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:

 

[Theo Goodman]

"You may call Libya and Syria "socialist" I call them "dictatorships". Are you telling me that the US should have protected Gaddafi? How about Al Assad, should the US also help him stay in office? Look how long his father Hafez (1970-2000) and he, Bashar (since 2000) have been governing Syria. That's 42 years and still going. That's a bloody dynasty.

Gaddafi ruled from 1969-2011, also 42 years and if he hadn't been put to rest, someday one of his sons would have carried on.

And yes there is a difference. Obama has been too passive in relation to Arab States who just cannot be trusted. When a US President bows to a Saudi Prince or blames a video for the murder of 4 Americans, when everyone knew just by looking at the images that it was something more organized, then you have a President that shows weakness.

Romney on the other hand, when he becomes President next month will show a tough stance in the Middle East which the Arabs understand better. NEVER show weakness to Arab States. "

Fine, if you would like to go on about the defintion of "socialist" or "dictatorship" that is a whole different discussion.
"Are you telling me that the US should have protected Gaddafi?"
What I am saying is that the USA actively helped overthrow Gaddafi and supported Foreign fighters that were called "rebels". These rebels are jihadist. Gaddafi was not a threat because of being a "dictator". Is overthorowing a goverment "passive" or "weak" ?
"That's 42 years and still going. That's a bloody dynasty."So the issue with Syria is the ammount of time that someone is in office??? No it is not. Same thing that happened in Lybia is going on in Syria. Foregin troops supported by the USA are in Syria fighing and being called "rebels" . Isnt that great? Being able to destabalise sovergin countries and overthrow their goverments by installing Islamic regemes. All the while with minimal American life loss. No need for a full on "war". Is that "weak", it is in fact quite hawkish. Rmoney will not be different. He will continue the proxy wars and the support of Islamic privateers.

 

[verbster]

Look how long his father Hafez (1970-2000) and he, Bashar (since 2000) have been governing Syria. That's 42 years and still going. Gaddafi ruled from 1969-2011, also 42 years and if he hadn't been put to rest, someday one of his sons would have carried on.

So what's your point? Since 1969, there have been 28 years of republican presidency and yet nothing was accomplished. Instead, Bush and Reagan chose to do shameful stuff like conspiring and breaking the law by selling weapons to a blacklisted Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair screw-up. And yet you now think Obama should do what Reagan and the Bushes not only wouldn't even consider, but were simply too stupid to pull off? Nancy Reagan would have had a better chance at success using her Ouiji Board and her fortune-telling 8-ball.

And yes there is a difference. Obama has been too passive in relation to Arab States who just cannot be trusted. When a US President bows to a Saudi Prince or blames a video for the murder of 4 Americans, when everyone knew just by looking at the images that it was something more organized, then you have a President that shows weakness..

You think relentlesly hunting down and killing Osama Bin Ladin and and several high ranking leaders in Talban and Alqaeda shows weakness? That it didn' set an example?

Romney on the other hand, when he becomes President next month will show a tough stance in the Middle East which the Arabs understand better.

jeez, just what do you think Romney can do? What is a "tough stance"? What chips does Romney have to bet with? What's he going to tell Saudi? 'Stop doing whatever you're doing or we'll stop buying the oil that you sell us at a discount for our protection?" Who are you kidding?

NEVER show weakness to Arab States.

What are you basing this opinion on? What does this mean? Threaten to turn a country and all of its people in into a nuclear ashtray unless they think behave and act like we want them to? After reading all of your ridiculous faulty logic, unsupportable opinions and outright lies, you should ask yourself who really shouldn't be trusted. I lived in the Middle East, and like other places, I made friends I would trust my life with. One of which really did.

I'm truly sick and tired of all of your short-sighted, bigoted statements that have no real meaning or substance. Please start thinking before you write any more obscenely ignorant drivel.

