American Politics

[demonicvampiregirl]

Well, what is your beef about what I posted?

I been explaining it over and over.

 

You say we need a strong military and always have had one. Why do we need one? The answer is obvious. We keep ticking people off and not trying to cooperate with them.

[~Kat~]

demonicvampiregirl, Britain and Australia and New Zealand fought along side of the USA in of the wars I was talking about.

 

Do some research.

Here it is again for you demonicvampiregirl.

 

 

[philpot123]

Well, what is your beef about what I posted?

There was that whole revolutionary war thing... you know, a big " you England!" sort of deal...

[demonicvampiregirl]

Here it is again for you demonicvampiregirl.

Apparently you have been missing my posts....

[~Kat~]

I been explaining it over and over.

 

You say we need a strong military and always have had one. Why do we need one? The answer is obvious. We keep ticking people off and not trying to cooperate with them.

Again, look what you have now.

 

It goes back to our forefathers and lets go to WW1 and WW2. Do some research and find out who we were fighting against and who was on our side like Australia, Britain and New Zealand please. My father fought WW2 for what we all have today in the USA!!!

[demonicvampiregirl]

Again, look what you have now.

 

It goes back to our forefathers and lets go to WW1 and WW2. Do some research and find out who we were fighting against and who was on our side like Australia, Britain and New Zealand please. My father fought WW2 for what we all have today in the USA!!!

*sighs* We keep going over this and over this.

 

Read my post as to why I said we have to have one. Do ever try to cooperate with EVERY country? Obvious answer there is no. The reason we have allies is because we have worked with them.

[skauble]

Try this with the TERRORISTS, AND ANY OTHERS LIKE THEM!!! and see what happens to you. These terrorists and people like them all live in tribes, and fight amongst themselves. It is kill or be killed amongst themselves. They remind me of CAVE MEN.

You do realize that the people in the Middle East used to like us and we had no problem with them.

 

I hear that you're very angry with all of the extremism going on, and I respect that, but you simply cannot ignore one glaring fact -

 

They were not doing terrorist things until we began a campaign that included terrorizing them.

 

I ask you this very sincerely, but do you really think that they shouldn't be outraged at the fact that we helped Saddam Hussein get chemical weapons that he used to murder and mutilate thousands of people, including woman and children?

 

Just taking that subject alone we helped to kill far more people than died on 9/11. And we did it because we wanted power and oil.

 

And again I seriously ask, do you honestly think that they shouldn't be upset that we prolonged the Iraq/Iran war by arming both sides?

 

Why is there this insistence that when they're violent because we've had a hand in the murder and utter discord of their people that they're savages, but when we do terrible things to them - before they did anything to us - for money and power we're still the victims?

[~Kat~]

You could aplogize all day to the terorists, it will get you NO WHERE.

 

These people are crazy. They have fought for years and years and they will keep fighting. Like I said, these people all live in tribes and fight amongst themselves, and kill each other. They remind me of CAVEMEN.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ~Kat~

[hazeh]

When I use this smilie, I am smiling and being funny, not rude, as it is smiling. Sorry you take offense.

 

Again, I am sorry because I do not use the smilies or use the words you would all like me to.

 

Please forgive me.

If that's the case then, perhaps this: or would be a better fit. <-- this smilie is rolling its eyes, which (as a parent I'm sure you're familiar with the gesture) can come across as demeaning when used in the context you're putting them in.

 

It's okay, don't worry about it, no harm done. I just wanted to point it out before it got out of hand (:

[skauble]

You could aplogize all day to the terorists, it will get you NO WHERE.

 

These people are crazy. They have fought for years and years and they will keep fighting. Like I said, these people all live in tribes and fight amongst themselves, and kill each other. They remind me of CAVEMEN.

Because of something we started? Seriously? Why do we get a complete pass for our monstrous behavior?

[philpot123]

 

I'll just leave this here... I mean, context should be apparent...

Edited October 5, 2012 by philpot123

[demonicvampiregirl]

You could aplogize all day to the terorists, it will get you NO WHERE.

 

These people are crazy. They have fought for years and years and they will keep fighting. Like I said, these people all live in tribes and fight amongst themselves, and kill each other. They remind me of CAVEMEN.

And we're so much more civilized?

 

Terrorist acts spawn more terrorist acts.

 

And just because they live in tribes and not in cities and towns like us doesn't mean they are barbaric and have no amount of human decency. How they live doesn't make them.

