American Politics

[inlaterdays]

I swear not all of us Americans are bloodthirsty warmongers.

 

Some of us would like very much for our troops to come home and to stay home unless we really need to send them out. Like, if our aid is specifically requested or we are seriously in danger/at war with somebody. Preferably a war we didn't start, and did everything in our power to prevent from becoming a war.

 

And doing that over everything we don't like in another country isn't a smart idea.

 

I mean, how would we feel if other countries looked at us and went "Hey, I don't like how the US is run. We'll just send our troops over there to straighten it out to suit our needs!"

 

So, who are we to use force to mold everybody else into our ideal image, if we can't even reach that ourselves?

So much this. Thank you, KageSora.

 

Kat, several people gave you examples of poor people giving others jobs and you just flat-out contradicted them with no evidence to support your claim that their stories were untrue. That's rather rude.

 

What you call the middle class was fast disappearing under the former Republican regime and would disappear even faster if Romney and his cronies got into power. There will be no middle class, no American dream, only an ever-widening gap between the very rich and the poor. They don't want the middle class to be educated or to get decent jobs. Romney thinks that if you don't have a trust fund to pay for college, you shouldn't go. I mean...that's horrible.

 

Nothing Obama has done has been unconstitutional. Please point out one thing.

 

I think Obama's the best president we have had in absolute ages - he's really doing his best to fix a badly broken system.

[prairiecrow]

Kat, several people gave you examples of poor people giving others jobs and you just flat-out contradicted them with no evidence to support your claim that their stories were untrue. That's rather rude.

 

What you call the middle class was fast disappearing under the former Republican regime and would disappear even faster if Romney and his cronies got into power. There will be no middle class, no American dream, only an ever-widening gap between the very rich and the poor. They don't want the middle class to be educated or to get decent jobs. Romney thinks that if you don't have a trust fund to pay for college, you shouldn't go. I mean...that's horrible.

 

Nothing Obama has done has been unconstitutional. Please point out one thing.

I noticed that too, yes indeed the American middle class is being gutted, and exactly WHAT has Obama done that is unconstitutional?

 

(Also, Kat, do you think that Obama wasn't born in the USA? If so, I think this conversation is really done.)

[Vhale]

I am not a Rand Paul fan normally, but it looks like he's willing to stick his neck out at the RNC and take them to task for not controlling the defense budget.

"Because we've talked about audit the Fed so much, we're now talking about audit the Pentagon," Paul told the crowd. "Now, because of Hurricane Isaac, it's not sure whether my message will get to the Republican National Convention, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to be able speak. And one of the messages that I will give to them is that Republicans need to acknowledge that not every dollar is well spent or sacred in the military and we have to look for ways to make every department accountable."

 

And Kat, WW2 was a... WORLD war. Those trenches you mention, you realize they were dug into people's land in Europe? Britain HAD bombing raids. Lots of them. They still find the occasional live munitions over there.

 

Here is a poem from a living WW2 vet and what he thinks of Romney's constant flip flopping on issues.

 

[Lore_Master]

Hey there everyone.

 

I'm a Canadian who is keeping an eye on the U.S election. Not really gonna go into a big post, since I do admit I have a bit of a liberal Bias.

 

From what I could tell, the GOP seems like they are really trying their best to destroy the wall between church and state. Along with destroying the middle class and making sure the wealthy get more breaks while the MC suffers more taxes.

 

And I believe I don't need to mention how hateful they have become to women in recent years, I won't be giving any examples, ask Akin for such a example.

 

For a hypocritical example of them trying to break that wall, Louisiana recently signed a bill that would sponsor religious schools. And when a group of people wanted a Muslim school, they intimidated them to back off. This shows that they only meant Christian schools.

 

Another big thing is trying to get Creationism into public schools in the south. Not only is it well-written Christian indoctrination, it holds no water when tested with the scientific theory.

