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]

"Instead you deflect from it.. I asked the question first, so have the balls to answer it and spare me with nonsense like this"

Hypocrite much? You've been doing that with the marriage definition. Yet again, if it's growning inside the woman's body, her decision. You don't have to like the answer, but it's mine. Like I said, we disagree on this one.

Marriage, I posted it already. Here it is again, these make sense to me, my definition:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex or same sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

a social union or legal contract between people that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.

Now, for like the 4th time, stop dodging the question. What is your issue with it, you don't need my definition for your answer, but I gave it to you anyway. Will you dodge yet again?

The Tea Party/Occupy stuff. As I said, criminals look for opportunity. The Tea Party folk, show up, hate and go home. Occupy means something different doesn't it. They usually hang out, camp, spend the night. More opportunity. I've already pointed out a few silly stats, here's another, the suicide. The reality is, there are people depressed that want to kill themselves. Some of these people go and do that at various places. Just this month there was somebody that committed suicide in the infield of a Nascar event. You mention liberal, even tho I pointed out to you, most consider themselves independent. With stuff like this, it usually looks bad on the person in power, the President. Do you think these people want to make Obama look bad, if they're a bunch of liberals? And like I said, I didn't think too much of this movement myself, for the reasons already stated above.

"As for Romney, he was my LAST choice during the primaries and I would of much rather saw Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann or Paul win the nomination, anybody BUT Romney"

Bachmann really? The pray the gay away candidate? Which was funny because she had the obviously gay husband so a) it didn't work and b) she's in the party that doesn't really like gays. She's a nut.

 

[verbster]

Once again, show me how you consider conservatives the tolerant party. It's not by bringing up OWS stats; that's just misdirection, as always. it should be easy for you to show how conservatives are more tolerant of illegal immigrants, and how they want to grant them citizenship? How about abortion? Where is the tolerance? Liberals are for a choice between having an abortion or not. They don't agree with the way conservatives want to draft laws and constitutional amendments meant to regulate and force women to a woman to give up the choice to have an abortion and be forced to carry the baby. How is that being tolerant? That's the main difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals would rather allow both sides of an issue to exist, even if they don't like one. Conservatives only want the side they believe in to be allowed and enforced. They want to force their beliefs upon everyone, leaving no choice at all in the matte. How is that tolerant?

 

[Theo Goodman]

Boo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-preparing-to-send-lethal-arms-to-syrian-opposition-officials-say/2013/04/30/3084d0d4-b1a6-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story_1.html

 

[RogueWriter]

Once again, show me how you consider conservatives the tolerant party.

Liberal elitists always claim to be 'tolerant', lol, that just cracks me up. One of the largest lies/myths they promote about themselves. I would imagine the 50 million or so babies that elitists have killed over the years would beg to differ on a liberals definition of tolerance.

Oh, Obama has been tolerant of the Syrian leadership, allowing 70,000 civilians to be slaughtered as he ho-hummed his way through an election year. Obama's attitude in 2012 to Syria: "Sorry, Syrian civilians, can't help you, might reflect poorly in my campaign polls. Wouldn't be prudent." Tolerant schmolerant. Liberals bear a closer resemblance to flatulent bullies than beacons of tolerance.

 

[DU]

Oh, Obama has been tolerant of the Syrian leadership, allowing 70,000 civilians to be slaughtered

Why we focus on Syria and not, for example, the
260,000 Somalis that died last year of starvation?

Why did no one care about the 5,000,000+ killed in the 2nd Congo was in the late 1990 early 2000s?

What's the political motivation with Syria for everyone?

 

[iowadawg]

Then we have the RACISTS on the left!
And the worst racists on the left are black.

Obama housing nominee: Most white people won’t vote for black candidate, should be excluded from ‘democratic process’

Read on HERE.

Okay, see all you liberals next week or so.

 

[JB Lions]

Oh, Obama has been tolerant of the Syrian leadership, allowing 70,000 civilians to be slaughtered as he ho-hummed his way through an election year. Obama's attitude in 2012 to Syria: "Sorry, Syrian civilians, can't help you, might reflect poorly in my campaign polls. Wouldn't be prudent." Tolerant schmolerant. Liberals bear a closer resemblance to flatulent bullies than beacons of tolerance.

Do you care about the Americans that would be killed/injured getting into another conflict? Or that most American's don't support going into Syria? Or that we're trying to wind down the other wars? Or you just like more war?

