Friday, July 11, 2014

got to do something...

I wrote what amounted to a rant in answer to someone in one of my blogs who was finding fault with Obama for being a weak leader over Syria and for not immediately okaying the Keystone Pipeline. I figured with all that work, I should put my answer here with a little adjustment. I see a lot I could be ranting about, but it seems to not do much good. Still once in awhile it's good to vent. This was more or less my answer to his complaints about Obama.
~~~

You just do not like him and that makes you find fault. So what you'd like is for him to do something and stick to it? What if the first thing the repubs wanted him to do was support the guy who now looks like he wants to be the next bin Laden! McCain couldn't wait to get over there and lend his support to the 'freedom fighters'. Give him arms, they said. And now it seems obvious with what he's done in Iraq that this guy is trying to inspire a global jihad as he's named himself the Caliph (which is very significant to Muslims and Arabs).

That is why I don't trust Republicans to vote sensibly. They like someone stubborn like GW who does something even when it's wrong. A leader who rules with nuance makes them upset. Nobody knows what to do with Syria but some would do something anyway. Oh and how would you pay for that new war? You guys also do not like taxes and that's how we got this huge debt now which you don't want but your solution on that is make the poor pay with less benefits and take away public education and health care. So you pay for wars on the back of the weak and you wage them with no idea what you are doing which is what everybody with a knowledge of history said about Iraq including the first Bush. It will break apart but no, would not listen. Then like to whine when it's a lifetime problem which it is and will be.

And on the oil, the extra jobs only last as long as the pipeline takes to build across the country. It would go to Texas refineries, maybe build a new one and then be shipped to South America. China will get its oil one way or another, and I bet we are shipping them some of our excess now as the global oil market sends it to where it is close enough.

When that oil pipeline leaks someday, due to a big quake such as has happened before in some of that region (or even brought on by all our fracking), and ruins the Ogallala aquifer, you will find out what that does to your bread basket and Texas, but Republicans who vote for the same idiots over and over never seem to learn about long term versus short term. They want cheap and quick answers when life doesn't provide them in a LOT of situations. They vote for leaders promising pie in the sky and then get mad when it didn't happen. Most likely that will mean Romney again next time because all the rest of the possibilities are wackos-- which becomes obvious if you bother to listen to them on the stump. What the right wants is a Republican president, who will end legal abortion (repubs are doing it in a lot of states now), get a constitutional amendment to end gay marriage, spy more than happens now, cut taxes again with that cockamamie idea that it will bring in more revenue, be back to fighting wars every which direction and then whine when the debt rockets.

I like Obama. I won't say he's always doing right. I am not thrilled at his not pushing to end this migrational flood by asking for a change in the law that exempted Central Americans under 18 from regular deportation proceedings (and seeing photos of some of those 'kids' what we are letting in are young men who could easily be gang affiliated and make our problem with that worse than it was). His problem for dealing with that though are fundamentalist lefties who want to open the floodgates and let in everybody who wants to come with no more idea of how to pay for that than repubs do with the endless wars they favor.

AND if we had armed this guy in Syria, the one who was such a hero to the right, we'd be seeing just what we are now with our guns used also (now he's just taking them away from the Iraqis who we were told would fight to defend their own country). This Caliph will be a bin Laden if he doesn't get killed by Obama's drones-- which I bet is the goal about now. And some nutty American leader armed bin Laden originally. but heaven forbid that a President would not do anything. Got to do something to satisfy that right wing base! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 

Update: I decided to spruce up this blog a bit and may do more. One addition is more topical blogs. If you have one you like, one that you feel gives a thoughtful look at today's problems, partisan issues, as well as just a good read, give me the link so I can see if it seems a good fit here. I had several I would have liked to add but they did not have interactive links yet. First Look Media though is acquiring Matt Taibbi, whose journalism I like a lot; so it'll be here if it gets a link that works. Most of what I have added, I was reading. Well, I could not bring myself to add Drudge here but I do check it regularly. It's though more of a compilation than an opinion site-- well other than everything he has there is a drudge opinion...

29 comments:

Ingineer66 said...

We are like a writing prompt for each other. The law was put in place with good intentions, but like many laws good I tentions don't always work out the way people think they will. The MS13 gang members that are being placed with families around the country is going to come back to bite us.
I think you misunderstood me. I think Obama is a weak leader in general, not just on Syria. He wanted to go to war to back the Muslim Brotherhood and the Republicans stopped him. He backed them in Egypt and that didn't work as the people have now kicked them out.
And I didn't say I expected an immediate answer on the XL pipeline, but it has been studied for over 3 years so it is time for an answer.

Rain Trueax said...

Yes, we are which is what leads to meaningful discourse and in this case a redecorating of the Rants :)

I did not think you meant just Syria. I thought you meant more and in each case what I call nuanced, you do not. As for what he wanted to do about Egypt, are you using Breitbart, Newmax, Fox, or WND as your source for what he wanted to do? lol I never heard anywhere else that he wanted to go to war there. I find it highly unlikely unless I see quotes somewhere from a source more reliable than a Cheney... speaking of those always wrong.