 

[GILSAN]

I'm truly sick and tired of all of your short-sighted, bigoted statements that have no real meaning or substance. Please start thinking before you write any more obscenely ignorant drivel.

And you can shove your biased opinion where the sun don't shine

 

[verbster]

And you can shove your biased opinion where the sun don't shine

That pretty much sums up your limited depth of thought: When faced with the truth . . . when having to supply real answers with real details, you're as predictable s ever: Resort to namecalling and spewing insults at the person exposing your nonsense.

I've called you on stuff several times and given you every opportnity to defend your opinions with facts that can't be disputed, and every time, just like this time, you run and hide.

 

[GILSAN]

That pretty much sums up your limited depth of thought: When faced with the truth . . . when having to supply real answers with real details, you're as predictable s ever: Resort to namecalling and spewing insults at the person exposing your nonsense.

I've called you on stuff several times and given you every opportnity to defend your opinions with facts that can't be disputed, and every time, just like this time, you run and hide.

Typical Liberal. You think you own the truth. You can insult me, but I'm not allowed to tell you to shove it.

If you think I'm going to bow to you like Obama to the Saudi King then you are highly mistaken. It will never happen. Answering any question you make would be a waste of my time. That will never happen, at least with you, because you are too brainwashed to understand anything else than your biased Liberal view.

 

[JB Lions]

Then answer my question, the one I asked a few times above, about details.

Couple things I heard on CNN today:

Mother of retired SEAL killed in Libya: 'I don't trust Romney'

"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, according to 7News in Boston."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-libya-navy-seal-20121010,0,5425778.story

Listening to Republicans today, they act like Obama is the enemy. Not an issue you want to play politics with.


In regards to Gilsan, flip flopping on Paul, Rand, his son spoke today:

Rand Paul takes issue with Mitt Romney on Syria, Pentagon spending

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...-with-mitt-romney-on-syria-pentagon-spending/

Tomorrow, big VP debate.

 

[GILSAN]

Couple things I heard on CNN today:

Mother of retired SEAL killed in Libya: 'I don't trust Romney'

"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty, according to 7News in Boston."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-libya-navy-seal-20121010,0,5425778.story

Yes I saw that on AC360. What the NY Times and you fail to mention is the rest of that Lady's conversation with Anderson Cooper. If you saw the rest you know what was said, if you don't then here goes:

Yes. after saying that about Romney, she then blasted Obama, Panetta and others who lied to her when they failed to give her absolutely no information about what had happened to her son, which they had promised they would. In fact she spent 20x more time blasting Obama & Co. than blasting Romney.

You see how the Liberal Media manipulates the information. They only tell you their truth, NOT the whole truth! NY Times should be ashamed of themselves for omitting information about the same story.

And you make fun of me for always talking about the MSM. If it wasn't for the MSM Obama would never have been elected President. The 1st debate proved that and so will the next ones.

 

[JB Lions]

Gilsan, are you just going to continually skip this part:

"How about some specifics from you and RogueWriter

Iran __________

Syria _________

fill in the blanks, what would you like to see. Not "tough stance" mumbo jumbo, specifics."

Somebody in these next debates need to get Romney live answering a couple of questions.

Something along the lines of:

Romney, if Israel called and said, let's go bomb Iran next week. Are you in or out? If he says in, then more war. If he says out, then what is he really doing different then Obama right now? Try out sanctions, everything else and have that option on the table.

Abortion. Ask him if he would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the opportunity. Point out his flip flopping on this issue live on TV and ask for his final views on this issue.

 

[GILSAN]

Gilsan, are you just going to continually skip this part:

"How about some specifics from you and RogueWriter

Iran __________

Syria _________

fill in the blanks, what would you like to see. Not "tough stance" mumbo jumbo, specifics."

Somebody in these next debates need to get Romney live answering a couple of questions.

Something along the lines of:

Romney, if Israel called and said, let's go bomb Iran next week. Are you in or out? If he says in, then more war. If he says out, then what is he really doing different then Obama right now? Try out sanctions, everything else and have that option on the table.