[KageSora]

I'm not sure how impartial I feel doctors are about this.

From what I know, there are doctors on both sides of the issue--there are a number of doctors who don't see it as horribly ruinous to their practice and who think those who believe it will kill them are simply too set in their ways and refusing to adapt to a changing world and would have had their practices die out anyway.

 

Of course, there are those who hate the idea and believe it will kill their practices, and those who believe it will make things hard but is an inevitable next step, and those who welcome it.

 

Doctors are just as varied on the issue as non-doctors, really.

 

I'm not a doctor myself, but my father works with a lot of doctors and is involved in pushing for various things with healthcare legislation because of his job. He works for the Illinois branch of the American Academy of Family Physicians, so he really does do a lot with getting information out about health and healthcare and dealing with doctors and such.

 

So that's just passed along from him. Considering his job, I'd say he's fairly trustworthy on the matter.

 

 

How can you compare a school bully or the quiet kid who leaves people alone and is respectful when he has to talk to them?

 

Try this with the TERRORISTS, AND ANY OTHERS LIKE THEM!!! and see what happens to you. These terrorists and people like them all live in tribes, and fight amongst themselves. It is kill or be killed amongst themselves. They remind me of CAVE MEN.

 

The USA gets along with Britain, Australia and other countries. These countries have fought along side the USA, and still do, even in this war now in Afghanastan.

 

Look at WW1 and WW2. Look at all we have been to war with, and the British and Australians were with us.

 

~Kat~, I'm saying that if the US acts like a self-absorbed bully who thinks it's better than everybody else and everybody else needs to do as we say or else, the people who are terrorists will see even more reason to attack us.

 

And you know, if we keep trying to be the boss of the world... Our allies will only stand with us for so long before they begin to think that maybe we're a threat and we need to be taken down a few notches before we get too powerful and come after them. Even if we don't have an intent to, it's not unreasonable to think that such an intent might be interpreted if we just keep building up our military.

 

We're the big bully using intimidation to get "revenge" on people--people who we had a hand in angering in the first place.

 

It's like when a bully taunts somebody and they punch the bully, then the bully uses that as an excuse to beat the out of the person they taunted.

 

Could they come after us even if we leave them alone and don't do anything to make them mad? Of course. But the angrier we make them, by acting all high and mighty and throwing our military weight around as if we're the rulers of the world, the more likely it is that they'll attack us.

 

Besides, you seem to keep forgetting that there are terrorists inside the US itself who hate the USA. Domestic terrorists exist! Maybe we should focus on dealing with them before dealing with the foreign ones, hmm?

 

 

Besides, I'm not saying we should abandon the military and be defenseless. That doesn't need to happen. But we need to take a realistic look at just what our military needs to be to protect us, and we need to keep it at that. And we need to make nice with other people so we don't have need for a super massive oversized military to keep the terrified citizens feeling safe. Having a good, strong military is fine. But when that power outweighs the need for it, that becomes dangerous. And that is what I object to--we need to power down a bit, and we need to use our military more wisely. Mostly by staying the hell out of other countries unless we have to go in/are asked in, and getting the hell out a lot sooner thus limiting our involvement in them.

 

 

When I use this smilie,    I am smiling and being funny, not rude, as it is smiling. Sorry you take offense.

Just FYI, not all smiles are good smiles. There are some very mean and disturbing smiles.

 

This one happens to have a condescending appearance when paired with your words.

[Alpha1]

Because of something we started?  Seriously?  Why do we get a complete pass for our monstrous behavior?

 

What do you think of this?

 

"PARIS — Iran condemned on Saturday the Obama administration for taking an Iranian militant group formerly allied with Saddam Hussein off the U.S. terrorism list, saying it shows Washington's "double standards."

 

demonicvampiregirl, Britain and Australia and New Zealand fought along side of the USA in a lotof the wars I was talking about.

 

Do some research.

 

You forgot Poland.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Alpha1

[~Kat~]

If that's the case then, perhaps this: or would be a better fit. <-- this smilie is rolling its eyes, which (as a parent I'm sure you're familiar with the gesture) can come across as demeaning when used in the context you're putting them in.

 

It's okay, don't worry about it, no harm done. I just wanted to point it out before it got out of hand (:

Thank you for pointing this out. I am really computer illiterate if the truth be known,

 

To the rest of you, I am so tired right now, I will try and answer those of you that quoted me later.

