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]

Saw this today in relation to topic:

For workers at CVS, body fat can be costly
The company will penalize employees $600 a year if they don't take part in its 'voluntary' wellness program.

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=a4f7a17e-22ef-4ea7-86e1-a57cf6312cb4

 

[GILSAN]

Saw this today in relation to topic:

For workers at CVS, body fat can be costly
The company will penalize employees $600 a year if they don't take part in its 'voluntary' wellness program.

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=a4f7a17e-22ef-4ea7-86e1-a57cf6312cb4

"It's an increasingly common move by companies looking to save money by avoiding employees with costly health conditions."

"Under the new federal health care insurance mandate, companies may also penalize obese workers, smokers and anyone else who doesn't participate in the company wellness plan and meet specific goals."

The Big Food Companies should be penalized for having created so many obese and unhealthy people with their junk food

 

[Theo Goodman]

"So whats the point in having elections every 4 years for? "
There is no point. The 2 main parties do not differ and continue on the same path. At best the parties differ as pepsi and coke do.

"Don't you even understand the point that randomo made? That the more obese people become, the more unhealthy they become and the bigger a burden they are on the rest of the population?"

Dont you understand that you are calling for big goverment to control how much soda people drink? This may in fact not have any effect and backfire. If I want to drink 1, 2 or 3 gallons of soda a day that is my right and if I need to buy 10 drinks instead of 3 it doesnt make a difference. Such measures always have "side effects".

"Big Food companies are your worst enemy (on par with Big Banks) and the American ones are the worst of all."

Yes and buying a higher quanity of drinks in order to quench the thirst will increace the price per oz. of soda and therefore the profits of "big food".

This also promotes the idea that the goverment is protecting you , when it is not. Even if the drinks are smaller it does not make them any healther and does -have- to reduce your total intake.

 

[GILSAN]

"So whats the point in having elections every 4 years for? "
There is no point. The 2 main parties do not differ and continue on the same path. At best the parties differ as pepsi and coke do.

Excellent point. pepsi and coke » Best 2 party comparison I've seen so far. The US is in urgent need of a strong 3rd party.

"Don't you even understand the point that randomo made? That the more obese people become, the more unhealthy they become and the bigger a burden they are on the rest of the population?"

Dont you understand that you are calling for big goverment to control how much soda people drink? This may in fact not have any effect and backfire. If I want to drink 1, 2 or 3 gallons of soda a day that is my right and if I need to buy 10 drinks instead of 3 it doesnt make a difference. Such measures always have "side effects".

Goverments are there for something, otherwise we wouldn't need them. Can't go back to the wild west days. Gov Bloomberg's is not banning you from drinking soda till you die. He wants to ban the sale of those large sodas in certain places. It's a pretty common sense idea if you ask me.

Michelle Obama also had a common sense idea of having healthy foods for kids, but I guess she failed, as did Bloomberg with the soda ban, thanks to the Radical Junk Food Junkies, which I imagine you belong to. Too bad.

"Big Food companies are your worst enemy (on par with Big Banks) and the American ones are the worst of all."

Yes and buying a higher quanity of drinks in order to quench the thirst will increace the price per oz. of soda and therefore the profits of "big food".

This also promotes the idea that the goverment is protecting you , when it is not. Even if the drinks are smaller it does not make them any healther and does -have- to reduce your total intake.

So whats more important to you; to save a few cents so that you can buy a 50 gallon barrel of soda to drink daily or to save a life. You do realize that many thousands of people die every year in the US due to drinking excessive amounts of soda, or don't you?

Coca-Cola addict died after drinking up to 18 PINTS of Coke a day for eight years

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/coca-cola-addict-died-after-drinking-1705770

There are many, many, many other stories like the above one

 

[JB Lions]

"Coca-Cola addict died after drinking up to 18 PINTS of Coke a day for eight years "

Using drastic examples again, that's 10 liters a day, that's crazy.

"Michelle Obama also had a common sense idea of having healthy foods for kids, but I guess she failed"

What do you mean? That's still what she's working on. She has the vegetable garden, the book out, speaks about it from time to time, etc.

"Goverments are there for something, otherwise we wouldn't need them. Can't go back to the wild west days. Gov Bloomberg's is not banning you from drinking soda till you die. He wants to ban the sale of those large sodas in certain places. It's a pretty common sense idea if you ask me."

