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]

HA....bet you he won't be going!
Ever wonder why Obama never mentions the killings in Chicago?
One of the most gun restricted cities?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama referred to ongoing gun violence in Chicago on Friday, saying he will “politicize” his push for more gun laws in the wake of the slaughter at an Oregon community college.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1008498/obama-gun-violence-time-political

That was 2 hours ago. I could find endless links of him talking about it or you can just Google it. Find some other sources besides those right wing sites that feed people nothing but bs and lies for traffic and ad revenue.

 

[iowadawg]

Oh, like those liberal sites feed you liberals nothing but bs and lies for traffic and ad revenue?

 

[JB Lions]

Oh, like those liberal sites feed you liberals nothing but bs and lies for traffic and ad revenue?

Is that not a real link I posted? What you posted was false and you get that from those right wing sites. What I posted was true and I got that from.......? So you see what the better source is. What you posted was flat out not true.

I can find stuff from 2 hours ago, 2 years ago

"President Barack Obama returned to the South Side of Chicago on Friday, bringing a message of hope and resilience in the face of the rising, demoralizing gun violence that has plagued his hometown."

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/chicago-obama-talks-about-the-work

"President Barack Obama name-checked his hometown Wednesday while announcing a $500 million package of executive actions and legislative proposals aimed at reducing gun violence.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...hicago-to-Address-gun-Violence-190602591.html

etc.

 

[Domainace]

You've taken a horrific act of one demented individual and twisted it into a post intended to cast hate, guilt and suspicion on millions of people. Shameful.

Oh nonsense. I simply said he appeared to be an atheist - all the rest is your wild interpretation.

He also listed himself as a Conservative Republican, you know the ones that say if we have even more guns, we would have less violence. See how ridiculous your statement was.

No, I don't. Nothing in your post indicated that it was ridiculous to suppose he was an atheist. Did you read my post, or did you just read Verbster's Cliffs Notes version?

Now I remember why I rarely post here anymore.

 

[Kate]

If the West are terrorists and evil like you say, why the hell are Muslims coming to Europe all the time?

Again, I repeat myself but:
The vast majority of refugees (generally speaking, not the just the Syrians or the Iraqis) are fleeing to neighboring countries. Or staying in the same region.
For example Lebanon got 1.5 million Syrians. Turkey, Jordan also got many.

The West only gets 'residual' immigration. The hysteria is just that - hysteria thriving on ignorance.
The vast majority of refugees from so-called third world countries, are staying in the third world.
Talking about invasion means that you have a siege mentality, and you have no clue.

If Lebanon can cope 1.5 million refugees (with difficulty nonetheless), richer countries can certainly help at least in the same proportions. But they won't because there isn't the will to do so.
I think it is bad calculation. Even if you are a total cynic, you should at least agree with the idea of providing some sort of relief to the vulnerable countries like Lebanon if you don't want to see the battlefield shifting to Lebanon. After Lebanon there is Israel, and then there is Europe.

 

[johname]

Hillary Clinton is consistently late. And voters are noticing.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/hillary-clinton-running-late-bernie-sanders/

 

[GILSAN]

Again, I repeat myself but:
The vast majority of refugees (generally speaking, not the just the Syrians or the Iraqis) are fleeing to neighboring countries. Or staying in the same region.
For example Lebanon got 1.5 million Syrians. Turkey, Jordan also got many.

That's a Liberal Media lie. Over 50% are NOT refugees! They are Illegals and Europe has been receiving tens of millions of illegals for the past 20-30 years, most of them being Muslim.
Enough is enough. We don't need more illegals.

The West only gets 'residual' immigration. The hysteria is just that - hysteria thriving on ignorance.

"Residual" immigration? You must be joking.. LOL. Just Germany alone is allowing 1 million this year and after that million is already installed in Germany and getting all those wonderful benefits for free, they can call their family over, after just 2-3 months. So if each of the 1 million has another 5-6 members of the family come over after 2-3 months, it means by early next year Germany alone would have allowed 6-7 million more Muslims to come and milk the system. And that's just for 2015!

There will be an even bigger invasion in 2016 and so on and so on.

If Obama was able to win the Nobel Peace Prize 8 years ago for doing nothing, Angela Merkel will surely win this year for doing even worse.

If Lebanon can cope 1.5 million refugees (with difficulty nonetheless), richer countries can certainly help at least in the same proportions. But they won't because there isn't the will to do so.
I think it is bad calculation. Even if you are a total cynic, you should at least agree with the idea of providing some sort of relief to the vulnerable countries like Lebanon if you don't want to see the battlefield shifting to Lebanon. After Lebanon there is Israel, and then there is Europe.

