USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi all

All those Libertarians got fooled again, LOL, there is already a Libertarian candidate in the Presedential elections but the GOP controlers are experts at fooling the gulable in to voting Republican.

Shakes head in wonder walker

Edited September 4, 2012 by walker

[GRS 10]

Shakes head in wonder AT walker.

[Asherion 1]

I've never understood the real rationale behind not simply having a majority popular vote, instead of electoral college and such.

[GRS 10]

To give small states more voice since priorities differ between states or regions. It's a double edged blade. If you don't, then the small ones don't mean squat. If you do, then the small ones get disproportionate squat.

I agree with you though. The current system is terrible.

[walker 0]

Hi all

If you are a real libertarian you will vote for the real Libertarian candidate:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-nominates-gary-johnson-for-president

of course if you are a liar and a fake you will vote for Romney along with his ass kisser Ron Paul.

Kind Regards walker

[st_dux 26]

Walker,

Ron Paul doesn't endorse Romney, nor will he. The two candidates are completely different. Gary Johnson, the current candidate for the Libertarian Party, was previously a Republican. It's not as simple as Republican = Evil in all cases.

[GRS 10]

This is walker we're talking about. Of course Republican = Evil in all cases.

[nodunit 397]

I used to think similar until I saw Ron Paul's messages, he seems like the only sane politician I've seen in some time, doesn't want to go to war, doesn't want so many bases on foreign soil and many other things. I rather regret dismissing him years ago simply because he was republican, nowadays republican, democrat, it doesn't matter what party, it's just a different style of getting screwed over.

[nettrucker 142]

I used to think similar until I saw Ron Paul's messages, he seems like the only sane politician I've seen in some time, doesn't want to go to war, doesn't want so many bases on foreign soil and many other things. I rather regret dismissing him years ago simply because he was republican, nowadays republican, democrat, it doesn't matter what party, it's just a different style of getting screwed over.

Actually it's a pity that one of the few politicians which is not a warmonger will never get elected. He's too much of a thread to the corporate rulers.

I don't foresee any good for the future.

[PELHAM 10]

doesn't want so many bases on foreign soil and many other things.

You do realise this talk you see on the internet of 1000's of foreign bases is just manipulated statistics and lies? Really Pelham??!!! strong accusation to make!! - proof? easy - took me 20 mins research:

Every year the DOD releases the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE STRUCTURE REPORT and it's a long document listing totals of facilities and buildings owned and leased in the US and Worldwide. You will see the various anti-war and conspracy theorist web sites list between 800 - 900 military bases on foreign soil as an example of US imperialism, but is that actually true?

E.g. They state that in this article (reprinted from good ol GlobalResearch.ca):

Empire of over 865 U.S. military bases on foreign soil Empire of bases by Prof. Hugh Gusterson

http://milfuegos.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/empire-of-over-865-us-military-bases-on.html

Certainly there are figures listed in the DOD statistics that could enable someone to calculate 865 bases simply by adding some numbers together, but did they get it right? If you scroll down to the totals column on page 33 of the referenced DOD document it's certainly easy to make that mistake:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf

Site Size By Location - FY 2007 Baseline Data Worldwide Total:

Large Site 114 Medium Site 129 Small Site 4446 Other Site 622 Total Sites 5,311

Notice that 114+129+622=865

Unfortunately they fucked up and misinterpreted 'Worldwide' which includes US bases as well, the actual figures they wanted were from the line above - 'Overseas'.

Site Size By Location - FY 2007 Baseline Data - Overseas Total:

Large Site 14 Medium Site 20 Small Site 742 Other Site 47 Total Sites 823

If you add up the same columns as Global Research & Prof. Hugh Gusterson did: 14+20+47=81

That number can be further reduced as some of the listings are just 1 house, apartment or building and are less than 2500 SQFT. Is a rented house used by air crews to get some sleep a US Military base?