 

And I won't say much about their anti-abortion crusade and their sexists comments, since that is self-evident.

 

As an atheist, I don't mind the fact people can be spiritual if they want. But when you try to cram religion and your 'morals' down my throat, that's when we have a problem.

 

EDIT: Re-reading this, I realized my post was all over the place. I do apologize, and will try to remain consistent for my future posts.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Lore_Master

[Alpha1]

What about the unsuccessful examples, like Vietnam, Columbia, Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you have any idea how much of your intervention can fundamentally change social structure or leave such a wide effect on political dialogue? I'm against military intervention because of these reasons. Yes, the ends can be good (or in can go horrifically bad) but even when the ends are good there are lots of scars left behind because of these interventions.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/world/mi...ng-markets.html

 

Iraq isn't totally lost... yet.

 

"Exxon Mobil has by far the largest stake of any American company in Iraq, but most of the major players are European and Asian, like Lukoil and Gazprom from Russia, and Chinese companies like China National Petroleum and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

 

Despite the uncertainties, the foreign companies say they are staying.

 

“We are in Iraq because we think there is big potential, huge production growth,” said Claudio Descalzi, chief operating officer for exploration and production at ENI, the Italian oil giant. “In the future, things can only get better.”

 

What do you think about Iran? Let them obtain nuclear weapons or try to stop them?

 

Also; all the whining about the tax dollars, I don't buy it. My family doesn't like that our tax dollars go to an overinflated defense budget or fund wars that we don't want to fund. But it's not like we have a say in where our tax dollars go. Taxes are a part of being a country- if you don't like taxes or socialist programs, good luck paving your own road to get where you need to go. When your house catches on fire, put it out yourself because the Fire Department is a socialist program. So is the Police department, so I guess you're screwed if your house is robbed.

 

I can see some of it. For instance, government worker unions shouldn't be supported. The power of private sector unions have long since broken by many heavily unionized companies going bankrupt. Many people are sick of it. One good example was how Walker wasn't recalled even after a fierce campaign to oust him. Just saw in the news that Camden, NJ is doing some union busting, too. This is what happens when both sides of the negotiation tables are mutual friends. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. The public looses out.

[Rosedamai]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/world/mi...ng-markets.html

 

Iraq isn't totally lost... yet.

 

"Exxon Mobil has by far the largest stake of any American company in Iraq, but most of the major players are European and Asian, like Lukoil and Gazprom from Russia, and Chinese companies like China National Petroleum and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

 

Despite the uncertainties, the foreign companies say they are staying.

 

“We are in Iraq because we think there is big potential, huge production growth,” said Claudio Descalzi, chief operating officer for exploration and production at ENI, the Italian oil giant. “In the future, things can only get better.”

 

What do you think about Iran? Let them obtain nuclear weapons or try to stop them?

Look. That's great. Guess what. The people there? The normal everyday citizens? They're the ones who suffer the consequences. I don't really know how Iraq or Afghanistan will turn out. It may turn out great. Maybe Iran will hand over its nuclear bombs, who knows.

 

Thing is, whether the situation becomes "good" or "bad", either way the common people still suffer from social upheaval. It's something that you Americans don't face and don't have to deal with. I'm pointing out that may have negative consequences for the common people in that country.

 

And sorry if I laugh a little, but Claudio Descalzi isn't an Iraqi nor is he one of the everyday citizens. He's not going to suffer from social upheaval. Usually during a social upheaval the government works with foreign companies whether that's in the country's interests or not (countless examples abound). If anything he's going to benefit from that.

 

I'm just saying that in the interest of the normal everyday citizen, war may not be a good option, because even if the results are great, the aftereffects can be horrifying. Especially if you've got no say in that.

 

So don't ever talk about people's freedom and whatnot and democracy and stuff like that when you're going for war. Especially if you're just going to barge in for some reason.

Edited August 27, 2012 by ylangylang

[Fuzzbucket]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/world/mi...ng-markets.html

 

Iraq isn't totally lost... yet.

