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]

Perhaps its not so much political or non-political as it is real or contrived.

"...real or contrived"? Well, that covers a lot of ground. I didn't contrive the brawl they were in.

Liberals want so desperately for Sarah Palin to go away, having someone reject their elitest views so succinctly and publicly drives them insane.

Do you really believe that? Elitist views like, "Don't you know who we are?" screamed by Palin as her family left the brawl in a stretch Hummer? Succinct and classy, too. You betcha.

 

[RogueWriter]

No, you just contrived to make it important. Phhtttt.

 

[verbster]

No, you just contrived to make it important. Phhtttt.

Not much of anything Sarah says or does anymore is important.

 

[RogueWriter]

And yet you can't wait to hop on your bicycle and peddle over to the political ( or non yet-still-somehow-okay-when-it-is-a-liberal-posting political ) thread to talk about it. Curious.

 

[iowadawg]

There should be a freaking law that there can not be any type of political ads on tv!
Damn, both sides seem to enjoy lying about the other side.

 

[verbster]

And yet you can't wait to hop on your bicycle and peddle over to the political ( or non yet-still-somehow-okay-when-it-is-a-liberal-posting political ) thread to talk about it. Curious.

I don't understand your objections to me posting what I believe to be noteworthy or what you feel is some sort of bias or double standard that allows a liberal to post about a topic but not a conservative. Please explain.

As far as posting about Palin, your emotions are either clouded by the puppy love crush you have on her, or you're just a run of the mill hypocrite who professes to believe in freedoms, until it's something you disagree with or you think was posted for reasons you personally don't agree with. Feel free to judge my motives and question what or where I post something or even if I should be allowed to post. I'll give your opinion all the attention it deserves.

I find nothing at all "curious" about posting a comment about a brawl involving the Palins here or in the STSF. (And I did wait a few days.) Of course I posted about it. Why wouldn't I? Its an extraordinarily funny and interesting story. If I had video, I'd post that, too, so you could see your political soul mate being the power-hungry elitist shrew she is. She feeds on publicity, so let her gag on this. It deserves to be mentioned. Just like you and other conservatives would have done if this had been Obama's family or Biden's or Clinton's or Reid's or Pelosi's or any other well known Democrat or liberal. I didn't make it a national news item; the Palin's get all the credit for that. If you think posting about it in this forum is a contrivance to make it important, I think you're giving this forum too much credit.

I'll climb back on my bike now and peddle to another topic, where we will no doubt disagree yet again on who or what is important, relevant or out to lunch. However, I would sincerely like to hear your opinion on the Palin brawl and why there is no video of it because next thing you know, there will be brawl-deniers and claims that because there is no video, it never happened.

 

[GILSAN]

this family that gets into drunken brawls is blindly worshipped by a lot people who think thy have their shit together and wanted them in the white house. If you don't find that scary, that scares me even more.

No I don't find that scary at all, not after Bush and especially Obama. Every time I hear Obama speaking I feel like going over and destroying his teleprompter with my bare hands. Doesn't the man know how to talk without the help of a machine?

The only thing that Obama has an advantage over Palin is that he's visited all 57 States, while she's only been to 50

 

[verbster]

Came across this video. it's a few months old, and some people may have seen it, but if it's for real, it shows the kind of people we're going to arm against ISIS. Oh yeah, this is the first time ever for posting a Glenn Beck video. He seems genuinely concerned, naming both parties for what they're doing. Warning, I couldn't watch it all.

 

[GILSAN]

Came across this video. it's a few months old, and some people may have seen it, but if it's for real, it shows the kind of people we're going to arm against ISIS. Oh yeah, this is the first time ever for posting a Glenn Beck video. He seems genuinely concerned, naming both parties for what they're doing. Warning, I couldn't watch it all.

Yep, Obama, started by financing and backing what latter became ISIS. Now he's confused (also Republicans) who to back. Seems like he wants to back the Peshmergas (Kurds) which to me is probably a good idea as long as the goal is for the Kurds to create their own State, which Turkey, Syria and Iraq oppose.

But then we hear Obama is also going to back other Muslim groups there to fight the ISIS, which in my opinion is a terrible idea, because as I've said on previous posts, these people cannot be trusted. They are false like Judas, and they've proved it time and time again.

I say let the Muslims kill each other off and then tell the Arab States to sort it out themselves. Of course the Arab States being the cowards they always are, will ask America , the UK, France etc. to do the dirty work for them. When they've decimated each other out then the US and Allies can come in and do the clean up work that's necessary, because like I said, the cowardly, false Arab States are really good for nothing.

 

[Theo Goodman]

When did Lybia or Syria ask the USA, UK or France for help? Do these count as "arab states"? "Good for nothing"? Some are great at oil delivery.

 

[GILSAN]

When did Lybia or Syria ask the USA, UK or France for help? Do these count as "arab states"? "Good for nothing"? Some are great at oil delivery.

They didn't... it was the cowardly Arab League that asked the US, UK and France to intervene, in the case of Lybia, because, well they are cowards and cowards to me are good for nothing. Syria is a very different and confusing story.

 

[Theo Goodman]

the Arab League is not all Arabs or so called "Arab States" or muslims, the AL is dominated by Saudia Arabia (big suprise) , is it because they were cowards or because they saw Gaddaffi as a threat? Syria is not that confusing, foregin powers tried to insigate an "arab spring" there, same pattern, a secular authoritarian goverment gets removed and replaced with an Islamic one, that is what was attempted in Syria but since the majority of Syrians dont want that, it wont work. Also keep in mind that there is no "moderate" Syrian "opposition". The same groups that have already gotten support form the west have been killing Christians and Destroying churches left and right.