 

A lot of you are younger than me, and very savy on the computer. I am not.

[skauble]

What do you think of this?

 

"PARIS — Iran condemned on Saturday the Obama administration for taking an Iranian militant group formerly allied with Saddam Hussein off the U.S. terrorism list, saying it shows Washington's "double standards."

I strongly disagree. We have to be up to at least 257th standards when it comes to the Middle East.

 

And color me not even remotely surprised that our plan for Iran includes the serious consideration of "helping along" a regime change. I think that this is a really awful move by Obama and I sincerely hope that we get off this path before we finally discover that there's only so far we can go with this before there's no coming back.

Edited October 5, 2012 by skauble

[TikindiDragon]

Uh, just getting my history geek out here...

 

~Kat~ - you do know that America was late to WWII, right? And that the only reason it got involved was because the bombing of Pearl Harbour forced it out of it's isolationist policies. It should be noted that the USA at the time only declared war on Japan - German and Italy were the ones to declare war against the US some days later. It is debateable wether or not hte US would have become involved with the war in Europe had they not done so.

[Kestra15]

Uh, just getting my history geek out here...

 

~Kat~ - you do know that America was late to WWII, right? And that the only reason it got involved was because the bombing of Pearl Harbour forced it out of it's isolationist policies. It should be noted that the USA at the time only declared war on Japan - German and Italy were the ones to declare war against the US some days later. It is debateable wether or not hte US would have become involved with the war in Europe had they not done so.

And of course they only pitched up for the last year of WW1, again only because they were finally forced to realise that if Germany did succeed in taking Europe it would affect an already-falter economy - it had little to do with them being World Police and more that their isolationist policy was suddenly found to be ineffectual and would in the long run ruin them. Even then they didn't exactly pitch in at full force either.

[Syaoransbear]

These people are crazy. They have fought for years and years and they will keep fighting. Like I said, these people all live in tribes and fight amongst themselves, and kill each other. They remind me of CAVEMEN.

Considering how long this war has been and just looking at the crime rate in the US, they could say the same thing about you.

 

You forgot Poland.

And Canada.

 

Come on, we share a border. We were at that war before you guys, sending our country's only plane and two canoes .

 

The USA gets along with Britain, Australia and other countries. These countries have fought along side the USA, and still do, even in this war now in Afghanastan.

Yeaahh we're only there out of obligation, not because we agree with what you are doing.

 

Uh, just getting my history geek out here...

 

~Kat~ - you do know that America was late to WWII, right? And that the only reason it got involved was because the bombing of Pearl Harbour forced it out of it's isolationist policies. It should be noted that the USA at the time only declared war on Japan - German and Italy were the ones to declare war against the US some days later. It is debateable wether or not hte US would have become involved with the war in Europe had they not done so.

This, so much. The behavior of the US during WWII is not a tale of generously helping out your allied countries.

[Zaxian]

Oh dear oh dear: World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row, State Senate Candidate Colleen Lachowicz Under Fire from Opponents for Playing World of Warcraft

Maine Republicans have created a webpage revealing that Democrat candidate Colleen Lachowicz plays an orc rogue in World of Warcraft (WoW).

 

They claim Ms Lachowicz's liking for back-stabbing and poison in WoW raise questions about her "fitness for office".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. *facepalm*

[brairtrainer]

Can someone explain to me a bit better what Socialism is? I get what it is but would like a better explanation.

 

Socialism is an economy where everyone works for the greater good, everyone is dolled out the same use of resources and everyone goes to work to make the things everyone needs. In this economy everyone is at a completely level playing field, have same access to education, houseing, and clean water.

 

Socialism is a completely theorectical economic system for a couple or reasons.

 

1. Greed- People start taking more than what they need. In a Socialism system the government has no hand in the sharing so once someone gets greedy it falls apart.

 

2. Every country that has claimed to be socialist is actually communist where the government doles out the supplies, with those in higher offices helping themselves out to more of the 'pie'.

 

3. Their is only two orders of speicies that have true socialism (hymeneptera's bees, non-solitary hornets and wasps, and ants, and what ever order termites are in) and it is because the queen has no say and the workers have all the say.

 

The funny thing about Socailism, it was first concieved by Karl Marx. At the end of his writings Karl Marx actaully stated that true socialism would probably never work out and that Capatlisim was the way to go as long as there were protections for the working class.