 

"Exxon Mobil has by far the largest stake of any American company in Iraq, but most of the major players are European and Asian, like Lukoil and Gazprom from Russia, and Chinese companies like China National Petroleum and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

 

Despite the uncertainties, the foreign companies say they are staying.

 

“We are in Iraq because we think there is big potential, huge production growth,” said Claudio Descalzi, chief operating officer for exploration and production at ENI, the Italian oil giant. “In the future, things can only get better.”

 

What do you think about Iran? Let them obtain nuclear weapons or try to stop them?

 

 

 

I can see some of it. For instance, government worker unions shouldn't be supported. The power of private sector unions have long since broken by many heavily unionized companies going bankrupt. Many people are sick of it. One good example was how Walker wasn't recalled even after a fierce campaign to oust him. Just saw in the news that Camden, NJ is doing some union busting, too. This is what happens when both sides of the negotiation tables are mutual friends. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. The public looses out.

Yes - OF COURSE the big companies want to stay there - to exploit the country - which in turn was the REAL reason for the invasion. Fear of running out of oil or of having to pay a fair price for it. They will stay there as long as there is oil.

 

And sure, if the US and Israel and UK and France can have nuclear weapons - why SHOULDN'T Iran (even assuming they aren't being honest and are not using their technology just for power supplies. It DOES make good electricity !)

 

I think NO country should have nuclear weaponry but if one has, then they all have the right to.

 

And I agree about minding your own business and not barging in, too. Because another country isn't run the way you would like is not a reason to interfere. You (generic !) have NO right to think that's OK unless you are equally happy for another country to come and interfere with YOURS. Recipe for disaster all round !

 

edited for typefail

 

Oh and then again for an ETA: Why shouldn't government workers be unionised ? I was in a government organisation for 20 years, and I was in a union. It protected me against unfair dismissal and other charming kinds of exploitation. Governments can be as bad as employers ad anyone else and government workers NEED protection just like Walmart staff do. Several of us almost lost our jobs, to have to reapply FOR THE SAME POSTS but at lower salaries - in my case it would have meant a 30% pay cut (and we were already underpaid in comparison with anyone else doing the same kind of work elsewhere - and I was even acting up at far higher then my grade level - by choice, I agree, but still) - only the unions managed to prevent it.

Edited August 27, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Vhale]

A more appropriate situation for your Mexican scenario would be: the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Afghan/Iraq war, etc. And as a person whose living family members have seen the Japanese occupation, WWII, and the Korean war, I know full well what it's like.

My grandfather served in the Pacific sea, he was the master carpenter on one of the navy ships. We were going through some old things this past year and opened up a chest he had made on the ship that had his command chiseled into it. There were some very old newspapers lining the bottom. I think 1951? At any rate, one of the articles that was facing up was about riots in the middle east oil fields. The more things change... the more they stay the same.

 

I know my dad feels like this entire operation makes the US look very weak because we've gone so badly into debt to finance it. (speaking of Russia) Whereas with WW2, we were a powerhouse. Now, we don't have the manufacturing base to keep this thing going. We're just going deeper into debt. I saw some financial projections that our highest growing cost in the military right now is health care and at it's current rate it will bankrupt it by 2020ish. I was talking about it to my dad. He mentioned he knew widows that were still drawing pensions whose spouses died in the Civil War. The American Civil War. Basically what happens is, military wives get full pension benefits. So these old soldiers would want a woman to care and clean for them at the end of their life. The women would want security. They'd marry young girls, live a few years and then the girls drawn pensions for life. (note, that was KNEW, past tense, not KNOW as in present tense)

Edited August 27, 2012 by Vhale

[prairiecrow]

I generally find modern American Republicanism repugnant on a number of different levels, but this article has led me to look a bit differently at those who claim it as an ideology:

 

What the *#@% Is Wrong With Republicans?!