I would reluctantly accept helping out Lebanon and Turkey to keep the refugees and illegals there. After all, this confusion in Syria is mostly thanks to Arab meddling. It's their problem, not ours. Let the Gulf States take the burden of helping financially and taking in all these people.

If Muslims had come to Europe, integrated, accepted our laws and become productive members of our society, I would never be here arguing with you to keep them away. But no, they come here and now because of their sheer numbers in lots of big and smaller cities, they are ignoring our laws and pushing their backward culture and Sharia.

They can go practice their Sharia law in their own countries, not here.

The stupid Liberals just don't see this. They remind me of frogs in a pot of boiling water. They will get cooked and die, but will not jump off the pot. What a bunch of idiots.

As for the "battlefield shifting to Israel", all I can say is that the Arabs should be careful not to push Israel too far, because they could suffer a nasty, nasty surprise.

Lets not forget that Israel is reported to have 100 + nuclear warheads and if pushed to the limit, they will use them, and I'm on Israel's side

 

[GILSAN]

Only a very few Liberals like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins understand what I'm talking about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=146&v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

 

[verbster]

Only a very few Liberals like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins understand what I'm talking about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=146&v=LvvQJ_zsL1U

If liberals can understand Maher and Dawkins, they can understand you. Understanding doesn't necessarily mean agreement, though.

Read the first chapter, and you'll know why I recommended Zinn's book.

 

[verbster]

Oh nonsense. I simply said he appeared to be an atheist - all the rest is your wild interpretation.

Read your own post again: "Apparently, the murderer was an atheist. You know, those people who say that we would have peace if only there was no religion."

If all you meant was that he appeared to be an atheist, why did you add the second sentence?

 

[GILSAN]

Read the first chapter, and you'll know why I recommended Zinn's book.

I read about 15 paragraphs, then stopped. This guy portrays Christopher Columbus as a vicious good for nothing murderer and the local Indian population as inocent peaceful people.

Sounds like a Hollywood script written by some white hating Liberal Hollywood writer full of white guilt.

 

[GILSAN]

 

[verbster]

I read about 15 paragraphs, then stopped. This guy portrays Christopher Columbus as a vicious good for nothing murderer and the local Indian population as inocent peaceful people.

Sounds like a Hollywood script written by some white hating Liberal Hollywood writer full of white guilt.

Good grief . . . I suppose you think the holocaust is a Liberal Hollywood script, too. Do you think just because some historical people and events are exposed as the awful things they were, that it's not the truth? Just because it's a few hundred years ago, do you think that makes atrocities any less horrific?

The white-washed history in grade school books that hail the conquering invaders as great explorers is the Hollywood script. Are you saying you think Columbus was a noble man, who didn't decimate the indigenous people by killing and capturing them for slavery? Columbus's own Captain's log described how he admired how they would make such good slaves, and that's how he paid back his royal venture investment, cramming hundreds of captured Taino "Indians" aboard his ships and sending them back to be paraded on the streets and sold. On the island of Hispaniola, for several years, Columbus and his crews hunted, raped, killed and captured thousands of Taina people. Within four years of Columbus' arrival on Hispaniola, one-third of the original Indian population of Hispaniola, 100,000 people, had been killed or exported as slaves. So, yes, Columbus was a killer. You may choose not to believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

"White guilt" seems to be your new buzz word, once again meant as an insult an hurled at anyone who dares to rock your little conservative boat. History is not a matter of guilt; it's simply history. We aren't responsible for what happened before we were alive, but we are responsible for the continued distortion and lies we produce in our glossed-over versions of history that we pass on to future generations. And as long as we keep doing so, we should feel guilty for not telling the truth and learning from it.

You can choose to believe people like Columbus and Cortez were heroes or men to be admired or whatever, but deep down I think you know better. A lot of history is ugly, and that includes most of the early explorers that were really just trying to plunder anyone and anything of value. They held no regard for the people they considered inferior, and they murdered and enslaved the natives by the hundreds of thousands, yet we still teach kids they were "great" explorers and ignore their murderous deeds. Shit, we even gave Columbus a holiday.

 

[sofiapartner]

I will be happy if USA leave the world alone for a while. Enough is enough. We are sick of your $$$ games bringing us death, terror and wars. Now - Putin will do what you should have done in the last 3 years in Syria. Don't try to stop him, because Europe is going pro-russian with every move you make and soon we will be anti-american all the way. Talking about Eastern Europe in particular. But also I see strong anti-american and anti-liberal feelings in old Europe (France+Germany + all their northern puppies) as well.

