USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Placebo 29]

This thread is to discuss USA politics only, anything related more to topics such as Iraq or war on Terror should go into those threads.

The standard rules apply but you should especially take note of the no flaming/flame baiting rules, when discussing politics it's very easy to get caught up in the passion of the subject and allow passion to become outright arguing (flaming) or to antagonise other people because you don't agree with them (flame baiting), if you see someone flaming/flame baiting do not respond in kind, report the post to a moderator and the incident will be dealt with by us.

Allowing this thread to develop into flaming/flame baiting through participation of such actions risks the future of political debate on these forums so everyone has a responsibility to work together to keep the debates mature, articulate, polite and courteous.

[Acecombat 0]

I would like to comment on Alberts posts posted in the POLL thread but now tis locked so this seems the best place to do it:

Now wait up there , why is Saudi Arabia all red , i wont vote for that nitwit Bush and i am sure neither do most of the people , why would they i cant see any reasons for the public to do it , maybe the ruling elite might ...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

The allies of the Evil Empire It is really strange how Saudi Arabia, America's staunchest ally in the Middle East (apart from Israel) is also Bin Laden's biggest supporter and recruitment base Its like in South America, the ruling elite are there by virtue of the American State Department That is how you do not conduct foreign policy...you reckon after 60 yrs someone should start realising this

[EiZei 0]

Don't think poland would prefer Bush too.

[denoir 0]

Speaking of maps, laughed my ass of at this one:

Future of North America?

[Akira 0]

Well. Continuing to take "pre-emptive" war on to its next logical conclusion, the US is preparing to put weapons in space against the "Outer Space Treaty". Bush's re-election of course paved the way for this.

Link Goodness

Quote[/b] ]US ready to put weapons in space

Defence expert says America is likely to ignore treaty ban

Mark Townsend

Sunday November 7, 2004

The Observer

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.

The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.

Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

This week's meeting, held by the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), will also discuss whether Britain can restrain a US administration intent on strategic control of space.

Next year's budget for the US Missile Defence Agency includes funding for research into the development of 'space-based interceptors'. Although the funding allocated to develop lightweight ballistic missile parts is only Å7.5m, further details have emerged of a more ambitious programme to site weapons in space.

Plans for a 'thin constellation of three to six spacecraft' in orbit, which would target enemy missiles as they took off or landed, are planned, according to Hitchens. The document, said Hitchens, signals that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which outlaws the use of weapons in orbit, will be ignored.

Of equal concern to some UK defence experts is Britain's agreement in principle to station US interceptor missiles at RAF Fylingdales, North Yorkshire. Participation in the missile defence programme means that Britain is already 'locked into' a programme that could ultimately include space warfare, say those who are monitoring developments.

'If the UK government tries to argue that it is participating in missile defence, but not in the weaponisation of space, either officials have been duped or they are being disingenuous,' said Hitchens.

Suggestions of a deepening relationship between Britain and America over missile defence surfaced again last week. A parliamentary statement from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to Labour MP Llew Smith conceded that the MoD has sent two experts to work at the US Missile Defence Agency. Another two will be sent next year.

In a separate debate last week, defence minister Lord Bach admitted that the US was encouraging Britain to become involved in its missile programme. 'The US has offered to extend coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK and other allies, should we require them,' he said.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I have just discovered Bush's agenda - he tries to find as many treaties and de-facto treaties as possible, and tries to destroy as many as he can within 2 presidential terms - the work of 60 yrs ruined in 2 presidential terms!!!

[bn880 5]

Speaking of maps, laughed my ass of at this one:

Future of North America?

http://members.shaw.ca/ianking/junk/usa.jpg

Heheh, would be United Provinces of Canada mind you.

Knowing Americans, we'd probably settle on United Places of Canada.

[Akira 0]

Oh well. I miss Leave It To Beaver anyway!

Quote[/b] ]Bush Second Term Will See Tougher Content Regulation, Say Analysts

In the wake of President George W. Bush's reelection, the FCC is expected to crack down harder on on-air indecency, Billboard magazine reported today (Friday), citing unnamed FCC staffers. One staffer told the trade publication that he expects the "ramp up" on enforcement to occur following pressure from family activist groups. "We've been reluctant to do a lot more on this issue, but it's going to be tougher to ignore," the staffer said.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Oh well. I miss Leave It To Beaver anyway!  