Taking a tough stance doesn't mean going to war. Remember the US Embassy hostages during the Carter days, that was so embarrassing to Americans and they even lost some lives if I'm not wrong when the US helicopters tried to rescue them but the operation failed.

Well it just so happens that on day 1 of Reagan in the White House the Iran hostages were all released. Do you remember that?. Why did that happen? Basically because of Reagan's tough stance. That's what I'm talking about. The same happened to the crumbling of the Soviet empire and the Berlin Wall, all thanks to Reagan's tough stance.

As for Iran vs Israel, what you are asking is a hypothetical question. I will always be on Israel's side, always.

 

[JB Lions]

"Taking a tough stance doesn't mean going to war."

Again, what does that mean then. You mentioned tough stance, I'm trying to find out what exactly that means, you just haven't been specific to this point.

"As for Iran vs Israel, what you are asking is a hypothetical question. I will always be on Israel's side, always."

It's a question somebody might be faced with. So if Israel called you, said let's go bomb Iran next week, you would say yes, and that's what you would like Romney to do as well?

You start talking about something that has nothing to do with the question, Carter and the hostages. Yeah, I remember that. They tried, that operation failed. I also remember a recent one, getting Bin Laden, one that succeeded.

 

[verbster]

Typical Liberal. You think you own the truth. You can insult me, but I'm not allowed to tell you to shove it.

If you think I'm going to bow to you like Obama to the Saudi King then you are highly mistaken. It will never happen. Answering any question you make would be a waste of my time. That will never happen, at least with you, because you are too brainwashed to understand anything else than your biased Liberal view.

There you go again, resorting to namecalling and insults instead of applying yourself to express some true substance to your claims. I don't want you to bow to me; I want you to stand up to me by convincing me that your opininons are based on something more than a stinking brain fart.

I've never claimed to"own the truth" although you've accused me and several others of that as though it were an insult. However, I can usuallyback up what I write. And I often speak from first-hand experience on some things, which is why I called you on your Middle East statements. But when you get called on something, you seem to think calling someone a liberal substitutes for having to defend what you said, but it doesn't. If you're going to spout unsubstantiated opinions, be prepared to defend them. Why do you find that so unusual? If you can't, you shouldn'thave writen them in the first place. This is a forum for political discussion that you started. Did you think it would be all platitudes and no accountability?

You don't seem to understand that I truly want to consider what you write, but what you write can't be considered unless it's got more substance than opinion.

I come here to read and consider what others have written. If you think having an open mind and being willing to consider an alternative point of view that is organized and supported with factual evidence, even if it's at odds with your current view is something bad, or is confined only to only people you call liberal, I'll wear that label proudly.

 

[GILSAN]

"Taking a tough stance doesn't mean going to war."

Again, what does that mean then. You mentioned tough stance, I'm trying to find out what exactly that means, you just haven't been specific to this point.

"As for Iran vs Israel, what you are asking is a hypothetical question. I will always be on Israel's side, always."

It's a question somebody might be faced with. So if Israel called you, said let's go bomb Iran next week, you would say yes, and that's what you would like Romney to do as well?

You start talking about something that has nothing to do with the question, Carter and the hostages. Yeah, I remember that. They tried, that operation failed. I also remember a recent one, getting Bin Laden, one that succeeded.

The Reagan/Carter/Iran Hostages example is the kind of "Tough Stance" that I'm talking about.

As for your question, again it's hypothetical, I have no idea how Obama or Romney would answer it. Personally any country that believes that Israel should be wiped out of the map will not be in my Good Book. I'm behind Israel

 

[JB Lions]

"The Reagan/Carter/Iran Hostages is the kind of "Tough Stance" that I'm talking about."

What? Ok, that failed but if that's what you mean by a tough stance, that kind of thing has been done under every President.