He did a lot of things recently that will help the carbon issue and hurt Dems in states like Kentucky. I think this decision will be held off whichever way it goes. He should say no. Partisan politics though play too much a role in a lot of things including the immigration problem.

Ingineer66 said...

Both sides are putting politics ahead of the good of the country right now.
He wanted to go to war in Syria, not Egypt. But the folks he backed in Egypt have been thrown out because they were radical extremists.

Rain Trueax said...

If I was you on Egypt, I'd hold off on who is good and who is bad guy. The ones who took power were the military and maybe that will work out-- or maybe not. Egypt is not finished. And I don't think Obama wanted to go to war anyplace.

Anyone with a brain would not with a group pushing war in this country unwilling to pay for what they do where it comes to wars-- and unwilling to pay their vets later when they come home injured. The ones who most block more money for VA hospitals and veterans are righties, not the left who supports that care. AND you know it if you read much about these bills and who blocked them going forward. Dems may not want wars but they do support veteran benefits because they support programs to help people first not corporations. And no, I don't say all dems but the party policy and the ones I give money to and support have those stances. No wars if it's not beyond doubt we must with boots on the ground. Whether they did good in backing those who got rid of Gaddafi or Mubarak, time will tell. I think Americans keep hoping the Middle East will turn into a democracy that backs free enterprise but time and again it proves that what we help happen doesn't work that way and you can see it in one historic intance after another.

Ingineer66 said...

The Dems block just as many bills as the right. The Dems want the VA spending because they are unionized federal employees. But they blocked bills to improve conditions at Walter Reed Army hospital for over 2 years because there were not enough union concessions in them. Both sides are bought and paid for.

Rain Trueax said...

I was really talking about ordinary lefties, the ones I know and what they say which is that they favor more money for veteran programs even if it means higher taxes. Politicians can be the same for the way they manipulate hoping it'll lead to more votes. But in general liberals, who don't like wars, do like programs to help veterans.

Rain Trueax said...

and the taxes to cover the costs

Ingineer66 said...

In general righties support a strong American defense and Veterans. Although they think we pay plenty of taxes and there should be enough money to do these things with the money the government gets. And there would be if they weren't squandering it on so much fluff. I do not see the news stories filled with lefties sending in extra money to the government because they are taxed too little. But I do see a lot of righties giving money to charities that support Veterans.

Ingineer66 said...

Speaking of charities. Remember how much of a stink the left made when George W. Bush wanted to promote faith based charities to help take care of people during disasters? I have not heard any uproar from the left now that Obama is asking for and actually using faith based charities to help with the flood of illegals coming across the border.

Rain Trueax said...

Where did you see Obama suggesting that it be charitable aid instead of the US government? Wasn't he the one asking for $3 billion to do this job from the government?

And the righties are all for lots of money for the active military, for wars, but when it comes to programs to help the vets who came home, they block it. Do some research. They also favored Bush going to war when the troops were not adequately armed with parents needing to supply things that should have been there. remember Rumsfeld-- you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. Except they had a choice about going into Iraq. There was no emergency. I am amazed you keep defending them and what they did since you don't like taxes. What the left has said is when they cut taxes and waged a war, it took money. What a shock that what was there wasn't enough! But all righties want is to pay for all that on the backs of the poor and retirees. That's the truth of it and if you do any research, you know it.

Anonymous said...

The Border Patrol and ICE are working with Catholic and Baptist Charities to house the illegals. I heard the President speaking about it on the news the other day when I was driving.
The poor do not pay taxes so I am not sure how you are saying it is on the backs of the poor. They also get free or reduced price electricity, food, housing, phones, medical care, etc.

Rain Trueax said...

IF we had a Congress who would act on anything, the President would have the money to do this from his instant response and asking for money-- some to speed up the immigration courts, some for Central America, some for care, and some for Border. As it stands, only charities, who are used to responding to disasters, can do something fast enough. Congress wastes the money it costs by being unable to act on anything especially if it costs money.

I heard that the first migrant children were already on planes back to Guatamala. The ones that they are letting stay have relatives here or so I heard. The problem is what Central America and Mexico are breeding and whether we can do anything about any of it as Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. are sovereign nations. Yet what happens down there (and some of it thanks to our unrealistic drug policies) does impact us. When you think of parents fearing drug gang related violence, we should feel sorry for these children and their desperate parents- likewise the ones who live in Chicago and other poverty pockets in the US.

You are a bit naive about the poor and how much benefits most of them get. They get stipends like one I know got $80 a month in food stamps. I suppose you know how far that goes. Heating oil is the same kind of limit. Health care still isn't resolved and some doctors won't take Medicaid as the benefits they receive from it are being cut. I don't think they are living the Life or Riley you suppose after listening/reading your right wing pundits.

Rain Trueax said...

It's on the backs of the poor because all programs are being cut so much a year due to the law that mandates that. When you cut a program that already doesn't cover a reasonable life, guess what's left. And do i hear republicans who want these many wars EVER say they want taxes raised to cover them? That's the responsible thing to do!

Ingineer66 said...

Please list a program for the poor that has received an actual cut.

Rain Trueax said...