Now you might be tempted to take the overseas total sites fugure of 823 and be tempted to say "Ooooh the imperialist US has 823 bases overseas!!" Well that would also be misrepresenting things because if you look down the list, items such as housing, bachelor quarters, storage, waste disposal, press office, recreation area, water treatment, Admin office etc are listed separately to the main base. Is a house used by an airman to live in with his family a US base? I think not.

e.g. Aviano Air Base, Italy has 13 different listings for just 1 base - is it 1 base or 13? I think we can eliminate the 12 housing annexes and call it 1 base, is that logical or not?

So be careful what you read and do your own research, the urban myth of +800 US bases on foreign soil simply isn't true. It took me 20mins to look that up, yet Global Research and a 'professor' got it completely wrong and based an entire article on something 1 person misread. I suspect they were lying deliberately as most high school students wouldn't make such a simple mistake?

edit: Just wondered if anyone else had noticed? Yes they have with specific reference to the comments made by Ron Paul:

Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

I can see why he is so popular in certain circles as he has much in common with some of the electorate. He's another clueless imbecile that falls for stuff he finds on the internet lol (not including u there nodunit). I don't base that on just this item - there are many others including his comments on bin Laden.

Edited September 6, 2012 by PELHAM

[nodunit 397]

Whoa easy there, I never said there were thousands, or any number, I only said foreign bases IE Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, that kind of thing. The more bases we have the more money we pump into them, and I'm sure that there are a good few we could do without. In a time when we're far beyond our eyeballs in debt I think we could release some of our "projection of power" in favor of recooperating, it just seems so silly to me to have all of these military bases when we're digging a deeper and deeper hole.

Trillion dollar contracts make in the name of military defense, it's just such a massive waste and needless spending especially when we're already using such force against an enemy that is nowhere near the level and so vague that it could be anyone. Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to think that cutting the bases would solve all problems or naive enough to think that it would ever actually happen.

Edited September 6, 2012 by NodUnit

[PELHAM 10]

Wasn't responding just to you there NodUnit, that 800+ bases urban myth gets mentioned often so just wanted to clarify things.

There are 14 large bases and 20 medium bases listed overseas, add 2-3 including Afghanistan and related operations. In the US there are 97 large bases and 107 medium bases. It's quite obvious where the fat is - many of those bases are forced to remain open by state legislatures that refuse to allow them to close for local political reasons. The 'closing foreign bases' thing is daft when you look at the figures and the number of US domestic facilities that would be closed immediately if central government had it's way.

There is a similar issue with NASA mission controls being split between Florida and Houston, financially it's daft but politically LB Johnson needed it that way, it's a mistake that remians unchalled due to local politics.

Edited September 6, 2012 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I made clear in several earlier posts my opinion of Ron Paul is that he is a traitor to the Libertarian cause who acts as bate to draw real Libertarians away from voting for the real Libertarian candidate. other wise he would be campaigning in the election on a Libertarian ticket and encouraging voters to vote a straight Libertarian ticket, but he has not.

His purpose in the Republican party is to fool the gullable.

Something pointed out in several earlier posts, like this one:

Hi all

The Republican parties controllers let Ron Paul participate because he brings in the people he panders to and for no other reason. When you consider that the GOP's core vote is in terminal decline they need to fool as many groups of people as possible in to believing they have a voice in the GOP.

I am not saying that all those groups will vote Republican, despite their particular candidate losing, clearly they won't, but the GOP's hope is that enough people will fooled once again. That you can fool some of the people all the time is a long held Republican strategy, but each year it gets harder for the GOP as more and more people realise they were fooled.

Kind regards walker

Ron Paul acts as a Republican Party deniable sock puppet, to garner votes from people who the Republican party use once every four years like party convention whores.

Kind Regards Walker

[PELHAM 10]

Regarding the comments by Tod Akin and "legitimate rape" and erroneous assertions about female reproduction mentioned earlier in the thread, I have wondered from time to time where that nonsense started and how it persists without any evidence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept

It's also not the 1st time a politician said something like this:

Stephen F. Freind (born 1945) is a Republican politician who was elected as a Representative in the Pennsylvania General Assembly representing Delaware County from 1976 until 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Freind

In 1988, Freind provoked controversy by claiming that it is 'almost impossible' for a woman to become pregnant through rape, as it causes her to 'secrete a certain secretion, which has a tendency to kill sperm'.

