That link doesn't refute what madget was saying. Peter's link, “Where did our debt come from?”, is the more relevant, with regard to madget's point.

Heck, it even explains the difficult position Obama's in: "Obama inherited a federal deficit that was spinning out of control (mostly because of decreased tax take and increased expenditures for automatic stabilizers, e.g. unemployment insurance), and pressure is growing to cut Social Security (perhaps the most efficiently run program in government) while placing Defense (one of the most inefficiently run programs) off limits. These political pressures are not new and in fact have been building up for years. So, as a first cut into a complex issue, perhaps it is time for the angry masses to ask which political party put them into the fiscal straight jacket that is setting them up for this horrible choice? "

“ Feel free to ask questions by the way.”

I did, back on page one, and didn’t get a response. I suspect because, despite your claims, you aren’t at all interested in “clarification” or learning why other people think what they do. Why would Charles or madget or anyone else bother addressing the many points, valid or not, that you keep repeating? When Charles addressed one of your claims you said he went into “a nit-picking rage over two words”, rather than actually addressing the point he made. Eventually, when called on this, you made a begrudging attempt to address it, and still got it wrong. (In any case, it looks like it would require some serious deconstruction to address most of your questions, some of which are just straw men. For eg, "why are other people the extreme ones for disagreeing with any part of any law you support".) You just want to use any comment you find suitable as an opportunity to rant on inanely about Obama.

Chris, not everyone on the right sounds like a talk radio parrot. Those two quotes you cite don't contradict one another.



I don't understand what you've said here, that's for sure. Is that last part even a sentence?

The general idea that my failure to understand something does not necessarily make the "something" in question untrue or irrelevant, I accept.



Not everyone. Just those who sound like raving loons.



You swear, not a drop all year?

As to your link, I'm well aware Obama has added to the deficit. I didn't claim otherwise. I was saying that my understanding of the overall Democrat vs. Republican effect on national debt is along these lines:



... and again, it comes with the open disclaimer that I am no economist. The nuances are over my head. But based on the limited research I've done on this over the years, I trust Democrats more than Republicans, when it comes to the economy and doing things that are ultimately good for it.

Right now, I think the economic situation is complicated -- thanks in no small part to the disastrous effect Republican control for the last eight years had on it -- and that Obama's trying to do things that will help the country recover, with more concern for middle class people than wealthy people. Whether or not he is doing the right things, is not for me to argue, I am simply not equipped with the requisite knowledge re: macroeconomics and lack the time or motivation to acquire it. I do understand that Obama can't wave a magic wand and make our economy magically bounce back in just 2 years. Things are unfolding. Or were, before we were put into a lame duck session, anyway.

My point was that Republicans always attacking Democrats for their spending is hypocritical, because their own history of spending is more excessive. And I'm less critical of spending that ultimately strengthens the infrastructure of the actual US.



K

What are your thoughts on the impending repeal of DADT?

If he's like most soldiers, it wouldn't bother him.


Pentagon Sees Little Impact if Ban on Gays Is Repealed

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 — The Pentagon has concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the United States armed forces presents a low risk to the military’s effectiveness, even at a time of war, and that 70 percent of service members believe that the impact of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would be either positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.

In an exhaustive nine-month study on the effects of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 17-year-old policy that requires gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge, the authors concluded that while in the short run a repeal would most likely bring about “some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention,” it could be mitigated by effective leadership.

First of all, rhetorical question that Weemie has continually dodged.

Second, all of my predictions about what will happen will come to pass, regardless of what the dumbasses in charge say when political pressure is applied to them, and the disruptions (to phrase it mildly) will be neither "limited" nor "isolated."

Third, do we need to impose Byrne Rules here?

No, JB! Sorry I was out of line, JB!

Literally the first rule of the John Byrne Forum:

Do Not respond to posts/questions directly addressed to other Forum members until they have had the opportunity to respond.

Of course, other rules include:

Do Not post self-promotional threads or messages of any kind.

Do Not start thread discussing or promoting new books/titles JB has not worked on.

Do Not start deliberately negative threads.

Do Not ask why a post or thread has been deleted. There was a reason.

Lawson and Allen, can we give the Byrne-bashing a rest around here? We're talking politics here, no need to sound like a bunch of frenzied geeks arguing about trivial details of no interest or relevance to 99.9% of the population. Wait, what?

K, fair enough that you trust Democrats more than Republicans. A) you're wrong B) millions of people think so C) the millions of people on that side are equal to the millions of people on your side in any real sense of the word equality; “one man, one vote” and all that, both legally and morally. D) the nuances of economic diagrams go over virtually everybody's head, because economics is mostly mathematics and "math is hard" E) people can make pictures say whatever they want to. That is why I don't post links or graphs or throw in other statistics, even the unemployment rate and not-so-rosy interpretations of the official spending that are generally unassailable.