 

Edit: read about the Law suit and I have to say about time. Go Gary!

 

Edited October 5, 2012 by brairtrainer

[philpot123]

Socialism is an economy where everyone works for the greater good, everyone is dolled out the same use of resources and everyone goes to work to make the things everyone needs. In this economy everyone is at a completely level playing field, have same access to education, houseing, and clean water.

 

Socialism is a completely theorectical economic system for a couple or reasons.

 

1. Greed- People start taking more than what they need. In a Socialism system the government has no hand in the sharing so once someone gets greedy it falls apart.

 

2. Every country that has claimed to be socialist is actually communist where the government doles out the supplies, with those in higher offices helping themselves out to more of the 'pie'.

 

3. Their is only two orders of speicies that have true socialism (hymeneptera's bees, non-solitary hornets and wasps, and ants, and what ever order termites are in) and it is because the queen has no say and the workers have all the say.

 

The funny thing about Socailism, it was first concieved by Karl Marx. At the end of his writings Karl Marx actaully stated that true socialism would probably never work out and that Capatlisim was the way to go as long as there were protections for the working class.

It's also interesting to note that America has all but one of Marx's "planks of communism" in some form or fashion, all but forced labor. Not to say that we're communist, just that the government has a LOT of say...

 

 

And Canada.

 

Come on, we share a border. We were at that war before you guys, sending our country's only plane and two canoes .

 

You just gave me a fantastic laugh. Thanks

 

This, so much. The behavior of the US during WWII is not a tale of generously helping out your allied countries.

 

And it ended with the United States government committing one of the worst atrocities in history.

[TikindiDragon]

Socialism is an economy where everyone works for the greater good, everyone is dolled out the same use of resources and everyone goes to work to make the things everyone needs. In this economy everyone is at a completely level playing field, have same access to education, houseing, and clean water.

 

Socialism is a completely theorectical economic system for a couple or reasons.

 

1. Greed- People start taking more than what they need. In a Socialism system the government has no hand in the sharing so once someone gets greedy it falls apart.

 

2. Every country that has claimed to be socialist is actually communist where the government doles out the supplies, with those in higher offices helping themselves out to more of the 'pie'.

 

3. Their is only two orders of speicies that have true socialism (hymeneptera's bees, non-solitary hornets and wasps, and ants, and what ever order termites are in) and it is because the queen has no say and the workers have all the say.

 

The funny thing about Socailism, it was first concieved by Karl Marx. At the end of his writings Karl Marx actaully stated that true socialism would probably never work out and that Capatlisim was the way to go as long as there were protections for the working class.

Although it must be pointed out that Marx also considered Capitalism to be an ultimately unsustainable economic model. Which I agree with to a certain extent - perpetual growth *is* unsustainable, and modern Capitalism is built on the expectation of continual growth (note current hysterics about 'recession' where the economy shrinks).

 

It is possible for a society that is not in itself Socialist (or Communist) to have in place some socialist policies. As a braod rule of thumb anything provided by the state for the benefit of the people can be considered to be a 'socialist' policy - eg a State Pension, National Healthcare, free State Education, that sort of thing. I am not aware of any western country which does not have at least some Socialist policies in place to a greater or lesser degree.

[brairtrainer]

Although it must be pointed out that Marx also considered Capitalism to be an ultimately unsustainable economic model. Which I agree with to a certain extent - perpetual growth *is* unsustainable, and modern Capitalism is built on the expectation of continual growth (note current hysterics about 'recession' where the economy shrinks).

 

It is possible for a society that is not in itself Socialist (or Communist) to have in place some socialist policies. As a braod rule of thumb anything provided by the state for the benefit of the people can be considered to be a 'socialist' policy - eg a State Pension, National Healthcare, free State Education, that sort of thing. I am not aware of any western country which does not have at least some Socialist policies in place to a greater or lesser degree.

Because raw capitalism is unsustanible, especailly because with it came squallor and famine in the poorer areas of town. Not saying that all that is fixed now, but if you are poor and get government housing in the US you may live close to other families in the same boat but you aren't squished into one room with several families with no indoor plumbing.

 

Yes Marx didn't like Captilism specifically for that reason, but even he saw that if the working class rose up like he thought it was going to it would not lead to sustainable socialism. That's what I was trying to get across.

[philpot123]

Mitt Romney touched down at the airport beside my house a little while ago...