Doctors responded at the time calling it baseless nonsense and suggested that if he could tell them what the secretion was they could make billions with a new type of birth control. Freind, of course, never backed up his claims.

The resulting mocking comedy is inspired, here is a spoof advert for a new contraceptive method lol

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/056ffa6b76/legitimate-rape-pharmaceutical-ad

[BobcatBob 10]

Bill Clinton's speech was pretty good, I learned some new positives about Obama's first term. Nice to see my grudging support of him over the blatently wrong Republican economic philosophy, become fairly enthusiastic.

Edit:Also Barney Frank, FUCK YEAH!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VfHw2nEG98Q#t=4550s

Edited September 6, 2012 by BobcatBob
more exclamation points

[GRS 10]

Nice to see my grudging support of him over the blatently wrong Republican economic philosophy

:j:

*filler*

[nettrucker 142]

Bill Clinton's speech was pretty good, I learned some new positives about Obama's first term. Nice to see my grudging support of him over the blatently wrong Republican economic philosophy, become fairly enthusiastic.

Are there any positives in Obama's first term? Yeah I would really like to know maybe you can point something out. what positives he has actually done. For me he's the biggest deception in the history of the USA. He did more harm even than Bush. There's no difference who gets elected Democrats or Republicans. They are both puppets of the corporate rulers who finance their elections. Once elected they are doing what they are told.

[reconteam 19]

Edit:Also Barney Frank, FUCK YEAH!!!

Barney Frank? That corrupt old windbag? People actually like that guy?

[BobcatBob 10]

Are there any positives in Obama's first term? Yeah I would really like to know maybe you can point something out. what positives he has actually done. For me he's the biggest deception in the history of the USA. He did more harm even than Bush. There's no difference who gets elected Democrats or Republicans. They are both puppets of the corporate rulers who finance their elections. Once elected they are doing what they are told.

Stemming the tide of a full on economic collapse (obviously not fully countered yet)

Passing healthcare reform that means children can't be denined covereage for prexisting conditions

Got rid of Don't ask don't tell

lowered taxes for middle class

Bunch of other shit you can freely look up on the interwebs... but just felt these points are particularly easy to point out and understand.

[froggyluv 2130]

Are there any positives in Obama's first term? Yeah I would really like to know maybe you can point something out. what positives he has actually done. For me he's the biggest deception in the history of the USA. He did more harm even than Bush. There's no difference who gets elected Democrats or Republicans. They are both puppets of the corporate rulers who finance their elections. Once elected they are doing what they are told.

The biggest deception in US history.....? Really? Care to explain how he is the biggest deception ever in US history?

Thats a bold statement. Worse then Bush? That guy started an entire war with incalcuable costs (on borrowed money) for what purpose again? I'll never forgive or more importantly -forget that. IMO, Romney is prone to the same dumbassery in stating we will never question Israel and always walk lockstep with them....Never questioning anybody -especially someone prone to high probablility of instigation and major conflict is never a wise choice.

[reconteam 19]

Stemming the tide of a full on economic collapse (obviously not fully countered yet)

Seems to me he is stumbling around while the economy very slowly (too slowly) starts to see improvement.

Passing healthcare reform that means children can't be denined covereage for prexisting conditions

A shame any good parts of healthcare reform are buried in such a bloated monstrosity.

Got rid of Don't ask don't tell

By what standards is this an accomplishment? Repealing that wasn't even a good thing.

lowered taxes for middle class

Did he now? Guess I didn't notice between the Uncle Sam still taking a large chunk of my income and the economy being terrible.

Bunch of other shit you can freely look up on the interwebs... but just felt these points are particularly easy to point out and understand.

Yeah, his cult of personality will tell you how he stopped global warming, cured the blind, and personally killed Osama too.

This years DNC shows how insanely far to the left the Democratic party has moved. There is no room for the FDR/Reagan Democrats and those with more conservative beliefs. I hope it shocks some people into action.

[Tonci87 163]

Seems to me he is stumbling around while the economy very slowly (too slowly) starts to see improvement.

A shame any good parts of healthcare reform are buried in such a bloated monstrosity.