 

[GILSAN]

Good grief . . . I suppose you think the holocaust is a Liberal Hollywood script, too. Do you think just because some historical people and events are exposed as the awful things they were, that it's not the truth? Just because it's a few hundred years ago, do you think that makes atrocities any less horrific?

The white-washed history in grade school books that hail the conquering invaders as great explorers is the Hollywood script. Are you saying you think Columbus was a noble man, who didn't decimate the indigenous people by killing and capturing them for slavery? Columbus's own Captain's log described how he admired how they would make such good slaves, and that's how he paid back his royal venture investment, cramming hundreds of captured Taino "Indians" aboard his ships and sending them back to be paraded on the streets and sold. On the island of Hispaniola, for several years, Columbus and his crews hunted, raped, killed and captured thousands of Taina people. Within four years of Columbus' arrival on Hispaniola, one-third of the original Indian population of Hispaniola, 100,000 people, had been killed or exported as slaves. So, yes, Columbus was a killer. You may choose not to believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

"White guilt" seems to be your new buzz word, once again meant as an insult an hurled at anyone who dares to rock your little conservative boat. History is not a matter of guilt; it's simply history. We aren't responsible for what happened before we were alive, but we are responsible for the continued distortion and lies we produce in our glossed-over versions of history that we pass on to future generations. And as long as we keep doing so, we should feel guilty for not telling the truth and learning from it.

You can choose to believe people like Columbus and Cortez were heroes or men to be admired or whatever, but deep down I think you know better. A lot of history is ugly, and that includes most of the early explorers that were really just trying to plunder anyone and anything of value. They held no regard for the people they considered inferior, and they murdered and enslaved the natives by the hundreds of thousands, yet we still teach kids they were "great" explorers and ignore their murderous deeds. sh*t, we even gave Columbus a holiday.

Hey, if you are so disgusted with Columbus and the other explorers, why don't you leave North America and go back to where your ancestors came from. That way the Native Indians will be very happy... or will they?

I always find it really amusing when Liberals, especially American liberals start talking about slavery and how bad the white slave traders were (which is true) but they never mention the fact that slavery had been going on in Africa for over a thousand years before the white man arrived there and the fact that all these slaves that were sold and traded, were rounded up and enslaved by their own black brothers to then be sold to Arabs initially and much later to the white traders.

It's allways a one sided blame game when the subject of slavery comes up. Slave trading involved two sides; the seller and the buyer. Both are to blame for the horrible crimes committed.

In fact I would say that those who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery are even worse than those bastards that bought them.

Go teach your twisted liberal history lessons to liberals filled with white guilt, because you'll never be able to convince me.

 

[verbster]

Hey, if you are so disgusted with Columbus and the other explorers, why don't you leave North America and go back to where your ancestors came from. That way the Native Indians will be very happy... or will they?

I always find it really amusing when Liberals, especially American liberals start talking about slavery and how bad the white slave traders were (which is true) but they never mention the fact that slavery had been going on in Africa for over a thousand years before the white man arrived there and the fact that all these slaves that were sold and traded, were rounded up and enslaved by their own black brothers to then be sold to Arabs initially and much later to the white traders.

It's allways a one sided blame game when the subject of slavery comes up. Slave trading involved two sides; the seller and the buyer. Both are to blame for the horrible crimes committed.

In fact I would say that those who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery are even worse than those bastards that bought them.

Go teach your twisted liberal history lessons to liberals filled with white guilt, because you'll never be able to convince me..

You've convinced me that I'll never convince you of anything.

But to get back to my point of how history is being glossed over, I see it's in the news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/publish...ologizes-for-textbook-calling-slaves-workers/

 

[johname]

The only write up of this I saw yesterday made it sound like they were dogging 'slavery' totally. Now seeing the graphic, in reality it clearly states they were slaves in the title.

Dont have grad students write the copy

 

[verbster]

The only write up of this I saw yesterday made it sound like they were dogging 'slavery' totally. Now seeing the graphic, in reality it clearly states they were slaves in the title.

Dont have grad students write the copy

Hmmm . . . .Half right/wrong is good enough, eh?

 

[johname]

I think your in argument mode. I'll avoid this mode.

 

[verbster]

I think your in argument mode. I'll avoid this mode.

You may be right/wrong.