The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

"93% white you say. What do you expect when nearly 100% blacks will blindly vote for Obummer."

But 93% of whites aren't going to vote for Romney. Let's face it, it's like a white out at these conventions. Diversity just isn't there. It's a numbers game and the numbers are dwindling.d

Was just checking out Twitter, some pretty funny:

"SAFE DRINKING GAME: Drink when you see a non-white person in the #RNC audience."

"Just finished hearing a very nice rendition of "Amazing Grace" by I don't know who (one of the 4 guys had a long white beard)"

Oak Ridge Boys, before that had some other country singer. It's like the Country Music Channel.

 

[GILSAN]

But 93% of whites aren't going to vote for Romney. Let's face it, it's like a white out at these conventions. Diversity just isn't there. It's a numbers game and the numbers are dwindling.d

Yes I'm aware of that. The Republicans may have 55-60% of white vote, 30% of Latino, almost 0% of blacks and the other minorities I'm not sure of; perhaps 40-50%. So yes it will be very close

Was just checking out Twitter, some pretty funny:

"SAFE DRINKING GAME: Drink when you see a non-white person in the #RNC audience."

"Just finished hearing a very nice rendition of "Amazing Grace" by I don't know who (one of the 4 guys had a long white beard)"

Oak Ridge Boys, before that had some other country singer. It's like the Country Music Channel.

Twitter I don't have time for twitter anymore. Its like Everyone says what they think at the same time and no one's listening.

 

[sanfran]

You seem to have a problem with white people. I have only one thing to point to you;

https://www.google.pt/search?um=1&h...5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.b6JeWhdtf0w

Take your pick!

God has spoken.
He hates white trash.
Why do u think there is Isaak?

 

[lennco]

Resigning from this thread

Well I am resigning from this thread that I created for now.

Besides that fact people keep bringing religion into a political thread, I have grown board with it.
And domaining has picked up for me in the last two weeks so I have been concentrating more on the aspect.

Have fun but try and keep it clean and to the topic

 

[JB Lions]

"Besides that fact people keep bringing religion into a political thread"

It's going to happen, it is a part of politics, unfortunately.

Gilsan, good site, you probably know of it - http://www.factcheck.org/

It's what I like, the facts. They point out problems with both Romney, Obama, Dems, Repubs etc. Probably one of the most balanced and fair sources out there.

 

[Kate]

Gilsan, good site, you probably know of it - http://www.factcheck.org/

Nice history too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html

 

[JB Lions]

Nice history too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html

Ah, I remember that. It's a parked page now too, factcheck.com site. That traffic must be starting to heat up now.

 

[GILSAN]

Gilsan, good site, you probably know of it - http://www.factcheck.org/

It's what I like, the facts. They point out problems with both Romney, Obama, Dems, Repubs etc. Probably one of the most balanced and fair sources out there.

Yes I've heard it being mentioned frequently on CNN which automatically makes me suspicious of it. Had a look at about 50 headlines without reading the articles and from what I see over 80% of the articles are critical of Romney or Republicans. Will check it out more thoroughly.

 

[JB Lions]

Yes I've heard it being mentioned frequently on CNN which automatically makes me suspicious of it. Had a look at about 50 headlines without reading the articles and from what I see over 80% of the articles are critical of Romney or Republicans. Will check it out more thoroughly.

Well, it is a fact check site, maybe they should stop lying so much Like the Obama gutting the the work requirement lie, they keep talking about over and over again. I suspect it'll be more than usual, just because the convention is under way, lots of talking, lots more stuff to fact check. When the Dems have their convention, probably be more there. But instead of looking at the percentage, looking at the actual content. If someone can point out a more fair look at what's happening, drop those links so I can take a look. But this has been the best that I could find to this point.

 

[JB Lions]

Not sure if you're listening to McCain speak right now, but it's obvious if he was President, we would be in many more wars/conflicts right now. He trusts Romney will get us there.

 

[GILSAN]

Not sure if you're listening to McCain speak right now, but it's obvious if he was President, we would be in many more wars/conflicts right now. He trusts Romney will get us there.

