patrick.net

If the democrats truly wanted to put forth health care, they should write a bill that's no more than 3 pages and easy enough for your average American to understand. They should also distribute a short explanation of how and why it would work. They might actually get the public on their side. The Republicans have already shown that they are willing to cave on their votes. By putting forth a 2000 page bill, they shot themselves in the foot.

Blue Swan says

If Prez Obozo had created enough jobs, this wouldn’t be a problem, would it?

There is very little that Gov't can do to create Industries that are viable in the long run.

The goverment can get out of way, let general prices fall along with salaries allowing new lower
cost, and profitable industries get created, let it be autos, consumer, heavy industry, and hi-tech.

There is no reason we cant make US run auto plants in the US just like the Japanese run auto plant. Its all about lower costs. The same with all other industries.

Wong,

I suppose that the Jet Age and Age of Internet would've happened anyway, even though those technologies were made ready for prime time under government funded auspicies.

"I congratulate him. He’s exactly right when he says that it needs to be pad for first. I’m all for social safety nets but Congress needs to do some actual work and figure out how to balance the budget. "

If that is the case, then where was Bunning when Congress passed the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D? Where was he with TARP? The Iraq War? No Child Left Behind? Oh, I get it. Bunning has no problem when a Republican president has unfunded bills, but not when a Democrat does.

thomas.wong1986 says

There is very little that Gov’t can do to create Industries that are viable in the long run.

Lockheed & Boeing? They are absolutely not entangled from Day 1 to present with contracts and special favors, right? Right! Clearly it is some sort of error in my texts that tell me the famous Boeing 707 was derived from the Air-Force KC-135 tanker project. That in the 1950's nearly every dollar Boeing was making was from military contracts, and the rapid success of this MILITARY PROJECT turned into a civilian airliner leading to a generation of JetSetters..... clearly delusional. It is just unpossible that governments EVER do anything right.

If you took this attitude "I want everything privatized, and no R&D on taxpayer dollars period" seriously I expect you'd see progress grind to a screeching halt. As private money typically can't see beyond next quarter's balance sheet and bonus situation. If you let the bean-counters dominate, you spend your life doing nothing but amassing beans. Fabulous. If you kill all the bean-counters of course you starve to death. There are places for both. Where we differentiate is anti-government zealots are determined that bean-counters are the Smartest Guys in the Room and they should RUN EVERYTHING and the rest of us should shut up and eat our beans. We see the result of letting the Financial Innovation Squad run riot and it hasn't been pretty. I see a valid place for both, and you lot do not. Generally speaking the endgame of all anti-government zealots is the Enron States of America, with Neo-Feudalism descending into anarchy.

Back on topic, Bunning is no different than Shelby of Alabama. Remember him? He's the squeaky wheel that put a HOLD on all Presidential appointments until he got some more pork fed into his district. Once he was greased the light was green again.

I don't like the idea of deficits any better than the next guy, however our entire economy clearly runs on massive amounts of fantasy money & leverage & cooked books, so to expect the government to operate any differently than the Financial Innovation Squad is unreal. Does he really expect Obama to suddenly turn the ship around and balance the books in the midst of a crisis, when we have clearly been in escalating deficits ever since Reagan? He's been in politics long enough to not be that naive. Bunning voted AGAINST "PayGo" which attempts to put "Pay as you Go" into operation, so he changed his stance fast didn't he? What a posturing, flaming hypocrite.

Bunning is just pissed at the GOP leadership that they cut off his re-election funding because they knew if he were to run again this November he would lose to the Democrat. So by cutting off his funding, he had to retire.

Vicente says

Lockheed & Boeing? They are absolutely not entangled from Day 1 to present with contracts and special favors, right? Right!

A very good point Vicente. Goverment contracts do indeed contribute to industrial jobs.
Thanks for the correction regarding the past, but what can they do today.