 

[GILSAN]

the Arab League is not all Arabs or so called "Arab States" or muslims, the AL is dominated by Saudia Arabia (big suprise) ,

So what would you call Saudi Arabia, an Asian State? The Arab league has 22 member countries, 7 of which are in North Africa, the rest in the Middle East. They basically have 2 things in common; They all speak Arabic and they are all majority Muslim countries.

is it because they were cowards or because they saw Gaddaffi as a threat?

Don't ask me that question. Ask the Coward Arab countries that support certain groups. These countries then ask the US and Allies to intervene militarily, because they never have the balls to do it themselves, in other words.... they are cowards

Syria is not that confusing, foregin powers tried to insigate an "arab spring" there, same pattern, a secular authoritarian goverment gets removed and replaced with an Islamic one, that is what was attempted in Syria but since the majority of Syrians dont want that, it wont work. Also keep in mind that there is no "moderate" Syrian "opposition". The same groups that have already gotten support form the west have been killing Christians and Destroying churches left and right.

Saudi Arabia was/is the main instigator, but like you say lots of countries interfered there, backing groups that ended up turning against them (ISIS). The only country with a sensible policy in the Syrian conflict has been Russia, but few people will admit that.

 

[Theo Goodman]

SA, Qutar, USA, UK, France vs. Syria, Iran, Hesballah, Russia (after Lybia fell I think the noticed they need to pay a lot more attention).
To put the rivaly and interests of Lybia and Saudia Arabia in context

Basicly the same exact or very simmilar discussion happened about every time the AL met and Gaddafi was alive.

 

[Domainace]

I suppose many people here know him, but John Mauldin's economic reports are a great way to stay on top of things. Reality based things. http://d21uq3hx4esec9.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/140920_TFTF.pdf

 

[verbster]

I suppose many people here know him, but John Mauldin's economic reports are a great way to stay on top of things. Reality based things. http://d21uq3hx4esec9.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/140920_TFTF.pdf

Interesting "letter"; lots of snazzy graphs and colors.

While he seems to make sense in some places, in others what appears to make sense is only half the story and is often made up. Here's an example of something totally made up for dramatic effect:

"'Rather than acknowledge the possibility that the current monetary and government policy mix might
be responsible for the protracted slump, Summers and his entire tribe cast about the world for other
causes. “The problem is not our theory; the problem is that the real world is not responding correctly
to our theory. Therefore the real world is the problem.'” That is of course not exactly how Larry
might put it, but it’s what I’m hearing."

This is just his opinion and a strange attempt to put unsaid quoted words into Summer's mouth. He even admits Summers didn't say it. That it's what he's "hearing." I wouldn't call that "reality based."

Here's an example of half the story:

"For example, almost everyone thinks
that the government’s being involved in student loans is a public good. We should help young people
with education, right? Except that John Burns released a report this week that shows that student

loans will cost the real estate industry 414,000 home sales. Young people are so indebted they can’t
afford to buy new homes. Collateral damage?"

What's left out is the alternative (and his solution), the alternative being no student loans, which would certainly end the debt burdened student . . . mostly because many of those students wouldn't be going to college. Plus, the thought process doesn't look into future home sales. Finally, he doesn't list out full numbers to back up his claim. It's awful hard to follow his financial transition from student loans all bunched together to one massive multi-billion dollar housing loss. He gives couple of percentages on one graph, but the other has nothing to compare to.

I guess my question about his letter addressing the bee in his bonnet (as he calls it), is what makes you think it is reality based? I see many places it's just opinion. Plus, isn't he advocating an economic structure aimed at the Fed that isn't being practiced?

 

[DU]

What's left out is the alternative (and his solution), the alternative being no student loans, which would certainly end the debt burdened student . . . mostly because many of those students wouldn't be going to college.

And is this necessarily a problem? The vast majority of student loans go to unfinished degrees and at for-profit schools that don't provide that great an education to begin with. I've always been a believe that post school education is not for everyone and should not be for everyone. Neither of my parents were college educated and neither of them needed to be to succeed in different ways.

People are spending $50,000 to get a degrees where the greatest selling point is 800 hours of internship (read, cheap labor).

Why are we advocating students taking out a loan to PAY for the right to WORK in an industry as a form of on the job training.

It's ABSURD.

 

[Domainace]

Interesting "letter"; lots of snazzy graphs and colors.

I'm glad you enjoyed the pictures

 

[verbster]

And is this necessarily a problem? The vast majority of student loans go to unfinished degrees and at for-profit schools that don't provide that great an education to begin with. I've always been a believe that post school education is not for everyone and should not be for everyone. Neither of my parents were college educated and neither of them needed to be to succeed in different ways.

People are spending $50,000 to get a degrees where the greatest selling point is 800 hours of internship (read, cheap labor).

Why are we advocating students taking out a loan to PAY for the right to WORK in an industry as a form of on the job training.

It's ABSURD.

If you'll read, you'll see I wasn't judging student loans; I was questioning the lack of data the author provided for his argument about the amount student loans were infringing on the real estate market.

As far as your mom and pop not going to college, mine didn't either, and they did okay, too. I was the first of my complete lineage to graduate from college, but I had to work and take out student loans to afford it, especially grad school. And, yes, they were a pain in the ass to repay, but I did. And for me it was worth it.

 

[verbster]

I'm glad you enjoyed the pictures

Many had very impressive color schemes. Some of them were like abstract art, compelling but difficult for me to understand. Then again, I admire dogs sitting at a table playing poker.