And based on your lack of response, yet again, you like to use the words tough stance, but you can't even make a simple one on some forum on the internet. I'm behind Israel, tough stance, no specifics.

Forget, Romney and Obama for a second:

"So if Israel called you, said let's go bomb Iran next week, you would say yes," ?

Simple question. But you'll dodge it again. Again, you brought up tough stance, so you must have something in mind when you said that? Or are you admitting you just like to say stuff like that, and it has no meaning behind it whatsoever, it just sounds cool to say it or something? Somebody is supposed to be impressed with somebody saying it?

"I'm behind Israel"

Does that mean, America, you or Romney, should be Israel's puppet? If they say jump, we jump? What? Is that what's considered tough? Your response is typical, just sound bites, no meat.

We gotta get tough, have a tough stance.

What does tough stance mean?

I don't know, but we need to get one, whatever that may be.

 

[GILSAN]

"The Reagan/Carter/Iran Hostages is the kind of "Tough Stance" that I'm talking about."

What? Ok, that failed but if that's what you mean by a tough stance, that kind of thing has been done under every President.

And based on your lack of response, yet again, you like to use the words tough stance, but you can't even make a simple one on some forum on the internet. I'm behind Israel, tough stance, no specifics.

Forget, Romney and Obama for a second:

"So if Israel called you, said let's go bomb Iran next week, you would say yes," ?

Simple question. But you'll dodge it again. Again, you brought up tough stance, so you must have something in mind when you said that? Or are you admitting you just like to say stuff like that, and it has no meaning behind it whatsoever, it just sounds cool to say it or something? Somebody is supposed to be impressed with somebody saying it?

"I'm behind Israel"

Does that mean, America, you or Romney, should be Israel's puppet? If they say jump, we jump? What? Is that what's considered tough? Your response is typical, just sound bites, no meat.

You are really as stubborn as a mule. I've already given you the answers 2x. If you don't like them then its too bad. Go complain to Obama. Tell him that I'm not answering your questions that way you would like to be answered and while you're at it, tell him that I just can't be bothered to answer to Verbster. :zzz:

 

[JB Lions]

-nevermind-

Tomorrow, Biden unleashed.

 

[eyedomainous]

I was listening. The question is were you?

--Romney talked about Russia... and said he will show Putin "no flexibility". (This ain't the broke former Soviet Union, Mit).

Romney talked about Europe, NATO, Free Trade "across the world", Foreign Aid stipulations, Latin America (and how they will resist a "failed Hugo Chavez" -who won the next day).

Lets see... he talked about increasing the size of the Navy, an increase in defense spending overall... to restore our "mantle of leadership" around the world... while reducing the debt.

But, your right, the speech did "focus on the middle east". And I'm right, it wasn't a middle east speech.

My point was, and is, a sub-set of regional conflicts in the middle east should not be the focus of our foreign policy when its preciously that focus, over the last 11 years, that put us in-debt to -and fueled the rise of, an emerging superpower; pushed the world into recessions or depressions, and now other emerging superpowers are 'at the gates'.

Actually, if you were listening, one of the points that he was making was that the perception of weakness which Obama is generating is more likely to cause war, is encouraging our enemies into making provocative and hostile actions.

Romney's speech focussed on the Middle East, I suspect, because that is where most of the current issues are occurring. I cannot remember the last time a U.S. Embassy was burned in China, the ambassador killed, do you?

No doubt, Romney will follow up with a second speech that addresses China and Russia. But, then you will complain that the 2nd speech didn't address Africa or Tuvalu.

 

[Theo Goodman]

We dont know for sure if the "tough stance" of regan included a phone call about future arms deals. It wouldnt be unbeliveable given what we do know now. Maybe an "Arms for Nukes" would work today? That would really show em.

.

 

[RogueWriter]

I was listening. The question is were you?

--Romney talked about Russia... and said he will show Putin "no flexibility". (This ain't the broke former Soviet Union, Mit).