I agree with all military needs being done internally. If there was not this game of liberal social engineerng being forced upon the function of the military, then those who are not exactly combat roll types, (women, religous, physically limited) but do want to (and I feel should have to) serve their country, could do so in a non-combat role. Women should be allowed to serve in any non-combat roll, but should never be in a combat roll or a position of combat athority - ever. And keep them the heck off of subs.

More worry about making sure a sexual diviant is comfortable in the military is not needed. The military should not be another progressiveNAZIliberal social engineering playground, like they enjoy in education. The military has a very simple function - keep American citizens safe. Therefor, we should have Marines on the southern border performing that function.

Lasty, any VET that has a need should be handed every free thing that is now given to the teenmother hyper-breeders that fill the welfare rolls. Some FREE Section 8 housing, WIC, EBT cash, free schooling ... all of that stuff should be handed to families of ALL VETs .... not just wasted on the drungged up unaccountable selfish masses procreating the next crop of gangsters and taggers.

Bap33 says

then those who are not exactly combat roll types, (women, religous, physically limited) but do want to (and I feel should have to) serve their country, could do so in a non-combat role. Women should be allowed to serve in any non-combat roll, but should never be in a combat roll or a position of combat athority - ever. And keep them the heck off of subs.

This is the absolute meaningless comment I have ever heard. Which century are you living in, 16th? Why women shouldnt serve in combat role(BTW, spell the role right). What next for you right wing nuts take off the voting rights for women? Ban interracial marriage by the name of God..Cut the crap, keep this in line with OP.

Bap33 says

Lasty, any VET that has a need should be handed every free thing that is now given to the teenmother hyper-breeders that fill the welfare rolls. Some FREE Section 8 housing, WIC, EBT cash, free schooling … all of that stuff should be handed to families of ALL VETs …. not just wasted on the drungged up unaccountable selfish masses procreating the next crop of gangsters and taggers.

Sure, we should reward our vets. But at the same time, we should remember that many of them came from poverty and were the "users" referred to in the above post before they joined. And may very well return to using when they get home.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8358-Detroit-Substance-Abuse-Examiner~y2009m11d16-War-vets-suffering-addictions-at-high-rate

Bap33 says

And keep them the heck off of subs.

It'd be cool if they had all-women sub crews.

Even cooler if they had all-lesbian sub crews.

Bap33 says

More worry about making sure a sexual diviant is comfortable in the military is not needed

man, slagging on minorities, poor people, gays, atheists, cripples, sick people, out-of-shape people, the unemployed -- bap is a majority of one!

TechGrommit,

I understand how you feel, on the other hand, the "e" in e-mail is for "E-vidence", blog is not a whole lot different than email.

If Bunning is found in a ditch, I hope you have a bulletproof alibi.

@dontgetit,
you need to support your points and avoid name calling. Just because time has passed does not mean an idea is a good one. Women should not be anywhere near a combat situation - no more than children, old people, or people with disablities. Period.

All voters should be made to earn and maintain a license to vote. A voter should be required to read and understand the constitution without assisstance (other than braile) and pass a test to prove it. A voter should be in danger of losing their license if they fail to vote on two consecutive elections. All voters should be made to vote on their tax return. Make election/tax day the second Tuesday in April.

@ellie,
no doubt about that.

@Troy,
lol. Just tossing some hot sauce in the salad.

"All voters should be made to earn and maintain a license to vote. A voter should be required to read and understand the constitution without assisstance (other than braile) and pass a test to prove it.'

So basically you want to return to literacy tests? Oh yes, those worked out great...

American vigilantism is the biggest disappointment of the decade.

Bap33 says

you need to support your points and avoid name calling. Just because time has passed does not mean an idea is a good one. Women should not be anywhere near a combat situation - no more than children, old people, or people with disablities. Period.

My point is quite simple, can you tell me one war where we lost because women involved in a combat role? Woman has served very well in the military as commanders/warriors except for barbarian state. I suggest you read history and for starter look up in wikipedia.

I am not name calling any one, but. to deprive anyone's rights is not right, and I think personally its every women/men's right to become a soldier and fight for her/his country.

