Free Republic

So, after the decision was made to take the life of Osama bin Laden, out of respect for his religious tradition the evidence of his death is destroyed? That strains credibility, as taking a life is by far of greater consequence than leaving the corpse unburied for 24 hours.
.
Was Saddam Hussein’s corpse similarly honored? If not his, why bin Laden’s?
.
And what exactly was gained by “respecting his religious tradition”? Will that cause “the Muslim street” to forgive the taking of bin Laden’s life? Having taken bin Laden’s life, would not “respecting Muslim burial customs” cause significantly more anger on “the Muslim street”? And just where in “Muslim burial customs” is disposal at sea?
.
One must remember we are not dealing with the most transparent Administration in history, nor with the most trustworthy of Presidents. Skepticism is not inappropriate. While it would be a plus if bin Laden were gone, these are nagging questions that diminish the sense of closure one would hope to have at this moment.

#
So, after the decision was made to take the life of Osama bin Laden, out of respect for his religious tradition the evidence of his death is destroyed? That strains credibility.
.
And what exactly was gained by “respecting his religious tradition”? Will that cause “the Muslim street” to forgive the taking of bin Laden’s life? Having taken bin Laden’s life, would not “respecting Muslim burial customs” cause significantly more anger on “the Muslim street”? And just where in “Muslim burial customs” is disposal at sea?
.
One must remember we are not dealing with the most transparent Administration in history, nor with the most trustworthy of Presidents. Skepticism is not inappropriate. While it would be a plus if bin Laden were gone, these are nagging questions that diminish the sense of closure one would hope to have at this moment.

And what exactly was gained by “respecting his religious tradition”? Will that cause “the Muslim street” to forgive the taking of bin Laden’s life? Having taken bin Laden’s life, would not “respecting Muslim burial customs” cause significantly more anger on “the Muslim street”? And just where in “Muslim burial customs” is disposal at sea?
.
While it would be a plus if bin Laden were gone, these are nagging questions that diminish the sense of closure one would hope to have at this moment.

So, after the decision was made to take the life of Osama bin Laden, out of respect for his religious tradition the evidence of his death is destroyed? That strains credibility.
.
One must remember we are not dealing with the most transparent Administration in history, nor with the most trustworthy of Presidents. Skepticism is not inappropriate.

We aren’t just being played by Obama, we’re being played by the Republicans Consider what happened last week:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000, and now owes $143,000 on its credit cards. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures, i.e., multiply by 100 million, and you have our federal government.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit. Soon we won’t be able to make even the minimum payment. We need to spend less, so let’s cut back this year, by $630, to $37,370.”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he sheepishly announces he will be satisfied if they cut by only $390, and he will accept the family continuing to spend more than $37,600 a year.
.
Based on this episode, I have two conclusions:
— The national Republican leadership are, almost without exception, a bunch of lily livered chicken s***s (not a new thought).
— Last week was bulls**t, all bulls**t, nothing but bulls**t. 100% political melodrama, zero substance.
.
How can anyone with a thinking mind believe Republican leaders who wouldn’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 are in any way serious about the remaining $11,600? (We can, however, believe Democrats will fight to the death for abortion funding.)
.
Is it coincidence that, while Boehner was preparing to cave over a measly $30 billion, our attention was being redirected to Paul Ryan’s budget and its supposed $6 trillion (already hinted at being only $4 trillion) of cuts over the next ten years?
.
Obama has increased Federal spending $700 billion a year beyond the already bloated last George W Bush budget. Proposed ongoing spending remains at the high level that included the supposedly temporary “stimulus” spending. Obama, after accepting $60 billion in “cuts”, is still spending more than 90% of that increase.
.
It’s clear from listening to the voices inside the Beltway, pundits as well as politicians, that none desires any meaningful reduction in spending, never mind returning the federal government to the limited role specified by the Constitution. Expansive power for the federal government means money, power and influence for them, and they intend to hold onto every bit they have accumulated.
.
What really, is different in Washington now compared to before the 2010 elections? Republicans, supposedly the majority, still allow Democrats, and perhaps the least popular President ever, to dictate both the agenda and the results.
.
We haven’t seen this feckless an “opposition” since the Vichy French.