Romney talked about Europe, NATO, Free Trade "across the world", Foreign Aid stipulations, Latin America (and how they will resist a "failed Hugo Chavez" -who won the next day).

Lets see... he talked about increasing the size of the Navy, an increase in defense spending overall... to restore our "mantle of leadership" around the world... while reducing the debt.

But, your right, the speech did "focus on the middle east". And I'm right, it wasn't a middle east speech.

My point was, and is, a sub-set of regional conflicts in the middle east should not be the focus of our foreign policy when its preciously that focus, over the last 11 years, that put us in-debt to -and fueled the rise of, an emerging superpower; pushed the world into recessions or depressions, and now other emerging superpowers are 'at the gates'.

First, it was one freakin' speech. Do you think one speech should encapsulate all that you are and all that you ever will be, on all aspects of all topics? Seriously? I would hope there is more depth to you.

There will be more speeches and I am sure Romney will get around to China without prompting from you. I am sure what he says will be dismissed by you as sabre rattling.

I wonder if our resident chart maker could perhaps toss out a chart on the export/import disparity between China and the U.S. over the last four years. I am sure I will be impressed and change my vote after reviewing it; I am open minded in that way, as I am sure you are too. Maybe a chart comparing the last four years of unbudgeted deficit spending and our increasing debt to China. That's guaranteed to reassure me that Obama is on the right track, wow I am almost giddy with anticipation.

How about this, a graph featuring a month by month comparison of our increasing debt, and the number of rounds of golf our President has played.

That last one is almost guaranteed to win me over, you should get right on that.

 

[GILSAN]

I wonder if our resident chart maker could perhaps toss out a chart on......

:gn: :lol: :notme: :lol: :tu: Short & Sweet Love it!

How about this, a graph featuring a month by month comparison of our increasing debt, and the number of rounds of golf our President has played.

That would be a tough chart to draw as the "rounds of golf" would go through the roof :D

The 6 Trillion Dollar Man, Doesn't have a Budget Plan...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEjnyMyJYTI&feature=player_embedded"]Six Trillion Dollar Man - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JB Lions]

First, it was one freakin' speech. Do you think one speech should encapsulate all that you are and all that you ever will be, on all aspects of all topics? Seriously? I would hope there is more depth to you.

There will be more speeches and I am sure Romney will get around to China without prompting from you. I am sure what he says will be dismissed by you as sabre rattling.

I wonder if our resident chart maker could perhaps toss out a chart on the export/import disparity between China and the U.S. over the last four years. I am sure I will be impressed and change my vote after reviewing it; I am open minded in that way, as I am sure you are too. Maybe a chart comparing the last four years of unbudgeted deficit spending and our increasing debt to China. That's guaranteed to reassure me that Obama is on the right track, wow I am almost giddy with anticipation.

How about this, a graph featuring a month by month comparison of our increasing debt, and the number of rounds of golf our President has played.

That last one is almost guaranteed to win me over, you should get right on that.

Obama played golf, oh nooooooo, I think he might have went out on a date with his wife, watched football, even ate dinner, shocking news...... just like any other president.

I figure you wouldn't like those graphs, since they represent facts, the enemy of the right.

I tried to find some on Romney's flip flops but the graphs would be too steep, and Gilsan would complain again. I tried to find some on where he actually stood on issues, hard to come by, since nobody really knows.

As far as China:
"Meanwhile, U.S. exports to China have increased 45 percent during Obama’s first three years in office."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/

Also get a kick of watching Gilsan flip flop all over the place, going from this in the Ron Paul thread:

"Could this (ignoring Ron Paul) be due to to the fact that the MSM is controlled by Jews and they don't like the fact that Ron Paul has said the he would stop Foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world."

http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/743640-ron-paul-why-he-being-ignored.html

to this

"I will always be on Israel's side, always."

Flip flopped from Ron Paul and his views, to Romney and his different views.