Carolyn:

Sorry for the history lesson, but the US involvement in Afghanistan was miniscule in the Bush years as POTUS. Instead the major military activity was in Iraq in that time frame. Do you remember the WMD fiasco? Iraqi Freedom was based on faulty (do you want to call it an outright lie?) intelligence and faulty reporting of same to the UN and the American public. The Afgan War is based on dealing with those responsible for 9-11 and other terrorist activities.

You can call it a media shift in reporting if you wish, but there were very limited numbers to report prior to the military pullout and troop redeployment. The increase in military deaths/injuries is directly related to the increase in military operations.

You are apparently buried in and/or consumed by the far right rhetoric. Look more closely at the overall plan. BTW - I've always h**ed Kool-Aid.

When GWB was President, you heard about the military casualties in Afghanistan almost daily. But with Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet?

Why is this happening when the statistics show that there have been far more casualties under Obama that there ever was in any year under President Bush? After the inauguration when President Bush relinquished the Presidency over to Obama, there had been 475 American troops k**led in Afghanistan. That figures out to be about 67.86 per year, and the papers were full of the GREAT numbers of troops being wasted in that country.

But from 2008 until the present, there have been 1817 American troops k**led in Afghanistan, which figures out to be an average of 302.8 per year. Now why is it so much more important to daily report casualties that number so few and ignore those that are so many? Would it be that the Democrats control the mainstream media?

I already know the answer to this trivia question but I want to see how many crooked Democrats come to their c*******t leader's defense.[/quote]

Clearly, you are ignoring Operation Iraqi Freedom. There were over 4300 documented US KIAs between '03 and '09 when the nearly complete withdrawal occurred. That obviously doesn't include the lost limbs, eyes, brain injuries, etc. that many of our brave service men continue to live with every day.

Equally as clear is that this string has nothing to do with the press and it's coverage. I don't believe you need to be reminded who was POTUS at the time of the Iraq war.

President Barack Obama is running "one of the biggest con games" in U.S. history with the Affordable Care Act, says U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks tells Newsmax. "This guy is the deceiver-in-chief. I don't know of a more accurate way to describe (it)."

http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz2n2gQ88eH[/quote]

Mo Brooks?? Alabama 5th District?? That doesn't exactly lean towards balanced in any political position, does it??

Realistically, all of the cards on the ACA aren't yet on the table. No question, the roll-out was a major screw up. However, that's now mostly resolved. But also no question that the millions of lousy and minimal coverage insurance plans will no longer be offered to those who can least afford them. Also no question that pre-existing circumstances can no longer lead to coverage cancellation. Also no question that our children can be included on our policies to age 25. How can any of these among other factors be bad?

I believe that we all have a major case of heartburn over the 'penalty aspects' of the ACA. If that is what it takes to move citizens along into a coverage plan - so be it. How long can we all afford to pay for hospital emergency rooms to provide primary care services for those without any coverage??? It has to stop someplace.....

Forget the political rhetoric and look at the positive side. It isn't even close call.... At the end of the day, the ACA is and was the only plan on the table. The right side hasn't done a damn thing to resolve these blaring issues other than nay-say the ACA. There's no Republican alternative to consider at this time and wasn't one when the ACA hit the floor of the House.

Not a lefty at any level. Just very left of you. Try sliding towards the center if you want to have a meaningful dialog.

Is that like sitting on the fence to see which way the wind blows? Moderates have no passion. Either you stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong-O Blade. Being a card-carrying moderate isn't sitting on any fence waiting for anything. It's recognizing the faults of an extreme position without regard to which side of the fence it comes from. Both far left and far right of center is purely unhealthy territory and I'm very passionate about that statement. Any position not exhibiting wiggle room or a willingness to hear out the opposite argument is just plain unhealthy.

Sure, there are rational positions both for and against capital punishment, the ACA, a******n, gun control, you name it. A willingness and ability to hear and absorb those positions without resorting to heavy-handed rhetoric response or personal attack is a virtue not exhibited much these past several months. That ability certainly hasn't manifested itself on this or similar political chat sites. Such are sites with a level of anonymity.

My heartburn over the far right pounding on the ACA situation relates almost entirely to the repetitive use of lame political rhetoric to make and support a point already stated. In very practical terms, the far right -specifically the Tea Party - has painted themselves into a political corner without any way out except moderation if they choose to go in that direction. That's not at all likely given their penchant for playing to their narrow base of supporters and contributors. So that will leave it up to the e*****rate in their given districts and states to figure it out. Don't hold your breath hoping that the far right message will continue to win e******ns. It won't. They're having their time at the microphone now, but that will end when they are former Congressmen and Senators.