 

It's not just Akin. By pushing some of the most invasive state policies in modern history, the men of the GOP are driving their party off a cliff.

 

Republicans here on the board, do you agree or disagree with the points the author raises?

Edited August 27, 2012 by prairiecrow

[Vhale]

Rather big news tonight. The entire Texas delegation just walked out in response to a rule change that Romney and co are pushing through.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-d...-225837647.html

 

TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

 

"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."

 

At that point, the entire Texas delegation stood up and applauded.

 

I will say this. Republican lawmakers have been actively restricting the rights of: Voters, Poor, Women, Minorities, Gays, Workers and Non-Christians. Every single time you get an entity that starts going out doing what they are, eventually they move on to more blocks of people. Every time. Judge a person by their actions, not their words.

 

Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,

    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

    Then they came for the socialists,

    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

 

    Then they came for the trade unionists,

    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

    Then they came for me,

    and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Alpha1]

Look. That's great. Guess what. The people there? The normal everyday citizens? They're the ones who suffer the consequences. I don't really know how Iraq or Afghanistan will turn out. It may turn out great. Maybe Iran will hand over its nuclear bombs, who knows.

 

Thing is, whether the situation becomes "good" or "bad", either way the common people still suffer from social upheaval. It's something that you Americans don't face and don't have to deal with. I'm pointing out that may have negative consequences for the common people in that country.

 

And sorry if I laugh a little, but Claudio Descalzi isn't an Iraqi nor is he one of the everyday citizens. He's not going to suffer from social upheaval. Usually during a social upheaval the government works with foreign companies whether that's in the country's interests or not (countless examples abound). If anything he's going to benefit from that.

 

Oil is probably about 95% GDP in Iraq. That helps with security and social services.

 

I'm kind of amused of what you say about what the people would think since SK has one of the most favorable views of the United States.

 

I'm just saying that in the interest of the normal everyday citizen, war may not be a good option, because even if the results are great, the aftereffects can be horrifying. Especially if you've got no say in that.

 

Why do you think the U.S. sold weapons systems to Taiwan?

 

Yes - OF COURSE the big companies want to stay there - to exploit the country - which in turn was the REAL reason for the invasion. Fear of running out of oil or of having to pay a fair price for it. They will stay there as long as there is oil.

 

The point was that even with the fractured government, the oil companies are willing to risk it, so there must be some stability.

 

It's easier to bring them up if there's a resource that can generate revenue. Why do you think Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world?

 

The exploitation rhetoric is nonsense. In 2007, Bush and Congress tried to pressure the Iraqis to pass an oil law. However, word around Iraq was that the U.S. would throw them back into the stone age by acting as thieves.

 

And sure, if the US and Israel and UK and France can have nuclear weapons - why SHOULDN'T Iran (even assuming they aren't being honest and are not using their technology just for power supplies. It DOES make good electricity !)

 

Because they shouldn't be trusted, and it'll destabilize the region, since other Arab nations will want nuclear weapons, and Iran will be able to leverage their influence on the region.

 

I think NO country should have nuclear weaponry but if one has, then they all have the right to.

 

Nuclear weapons are good for a deterrent.

 

And I agree about minding your own business and not barging in, too. Because another country isn't run the way you would like is not a reason to interfere. You (generic !) have NO right to think that's OK unless you are equally happy for another country to come and interfere with YOURS. Recipe for disaster all round !

 

If an Arab nation wanted to invade, it would be Sharia law. No thanks.

 

Oh and then again for an ETA: Why shouldn't government workers be unionised ? I was in a government organisation for 20 years, and I was in a union. It protected me against unfair dismissal and other charming kinds of exploitation. Governments can be as bad as employers ad anyone else and government workers NEED protection just like Walmart staff do. smile.gif Several of us almost lost our jobs, to have to reapply FOR THE SAME POSTS but at lower salaries - in my case it would have meant a 30% pay cut (and we were already underpaid in comparison with anyone else doing the same kind of work elsewhere - and I was even acting up at far higher then my grade level - by choice, I agree, but still) - only the unions managed to prevent it.