It's a tricky situation. Under every President something is going down somewhere, where somebody could have used some help. Just look at Africa and the genocides, wars etc. Would you have supported Bush or any other Republican President getting involved in stuff like that?

In this situation, options are still being looked at, who knows, we might get into this one as well.

In the end, it's Conservatives trying to take away womens' rights, keep others from having rights. There's nothing tolerant in that. Even to the extreme of banning the sale of sex toys - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act

"The law's most outspoken backers have been a coalition of Conservative Christians led by Dan Ireland of the Alabama Citizens' Action Program. Ireland has defended the law on the grounds that "laws are made to protect the public" and "sometimes you have to protect the public against themselves."

Thanks Conservatives, from protecting the public from sex toys. So where exactly is this Republicans are all about less government? Oh, that's right, it's a myth.

It's pretty laughable to put Conservatives and tolerance in the same sentence.

 

[verbster]

Liberal elitists always claim to be 'tolerant', lol, that just cracks me up. One of the largest lies/myths they promote about themselves. I would imagine the 50 million or so babies that elitists have killed over the years would beg to differ on a liberals definition of tolerance.

Oh, Obama has been tolerant of the Syrian leadership, allowing 70,000 civilians to be slaughtered as he ho-hummed his way through an election year. Obama's attitude in 2012 to Syria: "Sorry, Syrian civilians, can't help you, might reflect poorly in my campaign polls. Wouldn't be prudent." Tolerant schmolerant. Liberals bear a closer resemblance to flatulent bullies than beacons of tolerance.

Here it goes again. I ask to be shown how conservatives are more tolerant than liberals, and I get the same misdirecting rants against liberals. as conservatives always do.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"Oh, Obama has been tolerant of the Syrian leadership, allowing 70,000 civilians to be slaughtered "
No, Obama has been supporting the FSA all along allowing them to kill civilians and rage war against christians with the goal of establishing an Islamic state. Using the same bunch of outside forces that were used in Lybia. Its not a "poplular" uprising in Syria but outside forces that have infiltrated the country -supported by Qutar, Saudi Arabia and the US - NATO. Why? That would be speculation. Since nobody could produce proof to the geo-strategy of the US or another country they would be deemed a "lune" "conspiracy theorist" or some other name to give any answer to "why". Why now? Maybe because the rebels are losing and whenever that starts to happen suddenly the topic of chemical weapons comes into the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civV8flfPxo

 

[RogueWriter]

Do you care about the Americans that would be killed/injured getting into another conflict? Or that most American's don't support going into Syria? Or that we're trying to wind down the other wars? Or you just like more war?

Funny, I didn't say a single thing about going to war, about getting Americans killed or injured - but you, a liberal jumped right in. Maybe liberals ARE more violent than they've been given credit for so far.

Here it goes again. I ask to be shown how conservatives are more tolerant than liberals, and I get the same misdirecting rants against liberals. as conservatives always do.

Not misdirecting in the least, simply finding myself mildly amused that the elitist left still thinks so much of themselves, with all the evidence to the contrary surrounding them

 

[JB Lions]

Funny, I didn't say a single thing about going to war, about getting Americans killed or injured - but you, a liberal jumped right in. Maybe liberals ARE more violent than they've been given credit for so far.

Well, elaborate. Besides U.S. training and humanitarian support, thinking about sending lethal arms, you want Obama too.........

 

[verbster]

Funny, I didn't say a single thing about going to war, about getting Americans killed or injured - but you, a liberal jumped right in. Maybe liberals ARE more violent than they've been given credit for so far.



Not misdirecting in the least, simply finding myself mildly amused that the elitist left still thinks so much of themselves, with all the evidence to the contrary surrounding them

Of course it's misdirection. "Maybe liberals ARE more violent than they've been credit for so far" is classic. It tries to get the reader thinking about a 'maybe' statement that addresses nothing instead of responding to the issue at hand . . . which was tolerance.