Jetson:

I really suggest that you consider a readjustment of your ideological compass. It appears that you believe anyone not in alignment with your far-right leanings is a c*******t or socialist. The nation is evolving and continues to do so.

Actually, it's a very big ideological compass that we have. It has lots of other waypoints along the way between far anything to the other far anything.

Extremism - from either end of the spectrum - is just plain unhealthy for our nation. Extremism is also not a great platform to work from if trying to get elected to office. If not taking that step, the rest is just empty lip service - similar to this website. The Tea Party faced that battle yesterday without any real result (the only meaningful litmus test) to show for it. If they continue down this same extremist path, they can expect the same result in mid-terms and the next general e******n.

Just my personal opinion stated from the middle of the compass.

How can someone say "The Tea party shut down the Government".The House of Representives sent a bill to the Senate and the Senate Leader . Harry Reid , refused to do his rightfull job . Which was let the Senate representives v**e on the bill and either accept of refuse the bill , if refused it would have been sent back to the House to re-work or do some other!
Had Harry Reid done what he was elcted to do , he would have brought it up for v**e even knowing it would be defeated !
For a bill to become law it has to pass both houses and be signed by the president and why does Harry Reid bypass this and decide by his self that all of the members of the Senate have no voice in the process . These are the kind of people who will tell you how to live your life in a heart beat , and demand that you live his way .
Had the Senate v**ed the bill down and sent it back to the House then I would have to say it was the house's fault . How can someone negoia te with the supreme deity who runs the Senate with a iron hand
------------------------------------------------------------
How indeed!!! Yes, there was a House bill sent to the Senate. However, you're fooling only yourself if you believe that they did so without prior and complete understanding that the Senate would not v**e to accept that bill. On that standard and legislative rules in place, both houses of Congress did exactly what their jobs are. It was strictly a wholly political move to state loudly and publicly that they tried something, but ran into political flak from the other side.

You can spin the facts any way you want, but that's what happened. It led to the shutdown. Root cause: The Tea Party and a weak house GOP leadership.

While the Shut Down was unpopular it was unpopular because of media spin. Same as 1995. Newts shutdown was unpopular but it lead to a balanced budget. Ironically Democrats have tried to take credit for the balanced budget ever since.

One of the GOP proposals before shut down was delay of ACA. Guess what Democrats may now ask for? Delay of ACA. So they could have accepted it and avoided a shut down.

We are on target for 22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's Presidency. As a fiscal conservative don't you think the time for extreme measures has come? Someone needs to put their foot down and force action to control the spending. Sorry if Ted Cruz hurt your feelings.

One can certainly disagree with the USSC . Imagine if nobody challenged s***ery?

Lastly the ACA bill is a train wreck beyond the scope of the website. People by the millions are losing their insurance plans which was NOT the promise made. There is no $2500 savings per family as promised. Common sense thinking would lead one to believe you cannot insure 30 Million uninsured ( 41.7 after amnesty) add expensive options to plans and save money. It was a fantasy to begin with supported by blatant lies from the left.
----------------------------------------------------------------We'll just need to agree to disagree. Some of your points are Tea Party rhetoric not supported by fact. Some are spun from who-knows-where. We both know which are whic.

Dennis:

I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree for a couple of reasons. 1) Any of us can be unhappy with a Supreme Court decision, but it will remain a SC decision with no further legal recourse. You can complain, but that won't change a thing.

2) The Tea Party shut down was unpopular because it was unpopular. No more and no less. The tactic was just dumb with no chance of prevailing and was taken simply to make a political point. It is clearly the job of media to point those out. They did so to their credit.

3) ACA may turn out to be a train wreck as you say. But, it may not. Only time will tell. I would caution all to separate the provisions of the act from the website sign up problems. The website issues are clear and not worthy of debate except to rattle swords. They'll fix it and we'll all move on. One day we'll actually get past the playground mindset of casting blame and decide to 'just work it out. ACA was developed to provide med insurance coverage for 32MM+ of our citizens who do not now have coverage at any level. How can that be disingenuous? Isn't getting them out of high-cost ERs and into physicians waiting rooms a huge cost saver for us all???

4) Spending is highly problematic. I don't believe anyone would state otherwise. As a fiscal conservative, reasonable spending cuts make perfectly logical sense and should be completely explored and debated by our elected officials. We'll need to be certain that those most negatively affected by recommended cuts aren't badly hurt by the intended reductions. This isn't the time or place for any debate about the root causes of the recent deficit increase, but those root causes have been fully identified and are clear to all.

