(02-27-2013 12:09 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Obana is releasing illegal immigrants from jail. thats the best he can do with cuts

President Obama has captured and detained more illegal immigrants in his first term than the previous administration did in 8 years.

(02-27-2013 11:28 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 12:09 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Obana is releasing illegal immigrants from jail. thats the best he can do with cuts

President Obama has captured and detained more illegal immigrants in his first term than the previous administration did in 8 years.

So that means you should release them. Obama is indangering the citizens of Arizona. He's paying back Jan Brewer and punishing the residents of Arizona

BobWoodward is being attacked by the Obama camp. still cant believe he didnt send out the aircraft carrier. we are less safe

(02-27-2013 11:26 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:43 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Nobody can cut spending without it hurting everyone.

No President passes a Budget, Congress does that. President's don't pass deficit budgets, that blame (responsibility) falls squarely on the House of Representatives which has had a Republicon majority for several 2 year terms now.

So, when they didn't pass budgets when the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, plus held the presidency, who do you blame?

(02-28-2013 06:42 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:28 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 12:09 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Obana is releasing illegal immigrants from jail. thats the best he can do with cuts

President Obama has captured and detained more illegal immigrants in his first term than the previous administration did in 8 years.

So that means you should release them. Obama is indangering the citizens of Arizona. He's paying back Jan Brewer and punishing the residents of Arizona

Yep. Obana is all about indangering the citizens.

(02-28-2013 09:53 AM)klake87 Wrote:  BobWoodward is being attacked by the Obama camp. still cant believe he didnt send out the aircraft carrier. we are less safe

Woodward is being attacked because he pointed out that Obama is the one who blew up the "grand bargain," not the Republicans. He's documented it well. It flies counter to Obama's recent campaign-type messaging that it is all the other side's fault.

I think congressmen should be part-timers. Or at least have limits on how many terms they can serve. They should be able to get something done but they're too busy playing political games.

(02-28-2013 05:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think congressmen should be part-timers. Or at least have limits on how many terms they can serve. They should be able to get something done but they're too busy playing political games.

I also believe that congressmen ought to earn the US median income. By and large these guys are not living in nor in touch with the real world.

(02-28-2013 09:53 AM)klake87 Wrote:  BobWoodward is being attacked by the Obama camp. still cant believe he didnt send out the aircraft carrier. we are less safe

Here is the quote Klake...


"But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying [sic] that [Obama] asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

"The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain [sic] with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...?hpt=po_t1

Bobl i read quote. was not deploying aircraft carrier a good move? Is america less safe? obama wants to be a politician not the chief executive.

(03-01-2013 09:09 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 05:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think congressmen should be part-timers. Or at least have limits on how many terms they can serve. They should be able to get something done but they're too busy playing political games.

I also believe that congressmen ought to earn the US median income. By and large these guys are not living in nor in touch with the real world.

Yea, they're like parents that do whatever the kids want, regardless of whether it's good for anybody, in order to be popular.

Wouldn't it be funny if the sequester happened and things actually got better?

I would look for Obama to take credit for it. He would claim that his policies saved the economy. The sequester that he rails against was his invention, after all.

Maxine Waters said that the sequester could lead to 170 million people losing their jobs. There are only about 140 million currently employed in the US. 30 million people are going to have to get hired, just so they can get fired, due to the sequester.

http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2013/02/2...uestration

The low information voters are really missing out on some good comedy.

(03-01-2013 12:04 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  Wouldn't it be funny if the sequester happened and things actually got better?

I would look for Obama to take credit for it. He would claim that his policies saved the economy. The sequester that he rails against was his invention, after all.

Maxine Waters said that the sequester could lead to 170 million people losing their jobs. There are only about 140 million currently employed in the US. 30 million people are going to have to get hired, just so they can get fired, due to the sequester.

http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2013/02/2...uestration

The low information voters are really missing out on some good comedy.

I think the fiscal cliff needed to be there. Apparently we can't get any cuts without it.

(03-01-2013 11:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Bobl i read quote. was not deploying aircraft carrier a good move? Is america less safe? obama wants to be a politician not the chief executive.

I was obviously referring to Woodward. That quote does not constitute am attack!! And no I don't beleive the non deployment of a single carrier will make is less safe.

You are looking for things that just aren't there. You would so well at Fox News.

(03-01-2013 04:47 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Bobl i read quote. was not deploying aircraft carrier a good move? Is america less safe? obama wants to be a politician not the chief executive.

I was obviously referring to Woodward. That quote does not constitute am attack!! And no I don't beleive the non deployment of a single carrier will make is less safe.

You are looking for things that just aren't there. You would so well at Fox News.

So your saying that the mid east is stable?

(03-01-2013 11:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Bobl i read quote. was not deploying aircraft carrier a good move? Is america less safe? obama wants to be a politician not the chief executive.

Not deploying the Truman was the CNO and DoD's decision. In my opinion, the two carrier presence in the Middle East was unnecessary and unsustainable. The Navy is currently down to 9 operational carriers due to the Enterprise recently being decommissioned and the Abraham Lincoln currently in the yards for the next 4-5 years to receive its mid-life overhaul. The Navy has been running its ships at a ridiculously high optempo with the common deployment being 8+ months as opposed to 6 month deployments

Many deployments are being extended all the time now. A big deck ship (i.e. carriers and amphibs) usually does a deployment once every two years but you have to add in the rigorous workup schedule which usually starts 9 months prior to a deployment. So these ships come back from a deployment, have some maintenance done for 4-6 months, and a few months later are already working up for their next deployment.

(03-01-2013 06:45 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 04:47 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Bobl i read quote. was not deploying aircraft carrier a good move? Is america less safe? obama wants to be a politician not the chief executive.

I was obviously referring to Woodward. That quote does not constitute am attack!! And no I don't beleive the non deployment of a single carrier will make is less safe.

You are looking for things that just aren't there. You would so well at Fox News.

So your saying that the mid east is stable?

If we could stop using Middle Eastern oil, we wouldn't have to have any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Keystone will be huge for that.

(03-02-2013 04:46 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  If we could stop using Middle Eastern oil, we wouldn't have to have any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Keystone will be huge for that.

The carriers have been in the Gulf in support of OEF and OIF. But since we are winding down from Iraq and now Afghanistan one would assume we don't need to have as vast of a naval presence in that region as we do. However, the Navy and DoD justified the two carrier presence in the region by calling it a deterrent for Iran.

Regardless of oil, we will continue to have a carrier presence worldwide. We use our Navy as a show of force, to maintain open sea lanes, deter piracy, conduct exercises with ally nations, provide humanitarian assistance (i.e. Pakistan flooding in 2010, 2011 Japanese tsunami),etc.

(03-02-2013 05:35 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 04:46 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  If we could stop using Middle Eastern oil, we wouldn't have to have any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Keystone will be huge for that.

The carriers have been in the Gulf in support of OEF and OIF. But since we are winding down from Iraq and now Afghanistan one would assume we don't need to have as vast of a naval presence in that region as we do. However, the Navy and DoD justified the two carrier presence in the region by calling it a deterrent for Iran.

Regardless of oil, we will continue to have a carrier presence worldwide. We use our Navy as a show of force, to maintain open sea lanes, deter piracy, conduct exercises with ally nations, provide humanitarian assistance (i.e. Pakistan flooding in 2010, 2011 Japanese tsunami),etc.

And that is why I'm a huge supporter of the navy as a projection of force. Just would like us as a nation to forget about the ME and let them have fun blowing themselves up.