative president there is nothing but support for going into Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else that suits a Republican president's fancy.  No problems at all with selling weapons to Iran when a Republican is in office.  Shoot, lets take the proceeds and give them to rebels in Nicaragua!

On Obamacare, I think conservatives have been fooled because of their blind hatred of democrats.  Obamacare is NOT a government takeover of medicine.  It IS a mandate to purchase health insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies.  The government will help subsidize the premiums for those less able to afford it.  Republicans look at the rising cost of health care and somehow think that Obama is responsible for it.  As if the cost of health care was declining before he took office.  You do realize that preventative care is far cheaper than emergency care right?  Right now under this private, for profit health care system we have now, we pay the most for care and get far less for the money than anywhere else in the world.  We do NOT have the best health care system by any metric, in fact we rank 37th.  It is my opinion that we need a universal, single-payer, government run health care system.  One similar to the ones run very successfully in most civilized nations.

Not unlike your blind hatred for Republicans and conservatives.   

Oh, and for the record, I'm a life long registered Republican and I'm pro universal healthcare.  Bet that sends your liberal head spinning. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

It's interesting a thread about Syria is actually a whiny thread about our President, and Obamacare. 

First of all on Syria:  I don't think it is in our national interest to let anyone let alone women and children be gassed by the hundreds in broad daylight and do nothing about it.  It's amazing how conservatives turn from hawks to doves as soon as a democrat is in office.  When there is a conservative president there is nothing but support for going into Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else that suits a Republican president's fancy.  No problems at all with selling weapons to Iran when a Republican is in office.  Shoot, lets take the proceeds and give them to rebels in Nicaragua!

On Obamacare, I think conservatives have been fooled because of their blind hatred of democrats.  Obamacare is NOT a government takeover of medicine.  It IS a mandate to purchase health insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies.  The government will help subsidize the premiums for those less able to afford it.  Republicans look at the rising cost of health care and somehow think that Obama is responsible for it.  As if the cost of health care was declining before he took office.  You do realize that preventative care is far cheaper than emergency care right?  Right now under this private, for profit health care system we have now, we pay the most for care and get far less for the money than anywhere else in the world.  We do NOT have the best health care system by any metric, in fact we rank 37th.  It is my opinion that we need a universal, single-payer, government run health care system.  One similar to the ones run very successfully in most civilized nations.

Not unlike your blind hatred for Republicans and conservatives.   

Oh, and for the record, I'm a life long registered Republican and I'm pro universal healthcare.  Bet that sends your liberal head spinning. 

You better be careful with that kind of talk BF, They are liable to kick you out.

[Rams]

Reference Syria, Obama drew a line in the sand, his credibility is at stake (not that I ever thought he had any in the first place).   He has the authority to order an attack, the military will do as commanded.   No doubt in my mind, the end result is Syria will start a long process of rebuilding it's Air Force and air fields and a few other very important offensive/defensive assets.   Obama has stepped in it again, I can only suggest that he go ahead and use up those old cruise missiles.   They are getting old anyway.   They are slow and can be defended against, shot down with new technology.   The next generation cruise missile will fly in excess of Mach III with much improved technology and capability.   So, let's Get "R" Done.  

But, now that he's not getting world wide support, he wants Congress to authorize this attack.  Ever hear of sharing the blame?   Americans are weary of war, there isn't a lot of support for Obama and his position.   No one wants to commit troops to a land battle so, he's out there on his own (not that he has suggested that) because very few believe we won't get drawn into another war where our friends turn out to be not so friendly and we end up with troops on the ground.   Personally, if I knew Syria had crossed a line I had drawn in the sand, I'd have already launched the missiles, used up much of the existing inventory and put the missile builders back to work.    Or, I would not draw such a line. But, that's me.   I am not one do draw such lines unless I'm willing to pull the trigger and take responsibility for the decision.   Obama should have stayed a community organizer, I hear his performance was at least decent at that level.   The Peter Principle is applicable here.   He's so far over his head, he has no idea which way is up.    Face it folks, he's a loser and is not up to the job.  