 

In many states, government workers are forced in a union as their representative. They are also forced to pay dues to the union. It's also noteworthy that only about 7% are unionized in the private sector, while I believe it's 40% of government workers.

 

As an example, under Governor Walker in Wisconsin, government employees in Wisconsin were finally given the chance to vote on a having "union representation" or not. Immediately, forced union workplaces faded away and 50% of their membership left the unions.

 

How much should a bankrupt city have to pay for its public workers?

 

In Stockton, CA, one policeman retired at 52 with a $200,000 per year pension and free health care. He was only Chief for 8 months. Other police I would assume would be around $100k, since they can retire with 90% of their pay at 50.

 

Stockton's median household income in 2009 was $45,000. There's also many articles that come up every year acknowledging how many people will be relying on SS and Medicare and don't have much in their 401k's. Is it reasonable to pay them that?

 

Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers because they still were on strike after wanting a big increase in pay and a 32 hour per week job. Only 800 were allowed back, but the rest were barred from federal jobs for life. This was a huge portion of controllers, yet the system didn't collapse and they were replaced within a few years. Are they really that skilled to be in the top 10% of wage earners?

 

I generally find modern American Republicanism repugnant on a number of different levels, but this article has led me to look a bit differently at those who claim it as an ideology:

 

I sometimes replace "Republican" with "Repugnant".

 

Rather big news tonight. The entire Texas delegation just walked out in response to a rule change that Romney and co are pushing through.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-d...-225837647.html

 

RNC is scared mittless that it won't appear that all the delegates support him. They've been changing rules left and right for awhile now.

 

They're pulling out all stops to keep Paul's name out of nomination. Unlike Gingrich and Santorum, Paul was able to get a majority of delegates in 5 or more states required to be put in for nomination. He got: Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Oregon, and Louisiana.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8...player_embedded

 

[Rosedamai]

Oil is probably about 95% GDP in Iraq. That helps with security and social services.

 

I'm kind of amused of what you say about what the people would think since SK has one of the most favorable views of the United States.

I'm kind of amused at what you're assuming people in SK think because...Uh...I'm from SK? Lived there for about 20 years? Born there? Lol. And yeah it's great that we got out of the poverty and all, and the ends were good, but that doesn't mean that normal everyday people suffered. Sorry, but you don't know about Korean history or how the dictatorships were helped in large part of the U.S intervention or how citizens who were insistent on democracy were crushed due to the help of those democracies, so.... Sorry, but on Korean modern history I've got more knowledge in this department than you. Basically what happened was yeah, we won the Korean war with the U.S's help but the U.S also made it possible for pro-Japanese colonialists to gain power because, as I said, they were the only bureaucrats, made it possible for two military dictatorships to continue, and so on. So....from an objective historical point of view, no, SK wasn't made into a fairytale dreamland with the help of the U.S. And if you know anything about recent events, we've got pretty strong anti-U.S people here too.

 

It's not that we don't feel happy that the U.S helped us or anything just that even in a successful case like this, we still have to go through a lot of hardship, because power, political and social structures change, oftentimes for the benefit of the government-which has U.S backing-which means basically the government can com

Edited August 28, 2012 by ylangylang

[Fuzzbucket]

Oil is probably about 95% GDP in Iraq. That helps with security and social services.

And that makes it OK to exploit them and bomb them when they decide they might slow down production and exports to make it last longer (as Norway has done, and that is how they fund their OWN social programmes) ?

 

Why do you think the U.S. sold weapons systems to Taiwan?

To make money. Plain and simple. Same with the UK. And don't forget that for the same reason they armed Iraq when they LIKED Saddam Hussein....Then they changed their minds and decided to bomb him instead.

