Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,471 Responses
- BusterBoy0
I just find the whole notion of partisan politics absolutely disgraceful. There's also many in the mass media that have a lot to answer for. Just so many extreme views that I'm sure for many of you guys over there it must be soul destroying at times.
- all the time. the partisan bs is horrible. but thats all ppl respond too. takes reason out of the picturedeathboy
- you slate liberals any chance to get then cry foul about partisanship, deathboy. It is dishonest to say otherwise.DrBombay
- you do know i can disagree with a side withotu being partisan. bc im not actually disagreeing w/ tthe side at alldeathboy
- but with that sides approach to the problem.deathboy
- But I am being partisan if I disagree with EVERYTHING republicans are saying these days?DrBombay
- You aren't as bright as you think you are.DrBombay
- my shinyiness isnt the issue. you have said straight up u hate republicans with passion. are you not party oriented?deathboy
- I never said I wasn't, but you deny you are. Fuck a republican.DrBombay
- well then i guess you havent understood a thing i have ever said.deathboy
- Your grammar is horrible, I am sure you are another username here, not exactly sure who.DrBombay
- But another one of you guys comes along every so often, you know everyone around here but no one knows you.DrBombay
- Get some courage and come out of anonymity.DrBombay
- i like my anonymity thx. yup my grammar is terrible. and nope this is my only handledeathboy
- ukit0
"The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation."
- And the looting and destruction of the middle class would be complete.TheBlueOne
- This would be horrible.DrBombay
- "radically " is a stretch nothing that PACs are not already doingBattleAxe
- DrBombay0
I was indoctrinated against my will into politics at a very young age:
- had one too. pull-ups were where I aced it.zenmasterfoo
- I could never got one of thosefooler2
- damn sit and reach killed me . could only get liek -4 inchesdeathboy
- BonSeff0
This bill is brought to you by: GloboChem
- TheBlueOne0
A brave new world: "A new class of global actors is playing an increasingly important role in globalization: smugglers, warlords, guerrillas, terrorists, gangs, and bandits of all stripes. Since the end of the Cold War, the global illicit economy has consistently grown at twice the rate of the licit global economy. Increasingly, illicit actors will represent not just an economic but a political force. As globalization hollows out traditional nation-states, what will fill the power vacuum in slums and hinterlands will be informal non-state governance structures. These zones will be globally connected, effectively run by local gangs, religious leaders, or quasi-tribal organizations – organizations that will govern without aspiring to statehood."
Great talk here:
http://video.google.com/videopla…
- BonSeff0
Robbie Michael - No one should be frozen in carbonite, or be slowly digested for a thousand years in the bowels of a sarlaac, just because they couldn't pay Jabba the Hut what they owe him. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day.
- ukit0
Why is Afghanistan so important?
A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.
Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)
Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.
Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.
- Ramanisky20
What do you guys make of this? .. it was emailed to me
sorry for the lengthDavid Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball. Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three capital cities: Washington D.C. ,Albany , New York , and Dakar , Senegal .. He attended HarvardUniversity , graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in history, which he obtained in 1976. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970 to 1976.
He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of theUnited States Naval War College. He has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College and Harvard University . Kaiser's latest book, The Road to Dallas, about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University Press.
Dr. David Kaiser
History Unfolding
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten...And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning..
As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.
And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely, he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of course,
How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ......... change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books.
So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though; and the world came to regret that he was not listened to.
Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.... All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..
I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe--and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.