Reference his socialist agenda, I have always called bull crap on it.   This country was founded on personal responsibility.   Opportunity still abounds though admittedly is becoming tougher to take advantage of for some.    I am not among the wealthy elite group that Obama says should pay a greater share of taxation to cover his agenda and yet, the middle class is still experiencing tax increases across the board.   I am not a proponent of our current tax system.   I do support a flat tax but, that tax must apply to everyone, rich and poor alike.   I don't believe in free rides for anyone.   Pull your own weight and load or go on a diet and lighten your load.    

[Reb]

So if Obama declares war against Syria without the approval of congress he's a war monger? If he asks for the approval of congress he's then a pussy who can't make decisions? All he has to say is Syria has WofMD. That worked pretty well for the Bush Administration to get approval from congress to enter Iraq didn't it?

[Rams]

If I remember correctly, he asked for the job.

Additionally, I doubt anyone twisted his arm to make him draw that line in the Syrian sand.   

Doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, no one is going to please everyone.   But, I do think most folks expect that person to be a leader.    It's interesting that since this community organizer got into office how the country has become so less organized and united.   One would surmise his chosen path is not one the whole community wishes to go down.

[BF]

So if Obama declares war against Syria without the approval of congress he's a war monger? If he asks for the approval of congress he's then a pussy who can't make decisions? All he has to say is Syria has WofMD. That worked pretty well for the Bush Administration to get approval from congress to enter Iraq didn't it?

Where do you think all of those chemical weapons in Iraq went to?



And on Obamacare....



And on Syria....



And just for DaddieO

[Chaosandconfusion]

American spends more money on defense than anybody else in the world, so it doesn't matter who is in the White house they're really not the people making the decision to go to war.   Can't have all those bomb and missiles lying around doing nothing, now can we.  Lets blow them up so we can make some more!

[Reb]

I can spend 5 minutes on a yahoo search and post propaganda bashing conservatives as well BF. I'm not a liberal either, or do not consider myself one. I despise almost every politician and political party. My point is, it doesn't matter what decision potus makes, you will be against it because of your political stand point. I don't agree with certain decision made in the White House either, but I base my opinion of a decision made by the government on my values and feelings as an American and not my love of a political party.

I'm split in the mix of things. There is a side of me that says hell with Syria and every muslim country  let them kill each other. Then another side says how can we do nothing when innocent people are choking down sarin gas.

You can continue with you liberal bashing of "It's Always Bush's Fault." The fact is it's a punch line used by Conservatives when Liberals use the past to identify a problem in the present. If a Republican is next in line to sit in the white house and doesn't appropriate himself accordingly it will then always be "Obama's Fault" and so on and so forth. It will be a never ending battle between parties.

Next Question?
If Barack Obama bought a Valkyrie would you cut him some slack or switch and ride a Harley?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh he`d be riding a Harley before the ink was dry on obamas pink slip

[BF]

I can spend 5 minutes on a yahoo search and post propaganda bashing conservatives as well BF. I'm not a liberal either, or do not consider myself one. I despise almost every politician and political party. My point is, it doesn't matter what decision potus makes, you will be against it because of your political stand point. I don't agree with certain decision made in the White House either, but I base my opinion of a decision made by the government on my values and feelings as an American and not my love of a political party.

I'm split in the mix of things. There is a side of me that says hell with Syria and every muslim country  let them kill each other. Then another side says how can we do nothing when innocent people are choking down sarin gas.

You can continue with you liberal bashing of "It's Always Bush's Fault." The fact is it's a punch line used by Conservatives when Liberals use the past to identify a problem in the present. If a Republican is next in line to sit in the white house and doesn't appropriate himself accordingly it will then always be "Obama's Fault" and so on and so forth. It will be a never ending battle between parties.

Next Question?
If Barack Obama bought a Valkyrie would you cut him some slack or switch and ride a Harley?

To answer your question.....I'd keep my Valk, and.....