Quote[/b] ]Bush Second Term Will See Tougher Content Regulation, Say Analysts

In the wake of President George W. Bush's reelection, the FCC is expected to crack down harder on on-air indecency, Billboard magazine reported today (Friday), citing unnamed FCC staffers. One staffer told the trade publication that he expects the "ramp up" on enforcement to occur following pressure from family activist groups. "We've been reluctant to do a lot more on this issue, but it's going to be tougher to ignore," the staffer said.

thank you Janet...

in all honesty, i hope they are enforcing to avoid extremely disturbing ones, but their definition of 'disturbing' might include something that talks about abortion, gay rights, pro-Democrat conversation. of course, they won't do it out right, but they will take it down one by one and before we know it we all will be brainwashed.

[billybob2002 0]

I cannot live in the same country has Quebec...eh...  

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Defence expert says America is likely to ignore treaty ban

Depressing development that. I would hope that the UK can either exert some sort of pressure to not go down that road, or will at least completely distance itself from any move. Unlikey as it is that the government might consider common sense before being sucked in such a scheme. Allowing the country to be used as a base for such a scheme would only open it up to a greater likelihood of attack. (should such a situation arise)

[Supah 0]

Seriously what enemy does the US have that is technologically developed enough to have satelites?

North Korea? Iran? Al Qaeda? Hezbollah apparently has some sort of Unmanned Air Vehicle but I could do that too by ducttaping a camera to a model airplane and hey presto.

[kerosene 0]

Yeah, thats all the more reason to put the shit up now so they can prevent any other nation from attempting to militarise space afterwards.

Its not just anti-satellite weapons, i think the ban covered nuclear weapons stored and lauched from a satellite as well.

The U.K certainly dosent have any pull as far as this is concerned, we already voluntered to help out with the ABM system. Blairs original rationale (well, one of several) for joining the war in Iraq is that it would be good to have a friendly moderate to talk him down from stuff and that he could exert influence, its bollocks though, Blair would defend him if he torched a union jack during a state visit.

[SpongeBob 0]

History repeating?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]History repeating?

No. I love how people on the far left talk about succession.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]History repeating?

No. I love how people on the far left talk about succession.

People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.

Talking about nutjobs who started to say it after Bush won.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.

Talking about nutjobs for started to say it after Bush won.

I think they mostly say they are leaving the country....not succession...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I think they mostly say they are leaving the country....not succession...

Some are (i.e. Lawrence O'Donnell).

Anyway, it would not work...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, it would not work...

As the saying goes, "The Left may want to engage in class warfare, but they forget who has all of the guns."

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Howard Dean considering bid to chair Democratic Party

Monday November 08, 2004

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party.

Steve Grossman, himself a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Dean had told him he was thinking about it.

Dean was traveling today in New York and unavailable for comment. His spokeswoman, Laura Gross, said ``it was far too early to be speculating on that.''

The 240 members of the Democratic National Convention will elect a new chair early next year. Several names are already being mentioned, including former Clinton aide Harold Ickes; Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's presidential campaign, and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

Dean has been outspoken since the beginning of his presidential bid in saying that the Democratic Party must establish a separate and unique identity from Republicans.

The next chairman will replace Terry McAuliffe, whose term is ending.

Linktacular

This is good news as the DNC obviously needs a shake up. The fools have managed to end up trying to beat the Republicans at their own game, letting the Republicans dictate the course and flavor of politics for 8 years. Perhaps they felt confident and complacent from the days of Clinton, but a shake up and active DNC platform is needed right now, especially to prepare for the next elections.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Howard Dean considering bid to chair Democratic Party

Perhaps we can look forward to another "I Have A Scream" speech in the near future ?

[toadlife 3]

History repeating?

That picture is funny at first, but saddening when the novelty wears off.

"One step forward, and two steps back."

[SpongeBob 0]

The losers say "sorry"

there's some hot chicks in there