If your only excuse is America not losing a war due to having a woman in a fighting role - than your thought process is lacking. Point to a war America won due to women in combat roles. That's what I thought. You cant point to a war that America lost due to having one legged, one eyes, fat old men fight either fight either. Starting to sink in yet?

Serving this country should be mandatory and an honor - not a "right". it is not a friggin right. But, eemale service can be doing the stuff Haliburton is doing, and there by get two birds with one stone - female service and no contrcators. Isn't the support system just as needed as the bullets? Look it up on wikipedia ... the Romans, the Huns, and the British all found out how important supply and support is.

Bap33 says

If your only excuse is America not losing a war due to having a woman in a fighting role - than your thought process is lacking. Point to a war America won due to women in combat roles. That’s what I thought. You cant point to a war that America lost due to having one legged, one eyes, fat old men fight either fight either. Starting to sink in yet?
Serving this country should be mandatory and an honor - not a “right”. it is not a friggin right. But, eemale service can be doing the stuff Haliburton is doing, and there by get two birds with one stone - female service and no contrcators. Isn’t the support system just as needed as the bullets? Look it up on wikipedia … the Romans, the Huns, and the British all found out how important supply and support is.

Point to a war that America won without women in combat zones. From the civil war on ... or do you want to forget about the nurses, etc., because "dem weak wimen don't count cuz dey don't shoot dem gunz"?

Maybe America wouldn't be in a losing war in the first place if women were the ones deciding whether to send their kids off to die, instead of dried up old farts who are looking for war to replace the conquests their lowered testosterone levels can no longer provide.

There is no honor in the current wars. Not when it's been subsumed by profiteering, corruption, torture, domestic spying, security theater, wiretapping, fear-mongering, lies, economic ruination, class warfare, and bull-headedness.

Barbie says

Point to a war that America won without women in combat zones. From the civil war on … or do you want to forget about the nurses, etc., because “dem weak wimen don’t count cuz dey don’t shoot dem gunz”?

Its hard to talk to someone who lacks fact but has a conviction.

Bap33 says

I agree with all military needs being done internally. If there was not this game of liberal social engineerng being forced upon the function of the military, then those who are not exactly combat roll types, (women, religous, physically limited) but do want to (and I feel should have to) serve their country, could do so in a non-combat role.

Baps point is understood by those who have read history. As was the case with the all women non-combat pilots, called the WASPs, flying planes as support for supplies and to the docks for shipment during WW2.

Bap33 says

The military has a very simple function - keep American citizens safe.

.. also keeping a disciplined fighting force.

Barbie says

Point to a war that America won without women in combat zones. From the civil war on … or do you want to forget about the nurses, etc., because “dem weak wimen don’t count cuz dey don’t shoot dem gunz”?
Maybe America wouldn’t be in a losing war in the first place if women were the ones deciding whether to send their kids off to die, instead of dried up old farts who are looking for war to replace the conquests their lowered testosterone levels can no longer provide.
There is no honor in the current wars. Not when it’s been subsumed by profiteering, corruption, torture, domestic spying, security theater, wiretapping, fear-mongering, lies, economic ruination, class warfare, and bull-headedness.

Well said! If women can perform tasks to the level of proficiency required (shooting, flying, etc) there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve. I know plenty of cowardly men and plenty of tough women.

"I am not name calling any one, but. to deprive anyone’s rights is not right, and I think personally its every women/men’s right to become a soldier and fight for her/his country."

You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion about what should or should not be a right. But just because you believe something should be a right does not make it one!

There is NO "right" to serve in the US Military. This is a Fact. As a famous statesman once said, Facts are stubborn things.

"Bunning, who is retiring at the end of this year, has said he doesn't oppose extending the programs; he just doesn't want to add to the deficit. Democrats argue that, because it is an emergency measure, the bill should not be subject to new rules requiring that legislation not expand the deficit."

