Ted Cruz Gonna Get Some of That Sweet Sweet Obamacare

Bob wrote:The bottom line on all this,  Sal,  is that our government is broken.  And it's broken mainly because our country is now in a hatfields vs mccoys situation and the hatfields and mccoys are the "liberals" vs the "conservatives" whatever in the fuck that now even means.  

Each side believes it's side is always right and the other side is always wrong.
Absolutely no different than the two sets of spectators on each side of the wrastlin ring.  One side always cheers for Hulk Hogan and boos Macho Man Randy Savage while the other side always cheers for Randy Savage and boos Hulk Hogan no matter what.

Wordslinger wrote:
I absolutely agree with your statement: '...our government is broken."

Yes, it is Hatfields vs. McCoys.

Why?  Because we don't own it anymore, and the oligarchs who do pay to keep us divided.

And, finally, the republicans are totally fucking crazy!

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

I'd ask you to show any example where Sal is going apeshit over something that is essentially normal protocol...but I already know the answer.

The reason you always "already know the answer" is because you will only listen to people who think exactly like you and you dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit your ideology.

Bob wrote:I never said Sal is "going apeshit".   What I said was is that Sal (and you) would have a different take on this if it was Bush instead of Obama who had made the trade.  I promise you that if Bush had dunnit, you and Sal would not be telling us it was "normal protocol".  lol
So I already gave you the goddamned example,  you just didn't want to hear it.  lol

Bob wrote:By the way,  bds,  I want you to read to me from any law,  military regulation,  court decision or any fucking thing else where it states that it's "protocol" to trade five enemy combatant prisoners to get back one American military deserter?  If you can do that then I'll take back everything I said.  lol

Hagel, June 1: Well, first of all, we didn’t negotiate with terrorists. As I said and explained before, Sergeant Bergdahl is a prisoner of war. That’s a normal process in getting your prisoners back.

Bob wrote:I have to "restate my thesis" over and over,  bds,  because you and Sal keep begging the question.

Bergdahl was not simply just a "prisoner of war".  At the time the trade was made,  it was known to the military that Bergdahl was being accused of being a deserter.  And if Obama was not aware of this he should have been elst he's just incompetent as a CIC.

It was the dumbest thing he could have ever done (both politically and logically) to go ahead with that trade when there was evidence that Bergdahl could well be a deserter.

Try again.

Bob wrote:
A simpleton would compare apples and oranges to make a bogus response like you just did.

Name me one other instance in the history of the United States when ANY president (democrat,  republican or any other party) traded any number of military combatants (one,  five, a hundred,  or a thousand it doesn't matter) TO GET BACK A FUCKING AMERICAN MILITARY DESERTER.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:I have to "restate my thesis" over and over,  bds,  because you and Sal keep begging the question.

Bergdahl was not simply just a "prisoner of war".  At the time the trade was made,  it was known to the military that Bergdahl was being accused of being a deserter.  And if Obama was not aware of this he should have been elst he's just incompetent as a CIC.

It was the dumbest thing he could have ever done (both politically and logically) to go ahead with that trade when there was evidence that Bergdahl could well be a deserter.

Try again.

Simply being accused of something is different than being tried and found guilty.  Bergdahl was considered to be a prisoner of war at the time of the exchange, so the normal process of having him returned was executed.  The end.  Granted, there were unusual circumstances surrounding his disappearance, but at the time we simply didn't have enough information to know what was going on.  

I can't imagine abandoning normal protocol in a situation that involves securing the safety of a prisoner of war merely on the basis of vague speculation.  Perhaps you can.  Well, obviously you can.  

And unless you can provide some example, any example, of Sal being whipped into a frenzy over something that is basically normal protocol to the same degree that Markle and KarlRove have over this Bergahl prisoner swamp, you're leaving me no choice but to assume that you are simply talking out of your ass, and that you don't actually have anything to provide.   That is, your opinion isn't guided by real-world, factual information.  It is something that simply emerged in your own mind and that you repeat again and again.

Wouldn't you think that at least one....just once....you would be able to qualify your idea with real-world evidence?  If you can't...isn't that odd?

If I held an opinion such as yours that I simply couldn't back up with supporting evidence, it would no longer be my opinion.

Sal wrote:

“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican, a president of either party, Republican or Democratic confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl, who is apparently in failing health, would have taken this opportunity to do this,” he added. [color=#ff0000]“I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.”