879 billion dollars in one spending bill that, nearly two years later after uninterrupted one-party leadership in both houses of Congress AND two appointees to the Supreme Court, is still whining that the people to blame are all the millions of people who elect candidates they prefer. And 879 billion dollars wasn’t enough anyway, but don’t worry, the same people who committed that money with no Plan B in mind will do better this time. And all those war things that millions of people on your side elected people to oppose? Those are still in progress. They’re even being expanded upon, as I believe I’ve mentioned once or twice to no response.

Because some of us apply the same thinking to concepts of national defense and personal security that we apply to our bankbooks. Doing this works well for millions of people. Millions of people who don’t live in California or New York, media centers and liberal havens for decades. Or Western Europe, ditto. That’s not a future millions of people want, and they are no more brainwashed or evil or self-deluding than you and the people you agree with are. “Talk radio squawking” is an attempt to diminish the ideas of a person you don’t agree with. You also keep insisting you don’t have a clue what I’m saying. I’m not sure how to speak clearer or more plainly without resorting to help from Dick and Jane, but maybe the problem isn’t me.

Stephen, how am I supposed to see the light about repeating myself when the things I repeating most often do not actually get addressed. Molly Norris is still living undercover in fear for her life because of the enemy we are at war with. Remember the war? Remember Molly? This is a thread about Molly. I’ve been repeating these things for about two weeks now. If Bush’s prosecution of the war was so disastrous, then why has his successor – who campaigned on ending it and has had the power to do so for almost two years – expanded it. He’s and the party that controls both houses of Congress has gotten a free pass from virtually every single one of the millions of people voted for him/them.

Didja notice the reports of another isolated extremist trying to burn down a Christmas tree in Portland? If you can think of a better two-word summary of the war that describes such willful blindness and/or useful idiocy for the enemy, by all means, what would you have me use instead? Because no, the points I’ve been repeating all along haven’t been addressed. The Portland guy is no more of an isolated extremist than the guy who set the car bomb in Times Square or the guy who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood or the guy who got a bomb on a plane and tried to set it off. Nodding amongst yourselves that the phrase was completely cool and accusing me of listening to too much talk radio is not an acceptable response if it isn’t addressing the enemy’s perspective. They have a vote too, and it often goes in a way you won’t like. “Isolated extremist” has no business being in a statement on Abdulmutallab. You’re defending people who compare Republicans to the Taliban and don’t take the Taliban or anyone who agrees with the Taliban seriously as an enemy.

Allen’s a dick, but I did say feel free to ask questions, so I have nobody but myself to blame.

Thoughts… How exactly does this help accomplish the mission and kill the enemy? It’s going to involve a massive overhaul of conditions of employment, workplace rules, time-wasting meetings and mind-numbing rituals. There will be Equal Opportunity complaints out the wazoo, and countless lawsuits for getting anything wrong, or perceived to be getting anything wrong. Considering the small percentage of the population who is gay, that’s an awfully big overhaul being considered just for the small percentage of gays who would actually enlist.

I mean, they already can enlist. They just can’t tell other people they’re into dudes. Is that unfair? Sure. Lots of things in the military are unfair. They would have to cut their hair, shave and dress the way they’re told to like everybody else. Why? Because the people in charge say so.

People who can’t accept that should do the service a favor and remove themselves from the list of potential candidates. If telling someone they’re into other dudes is that much of a sticking point for the benefits of serving, then odds are that person isn’t going to be an outstanding soldier anyway. So why are we doing this massive restructuring of the most powerful military force in history on behalf of a few thousand people again? Is there going to be a lot more accomplishing the mission and killing the enemy on behalf of the USA if gays can serve openly? So gays are known for all the qualities that make for excellent military service, are they?

Frankly, if I were gay or supported the repeal of DADT, I would be praying that the Obama administration isn’t the one to do it. At this point, following the previous administration’s lead on things like the war is the only thing they haven’t completely screwed up, so I’d rather they not wreck their havoc on the United States military. We’ve been at war for years, this is really not the time for liberal social engineering with no thought for the negative consequences.

This isn't so much to support Chris, or the Republicans or the right, but to say that, it is kind of interesting that when Bush I was bogged down in Somalia candidate Clinton said we need to get our troops out of there and do something different, and then as President did the very thing he seemed to oppose... and then Obama did that in Iraq. And I am frustrated by both situations. I wish Obama had cut and run like so many had feared he'd do. You cannot cut a puppy's tail off an inch at time, if you are going to do it at all, you need one powerful chop and let it be done.

"Considering the small percentage of the population who is gay, that’s an awfully big overhaul being considered just for the small percentage of gays who would actually enlist."

That makes no sense. It's self-contradictory: "small percentage" - "awfully big overhaul." Which is it?

Why, why, WHY are you fishing for me to agree with Weemie? Did he pay you? It's not self-contradictory. The major amount of hassle the repeal of DADT will bring about is not justified by the minor number of people it even applies to.