David Kaiser
Jamestown , Rhode Island
United States- comparing Obama to Hitler. How novel. Don't you find the "be afraid" pitch a little overboard?monkeyshine
- In April 2009, an essay comparing Barack Obama to the rise of the Third Reich was wrongly [1] attributed to Kaiser; Snopes.com [2] traced the essay to an anonymous commenter on Pat Dollard's blog.DrBombay
- Snopes.com [2] traced the essay to an anonymous commenter on Pat Dollard's blog.DrBombay
- To take some half-truths and stretch into the "Obama iz hitlerz" argument is a FAILTheBlueOne
- Wherever this guy is a "history professor" is somewhere you don't want to send your childrenTheBlueOne
- uh yea castro is closerdeathboy
- We all go to great lengths to find reasons for our illusions ...rayborn3000
- monkeyshine0
So did any of you actually hear the Obama education speech? I just read a transcript and I'm mystified by the controversy. Really? Parents kept kids home to keep them from hearing from the President of the U.S? And I thought once Bush was out of office I wouldn't have to feel embarrassed by the behavior coming out of my country. Unreal.
- DrBombay0
Comment from the CNN story about the speech:
I honestly beleave that he should be taking care of his "promises" and the war besides bringing up another major topic to deal with in our country. Mr President needs to kno that right now isnt a good time to be bringing up more tragedys in our nation as we speak. People are dying everyday in Iraq and he wants to talk about report cards??? I agre with bjnj the people elected smiles, not leaders. Im a high school junior and i dont wana wach his speach. I dont know why he is trying to "motavate" us. We allready have enogh becuse of the test we have to take to graduate.
---
wow.- You made that shit up.
Know won iz that stupidRamanisky2
- You made that shit up.
- bliznutty0
- are you wearing your anarchy mask while you are posting?DrBombay
- yes you twatbliznutty
- Rebelling is more fun ... support him then rebel him! It's a riot party!rayborn3000
- johndiggity0
just pointing the fingers in the other direction
http://www.examiner.com/x-13572-…- its two sides of the same coin - the left & right fight all day - then have dinner together at nightbliznutty
- bliznutty0
Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up
http://www.reuters.com/article/p…
..
No matter what your views are on 9/11, Sheen is asking the thinking public to look at how many members of the 9/11 Commission itself have questioned the official story, along with the scores of other highly credible former and current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials, scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars who have all publicly denounced the fraud that continues to masquerade as the official 9/11 story.- He's basically saying that if you don't like Bush Policies.. then investigate 9/11 rather than continue thembliznutty
- ukit0
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-trea…
Somehow, though, health reform is not dead. Despite all of the setbacks and all of the missed opportunities--despite this train wreck of a month--the situation remains remarkably similar to what it was before the recess. Significant health care legislation is likely to pass, particularly if Obama manages to give a good speech on Wednesday night. And while the possibilities for what that legislation might accomplish have certainly diminished, mostly for worse, it’s not clear how much they have diminished--and to what extent progressives may yet have the power to change that fact.
Here is where the debate stands, based on interviews with about a dozen key players spanning the administration, Congress, and broader reform community:
Things certainly weren't looking this promising as recently as ten days ago, when the status of legislation remained precisely what it was before the recess. Four congressional committees had passed health reform bills, but the fifth and perhaps most crucial one--the Senate Finance Committee--remained stuck. Chairman Max Baucus hadn’t been able to forge a consensus within the “Gang of Six,” the bipartisan group he’d convened to hammer out a bill that could claim at least some Republican support. This was said to be crucial because Democrats needed a few Republicans in order to get the 60 votes necessary for breaking the inevitable filibuster. Trying to use the reconciliation process, in which filibusters can’t block a simple majority from passing bills, was said to be impractical and too divisive.
But then the reality about the Gang of Six started to set in, particularly at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Mike Enzi and Charles Grassley, two of the three Republicans, made clear through statements and actions they wanted no part of reform--that their goal was to stop Obama's proposal from becoming law. That prompted terse dismissals from the White House, which focused all of its energies on the third Republican, Maine’s Olympia Snowe. As my colleague Suzy Khimm has reported, Snowe has been negotiating about health care in good faith. By all accounts, she wants a bill and she wants a good bill. And if her notions of a good bill don’t always gibe with those of liberals, they’re closer than those of some Democrats, including some of her colleagues on Finance.