Only saw part of the speech. One thing is for sure, the US can't involve itself in too many wars at the same time, as they will get overstretched. That's why the last wars have been in coalition with other countries or NATO. As an example Portugal still has troops in Kosovo and I think in Afghanistan as well, as part of NATO.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US has been at war constantly, somewhere around the world with hardly any interruptions since the Korean War in the 50's. So Democrats and Republicans are both equally to blame (if you want to call it blame).

Obama said he would leave Afghanistan and close up Guantanamo, but they are still there, in fact he even sent more troops to Afghanistan. He did leave Iraq which is good, but Bush had already decided that anyway before he left office. So to me the differences between Republicans and Democrats as far as wars and interference in foreign countries is very small.

Obama doesn't like Netanyahu so that affects the relationship between the US and Israel which is not such a good idea at the moment as Israel is feeling threatened with the changes in North Africa, especially Egypt and it's ever more powerful Muslim Brotherhood. The hatred spewing out of Iran is making the Israelis edgy. I prefer the Republicans tougher stand against the Middle Eastern countries in relation to Israel. Since Obama came into office absolutely NOTHING has happened to get the peace process going in that part of the world.

The only solution to get the US out of all these wars has only two words "RON PAUL" Everything thing else is BS whether Republicans or Democrats

 

[JB Lions]

"I prefer the Republicans tougher stand against the Middle Eastern countries in relation to Israel."

So you're going against Ron Paul with that one.

"Obama said he would leave Afghanistan and close up Guantanamo, but they are still there, in fact he even sent more troops to Afghanistan."

McCain even said:
"By committing to withdraw from Afghanistan, the president has discouraged and emboldened our enemies, which is why our commanders did not recommend these decisions, and why they have said it puts our mission at much greater risk."

Obama is wanting to get out of there.

Trying to find the full video but here is the transcript -
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/29/transcript-john-mccain-speech-at-rnc/

Straight war mongering. We would be involved with Iran and Syria as well as the current ones if it were up to him. He's the anti Ron Paul.

Even the Republican audience was pretty quiet when he was saying all that stuff. I think people are just tired of it.

"Since Obama came into office absolutely NOTHING has happened to get the peace process going in that part of the world."

I don't think that'll ever happen, regardless of who's in office.

"I prefer the Republicans tougher stand against the Middle Eastern countries in relation to Israel."

What does that mean, in real terms. You would be ok with the U.S. supporting Israel in a strike right now? If Iran, actually tried to do something real with Israel, you know the U.S. would fold in right behind them and have our support.

 

[GILSAN]

I really don't care much about McCain. He would do about the same as the average US president would do in Foreign policy

Unfortunately my favorite candidate Ron Paul is not loved by Republicans, Democrats and the whole range of the MSM.

Since he is now irrelevant I will opt for Republicans as in my opinion they don't lie as much as the Democrats, they are not as intolerant as the Liberals.

Just finished watching an excellent speech by Hucklebie. Condie is now talking so I'll listen to her now

Fantastic speech from Condoleezza Rice and unlike Obummer she doesn't need teleprompters

 

[JB Lions]

I actually like Condie, good speech. Here's the problem tho.

"Just finished watching an excellent speech by Hucklebie."

He was speaking out against about big government left and right except...... it's bs. Because he's all about goverment making federal laws of who can't get married, federal laws against women having a say with what happens to their bodies etc. So they love big government when it comes to personal freedoms. So they might have good ideas at times but it's this whole other side that just negates them. Condie is a more moderate Republican, that would actually appeal more to the independents, than people like Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann etc. More of that, less of the wingnuts.

As far as Ryan, Biden and the Dems are going to eat well. Some stuff is going to come back and haunt him:

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."

"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.

Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/paul-ryan-bush-stimulus_n_1803761.html

And then he even wanted to distance himself from Bush, saying we can't spend like him, except he voted with him 90% of the time, bailouts, TARP

https://www.google.com/search?q=pau...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Fact Check on his speech:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

 

[sanfran]

As far i can see the white trash party is kaput!

AS FAR I CAN SEE THE WHITE TRASH PARTY IS KAPUT!

At least for the next 4 years.
And we'll have another fight then.
And we'll kick their arse again!