Don't you also expect your elected officials to follow the Constitution? Just because the SC said it's constitutional, doesn't make it so. That was a huge blunder on the part of John Roberts. There has been so much slipperiness in the last 5 years or so, that we'd have to back up all the way, and start over--starting with vetting BO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faith: You're making the argument quite decisively without help from other sources. Once considered and decided upon by the Supreme Court, that IS the decision point for constitutionality. This is exactly why we have a SC - to be the final legal arbitor without further recourse.

To get back to the original string, the Tea Party members obviously used the shutdown tactic to make their point. My opinion is that they did so knowing it would be unsuccessful and ineffective. I also believe they did so only to satisfy their contributors and local-level supporters. That was just not a great move to solidify themselves in office. Here's why.. The tactic damaged the country - just to make a point. That was wholly self-serving and not related in any way to governing or leading. That's as simply stated as I can make it.

Recent polling from most sources - including as reported by Fox News - indicate that the Tea Party took a huge hit in favorability over the use of the shutdown tactic. The GOP as a whole has also taken a big hit for being unable to control their own members. Maybe this will be the beginning of the end of extremism in the House. I can only hope.

Those on the far right need to recognize that the far right message just doesn't cut it with the mainstream e*****rate. There are many issues, but this latest episode shows that Cruz and Lee and those of that ilk need to re-boot and work within the given system. If they don't, they'll become insignificant and eventually gone.....

Troubleshooter:

Do you really believe that those contributors expected their representatives in Congress to use a govermental shut down tactic? How did that step help, grow, sustain or otherwise improve the situation at any level?

There are two sides to this issue. One: The Tea Party members drove the shutdown to 'make a point'. They did so without any regard to the ramifications of that action. Two: The Democrat and moderate members drove the shutdown by simply not agreeing to the GOP/Tea Party's 'making their point'. If you apply rational thinking to the issue, it was the GOP all the way that set up and sustained the shutdown for 16 days. They should be ashamed of that action and practically every poll shows there will be a price to be political paid at the polls in '14 and most likely into '16. They earned that.

I expect my elected officials to govern. i.e. run the government, pay their bills and obligations, and maintain the levels of services that have been committed to. If your expectations are any lower, you might want to rethink your support of candidates for office.

Again this had nothing to do with 911 and everything to do with Americans buying foreign goods. Refuse to purchase foreign made goods and they will be forced to make them in America. Of course the consumer will pay more.
--------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very valid statement. Even the foreign name-plated cars that are built in the US have ALL of the money go to Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. Surely a percentage comes back as salaries and to some parts suppliers, but its less than 15%. US name-plated cars, including those made OUS have all of the money sent to Michigan. It's time to look in your own garages. I've got one Ford and one Chevy in mine.

Why would anyone KNOWINGLY shut down the country with an issue they knew beforehand, they could not win. They had a majority in Congress. They were in the minority in the Senate. They didn't have enough v**es in either House to override a p**********l veto. A classic no win situation. Even considering they had unsuccessfully tried to stop ACA 140 times previously. They harmed countless Americans and untold damage to the country knowingly in an effort in futility. NOW they act surprised that their popularity is at it's lowest ever. I never cease to be amazed.
====================================
Ducky: I just don't get it either. The only thing that makes any sense is the teabaggers fulfilling campaign promises or pledges made to large contributors. Other than those two possibilities, nothing makes sense.

Sorry, but just because you say it, doesn't make it so! Sarah Palin is very intelligent, otherwise the democrats wouldn't be so afraid of her! They give themselves away by their constant put-downs. They know they don't have anyone with the personality, appearance, or genuineness that she has. Good luck with trying to walk us away from her--won't work!
-------------------------------------------------------------You're speaking to a political myth. Democrats are, in no possible way, afraid of Gov. Palin. She is cute, which gets her a brownie point. She earned a BS degree in Communications from the Univ. of Idaho. It took her a few extra semesters and a couple of t***sfers to get that far, but give her credit for sticking it out. However, we can reasonably expect that once she gets past the party political rhetoric crap, I predict that she'll be an 'empty suit'. I haven't seen one shred of behavior that indicates that Gov. Palin can think quickly on her feet to provide substantive input to a substantive debate process. Rather, expect her to fall back on rhetoric.. That's a loser in political debate setting.

I HOPE she runs and I HOPE she wins the nomination for President. If so, the GOP will deserve what it gets.