Another form of misdirection is labeling liberals elitist and egocentric (and flatulent bullies?) in addition to insinuating they are violent. That's in addition to another conservative stating that the liberals are racist and that black liberals are the worst racists. Quite the claim. And since you brought it up again, what I find mildly amusing is conservatives claiming they want less government interference and more personal freedoms, at least until they inevitably invoke abortion. Then it's create a constitutional amendment to strip individuals of their freedom to choose. By the way, I've yet to hear what the penalty for abortion would be should the tolerant conservative Republicans get their way. I presume it would be premeditated murder with a death penalty (by stoning?) for the woman and anyone involved in the conspiracy to end a life? Sounds about right, yes? That is if the coat-hangar back alley abortion doesn't bleed out the woman first. Of course, I don't expect the male who impregnated the woman would be punished at all. After all, it's the female's fault for getting pregnant, right? She should have been taking those pills that prevent the act of procreation. Oh, darn, would banning the pill be in the amendment, too? it appears to go against a major part of Christian religion. Or does life begin at proven conception? If so, the morning after pill would be illegal, too, especially for rape victims. (What a black market there would be!) Wouldn't want those rape victims to find a loophole to not carry to term. After all, that baby's life is more important than the woman's. She can have complications and die, but as long as that baby survives, all is well. Those darn women just need to go without sex. Maybe standard issue chastity belts?

I'm sure I've overstated the conservative position on pregnancy and abortion. So, if you can get over your mild amusement (which, when presented as smugly you do, smacks of the same elitism you supposedly find amusing), I look forward to seeing your evidence that it's the conservatives who are socially tolerant, caring, people-oriented folks, not those bleeding heart, tree-hugging liberals who only care about money and themselves. And I look forward to reading what your rules and punishments would be if conservatives had their way with the topic of abortion, contraception and whatever other sexual freedoms that need to be government regulated and punished. Think we should bring back public floggings and removal of the female clitoris?

"Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." Yup, it's the definition of a conservative.

 

[JB Lions]

A Republican admitting other Republicans are more concerned with depriving Obama of a "political and legislative victory", instead of good policy. You know the one where over 90% of Americans were for.

"Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who crafted a proposal with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to extend background checks to firearms purchased at gun shows and online, said the measure failed to win the 60 votes it needed to win passage due to Republican politics."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ailed-because-of-republican-politics#comments

Obstructionist Party, I hope they feel it in the primaries and future elections.

 

[Domainace]

Lemme see if I got this straight. Conservatives are intolerant because:
1-They don't tolerate what they (not without reason) consider to be murder of babies. So intolerance of murder is just plain old nasty intolerance.
2-They want to stop people from buying sex toys.

Well, it's a shame when a busybody government comes after our sex toys. Except it's pretty obvious that not going to happen. I might also point out that sex toys are freely available in far more oppressive countries, where you disappear for expressing a political opinion. Those governments are often quite happy for the populace to focus on their right to sex toys. At least until they have time to get around to them.

Whatever someone's views on this topic, conservatives are (in theory at least) in favor of smaller government. And small governments can't take away your sex toys. Leftists ("liberal" in the modern perversion of English) believe in huge government. And huge governments can take away anything they want from you. I'd rather have an intolerant small government than an intolerant big government.

I don't know why I'm posting here, because it's all common sense. Either you see the train coming or you don't. Or you do, and you think it's a pizza delivery.

 

[verbster]

Lemme see if I got this straight. Conservatives are intolerant because:
1-They don't tolerate what they (not without reason) consider to be murder of babies. So intolerance of murder is just plain old nasty intolerance.
2-They want to stop people from buying sex toys.

Well, it's a shame when a busybody government comes after our sex toys. Except it's pretty obvious that not going to happen. I might also point out that sex toys are freely available in far more oppressive countries, where you disappear for expressing a political opinion. Those governments are often quite happy for the populace to focus on their right to sex toys. At least until they have time to get around to them.

Whatever someone's views on this topic, conservatives are (in theory at least) in favor of smaller government. And small governments can't take away your sex toys. Leftists ("liberal" in the modern perversion of English) believe in huge government. And huge governments can take away anything they want from you. I'd rather have an intolerant small government than an intolerant big government.

I don't know why I'm posting here, because it's all common sense. Either you see the train coming or you don't. Or you do, and you think it's a pizza delivery.

Common sense? You'd rather have an "rather have an intolerant small government than an intolerant big government" because the small intolerant government won't take away your sex toys? (How did the liberation of sex toys become part of the conservative platform?)

Abortion. Again. You call the abortion murder, so it's the taking of life that's the issue? Or is it limited to just the removal of a fertilized egg that you're concerned with, not the millions murdered through genocide or from hunger and disease?