Wild Wild West - drinking soda? C'mon now. Plus it didn't pass, won't pass because most people think it's ridiculous. And let's say it did just for fun, those movie theaters could simply sell 15.9 ounce drinks as a big FU to the mayor. And I'm not sure how they measure it. I know when I drink a 12 oz can of Coke, it's 12 oz. Are they actually getting 16 oz of soda or just a 16 oz container? Because they load those things up with ice, probably getting less than 16 oz of actual soda anyway.

 

[verbster]

Sounds like old people are a burden for you, but at least you like Polar bears.

Sorry. I meant that remark to be sarcastic. Yes, I like bears, but we're making life tough for them, too.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Soda,
Meanwhile the whole WMD (chemical weapons) in Syria media frenzy is picking up. Around the anniversary of the 2nd Iraq war, how ironic. Truth is that the so caled "rebels" might have been the ones that use/d chemical weapons not Syria. The "rebels" are not really winning and at best have a stalemate, therefore something has to happen.... (the sound of war drums, bomm ba boom ba boom)

 

[GILSAN]

Soda,
Meanwhile the whole WMD (chemical weapons) in Syria media frenzy is picking up. Around the anniversary of the 2nd Iraq war, how ironic. Truth is that the so caled "rebels" might have been the ones that use/d chemical weapons not Syria. The "rebels" are not really winning and at best have a stalemate, therefore something has to happen.... (the sound of war drums, bomm ba boom ba boom)

Yes I've noticed that. So is this the Medias fault, the White Houses fault, Congress, Bush or Israel's fault? And what is your suggestion or your position on Syria?

 

[DU]

The truth is.... Might have....

Insightful.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"The truth is.... Might have....

Insightful."

almost haiku


-
US can not invade or take military action againt Iran without getting Syria out of the way. Many of the "rebels" are the same mercenaries that were "rebels" in Lybia. The events in Syria follow the same "Arabic Spring" pattern of destroying secular countries and replacing them with some kind of theocracy (not democracy).
-
No war in Syria, no NATO intervention, No money and weapons for Salafi Jihadi "rebels" would be a start.
-

 

[GILSAN]

US can not invade or take military action againt Iran without getting Syria out of the way. Many of the "rebels" are the same mercenaries that were "rebels" in Lybia. The events in Syria follow the same "Arabic Spring" pattern of destroying secular countries and replacing them with some kind of theocracy (not democracy).
-
No war in Syria, no NATO intervention, No money and weapons for Salafi Jihadi "rebels" would be a start.
-

So according to you, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt and Syria were democracies? And who destroyed those countries? I think the start of the Arab Spring had very little foreign influence. It was an Arab revolution except the results were not what many people in those countries wanted, but then again, what can you expect from that part of the world?

 

[verbster]

I can't help but think of what diseases we may have cured over the last 10 years if medical research got all the money we spent on war.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"So according to you, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt and Syria were democracies? And who destroyed those countries? I think the start of the Arab Spring had very little foreign influence. It was an Arab revolution except the results were not what many people in those countries wanted, but then again, what can you expect from that part of the world?
__________________"

No, the arab spring should be the "wave of democracy" but its not. As posted I said secular. That means that that in the case of Lybia it was not an Islamic country , had a higher living standard than saudi arabia but should be replaced by a type of theocracy.
Outside influce is not a "theory" of the arab spring. Notice the American jets bombing Lyiba? That would be considered "outside influence". There are other documented cases of "outside" influnce. Why should people from saudi arabia be fighting in Lybia, that would be "outside influence". The same tactics as in Lybia are being used in Syria, but they are not working well.
You asked "who destroyed those countries?" . In the case of Lybia and Syria NATO supported military actions have destroyed a lot. Physicaly destroyed or politicaly destroyed which do you mean?
"what can you expect from that part of the world?"
I am not sure what you mean by this.You think that "this part of the world" is not capable of a standard that you approve of?

 

[GILSAN]

No, the arab spring should be the "wave of democracy" but its not. As posted I said secular. That means that that in the case of Lybia it was not an Islamic country , had a higher living standard than saudi arabia but should be replaced by a type of theocracy.

Lybia had a higher living standard than Saudi Arabia? You must be joking, surely...:lol: It's like saying that people in Detroit have a higher standard of living than people in Malibu, California. Hey, it's not April 1st yet. You probably meant to say that the Gaddafi family had a higher standard of living than Saudi Arabia, right?