We’re being played, and not just by Obama, but also by the Republicans Consider what happened last week:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000, and now owes $143,000 on its credit cards. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures, i.e., multiply by 100 million, and you have our federal government.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit. Soon we won’t be able to make even the minimum payment. We need to spend less, so let’s cut back this year, by $630, to $37,370.”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he sheepishly announces he will be satisfied if they cut by only $390, and he will accept the family continuing to spend more than $37,600 a year.
.
Based on this episode, I have two conclusions:
— The national Republican leadership are, almost without exception, a bunch of lily livered chicken s***s (not a new thought).
— Last week was bulls**t, all bulls**t, nothing but bulls**t. A ruse, a charade, nothing but political melodrama. Zero substance.
.
How can anyone with a thinking mind believe Republican leaders who wouldn’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 are in any way serious about the remaining $11,600? (We can, however, believe Democrats will fight to the death for abortion funding.)
.
Is it coincidence that, while Boehner was preparing to cave over a measly $30 billion, our attention was being redirected to Paul Ryan’s budget and its supposed $6 trillion (already hinted at being only $4 trillion) of cuts over the next ten years?
.
Obama has increased Federal spending $700 billion a year beyond the already bloated last George W Bush budget. Proposed ongoing spending remains at the high level that included the supposedly temporary “stimulus” spending. Obama, after accepting $60 billion in “cuts”, is still spending more than 90% of that increase.
.
It’s clear from listening to the voices inside the Beltway, pundits as well as politicians, that none desires any meaningful reduction in spending, never mind returning the federal government to the limited role specified by the Constitution. Expansive power for the federal government means money, power and influence for them, and they intend to hold onto every bit they have accumulated.
.
What really, is different in Washington now compared to before the 2010 elections? Republicans, supposedly the majority, still allow Democrats, and perhaps the least popular President ever, to dictate both the agenda and the results.
.
We haven’t seen this feckless an “opposition” since the Vichy French.

We aren’t just being played by Obama, we’re being played by the Republicans Consider what happened last week:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000, and now owes $143,000 on its credit cards. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures, i.e., multiply by 100 million, and you have our federal government.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit. Soon we won’t be able to make even the minimum payment. We need to spend less, so let’s cut back this year, by $630, to $37,370.”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he sheepishly announces he will be satisfied if they cut by only $390, and he will accept the family continuing to spend more than $37,600 a year.
.
Based on this episode, I have two conclusions:
— The national Republican leadership are, almost without exception, a bunch of lily livered chicken s***s (not a new thought).
— Last week was bulls**t, all bulls**t, nothing but bulls**t. 100% political melodrama, zero substance.
.
How can anyone with a thinking mind believe Republican leaders who wouldn’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 are in any way serious about the remaining $11,600? (We can, however, believe Democrats will fight to the death for abortion funding.)
.
Is it coincidence that, while Boehner was preparing to cave over a measly $30 billion, our attention was being redirected to Paul Ryan’s budget and its supposed $6 trillion (already hinted at being only $4 trillion) of cuts over the next ten years?
.
Obama has increased Federal spending $700 billion a year beyond the already bloated last George W Bush budget. Proposed ongoing spending remains at the high level that included the supposedly temporary “stimulus” spending. Obama, after accepting $60 billion in “cuts”, is still spending more than 90% of that increase.
.
It’s clear from listening to the voices inside the Beltway, pundits as well as politicians, that none desires any meaningful reduction in spending, never mind returning the federal government to the limited role specified by the Constitution. Expansive power for the federal government means money, power and influence for them, and they intend to hold onto every bit they have accumulated.
.
What really, is different in Washington now compared to before the 2010 elections? Republicans, supposedly the majority, still allow Democrats, and perhaps the least popular President ever, to dictate both the agenda and the results.
.
We haven’t seen this feckless an “opposition” since the Vichy French.