[G-Man]

I know this is all real but....
It sure has taken a lot of the conversation of Obamacare out of the loop

[G-Man]

It IS a mandate to purchase health insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies.  The government will help subsidize the premiums for those less able to afford it. 

If that's what obamacare is, then why will it cost almost 2.8 trillion annually?

Why are obama supporters OK with this?  We were already spending more than we tax, so we added almost 3 trillion more to it , to cover an over-estimated 30 million.  It doesn't even make sense, but it's the best thing that's ever happened? 

And when you ask them what the law accomplishes, they spout children until 26 and pre-existing conditions, and cover the uninsured.  These are all covered in the first 30 pages of the law.  It's the other 2700 pages that tax-paying, educated, and informed people are asking about.  I can't imagine what goes on in the minds of those who aren't questioning this.

[G-Man]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Do you know the guy who owns the grocery store?  Do you know how much debt he has and how much of his life's savings he has invested?  Do you know what his overhead and insurance and stock costs him each month?   Do you know what his profit margins are? 

Then how can you say this? 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Do you know the guy who owns the grocery store?  Do you know how much debt he has and how much of his life's savings he has invested?  Do you know what his overhead and insurance and stock costs him each month?   Do you know what his profit margins are? 

Then how can you say this? 

Yes I do. Have worked in the business for 41 years now.

[Rams]

If Barack Obama bought a Valkyrie would you cut him some slack or switch and ride a Harley?

Not sure who that is directed at but, I'll assume it's me for the purpose of posting my opinion.

I could not care less if BO rides a Valkyrie and no, it would not make me switch to an HD.   What that has to do with his agenda baffles me but honestly, I wouldn't ride with him,  I want to be able to trust the folks I ride with and he has not demonstrated he's good at anything else so why would I trust him on any powered two wheeler.

I consider BO a loser because of his policies and his social agenda, I don't care what his genetics are made up of, I don't care where he's from or much else about him.    His policies, give away programs (including Obama Care) and other entitlement programs along with his Robin Hood efforts to take from the rich (or those who work for a living) and give to the poor (or those who want what they haven't earned) makes me sick.   If someone can't pull their own weight, I've got no problem with giving a helping hand to help them get on their feet but..........   The democratic party has become "hand out central" and I can't and won't support that.   I'll admit not all entitlement programs were his idea but, he's done best to increase just about every one already in place and created such an overwhelming debt our great grand children will still be paying for it.    Each generation should be pulling their own weight.

I've never voted a straight ticket in my life but, I know a whole bunch of folks that do.   They don't get much respect from me either.   No political party has all the right answers.  

[Patrick]

Heaven forbid the grocery store makes them full time and provides insurance.

Do you know the guy who owns the grocery store?  Do you know how much debt he has and how much of his life's savings he has invested?  Do you know what his overhead and insurance and stock costs him each month?   Do you know what his profit margins are? 

Then how can you say this? 

Yes I do. Have worked in the business for 41 years now.

Hmm, I didn't know the profit was that high in the family grocery business. I do know some that do well, but, I didn't think they did that well. So this is nice to know. Anyway, its nice to see that you are full time and receive insurance.

[The Anvil]

Where do you think all of those chemical weapons in Iraq went to?

Not to Syria. Not anywhere actually.

We actually found large stockpiles of expired chemical weapons in Iraq. But they were mostly so old as to be of little use. But furthermore, Saddam had no practical means of delivery. So from a strictly technical standpoint, Bush didn't really lie, right?

Sort of. What he lied about was Iraq's capability. A lie is a lie though. For that matter, each and every one of us probably has bleach and ammonia lying around the house and both can be purchased in very large qualtities. WMD? By Bush's logic they are.

And nevermind the fact that WMD or not, we still had no business sparking that tinderbox.

And this goes to show that while certain individuals will blindly defend Obama's transgressions, so will there be people who defend Bush II.