:kickass:

 

[enlytend]

I didn't see the Ryan/McCain/Rice speeches, but even usually right-leaning, Republican-friendly Fox news called Ryan's speech a "world record for the greatest number of blatant lies." Looking at factchecker and a transcript, I think the term "innacurate" is more than fair.

I did see Ann Romney and Christie. Ann's speech - meh. Weak, robotic - very "stepford wives." Christie ... um, getting a head start on HIS 2016 campaign? (short version: "me, me, I, we, I, we, me, me, me ... oh yeah and Romney too...")

I often disagree with Christie, but his speeches are usually entertaining because he rarely spouts the same old mindless drivel. But my jaw dropped when he said "They believe in teacher's unions, we believe in teachers". Hah! Good one! Show me ONE teacher in the state of NJ who likes Christie.

50 headlines without reading the articles and from what I see over 80% of the articles are critical of Romney or Republicans.

Look again - that site has plenty of articles pointing out "spin" and innacuracies by Obama/Democrats. They all do it.

 

[GILSAN]

I didn't see the Ryan/McCain/Rice speeches, but even usually right-leaning, Republican-friendly Fox news called Ryan's speech a "world record for the greatest number of blatant lies." Looking at factchecker and a transcript, I think the term "innacurate" is more than fair.

You forgot to mention that FOX News asked Sally Kohn, a well known Liberal to give the Liberal point of view about Ryan's speech. True to her form the Obummer ass kisser gave us all the BS that we can expect from Liberals. Give it another day or two and we'll find out who was telling the truth. By then the Liberal Media will be quiet and say virtually nothing about it.

At least FOX gives it's viewers both points of view

Look again - that site has plenty of articles pointing out "spin" and innacuracies by Obama/Democrats. They all do it.

Once I have some time I'll check it out fastcheck.org a bit deeper.

 

[JB Lions]

As far as that 80%, it's like I said above. Right now the RNC is going on, so there is more talking/speeches than usual, more stuff to fact check. When the DNC is going on, it'll sway in that direction. After that, it'll probaby be pretty even.

"FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels."

That guy was a lifelong Republican, very good friends with the Reagans.

Go thru the site, you can find all kinds of things about Obama/Dems.

I did remember one of the Republicans running the Romney campaign saying:

"Neil Newhouse, a pollster for Mitt Romney, who said this week the Republican presidential candidate's campaign would not "be dictated by fact-checkers."

 

[enlytend]

Romney was smart enough to avoid all the topics where Ryan stretched the truth the night before.

Came across to me as a lot of good-sounding rhetoric, light on actual details of HOW he plans to accomplish what he's promising. He tried to reach out to women - a little too hard to be convincing. He has the look/image thing down well (unlike his running mate, who really should buy a suit that fits him.)

 

[GILSAN]

Romney was smart enough to avoid all the topics where Ryan stretched the truth the night before.

Came across to me as a lot of good-sounding rhetoric, light on actual details of HOW he plans to accomplish what he's promising. He tried to reach out to women - a little too hard to be convincing. He has the look/image thing down well (unlike his running mate, who really should buy a suit that fits him.)

The way the Liberal Media are looking for Republican blood it's best to be careful for words. I liked his speech and the fact that he is a good hearted person who doesn't like to talk too much about his personal life.

As for the "War on Woman" crap, that's just bullshit Liberal Media Propaganda. If women want to have a good time and go screw with every Tom, Dick and Harry I have no problem, but let them pay for their own abortions. If they get raped or other life threatening situations, then that's a different story.

It's strange that if you kill a baby one minute after it's born its called murder, but if you kill that same baby before its born, its legal. Amazing Liberal way of thinking. If Liberals want to think that way its fine, but don't impose it on others who oppose it. Besides, from what I understand most people in the US are opposed to abortions.

As for Ryan's suits, well you are right. Perhaps he plans to have many dinners with Governor Cristie, so he's just thinking ahead.

All in all I would trust Romney much more than Obummer in times of trouble. I especially liked watching "Dirty Harry" bashing Obama. :tu: I can just imagine the Liberal Media and Hollyweird getting all fluttered and offended about it and calling Clint Eastwood a RACIST for the next few years :o