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:I have to "restate my thesis" over and over,  bds,  because you and Sal keep begging the question.

Bergdahl was not simply just a "prisoner of war".  At the time the trade was made,  it was known to the military that Bergdahl was being accused of being a deserter.  And if Obama was not aware of this he should have been elst he's just incompetent as a CIC.

It was the dumbest thing he could have ever done (both politically and logically) to go ahead with that trade when there was evidence that Bergdahl could well be a deserter.

Try again.

Simply being accused of something is different than being tried and found guilty.  Bergdahl was considered to be a prisoner of war at the time of the exchange, so the normal process of having him returned was executed.  The end.  Granted, there were unusual circumstances surrounding his disappearance, but at the time we simply didn't have enough information to know what was going on.  

I can't imagine abandoning normal protocol in a situation that involves securing the safety of a prisoner of war merely on the basis of vague speculation.  Perhaps you can.  Well, obviously you can.  

And unless you can provide some example, any example, of Sal being whipped into a frenzy over something that is basically normal protocol to the same degree that Markle and KarlRove have over this Bergahl prisoner swamp, you're leaving me no choice but to assume that you are simply talking out of your ass, and that you don't actually have anything to provide.   That is, your opinion isn't guided by real-world, factual information.  It is something that simply emerged in your own mind and that you repeat again and again.

Wouldn't you think that at least one....just once....you would be able to qualify your idea with real-world evidence?  If you can't...isn't that odd?

If I held an opinion such as yours that I simply couldn't back up with supporting evidence, it would no longer be my opinion.

One example of that "real world" evidence is what Berghdahl's own platoon members were telling us at the time it was being announced that this trade would happen.  They were telling us they knew he deserted his post at the time it actually happened which was in 2009,  long before the decision was made to make this trade.  
They told us how pissed off they were when it happened because so much of an effort was made to rescue a deserter and how it even caused the deaths of some of their fellow soldiers who went out looking for the deserter.  

I realize that actual eyewitnesses to the desertion have far less credibility to you than Obama and his politician buddies have.  But that's not hard to understand because Karl and Markle believe whatever their politician heroes like Ted Cruz have to say about anything too.  lol

boards of FL wrote:Simply being accused of something is different than being tried and found guilty.  Bergdahl was considered to be a prisoner of war at the time of the exchange, so the normal process of having him returned was executed.  The end.  Granted, there were unusual circumstances surrounding his disappearance, but at the time we simply didn't have enough information to know what was going on.  

I can't imagine abandoning normal protocol in a situation that involves securing the safety of a prisoner of war merely on the basis of vague speculation.  Perhaps you can.  Well, obviously you can.

2seaoat wrote:Bob makes many valid points, but his research as usual is flawed because he lacks the foundational knowledge and depends on internet clicks to cut and paste his answers, which if he spent less time in high school sitting on PB Beach skipping class, he might have actually enjoyed reading history.

In real time I will tell you that prisoner exchanges have existed since the inception of this country.  Anybody who is not a web site clicker and actually has studied history understands the same.  General Washington started the tradition for this country.

Second, the military detainees were Taliban.  There may be some causal connections between terrorists and the Taliban since the American invasion of their country, but officially they NEVER were classified as terrorists, and they were most definitely enemy combatants.

BDs and Sal also makes many valid points that the internal legal status of the American serviceman does not change the theoretical goal of getting ALL our serviceman back.   How could the President or Hagel become the judge, jury, and executioner of this serviceman or any serviceman detained by reaching the conclusions which Bob thinks should be obvious and sufficient to deny this person due process of a court martial, and decide somehow some servicemen are less than others and be left behind.   Even as commander in chief that call is beyond his pay grade.

Finally, Bob shows his utter lack of comprehension legal concepts, that the mere fact of accusation of desertion is not sufficient for the CIC to act as if the serviceman has been convicted, and on this house of cards Bob has built his fallacious house of cards where his paradigm of the hatefields and the McCoys render our government bad......totally absurd, and completely without any real understanding of history, current events, or constitutional realities.   America is doing just fine.   The beauty of this noble experiment is that political fueds can be nasty, but the country grows stronger because in the end rationality and pragmatism always win the day.

To answer your question would I be upset with President Bush trying to get one of our serviceman back..........no.   I know with all the out in space assumptions that Bob likes to make.......no, I would not be upset with the President bringing an American kid home.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:I have to "restate my thesis" over and over,  bds,  because you and Sal keep begging the question.