[Oss]

a scud is a delivery weapon

saddam had lots of em

for that matter any tank can be a delivery weapon as well

you can even drop a cannister out of a plane if need be

just let em fight it out, none of them is an ally, none of them a friend of the USA

[The Anvil]

a scud is a delivery weapon

saddam had lots of em

Working SCUDS, yes. But the condition of his remaining SCUD arsenal was assessed as "undeployable". He had essentially used up all of his good stuff years before. The remaining mobile launchers and missiles were found in pieces, missing critical parts and buried in the sand.

for that matter any tank can be a delivery weapon as well

you can even drop a cannister out of a plane if need be

Much of his armor and air force was found the same way. But yeah, even a Piper J3 could technically be a means of delivery... which is kind of my point. If that's your criteria then we should invade Canada and Mexico, stat.

just let em fight it out, none of them is an ally, none of them a friend of the USA

Agreed.

[Patrick]

Where do you think all of those chemical weapons in Iraq went to?

Not to Syria. Not anywhere actually.

We actually found large stockpiles of expired chemical weapons in Iraq. But they were mostly so old as to be of little use. But furthermore, Saddam had no practical means of delivery. So from a strictly technical standpoint, Bush didn't really lie, right?

Sort of. What he lied about was Iraq's capability. A lie is a lie though. For that matter, each and every one of us probably has bleach and ammonia lying around the house and both can be purchased in very large qualtities. WMD? By Bush's logic they are.

And nevermind the fact that WMD or not, we still had no business sparking that tinderbox.

And this goes to show that while certain individuals will blindly defend Obama's transgressions, so will there be people who defend Bush II.

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons. Congress heard that and voted for the war, even Clinton and many other democrats that now claimed that they didn't. But, yep, Bush lied and its still all his fault.
And, it was proven some of the weapons were taken to Syria, it seems almost everyone else in the world knows that.

[Jess from VA]

Zero should not use any force/military/tomahawks/etc at all in Syria..... instead, he should personally go over there and walk all around the country and stand up and tell all those poor people how he thinks they should live in peace and harmony..... and show how he can bow.     

This would be the only trip he's taken I could actually support.

[Xtracho]

The notion that Obamacare is anything other than the government appropriating the dispensation of health care in this country is preposterous. Our resident California Obama Spokesman and "anything other than the extreme left" hating member says that it's merely the purchase of health insurance from private companies. OK...simple enough. Insurance Companies exist as "for profit" entities...right? Or, are they simply humanitarian organizations with no investors to report to? My guess is the former.

That being the case....and a for profit company has an opportunity to increase its members, thereby increasing its income, thereby increasing its bottom line....that's all good...right?

Then why, pray tell, are they fleeing from this government nightmare like rats from a sinking ship? Aetna has pulled out of New York. Close on their heels in other states are UHC, Humana, and a BCBS affiliate. Seems to me if it were a good thing these major players would be all in on this.


Sorry California Obama Spokesman and "anything other than extreme left" hating member. Your pathetic attempt is unmasked by virtue of the fact that your idol's "plan" is nothing more than another government attempt at creating a nanny state. Which, in your case, is probably a good thing.

Syria? I'm on the fence here. One thing for certain. POTUS' so called "red line" has long been erased by his inept performance in addressing these atrocities long ago. His credibility is nil with the world community and, to quote a senior Israeli official "this is not how a superpower acts." But that's to be expected seeing as how POTUS snubbed Israel over and over again. Now, suddenly, he's concerned about the welfare of the Jewish state? I've seen plastic bags that were less transparent than this dishrag in office.

Funny how the resident California Obama Spokesman and "anything less than extreme left" hating member brings up Afghanistan. Here's a little history for you since you obviously haven't checked this yourself. Action in Afghanistan was approved, bilaterally, by a majority democratic Congress.

Surely Assad must go. But then what's the end game? We have a bad habit of trying to shove democracy down the throats of theocratic societies that have existed for thousands of years. And it never works out good. This country should be cultivating allies on our half of the globe and let those in the eastern hemisphere handle their issues.

And as an aside....Israel is just itching for this. They hope that Iran so much as picks their nose in their direction. Then, they'll have reason to bomb them back into the stone age.