"Democrats argue that, because it is an emergency measure, the bill should not be subject to new rules requiring that legislation not expand the deficit"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oi!

"Point to a war that America won without women in combat zones."
I did not say "zone", I said "role" (actually I said roll - and that was the wrong word - lol). Females should never, ever be in a combat role. As pointed out, neither should men who are soft, they too can serve in non-combat roles as I stated above. Same with old people and those with disablilities - a non-combat role that supports this nations defense should be available.

I disagree with grywlfbg, just being able to fly a plane or shoot a gun does not equate to being a warrior.

If you folks really feel women should be equal to men, then that means you should start demanding the mixing of women and men prisoners. Right? No? Well .. dang, now what?

Paralithodes says

There is NO “right” to serve in the US Military. This is a Fact. As a famous statesman once said, Facts are stubborn things.

All discrimination has to pass the rational basis and middle-tier scrutiny of judicial review. All the glib bs you can dredge up doesn't remove the fact that all men (and women) are created equal and each has equal right to life, liberty, and independence.

It took over a century for the country to begin to ditch old social norms, and we've got a way to go thanks to the typical conservative backwardness in this area.

Not all combat jobs require intermixing of sexes such that segregation is generally more conducive to maintaining discipline and readiness -- the Air Force and Navy are full of these combat roles.

Men and women work in close proximity every day in civil life and we can modernize our military to work the same where it makes sense.

Troy says

Paralithodes says

There is NO “right” to serve in the US Military. This is a Fact. As a famous statesman once said, Facts are stubborn things.

All discrimination has to pass the rational basis and middle-tier scrutiny of judicial review. All the glib bs you can dredge up doesn’t remove the fact that all men (and women) are created equal and each has equal right to life, liberty, and independence.
It took over a century for the country to begin to ditch old social norms, and we’ve got a way to go thanks to the typical conservative backwardness in this area.
Not all combat jobs require intermixing of sexes such that segregation is generally more conducive to maintaining discipline and readiness — the Air Force and Navy are full of these combat roles.
Men and women work in close proximity every day in civil life and we can modernize our military to work the same where it makes sense.

That is all well and good, but does not change the FACT that there is no "right" to serve in the US Military.

See Title 10 of the US Code, which governs all rules of the military. If you want a specific example, go to the policy on homosexuals (which should answer why Obama is powerless to change it without Congress taking action): TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654

Item (a)(2) states, verbatim: "There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. "

While the law on homosexuals serving may be changed, this clause will not likely be.

So when I claim there is no right to serve, I am not stating my opinion, I am simply stating, verbatim, what is currently the law of the land. If you think it should be changed, write your Rep or Senator and ask them to change the Constitution. Before you accuse people of "glib bs" by stating what is the law in response to someone claiming "rights" that do not exist, maybe a little more research would do you well.

"modernizing" ??? who said that is a good idea when talking about personnel? Tools they use, yes. Who uses the tools, negative.

Still waiting for Barbie-the-ProgressiveLiberal to explaine why she supports segragated prisons.

Paralithodes says

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Item (a)(2) states, verbatim: “There is no constitutional right to

LOL. It's a pretty sad day when even conservatives don't understand the basic structure of a constitutional republic, as the framers established for us. I would explain it to you but if you're so dense to bring up existing legislation in support of Constitutional theory then I really don't see the point.

Bap33 says

“modernizing” ??? who said that is a good idea when talking about personnel?

Conservatives fail to see that the past wasn't all that hot for many if not most people (compared to now) and progress requires losing the crap beliefs and norms that are outdated and held through inertia, racial bigotry, misogyny, religious idiocy, or what have you.

200 years from now I expect we'll be a lot more grown up about this topic. Whatevs. If conservatives want to alienate more than half the electorate for no good reason, more power to them.

my good man, most females agree with my view. Only progressiveLiberals want to erode our defense.

so, you are suggesting we intergrate prisons?