The White House made clear that it saw Snowe as a partner--and that it was willing to write a bill with her, even if it had to do so itself. At the same time, White House allies started talking about the reconciliation process--not to dismiss it, as they had before but to suggest it might work after all. Key players inside the administration and on Capitol Hill began suggesting in background conversations that reconciliation, although not ideal, could produce meaningful legislation. (One knoweldgeable source challenged the prevailing wisdom that the parliamentarian would knock out provisions to create insurance exchanges, a crucial piece of reform.) Nobody was talking about it as a first choice option. But the change in tone was unmistakable and, I assume, not at all accidental.
Most of these developments took place last week, culminating in perhaps the most intriguing news of all: Baucus was finally offering legislative framework to the Gang of Six. He distributed that framework over the weekend with a request for feedback before Obama's speech on Wednesday--a clear indication that he realizes his window for action is closing.
- GeorgesII0
man, every week that passes gives me a lot to think about how dumb is the general Us populace
-
read this article then read the comments,
-
some are blaming Obama (serious long term memory problem), others the jews, people are saying the UN should move to paris, there's even one citing the bible, people expecting the return of Jesus...in short, some Americans are going nuts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finan…
- ukit0
1936 - FDR speech from a long forgotten time when liberals in America weren't ashamed of their own ideology
- Great vid. Amazing how that speech is as relevant today as it was 133 years ago.IRNlun6
- ... "73 years"IRNlun6
- think he said the underlining agenda perfectly. to subjugate people and be their master.deathboy
- tied it all up in the conclusiondeathboy
- That's an extremely poor argument. History has proven your point to be absolutely false.IRNlun6
- its the only outcome with such philosophy. id say u see it today even if its subtle or defined differentlydeathboy
- http://www.worldpoli…deathboy
- nothing scaryier. all u have to do is ask yourself how and who will provide and u see who is master and who is slavedeathboy
- I have no idea who and what you support but to me nothing is scarier than corporate interest superseding the publics interest.IRNlun6
- ... interest. I'm aware that the will of the people is not represented currently but I will continue to support it non-the-less.IRNlun6
- Our government isn't some nefarious entity it's a representation of we the people. At least that's how it's was supposed to be...IRNlun6
- ... supposed to be.IRNlun6
- i dont blame corporate interests as mush as i do the gov. do you blame a parent who gives its kid beer when the kid asksdeathboy
- or the parent. the gov has the power to leave litigation alone so as not to serve corporate interests.deathboy
- Yes. That's right FDR was our dictator. Yup. Just like Hitler. And Mussolini. We live in a vast totalitarian state for 73 years now.TheBlueOne
- years now. Sure thing.TheBlueOne
- im not sure a gov can represent the will of the people. since their is no such thing. will of one yes.deathboy
- oh and corporate interests vs mob interests are no different and a gov shouldnt cater to such thingsdeathboy
- man blue why do you always have to say such things like hitler and stuff. kind over shooting it arnt udeathboy
- It's not mob rule, it's called democracy. Not trying to be insulting, are you an anarchist?IRNlun6
- nope. what is a mob? woudl u prefer i say a majority? and do u know the purpose of a majority, a union, a mob?deathboy
- of course i'd use my terminology different but thinking of fdr values id say he wants mob ruledeathboy
- You're playing semantics. There is a distinction between a mob and a political majority.IRNlun6
- yes in the case of fdrs policy, and his economic bill of rights hes was going for mob rule.deathboy
- and msot majorities always want to take away the rights of the minority. in those cases theyre mob, if theyre notdeathboy
- then theyre likely in no need of a party/group/org and theyre fine. as long as parties or collective sorts are involved in politicsdeathboy
- the political system the percentage of mob rule is high. why would u have a group otherwisedeathboy
- hey man I have no idea who you are but trying to follow your reasoning makes my head hurtukit