Outside influce is not a "theory" of the arab spring. Notice the American jets bombing Lyiba? That would be considered "outside influence". There are other documented cases of "outside" influnce. Why should people from saudi arabia be fighting in Lybia, that would be "outside influence". The same tactics as in Lybia are being used in Syria, but they are not working well.
You asked "who destroyed those countries?" . In the case of Libya and Syria NATO supported military actions have destroyed a lot.

Your memory seems to have faded a bit, but let me remind you again. It was mostly France and the UK, that under the NATO umbrella intervened in Libya. The US was extremely reluctant to join in and had a smaller role in this operation.

But the most important fact that you omitted is that it was the Arab League countries who on at least 2 occasions begged the US or NATO to intervene in Libya when the rebels or whatever you want to call them had taken over most of the country and were already in Tripoli.

You see it was the coward Arab countries who asked the west to go to Libya, because these coward countries don't have the balls to directly intervene in another Muslim brother country, so they ask the west to do the dirty work for them.

What's amazing is that they are always putting down the west, while asking for a helping hand. :td:

As for Syria, yes it was a secular country but it was and still is ruled by the dictatorship of the Assad's (father and son) for so long that they never gave democracy a chance to flourish. Then again the Arab countries leaders don't want to know the meaning of democracy. It's probably part of their DNA. The only democratic country in that region is Israel.

If Bashar Assad hadn't been so greedy for power he would have made some important reforms the minute the Arab Spring took a hold in Northern Africa, reforms similar to what King Abdullah II of Jordan wisely did, which helped to stop any bloody revolution taking place there.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Ok yes you are right, it was NATO and not the US this time, that was in the 80s when the US bombed Lybia. However according to wiki
"More than 110 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles were fired in an initial assault by U.S. warships and a British submarine against Libyan air defences"
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn"]Operation Odyssey Dawn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector[/ame]



Yes I am serious Lybia was on the same or higher standard of living as Saudi Arabia under Gaddafi, not only that the human rights situhation was better than in saudi arabia,and it had the hightest GDP in Africa. Lots of oil in detroit?


The Arab Leauge does not speak for all countries, it is dominated by Qutar and Saudi Arabia. These are the two countires where most of the outside "rebels" in Lybia and Syria come from. So in fact these countries do have the balls, as there are sending marytars in holy jihad.


"Then again the Arab countries leaders don't want to know the meaning of democracy. It's probably part of their DNA. "
If you really think its "part of their DNA" I see no reason to discuss.


More info:
After government revenue, supported by rising oil prices, richly flowed once more, living conditions have clearly improved. The country now ranks 53rd on the HDI index, better than all other African countries and also better than the richer and Western-backed Saudi Arabia. Using “Government subsidies in health, agriculture and food imports,” along with “a simultaneous increase in household income,” could “extreme poverty” be virtually eliminated, stated the UNDP in its monitor of the millennium development goals of the UN. (Millennium Development Goals: Goal 1 – Goal 8, UNDP Libya Office)

The life expectancy rose to 74.5 years and is now the highest in Africa. It is now almost one and a half years higher than in Saudi Arabia, which was the reverse of the situation in 1980 (UNDP Database) The infant mortality rate declined to 17 deaths per 1,000 births and is not nearly as high as in Algeria (41) and also lower than in Saudi Arabia (21). (WHO, Global Health Indicators 2010) Libya is also ahead in the care of pregnant women and the reduction of maternal mortality. Malaria was eradicated completely.

According to the UNDP, a lack of human resources in health care still presents a problem, but “the gradual reintegration of the country into the international economy after the lifting of sanctions” is leading “to better availability of health care. The government provides all citizens with free health care and achieved high coverage in the most basic health areas.”

The illiteracy rate dropped to 11.6 percent in Libya, and is well below that of Egypt (33.6 percent), Algeria (27.4 percent), Tunisia (22 percent) and Saudi Arabia (14.5 percent). (See Human Development Report 2010)

The UNDP-calculated Education Index, which in addition to literacy also includes the number of pupils in secondary schools and university students, is even higher than that of small super-rich emirates Kuwait and Qatar, which can hardly be compared with the Arab territorial states. (See UNDP, Arab Human Development Report 2009 and UNDP, Human Development Report 2009)