They (and the UK and others) also armed both sides in Afghanistan at one time or another.

 

The point was that even with the fractured government, the oil companies are willing to risk it, so there must be some stability.

They also know that the US (and UK probably) will help them bomb or use sanctions (which affect the innocent population) to get their own way any old time they like. They BULLY, with the help of their governments.

 

It's easier to bring them up if there's a resource that can generate revenue. Why do you think Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world?

PARTLY became it has excellent social programmes. Education, social development, training, research - it all helps. And hey - they determine how the oil money is spent, and make sure a lot of it is spent - on those programmes !

 

A bit like Botswana and its diamond mines - they refused to ALLOW all the money from those to be pumped out of the country.

The exploitation rhetoric is nonsense. In 2007, Bush and Congress tried to pressure the Iraqis to pass an oil law. However, word around Iraq was that the U.S. would throw them back into the stone age by acting as thieves. 

Which they would have. The law they proposed was one which would benefit them, not the Iraqis.

 

Because they shouldn't be trusted, and it'll destabilize the region, since other Arab nations will want nuclear weapons, and Iran will be able to leverage their influence on the region.

And you think the US (and UK - I don't want to be totally one sided here; the two are almost as bad as each other here) can ? The ONLY reason Kennedy didn't fire off nukes in the Cuban crisis was because Russia had the sense to back down - not because it was in the wrong (it was right ! JUST because a country is communist is NOT a reason to blitz it - whatever you think of communism) but because they had the smarts to see that NO nuclear bomb would be a good idea.

 

I don't trust anyone with nukes - but if one country has them then every country may.

 

Nuclear weapons are good for a deterrent.

Sorry - but no. No deterrent is worth it unless you are prepared to use it - and if you are prepared to nuke - you are already in the wrong, no matter what.

 

If an Arab nation wanted to invade, it would be Sharia law. No thanks.

1. not necessarily - and there are very varied forms of Sharia law anyway; only the most extreme are that noxious. In Afghanistan some areas practice those extreme forms of it - and the US is right in there effectively defending their right to do so.

2. What on EARTH makes you think ANY Arab country would want to invade the US ? They would like to be allowed to get on with their own way of life without being attacked, manipulated and exploited. Goodness knows the west has been at it long enough. You may not like it - but it is not your business unless you want to live there.

In many states, government workers are forced in a union as their representative. They are also forced to pay dues to the union. It's also noteworthy that only about 7% are unionized in the private sector, while I believe it's 40% of government workers.

And your point is ?

As an example, under Governor Walker in Wisconsin, government employees in Wisconsin were finally given the chance to vote on a having "union representation" or not. Immediately, forced union workplaces faded away and 50% of their membership left the unions.

Their privilege. But they should have that choice.

How much should a bankrupt city have to pay for its public workers?

It should pay its workers their salaries. Just as any private company does - and when a company goes bankrupt, it ceases trading. Since a city can't - it needs to learn to manage its finances better by - hey - having its citizens pay higher taxes instead of trying to win votes by lowering them.

In Stockton, CA, one policeman retired at 52 with a $200,000 per year pension and free health care. He was only Chief for 8 months. Other police I would assume would be around $100k, since they can retire with 90% of their pay at 50.

In that case - unless it was some ghastly on the job accident or something - yes the payoff looks excessive. That is NOT down to the unions as such, but even if it were - the same happens with crooked bankers. What needs to happen is for the laws to change so that such payoffs are actually illegal. (the free health care should not be an issue; a civilised country would have free health care for all, paid out of taxes.)

Stockton's median household income in 2009 was $45,000. There's also many articles that come up every year acknowledging how many people will be relying on SS and Medicare and don't have much in their 401k's. Is it reasonable to pay them that?

There should be a legal minimum income for everyone. What it is would depend on the country's median income. I can't say an amount here, but I don't think $45k sounds excessive. $200k does.

Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers because they still were on strike after wanting a big increase in pay and a 32 hour per week job. Only 800 were allowed back, but the rest were barred from federal jobs for life. This was a huge portion of controllers, yet the system didn't collapse and they were replaced within a few years. Are they really that skilled to be in the top 10% of wage earners?

I seem to recall some truly frightful near misses while he was using untrained people who were exhausted after long shifts. I don;t know what they earned, but as I recall it wasn't excessive. Some jobs you HAVE to be awake for. Pilots have short working weeks too, as I recall. And when I am up there in the ether I would rather be sure they had had a good rest, myself... also the controllers who will help my plane down.

 

I sometimes replace "Republican" with "Repugnant". 

GREAT - we agree on something at last But there were nicer, humane and relatively civilised ones in the past. I don't know what happened. Oh wait - Bush happened.... and then the Tea Party...

Edited August 28, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Wantdew]

What's the big deal most of OUR oil doesn't even come from SW Asia/Middle East.

[Rosedamai]

You haven't been looking at what the debate was about, have you. FYI-Korea is not situated in SW Asia.

Edited August 29, 2012 by ylangylang

[LascielsShadow]

Rather big news tonight. The entire Texas delegation just walked out in response to a rule change that Romney and co are pushing through.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-d...-225837647.html

 

 

 

I will say this. Republican lawmakers have been actively restricting the rights of: Voters, Poor, Women, Minorities, Gays, Workers and Non-Christians. Every single time you get an entity that starts going out doing what they are, eventually they move on to more blocks of people. Every time. Judge a person by their actions, not their words.

 

Just wanted to add that it passed. They didn't even look at the minority report filed, as far as I know. The VA and RI delegations weren't allowed into the RNC in order to stop them voting, and part of the Maine delegation walked out in disgust after the passing of the rule change. Romney (and his people) now get to change whatever they want, whenever they want after the convention is over.

 

Tea partiers and, well, pretty much anyone who isn't Mitt Romney's specific brand of republican aren't pleased. Seems that voter suppression isn't any fun when it's them being suppressed. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.Though, I kinda feel bad for the Ron Paul supporters. That was a really disgusting, underhanded thing to do to them, and I honestly wish I could be surprised about it, but...nope, not particularly. Niemöller had it right.

 

 

 

Oh, and I feel the need to share this (ganked from dKos):

Edited August 29, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Kestra15]

Exactly. Whatever happened to "go forth and heal the sick and clothe the naked" and all that jazz that Christians are actually told to do?

 

When I see Neo-Pagans and atheists being more generous in that regard than some Christians, it's just plain sad.

On a similar vein, I was recently working as a medic at a Christian festival as someone who is almost a non-Christian himself. One of the stands there was asking for volunteers to go forth and help provide medical work and cover abroad in poor countries, something I am all for doing. The main problem? You had to be a 'committed Christian with references' to join the organisation. Funnily enough, they're a very small organisation, and have sadly cut off a much larger pool of people willing to give over their free time to do such things. My SJA unit at university numbers some 150 volunteer medical workers, most of which would love to do what the organisation in question was asking us to do, but sadly most of them are not Christian and so would be barred from such work.

Have you ever seen a POOR PERSON GIVE SOMEONE A JOB!!!

Define 'poor.'

American Politics makes me really angry. I personally think the entire system should be looked over, cut the no longer need functions of the government and reestablish a government based on MODERN society.

Sadly, the much-revered 'Bill of Rights' stops any such sensibility from occurring.

Also people move to many other countries, and think everyone should learn English. The English are notorious for this, and Americans are not far behind....

Agreed - I can give many, many examples of times in Germany where an English person has having full-on shouting contests with German shop-keepers for not speaking English. I've always made it a point to try and learn a few words of the language of any country I am going on holiday in, or at least a compatible language (e.g. Estonia, where most people there have either English or German as a second language), and if I cannot get the point across then I accept that it is my problem and my fault, not theirs.