By what standards is this an accomplishment? Repealing that wasn't even a good thing.

Did he now? Guess I didn't notice between the Uncle Sam still taking a large chunk of my income and the economy being terrible.

Yeah, his cult of personality will tell you how he stopped global warming, cured the blind, and personally killed Osama too.

This years DNC shows how insanely far to the left the Democratic party has moved. There is no room for the FDR/Reagan Democrats and those with more conservative beliefs. I hope it shocks some people into action.

What? The Democratic party is far to the left?

Oh you Americans :rolleyes:

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Passing healthcare reform that means children can't be denined [denied] covereage [coverage] for prexisting [preexisting] conditions

Which means that sooner or later the rest of us will have to pay high premiums. That means that our employer will pay more, but that they will eventually shift the burden on to us or have us pay more for out of pocket expenses. In short, higher prices for healthcare, which the law was supposed to fix.

Stemming the tide of a full on economic collapse (obviously not fully countered yet)

The US is $15 Trillion dollar in debt. For the month of August alone, we only were able to create 96K jobs for a population of 300+ million with a 8.3 percent unemployment, not including those that have given up looking for work. Most economist say that you have to generate at least 300K jobs a month in order to deal with just high school and college graduates entering the workforce. I hardly call that economic progress brought on by our Savior El Presidente Obama.

Economy added only 96,000 more jobs in August than in July. Meanwhile, unemployment in August dipped to 8.1 percent, from 8.3 percent in July, but only because more people gave up looking for work, Labor Department reports.

SOURCE:

Dept. of Labor

Edited September 8, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[BobcatBob 10]

Which means that sooner or later the rest of us will have to pay high premiums. That means that our employer will pay more, but that they will eventually shift the burden on to us or have us pay more for out of pocket expenses. In short, higher prices for healthcare, which the law was supposed to fix.

The US is $15 Trillion dollar in debt. For the month of August alone, we only were able to create 96K jobs for a population of 300+ million with a 8.3 percent unemployment, not including those that have given up looking for work. Most economist say that you have to generate at least 300K jobs a month in order to deal with just high school and college graduates entering the workforce. I hardly call that economic progress brought on by our Savior El Presidente Obama.

Yeah obvioiusly were not there yet it is going to get a bit worse before it really starts to get better, remember when the economy collapsed we were loosing hundreds of thousand of jobs a month to actually GAINING jobs every month is a massive improvement, if you think the worst econonmic crisis since the GREAT DEPRESSION could have been solved in 4 years by a president who had to battle a section of congress whose leader said at the time "our number one priority is to make obamba a one term president".

Not to fix the economy, to the best of their ability, or even further their own ideals (which I think are wrong) but just to get this one fucking guy out of office as soon as possible because god knows that is the real emergency here!

Also when your trying to recover from a deficit the last thing you want to do decrease your revenue that a buch of fucking millionares don't need! They can still be comfortably millionares, but they should pay whatever they comfortably CAN, ESPECIALLY when the government needs as much cash as our's does now. It's not like those people are going to have trouble making ends meet and lose the abliity to spend all the money they want to on things to help shore up the economy. Rich people hoard most of their money to an INSANE degree.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Also when your trying to recover from a deficit the last thing you want to do decrease your revenue that a buch of fucking millionares don't need! They can still be comfortably millionares, but they should pay whatever they comfortably CAN, ESPECIALLY when the government needs as much cash as our's does now. It's not like those people are going to have trouble making ends meet and lose the abliity to spend all the money they want to on things to help shore up the economy. Rich people hoard most of their money to an INSANE degree.

Furthermore, why should "millionaires" be the only ones the pay taxes when 50 percent of the US population doesn't (see link 1). Why should anyone have the fruits of their labor taken away and given to someone else through government force?

remember when the economy collapsed we were loosing hundreds of thousand of jobs a month to actually GAINING jobs every month is a massive improvement,

If we are gaining jobs as you say, then why is the Federal Reserve and Department of Labor statistics show us around 8.2 and 8.7 percent unemployment? Matter of fact, the unemployment rose in July by .4 percentage points.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Hans Ludwig