sequestration cannot officially cut medicaid, food stamps, but it can cut some low-income programs, most notably Section 8 housing vouchers, aid for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A friend I know who got heating oil help had it cut and they did cut her food stamps but by selectively figuring her income; so she got a cut but it would not be official. The issue though is that if they want to pay down the debt, how do you think they will do it while righties want even more wars overseas?

Rain Trueax said...

Unemployment benefit cuts also hurt the poor disproportionately as they get laid off first and often have the less secure jobs.

Ingineer66 said...

Were they actual cuts are just smaller rates of growth than they originally planned? Unemployment has grown many times in the last 6 years.

Rain Trueax said...

The lady I know received less money. That's a cut. The article said they can cut those programs as part of Sequestration which requires so much cutting a year. Since that also involves the military, I think that one might be reconsidered by right and left.

You know corporations went to that or the one where my husband worked (vague on years but before 2002). They had to fire 5% every year and it was to be the least effective judged by the bosses. It had a way of not working so well. Jack Welch evidently said it about GE-- should fire so many every year regardless. So here we have government forcing cuts with no consideration for whether a program is already bare-bones. It goes over big with the Tea Partiers but not so much with commonsense!

Ingineer66 said...

What Tea Party people have told you cutting the military is good? Sequestration was put in place by Obama and Congress because it was across the board cuts that they didn't think would ever actually happen. When it did happen, Obama put the word out to the executive branch to make it hurt and then went on a PR campaign to blame republicans even though it was his plan too. They spent more money keeping people out of public places and took away things that people enjoy to try to show the people that we should keep spending ourselves into oblivion. Maybe you want hyper inflation and a meaningless US dollar in the future, but I don't. We need to get control of our spending instead of just kicking it down the road for somebody else to deal with.

Rain Trueax said...

You keep saying you don't just read right wing pundits but you keep spouting their jargon. I was around when Sequestration went in. It was to keep government going instead of shutting it down and yes nobody thought the congress would do it but with tea partiers running a lot of the show in the House, they have.

It got shut down last fall not due to sequestration but due to failure to pass a debt ceiling increase and that was all righties who wanted it. That's why we missed out on Yellowstone and found John Day NM closed. I got news for you-- it wasn't about trying to punish people. It was about-- this is how it works when you do that! Obama didn't want Sequestration or shut down of government but he compromised. Was that a mistake? Maybe. This isn't a bunch who believe in compromise. It's their way or the highway!

Sequestration does hurt military programs. Tea Partiers definitely don't want anything that cuts buying big boy war toys, but they don't support veterans programs in general. So is that pro or not pro military? Pro when off to fight wars but once they get back here, all bets are off?

You sure do talk the spiel and it makes me think Mark Levin or somebody like him because you give off all their talking points.

Ingineer66 said...

I have listened to Levin maybe 3 or 4 times in my life when he sat in for Rush. The Tea Party folks that I know care a lot about the troops and not so much about high tech expensive equipment.

Rain Trueax said...

The Tea Party folks then are voting for the wrong leaders as their reps in Congress are voting against spending period and that includes veteran programs like for mental health, etc. Maybe the regular tea partiers need to look at who is representing them as those reps want to block all abortion, end health insurance for all, end gay marriage right by a constitutional amendment, etc. Just because they say they are for freedom doesn't mean they believe in it for somebody else.

And where do you get your talking points then?

I've heard Levin about the same number of times. I listen to Glenn Beck more often but only when I am in the car at the right time. And then for as long as I can take any of them which for limbaugh amounts to 5 minutes before he says something that is an out and out lie, mean, or stupid. Beck until he gets righteous and turns on the preacher voice ;)

Ingineer66 said...

I talk to people that I know at coffee in the morning. I skim several news sources online and a couple of newspapers. I listen to Rush for probably a couple of hours a week and I listen to Tom Sullivan as much as I can while driving. He presents one of the most balanced views on radio. And I watch some morning news on Local TV.

Ingineer66 said...

Oh and I read one conservative and 2 liberal blogs every day and others once in a while.

Rain Trueax said...

I never heard of tom sullivan but how you stand limbaugh amazes me. He is such a shill

Ingineer66 said...

I listen to him in limited doses. Sometimes he is on the only station I can get. Sometimes I listen for 20 minutes then take a break and listen again for 20 more minutes. It just depends on the topic. He is totally about self promotion about the same as Jon Stewart.

Ingineer66 said...

PS Tom Sullivan was on a Sacramento radio station with a one hour show mostly about financial matters. That eventually evolved into a 3 hour show about local and national topics and now he is based in New York and on Fox Talk radio network. He is conservative on some issues and pretty liberal on others. He was pretty hard on W. when he did things that he didn't agree with. He also has a show on Fox Business Channel about financial stuff.

Rain Trueax said...

If he's on Fox, it's hard to believe he'd not consistently take the stands they want ;)

Rain Trueax said...

I think something like six companies now will control all our media. Most of them are right wing. There is concern that if Murdock takes over the parent company for HBO, that Maher and other more liberal shows will be gone. What happened to rules about monopolies???