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:

 

[verbster]

Almost 5 years later and all these douchebags can comment on is Bush, Cheney or Palin... Forget about the record $6.5 TRILLION their guy added to the national debt in less than 5 years, that's not relevant, Bush and his supporters? that's relevant.

When all else fails, you bring out the budget deficit. How much do you understand about how the national deficit is calculated? Please explain why and how this deficit is going to harm the US, and don't trot out the our-children -are-the -ones crap that we've all heard over and over with no explanation

And we know why their doing it, paint the opposition as evil, crazy, out of touch, racist, bigoted, sexist, Rich white men that don't care about minorities or the middle class... A tactic to win elections and mask Obama and the Democratic parties incompetence of the last 4 years
.

And maybe it's just the truth.

NPR, the tax payer funded news organization that has a left-wing bias, that NPR?

Tax-payer funded? Yes, if you think a whopping 2% is of any significance.

"In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[19] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[19] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[19][29] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[19]"

No you don't watch any of the Liberal news shows, NPR is balanced, because they have to be right?

Sometimes when you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep quiet.

 

[DU]

A "leaked" draft (or is that careful put into the public's hand) indicates that the UN managed to bribe enough "scientists" to create a report indicating that the seas are rising and are 95% sure humans are to blame... 95% what's the other 5% ? Aliens?

The report outlines different fake and panic causing scenarios to trying to suggest that oceans are rising. The IPCC also claims that their estimates are low to counter the "change denial machine". I'd rather we be called what we are... free thinkers who don't follow the masses like stupid sheep.

 

[RaiderGirl]

When all else fails, you bring out the budget deficit.

I brought out no such thing, What I did bring out is the National DEBT, you do know the difference between Debt and Deficit don't you?

Please explain why and how this deficit is going to harm the US,

Is this a test or do you honestly not know yourself?

How about a dramatic negative effect on long term term economic growth?
Slow growth,
A reduction in earned income,
Higher interest rates,
Lower value of the dollar,
Decline in the standard of living,
Weaker job markets,
Lower credit rating,
Higher taxes,
More Tax dollars paid toward interest, the US currently spends close to $400 Billion dollars per year for interest alone on the national debt, which is the 4th largest single budget item.

$17 TRILLION? No big deal, everything is FINE, Well just keep borrowing and keep printing more money and it will have NO adverse effect on the economy and our lives whatsoever, right?.. Besides, it's better for America to give that money to foreign countries that improve their economy while depriving ours.

Is this what you learned from NPR?

Tax-payer funded? Yes, if you think a whopping 2% is of any significance.

Yep, 2% or $2-$3 Million a year is of no significance, it's much better for Government to BORROW $2-$3 Million and give it to a News Network who have the financial ability to fund their own fucking station like other Networks do.

If you add up all the waste in Washington D.C. and cut it ALL out, we wouldn't have Trillion dollar deficits every year. and Obama would actually have his first Balanced Budget EVER... . Imagine that, imagine Government living within their means like most Americans do.

 

[verbster]

$17 TRILLION? No big deal, everything is FINE, Well just keep borrowing and keep printing more money and it will have NO adverse effect on the economy and our lives whatsoever, right?.. Besides, it's better for America to give that money to foreign countries that improve their economy while depriving ours.

Is this what you learned from NPR?

Yep, 2% or $2-$3 Million a year is of no significance, it's much better for Government to BORROW $2-$3 Million and give it to a News Network who have the financial ability to fund their own fucking station like other Networks do.

If you add up all the waste in Washington D.C. and cut it ALL out, we wouldn't have Trillion dollar deficits every year. and Obama would actually have his first Balanced Budget EVER... . Imagine that, imagine Government living within their means like most Americans do.

Cut out all the budgetary “waste” to save a trillion dollars and balance the budget? Please go to the pot thread and take a few deep breaths. Ignoring how amazingly complex the annual budget is, even if you could understand it (which we can’t), good luck deciding what is and isn’t waste. I’d pay admission to watch you try to figure out even what to do with any of the top expenditures (or even any of the minor expenditures, for that matter).

Cut out waste? I’ll make it easy for you. . . which would you like to call waste and cut: the military, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, two million federal workers . . . ? Heck, just cut them all…we won’t even miss them, right? Or maybe you prefer a very simplistic “fair and balanced” approach; in a three trillion dollar annual budget, just cut expenditures by a third across the board, to not show favoritism. Then leave it up to others to figure it out and take the heat. Yeah, that should fix everything.

The problem is that you’re so focused on an academic balanced budget as a cure-all that you don’t pay any attention to the harm it would cause getting there. I know that’s a trivial concern, but you know how it is with liberals. . . they get all concerned over school lunches for hungry kids and medical treatments for old folks.

Do you really think abruptly slamming shut the cash drawer would help more than hurt? If the money suddenly dried up, do you think “most Americans” would be able to live within their means, and what that would mean? And what about the 15-20% of Americans who are low or no income, the tens of millions under the poverty line? What about the old folks who can't get around, or the kids who don't get enough to eat? Should we just stop spending and let mother nature take its toll? That’s the trick, you see. It’s not just being financially responsible to the bottom line. It’s being financially responsible to the people the government was formed of, by and for.

 

[Theo Goodman]

The Truth:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7cK_1m_os"]What can the U.S. do to stop violence in Syria? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[verbster]

The Truth:

Well, sort of, if you believe there are only three options that probably won't work.