[The Anvil]

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons.

Oh no they did not. I'll assume for the moment that you believe this to be true so you need to pick up a few books on the subject.

Some intelligence agencies backed the Administration (Israel, there's a shocker) while others provided a very mixed bag of information (the UK) that was cherry-picked for evidence that supported Bush's war agenda and curiously ignored the evidence that did not or was flat-out contradictory. This information is out there. Please seek it out.

[hubcapsc]

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons.

Oh no they did not. I'll assume for the moment that you believe this to be true so you need to pick up a few books on the subject.

Some intelligence agencies backed the Administration (Israel, there's a shocker) while others provided a very mixed bag of information (the UK) that was cherry-picked for evidence that supported Bush's war agenda and curiously ignored the evidence that did not or was flat-out contradictory. This information is out there. Please seek it out.

Here's how Frontline evaluated what Saddam might have had based on  IAEA and UNSCOM reports,
including links to summaries of their reports...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

-Mike

[Bigun]

Now that Obama has stuck his foot in his mouth by drawing lines in the sand with his crossing the red line B.S., the narrative now is that it's up to us to "do something". 

So now that we're apparently days away from starting World War III, why in the hell do we think that it's up to us to be the world's policemen?  Isn't that the job of the U.N.? 

WW3 started on 9/11/2001 this is a reversal of the last 12 years by supporting the same people that attacked us on 9/11. We are now setting ourselves up for much worse.

[fudgie]

well said reb. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons.

Oh no they did not. I'll assume for the moment that you believe this to be true so you need to pick up a few books on the subject.

Some intelligence agencies backed the Administration (Israel, there's a shocker) while others provided a very mixed bag of information (the UK) that was cherry-picked for evidence that supported Bush's war agenda and curiously ignored the evidence that did not or was flat-out contradictory. This information is out there. Please seek it out.

Here's how Frontline evaluated what Saddam might have had based on  IAEA and UNSCOM reports,
including links to summaries of their reports...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

-Mike

Isn`t that information taken from reporting after the 1st Gulf War? Way before "W" took us to Iraq looking for nuclear weapons.

[Reb]

You know whats going to happen,  the US is just going to supply the rebels with munition to fight. As Russia will do the same on the opposing side since Syria is there #1 costumer in arms sales. History has a way of repeating itself. Almost like Afghanistan all over again.

[Novavalker]

Artillery system can easily be a adapted to deliver chemical weapons.

You think they can find and take out every artillery piece or mortar delivery system?

You can hide them all in densely populated areas.

I'm sure by now even his chemical weapon stockpile has been relocated all over the country.

You have lost the element of surprise.

[hubcapsc]

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons.

Oh no they did not. I'll assume for the moment that you believe this to be true so you need to pick up a few books on the subject.

Some intelligence agencies backed the Administration (Israel, there's a shocker) while others provided a very mixed bag of information (the UK) that was cherry-picked for evidence that supported Bush's war agenda and curiously ignored the evidence that did not or was flat-out contradictory. This information is out there. Please seek it out.

Here's how Frontline evaluated what Saddam might have had based on  IAEA and UNSCOM reports,
including links to summaries of their reports...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

-Mike

Isn`t that information taken from reporting after the 1st Gulf War? Way before "W" took us to Iraq looking for nuclear weapons.

Seems to be through 1999... we invaded Iraq in 2003.

-Mike

[Patrick]

Lets see. The truth is that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had the weapons.

Oh no they did not. I'll assume for the moment that you believe this to be true so you need to pick up a few books on the subject.

Some intelligence agencies backed the Administration (Israel, there's a shocker) while others provided a very mixed bag of information (the UK) that was cherry-picked for evidence that supported Bush's war agenda and curiously ignored the evidence that did not or was flat-out contradictory. This information is out there. Please seek it out.

Nope, I don't assume it to be the truth. It is the truth as I've looked into it.

[Fudd]

Did anyone check with Hillary to see if this gas release was done by some protesters that were upset over a Youtube video.