We aren’t just being played by Obama, we’re being played by the Republicans Consider what happened last week:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000, and now owes $143,000 on its credit cards. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures, i.e., multiply by 100 million, and you have our federal government.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit. Soon we won’t be able to make even the minimum payment. We need to spend less, so let’s cut back this year, by $630, to $37,370.”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he sheepishly announces he will be satisfied if they cut by only $390, and he will accept the family continuing to spend more than $37,600 a year.
.
Based on this episode, I have two conclusions:
— The national Republican leadership are, almost without exception, a bunch of lily livered chicken s***s (not a new thought).
— Last week was bulls**t, all bulls**t, nothing but bulls**t. 100% political melodrama, zero substance.
.
How can anyone with a thinking mind believe Republican leaders who wouldn’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 are in any way serious about the remaining $11,600? (We can, however, believe Democrats will fight to the death for abortion funding.)
.
Is it coincidence that, while Boehner was preparing to cave over a measly $30 billion, our attention was being redirected to Paul Ryan’s budget and its supposed $6 trillion (already hinted at being only $4 trillion) of cuts over the next ten years?
.
Obama has increased Federal spending $700 billion a year beyond the already bloated last George W Bush budget. Proposed ongoing spending remains at the high level that included the supposedly temporary “stimulus” spending. Obama, after accepting $60 billion in “cuts”, is still spending more than 90% of that increase.
.
It’s clear from listening to the voices inside the Beltway, pundits as well as politicians, that none desires any meaningful reduction in spending, never mind returning the federal government to the limited role specified by the Constitution. Expansive power for the federal government means money, power and influence for them, and they intend to hold onto every bit they have accumulated.
.
What really, is different in Washington now compared to before the 2010 elections? Republicans, supposedly the majority, still allow Democrats, and perhaps the least popular President ever, to dictate both the agenda and the results.
.
We haven’t seen this feckless an “opposition” since the Vichy French.

How is it that it has taken Donald Trump and three years for anyone in the national GOP to raise any of these questions? It’s getting more difficult to believe that the GOP actually opposes what Obama is doing.

The so-called “budget showdown” of the last week lacked any semblance of substance. Pretending to stand for a measly 2% reduction in spending that increased $700 billion from that of the former President (who also spent way too much), and then backing down, was as meaningless as it was futile.

The Republicans’ actions over the last three years (including the 2008 campaign, during which John McCain acted as if he was in mortal fear of his opponent Obama) appear to be those not of a loyal opposition, but of a collaborator. The Vichy Republicans, if you will.

If no bill is passed, then what happens? The government shuts down. I see no problem with that.
.
Government is the Democrats’ god. Are they really going to allow it to go completely unfed? If the Pubbies had any guts, any will, any conviction to do what they promise, they wouldn’t shy away from a shutdown.

We don’t really know about the Senate because Pubbies haven’t tested it. A lot of Dems in not-that-blue states (like my state’s McCaskill) have to face the voters in 2012. Why don’t the Pubbies test them by giving the Senate to vote upon the things they promise us.
.
Best case: they peel some Dems off the majority and pass some legislation. (That is what Reagan did.)
.
Worst case: they give Pubbie challengers something to use against the Dems in 2012.
.
IMO the current Pubbie leaders aren’t getting the job done, either because they aren’t up to it in terms of political skill, or because they really don’t want to do that in which they pretend to be interested. In either case, it warrants their dismissal.

We’re being played by the powers-that-be in DC. Is it coincidence that, as Boehner was preparing to cave over a measly $30 billion, our attention was redirected to Paul Ryan’s budget and its supposed $6 billion (now already being reduced to $4 billion)? Where, really, has the GOP shown any resolve to reduce spending by any significant amount?
.
Obama has increased Federal spending by $600 billion a year. Proposed Federal spending remains at the high level that included the supposedly temporary “stimulus” spending. If Obama agrees to $60 billion in “cuts”, he still keeps spending 90% of the increase!

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?

What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over $240?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership.

Yeah, I thought about my choice of the word “infirm” later. The correct phrase is “not in sufficient health to work and support yourself.”

As for the communicable disease thing: If you came to Ellis Island sick (and, after many days at sea in steerage) you didn’t get sent into the general American population until you got better. If you didn’t get better, you were sent back.

Notice how the number of cases of whooping cough in California is higher than it has been any time since 1954? Do you really believe it’s because our vaccinations stopped being effective? It’s far more likely whooping cough is spreading across California because millions illegally there from Mexico and elsewhere were never vaccinated.