LOL. It’s a pretty sad day when even conservatives don’t understand the basic structure of a constitutional republic, as the framers established for us. I would explain it to you but if you’re so dense to bring up existing legislation in support of Constitutional theory then I really don’t see the point.

Someone earlier claimed there was a "right" to serve in the armed forces. I corrected them: this right does not exist. Are you saying that it does? Certainly as a conservative I'm too dense to understand anything, as are ALL conservatives down to the last NASCAR fan or blue collar/uneducated redneck (which of course we all are anyway), but given the high likelihood that some of your fellow liberals here have not read the Constitution, maybe you can explain it for them: If you have read it, that is?

Troy says

Bap33 says

And keep them the heck off of subs.

It’d be cool if they had all-women sub crews.
Even cooler if they had all-lesbian sub crews.

That sounds like a reality show that every American has a right to watch!

agreed. Americans have the right to produce/sell/market/watch such a show. Free market works.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m willing to have my tax dollars to be used to have the strongest and most advanced military in the world.

If you get a chance sometime, read Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger.

but given the high likelihood that some of your fellow liberals here have not read the Constitution, maybe you can explain it for them: If you have read it, that is?

The Constitution is a dead letter.

Bap33 says

I did not say “zone”, I said “role” (actually I said roll - and that was the wrong word - lol). Females should never, ever be in a combat role. As pointed out, neither should men who are soft, they too can serve in non-combat roles as I stated above. Same with old people and those with disablilities - a non-combat role that supports this nations defense should be available.
I disagree with grywlfbg, just being able to fly a plane or shoot a gun does not equate to being a warrior.
If you folks really feel women should be equal to men, then that means you should start demanding the mixing of women and men prisoners. Right? No? Well .. dang, now what?

Forget whee the quote came from but it goes something like this, "Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

You sir are a waste of air. How can you tell me that having a penis makes one a "warrior" (or the lack of one makes one incapable of being such)? Do you have one single shred of reasoning or evidence for your position? Aside from your obvious sexism and fear of strong women.

Sex aside, how do you determine who can be a "warrior"? Have you actually served in the military? Basic training does very little to prepare you for combat. Regardless of gender, until the REAL bullets start flying, you have NO IDEA who will actually pull their own trigger and kill and who will cower. It happens to Males all the time. Heck, there are plenty of Men who can't kill a deer much less another human (see: Buck Fever).

And what do prisons have to do w/ the military? The reason we segregate prisons is for punishment. If one could have a live-in girlfriend/wife in prison it wouldn't be punishment. I'm guessing you're trying to show that men and women are different. Well, of course they are. But let's not forget that men rape each other in prison all the time so I still don't see how your example has any bearing on our discussion. There are weak people and there are strong people. Gender has ZERO to do with it.

Finally, to reiterate my point, if an objective set of requirements are set to be a soldier (must be able to carry X lbs of gear for X miles, must be able to shoot with X accuracy, etc) and someone can meet those requirements, it shouldn't matter what gender they are. End of story.

Austinhousingbubble says

Don’t get me wrong, I’m willing to have my tax dollars to be used to have the strongest and most advanced military in the world.

If you get a chance sometime, read Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger.

I'll check it out. However as someone who was a military pilot in his younger days I think our tax dollars have brought us some impressive capability. Is there inefficiencies? Of course. But there are in the private sector, road-building, you name it, as well. And the plenty of money has been wasted but at least we have planes, tanks, ships, etc. for our money, unlike what Wall Street has done w/ our money.

The book deals with the DARPA branch of the Pentagon, which spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars via grants for opportunists/charlatans to pursue quack science (cold fusion, mind control guns, and ESP warfare among many many others) in the name of National Defense.

Never mind the two bullshit wars we're stuck in right now -- even during peace time our defense budget always seems to get a free pass, despite the Pentagon treating tax dollars like funny paper.

"The Constitution is a dead letter."

Wow! Troy, do you believe this as well? Constitution is a "dead letter" - essentially irrelevant?

If that is the case, why argue about taxes or any other political issue: There is no valid government, is there?