 

[GILSAN]

The Truth:
What can the U.S. do to stop violence in Syria? - YouTube

I think the truth is that the US is not sure what to do, not sure of who the good guys are (probably few) or who are the bad guys are (probably many)

 

[verbster]

I think the truth is that the US is not sure what to do, not sure of who the good guys are (probably few) or who are the bad guys are (probably many)

yeah, probably so.

The problem now is that President Obama drew a line in the sand about using biological/chemical weapons, probably without first discussing what responses his military leaders could effectively provide. So if it's proven beyond doubt that sarin gas or something was used, he now has to respond.

 

[GILSAN]

yeah, probably so.

The problem now is that President Obama drew a line in the sand about using biological/chemical weapons, probably without first discussing what responses his military leaders could effectively provide. So if it's proven beyond doubt that sarin gas or something was used, he now has to respond.

Getting involved in Syria will probably be even worse than getting into Iraq.

The US will not get in on its own. Maybe through NATO they will, but..... there's a big but, Russia (and China to a lesser extent) will not tolerate it.

I still haven't figured out who are the good guys in Syria.

 

[GILSAN]

If you are a bit confused about Syria (like I was) and the Middle East here is a short article from the Financial Times that should help clarify matters:

A short guide to the Middle East

From Mr K N Al-Sabah.

Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d57c9b66-0a76-11e3-9cec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cx8I3ecS

 

[Theo Goodman]

Doesnt prove anything but its a TRUE fact:

Countries that have not signed or radified the CWC:

Israel
Myanmar
Angola
Egypt
North Korea
South Sudan
Syria

Formerly
Iraq
Lybia

source of TRUTH [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention"]List of parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Lets see what the US has to say about the cwc
http://www.cwc.gov

also interesting considering current stances on Chemical Weapons
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

 

[JB Lions]

Looks like something might happen

"Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say"

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ia-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

 

[verbster]

Wonder if the US intelligence has any idea of where the chemical weapons are stored? Seems like they would want to get rid of them as the first priority rather than blowing up a runway of something.

 

[GILSAN]

Aren't the inspectors still there and beginning to look for proof? I still haven't seen any proof of which side used the chemical weapons, yet Joe Bidden is already telling us the it's the Syrian regime's fault.

This story seems to be repeating itself, when 10 years ago, Bush, Cheney and Colin Powell also did not allow the inspectors to finish their job so as to start the war

I may be wrong in thinking so, but it doesn't make any sense that the Syrian regime would use chemical weapons at a time when the inspectors are in the country and were apparently staying about 50km from where these massacres occurred.

Either the governments in collaboration with the MSM are lying again, or they are withholding information.

 

[twomoon]

To stop violence in Syria USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey need to stop the support of so called rebels.

And could anybody tell me how it is possible that USA is struggling against Al-Qaeda in Afganistan and all over the world, and now USA wants to support Al-Qaeda in the war with Assad!?

Hope USA, UK and other "warriors of democracy" won't start the campaing in Syria

 

[GILSAN]

To stop violence in Syria USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey need to stop the support of so called rebels.

And could anybody tell me how it is possible that USA is struggling against Al-Qaeda in Afganistan and all over the world, and now USA wants to support Al-Qaeda in the war with Assad!?

Hope USA, UK and other "warriors of democracy" won't start the campaing in Syria

American and some European governments attitude in Syria is quite confusing to me. That region is a powder keg, ready to explode. Israel is likely to get involved as well.

It's being said that the US & some Allies. will send a number of missiles and aerial strikes for a few days of punishment and then walk away. These strikes will inevitably kill civilians

The Russians have a naval base there, as well as hundreds of military advisers in Syria. If there is collateral damage and Russians get killed it could create a lot of nasty consequences.

 

[twomoon]

American and some European governments attitude in Syria is quite confusing to me. That region is a powder keg, ready to explode. Israel is likely to get involved as well.

It's being said that the US & some Allies. will send a number of missiles and aerial strikes for a few days of punishment and then walk away. These strikes will inevitably kill civilians

The Russians have a naval base there, as well as hundreds of military advisers in Syria. If there is collateral damage and Russians get killed it could create a lot of nasty consequences.

USA Middle East policy is generally quite confusing to me. Ah I forgot it's all about democracy. The results of democracy we could see now in Lybia.
I don't think Russians would be directly involved in war, but there is an other country who could and I guess would be directly involved - Iran. And Iran it's not Syria, Lybia or Egipt - the consequences could be very strong: for example for Israel or Arabian monarchies.
But who cares in USA. It's very easy to send missiles when you live on a totally separate continent.

And here is about WHO used chemical weapons - http://mirajnews.com/en/middle-east/8650-un-says-syrian-opposition-may-have-used-sarin.html
but who cares...

 

[GILSAN]

At least for now the UK's Prime Minister Cameron was forced to put Syria airstrike on hold and will wait for the UN chemical weapons report (that's what he says for now)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-action-await-UN-chemical-weapons-report.html

What happens if the UN Inspectors find out that the chemical attack was done by the rebels, will they go after the rebels and start helping Assad? 100.000 dead in 2 years and all of a sudden the UK and the US are in a hurry to test some more of the latest generation Cruise missiles and perhaps some other new army toys.

I'm sure Iran is also dying to test their latest missiles on Israel

I say let them sort it out themselves

 

[iowadawg]

I agree.
The USA should back off completely and just let Syria fight amongst itself.

Syria is just a lose-lose proposition for the USA.

 

[Kate]

The USA should back off completely and just let Syria fight amongst itself.

It's easy to say when you are not a neighboring country like Lebanon, where one resident out of four is already a Syrian refugee.