Bergdahl was not simply just a "prisoner of war".  At the time the trade was made,  it was known to the military that Bergdahl was being accused of being a deserter.  And if Obama was not aware of this he should have been elst he's just incompetent as a CIC.

It was the dumbest thing he could have ever done (both politically and logically) to go ahead with that trade when there was evidence that Bergdahl could well be a deserter.

Try again.

Simply being accused of something is different than being tried and found guilty.  Bergdahl was considered to be a prisoner of war at the time of the exchange, so the normal process of having him returned was executed.  The end.  Granted, there were unusual circumstances surrounding his disappearance, but at the time we simply didn't have enough information to know what was going on.  

I can't imagine abandoning normal protocol in a situation that involves securing the safety of a prisoner of war merely on the basis of vague speculation.  Perhaps you can.  Well, obviously you can.  

And unless you can provide some example, any example, of Sal being whipped into a frenzy over something that is basically normal protocol to the same degree that Markle and KarlRove have over this Bergahl prisoner swamp, you're leaving me no choice but to assume that you are simply talking out of your ass, and that you don't actually have anything to provide.   That is, your opinion isn't guided by real-world, factual information.  It is something that simply emerged in your own mind and that you repeat again and again.

Wouldn't you think that at least one....just once....you would be able to qualify your idea with real-world evidence?  If you can't...isn't that odd?

If I held an opinion such as yours that I simply couldn't back up with supporting evidence, it would no longer be my opinion.

One example of that "real world" evidence is what Berghdahl's own platoon members were telling us at the time it was being announced that this trade would happen.  They were telling us they knew he deserted his post at the time it actually happened which was in 2009,  long before the decision was made to make this trade.  
They told us how pissed off they were when it happened because so much of an effort was made to rescue a deserter and how it even caused the deaths of some of their fellow soldiers who went out looking for the deserter.  

I realize that actual eyewitnesses to the desertion have far less credibility to you than Obama and his politician buddies have.  But that's not hard to understand because Karl and Markle believe whatever their politician heroes like Ted Cruz have to say about anything too.  lol

Floridatexan wrote:

I know it must come as a shock, but people lie.   

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

I know it must come as a shock, but people lie.   

Of course his fellow platoon members are lying,  tex.  They have to be.  They're not saying the same thing as obama and his politician buddies and that proves they have to be liars.  lol

It's just like what John Kerry witnessed in Vietnam.  The right-wingers will tell you he has to be lying too.  Why?  Because what he said didn't jive with what Nixon said either and for them that's proof he has to be lying.  lol

All you folks are really just two different peas in the same pod.  Or more accurately,  just two sets of fanboys in the same wrastlin arena.  lol

boards of FL wrote:Let me give you a hypothetical scenario, Bob.  You're standing at the end of a pier.  Someone is drowning.  You're about to throw them a lifeline when someone else on shore yells "Don't!  I know that guy!  He is an asshole!"

Would you still help the guy out?  Would you let him drown and consider justice served?

Decisions decisions.

Floridatexan wrote:

And Seaoat, I'm sorry you refuse to look into the evidence surrounding 9/11.  That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it...it just means you've accepted Bob's absolute denial.  

Sal wrote:Here’s some interesting accountability journalism: CNN’s Dana Bash asked Sen. Ted Cruz, a freshly announced 2016 presidential candidate, how his family would get health insurance now that his wife has taken an unpaid leave from her job at Goldman Sachs. “We’ll be getting new health insurance and we’ll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange,” the Texas Republican told her.

Yes, there’s irony there, as Bash noted in her interview. Cruz’s statement means that he’ll be getting insurance through the Affordable Care Act, the same law he has committed himself to repealing….

Next issue: Will he take the federal “subsidy” that others on Capitol Hill accept to defray their costs? asked Bash. “We will follow the text of the law,” Cruz said. “I strongly oppose the exemption that President Obama illegally put in place for members of Congress because Harry Reid and Senate Democrats didn’t want to be under the same rules as the American people.” So Bash wanted to know if Cruz would accept the “subsidy.” “I believe we should follow the text of the law,” said Cruz, repeating himself…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/03/24/cnns-dana-bash-corners-ted-cruz-on-use-of-obamacare/?hpid=z3