 

[DU]

conservatives are (in theory at least) in favor of smaller government. And small governments can't take away your sex toys. Leftists ("liberal" in the modern perversion of English) believe in huge government.

This is the same old argument that is meaningless.

What is small vs large?

Employees? Budget? Income? Surplus? Reach?

It's unfortunate that it's a term that is used by everyone in a totally misleading sense.

One side might, as a hypothetical argument, want a smaller govt (benefits spending) but a larger govt (manning a a fence with Mexico or DHS).

There is also scope within that. Some may want smaller govt by reducing spending public servants (say teachers.fireman) in favor of privatisation but have larger private sector spending (through private industry who provide efficiencies of the market). Others may want no spending on public roads believing that private and free enterprise will pick up where it is needed. The whole "we built that" argument.

The reality is:

Upper class needs the middle class to work for it.
Middle class needs the lower class to scare it shitless.
Lower classes are generally fucked (with the odd exception to continue the american dream fantasy).

It's all very simple and yet complicated. The absolutist truth is that a large population of people that hate the safety net are one board room decision away from complaining they don't have it. I knew a staunch republican who constantly bitched about people "not working for a livin" and not "taking care of themselves" who had the gall to say all this while stopping payments on his mortgage being told it would take 18 months for them to catch up to him... I know really liberal people making 100K+ working for a charity.... responsibility is earned or lost by all parties and all kinds of people.

A lot of people "taking advantage" of it would willingly swap with anyone who had a decent job. Every striation of the classes has issues... the poor misuse food stamps, the middle class cheat on taxes, and the rich fix interest rates and scratch each others backs.

I don't know why you all want to fight each other all the time. Perhaps you should all realize you are all on the same side.

And you're losing.

 

[JB Lions]

I brought up the sex toys example (in Alabama) just to show how ridiculous/intolerant the right can be. Something that around half of the country uses. Something you can buy at Amazon.com, your local Walmart or drugstore (Walgreens, CVS). A sex toy.

Or the One Million Moms upset at this JCPenney commercial

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XtS7I50Gwk"]Ellen DeGeneres' JCPenney Christmas Ad Piqued One Million Moms - YouTube[/ame]

Can you tell me what's wrong with the commercial? Nothing to most people but for them it had Ellen DeGeneres in it and she's a lesbian. Oh noooooooooo.

Or the Parents Television Council, which is primarily composed of the right, complaining about stuff like Joe Flacco saying a cuss word late at night after winning the Super Bowl, actually filing an FCC complaint. Them complaining about R-rated movies or shows like Family Guy, cartoons made for adults, shown at night.

All that is ridiculous. Most of that coming via the Christian Right, a big block of the Republican Party. The same block trying to take away rights, keep others from having it.

There's no tolerance there, just backwardness.

 

[RogueWriter]

Liberals are so tolerant.

 

[JB Lions]

You guys are really stuck on that abortion issue, huh. So concerned with another woman's body. If you guys were really concerned about it, I would think you would be more pro-birth control.

For those Pro-Life, what are your views on birth control? Are you against it like the loony Santorum?

Clearing out some bookmarks, ole Ron Paul

"Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...Paul-slams-Boston-police.-Has-he-gone-too-far

 

[Domainace]

I brought up the sex toys example (in Alabama) just to show how ridiculous/intolerant the right can be. Something that around half of the country uses.

"Conservatives" ban sex toys. "Liberals" ban large soft drinks. Which is more ridiculous? I'll leave that to you.

I put the words in quotes above because real conservatives don't want the government to tell us what toys we can buy. Real liberals don't want to control how people live their personal lives. Both words are so misused as to be meaningless these days.

Since I can't control idiots and megalomaniacs, I'd be happy just to see them with less power. That means less government. A 90% revenue cut across the board - let people work out which programs they want to save and which ones they want to dump. Won't ever happen, unfortunately. Americans will see a 90% cut in their wages before that happens.

Regarding abortion, I'm not in either camp. If I was forced to choose, I would probably choose to allow it within certain parameters. Nobody is going to change their mind on this, but it would be nice if the pro-abortion side would recognize the valid points made by the other side, rather than just pretending that ending an incipient human life is the same as having a mole removed.

I'm all for birth control, except those condoms with bumps, ribs, or the frilly things on the end. They're dangerously close to being sex toys