 

Experience has taught me that if you attempt to use the native language, even if you make a complete hash of it you are more likely to get a bit of patience and sympathy - and if you are in an area frequented by tourists, you may just find the one vendor who has picked up some English over the years and is happy to speak it. Again in Germany this was a very common occurrence, since many Germans learn English from a young age - if I started off apologising and saying my German was poor, and then did my best to communicate in German, I'd invariably end up speaking English with them by the end of the transaction.

I get put out when you get a recording that says

 

Press one for English

 

Press two for Spanish.

 

Why should we that were born in this country have to press a dat gum thing?  You come to America, learn how to speak English. If I go to another country, I would have to speak that language. It should be press 1 if you want Spanish

Because those companies recognise that there is a large percentage of your country that speaks Spanish and is therefore adapting to that audience? Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the US, spoken by around 40 million people - which is around 10% of the population. And you do realise that America does not in fact have an official language at a federal level, making that entire argument a rather difficult one for you to undertake?

He said he and his brothers and sisters in the Military would gladly rid the world of dengenerates like this.

And the best thing of all is that you don't even need to leave America to successfully carry out that rather blood-thirsty wish, and you can leave the rest of the world alone.

 

Or just play this: http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/

Many have died for a cause they believe in, thier families to be free.

No, they haven't. They have died over money, the only religion that holds sway in America.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Kestra15

[NixAyum]

Anyone know of a good (/neutral/) site to see a tl;dr of the platforms of candidates and/or voting records?

[Wantdew]

Can someone answer my question it's legit.

 

What's the big deal most of OUR oil doesn't even come from SW Asia/Middle East?

 

And plus, Obama's health care plan wasn't just more affordable it was more taxes to.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Wantdew

[LascielsShadow]

And plus, Obama's health care plan wasn't just more affordable it was more taxes to.

And? Taxes are not inherently bad. They pay for lots of things people like, like paved roads and schools and fire fighters.

The main tax increase under the ACA is for people making over two hundred thousand dollars a year. If you're not in that tax bracket? No tax increase. If you're not using a FSA, if you're not a pharmaceutical company, if you're not an insurance company, there will be no tax increase for you.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Fuzzbucket]

And? Taxes are not inherently bad. They pay for lots of things people like, like paved roads and schools and fire fighters.

The main tax increase under the ACA is for people making over two hundred thousand dollars a year. If you're not in that tax bracket? No tax increase. If you're not using a FCA, if you're not a pharmaceutical company, if you're not an insurance company, there will be no tax increase for you.

Right on ! Thanks for saying that ! So many people just don't seem to get this !

 

Taxes pay for a lot of things we all want to use. Without them - no roads, no schools, no airports, no loads of things we actually want. If we want them, we have to be prepared to pay for them - and taxes are the fairest way.

[KageSora]

And I love how people always call to improve those things--but then complain about increased taxes.

 

What, you think the stuff is free? Where do you think the money is coming from? Taxes are a pain, but they're a necessary evil, really. [general you, btw]

[Fuzzbucket]

And I love how people always call to improve those things--but then complain about increased taxes.

 

What, you think the stuff is free? Where do you think the money is coming from? Taxes are a pain, but they're a necessary evil, really. [general you, btw]

^this^ - very this !

[LascielsShadow]

And I love how people always call to improve those things--but then complain about increased taxes.

 

What, you think the stuff is free?  Where do you think the money is coming from?  Taxes are a pain, but they're a necessary evil, really.   [general you, btw]

Absolutely this. It boggles my mind that people think they can demand X thing be fixed or improved while also believing that they should not be expected to pay for those improvements.

 

Exactly. We may not like paying them, but we do need to, for the good of society. Without paying taxes, how on earth would the majority of the stuff we rely on every day be funded?

Edited August 29, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Wantdew]

Umm... My question... You guys are the ones that should be answering it, right?