The UNDP certified that Libya has also made “a significant progress in gender equality,” particularly in the fields of education and health, while there is still much to do regarding representation in politics and the economy. With a relative low “index of gender inequality” the UNDP places the country in the Human Development Report 2010 concerning gender equality at rank 52 and thus also well ahead of Egypt (ranked 108), Algeria (70), Tunisia (56), Saudi Arabia (ranked 128) and Qatar (94). Even Argentina (ranked 60) seems worse in this regard

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regional/arabstates/name,3442,en.html

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwXHJxOdfyA"]Was the CIA involved in Libya's revolution? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GILSAN]

Ok yes you are right, it was NATO and not the US this time, that was in the 80s when the US bombed Lybia. However according to wiki
"More than 110 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles were fired in an initial assault by U.S. warships and a British submarine against Libyan air defences"

Like I said, France and the UK did most of the work to enforce the No-Fly Zone that was urgently called for by the Arab League. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, must have at least 1500 warplanes between them. Why didn't these cowards go there themselves?

The Arab Leauge does not speak for all countries, it is dominated by Qutar and Saudi Arabia.

Arab League Asks UN For Libya No-Fly Zone
CAIRO — The Arab League called Saturday for the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, a surprisingly rapid and aggressive move for a bloc known more for lengthy deliberations than action.

Analysts said the call reflected both a widespread dislike of Libyan autocrat Moammar Gadhafi and member nations' attention to the wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping the Middle East, which has toppled leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and threatens others.

The 22-member Arab bloc, which had already barred Libya's government from taking part in League meetings, said Gadhafi's government had "lost its sovereignty." It also said the bloc would establish contacts with the rebels' interim government, the National Libyan Council, and called on nations to provide it with "urgent help."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/12/arab-league-asks-un-for-libya-no-fly-zone_n_834975.html

As you can see the Arab League consists of 22 countries, not just Qatar and Saudi Arabia

Qutar and Saudi Arabia. These are the two countires where most of the outside "rebels" in Lybia and Syria come from. So in fact these countries do have the balls, as there are sending marytars in holy jihad.

They send martyres for holy jihad? Yes, we all know what those do; they're very good at blowing up innocent people. Why don't they send foot soldiers instead?

Yes I am serious Lybia was on the same or higher standard of living as Saudi Arabia under Gaddafi, not only that the human rights situhation was better than in saudi arabia,and it had the hightest GDP in Africa. Lots of oil in detroit?

One of the best indicators to see the standard of living of a country is to check it's GDP Per Capita earnings.

Now if you go to Wikipedia it shows the following annual earnings per capita (per person).

Saudi Arabia = $26,343.00
Libya = $10,129.00

That's almost 3x more....I rest my case. :zzz:

 

[Kate]

We are talking about averages. The large royal family in SA must concentrate a good chunk of the nation's wealth. It's not like the income is distributed evenly.

 

[GILSAN]

We are talking about averages. The large royal family in SA must concentrate a good chunk of the nation's wealth. It's not like the income is distributed evenly.

Agree, but so did the Gaddafi family have a massive chunk of Libya's wealth, so that evens it out.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"As you can see the Arab League consists of 22 countries, not just Qatar and Saudi Arabia"
I never said that it is not made up of 22 countries. I claim that it is dominated by SA and Quatar. That is it.

"Like I said, France and the UK did most of the work to enforce the No-Fly Zone that was urgently called for by the Arab League. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, must have at least 1500 warplanes between them. Why didn't these cowards go there themselves?"

Again, they sent many foot soldiers in mercenary form. Not only that Qutar and SA bankrolled a lot of the "rebelion" and are doing the same in Syria.


"One of the best indicators to see the standard of living of a country is to check it's GDP Per Capita earnings.

Now if you go to Wikipedia it shows the following annual earnings per capita (per person).

Saudi Arabia = $26,343.00
Libya = $10,129.00

-Was that pre or post "revolution" ?

That's almost 3x more....I rest my case. "

--
Thats fine, would you like to get overly technical?

It only depends on what you interpert as "standard of living".

Simply put the people in Lybia were much better off then the people in SA.


The life expectancy - Higher
illiteracy rate - Lower
UNDP-calculated Education Index - Higher
gender equality - much higher

These things are not effected by one fam having a lot of money. There is no way that Gaddafi having lots of money would effect those averages. However the GDP could be influced by one fam having a lot of money.

Not only did the US shoot tomahawk missles, provide logistic and intelligence support and had CIA operatives on the ground.The US was involved with the "rebelion" -directly- .

 

[JB Lions]

-cancel-