|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Biden/Warren 2016 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67621
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | No, Donald is going to make Mexico pay for half of it. Try to keep up, dude. |
I heard him say that but didn't hear how he was going to accomplish the feat. Does he have some kind of agreement with authorities in Mexico? |
Of course there's no agreement. He just says whatever pops into his head with no regard for facts, reality or practicality. But apparently those are attractive qualities to the GOP base. The same GOP base who still believes Obama wasn't born in the Unites States and is a secret Muslim -- and this is from a poll 2 days ago, not 2 years ago. |
I was being sarcastic. 
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38779
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Yeah, well, since building a wall worked so well for the Chinese, why not us?
As I've said before, the whole "wall" concept is one of the reasons why I became disaffected with the GOP after 25 years of being a staunch Republican. It's such an obviously stupid idea that it made me start thinking that maybe the folks in my party were playing me for a fool. Once you realize that you're being distracted with rhetoric, you start asking the hard questions that they don't want you thinking about. |
Building a wall would be a temporary solution at best. The cartels would just expand to human trafficking and dig even more tunnels than they do now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Yeah, well, since building a wall worked so well for the Chinese, why not us?
As I've said before, the whole "wall" concept is one of the reasons why I became disaffected with the GOP after 25 years of being a staunch Republican. It's such an obviously stupid idea that it made me start thinking that maybe the folks in my party were playing me for a fool. Once you realize that you're being distracted with rhetoric, you start asking the hard questions that they don't want you thinking about. |
Building a wall would be a temporary solution at best. The cartels would just expand to human trafficking and dig even more tunnels than they do now. |
That, and there also this little invention called a ladder.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Biden/Warren 2016 |
Bernie/Warren 2016 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense.  |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Silhouette wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Biden/Warren 2016 |
Bernie/Warren 2016 |
While I really like this ticket, I think the better strategy would be to have at least one on the ticket who was more centrist.
Also, if you think the right wing machine has ramped it up, you are mistaken. It's only on idle right now, though Trump gets in his licks*. If Bernie were chosen, the term socialist would be repeated tens of thousands of times, and would morph into communist, which would mean Stalin, which would mean the death of tens of millions.
We don't want tens of millions to die do we? Vote Trump!
*********
*I think Republicans and Democrats attack differently and react differently to attacks. I believe Jeb and the others just don't know how to react to Trump, as they've probably never had these kinds of attacks before. A Democrat would never tell Jeb to speak English, and Republicans tend to limit their attacks against to each other.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67621
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
3rd term for Obama. 
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense. |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in. |
And wants boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and is itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. This is the same party who wanted less government, that also instituted the Department of Homeland Security, though with support of the Democrats to be fair, and increased defense related spending from $366B in 2001, Clinton's last budget, to $794B in 2009, Bush's last budget. That is nearly a 120% increase in eight years. Discretionary spending increased on average 8.45% during those eight years, while it averages -.55% under Obama. They took four consecutive years of budget surpluses and turned it into nearly a $1.5T deficit. I'll leave it at that.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17248
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense. |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in. |
And wants boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and is itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. This is the same party who wanted less government, that also instituted the Department of Homeland Security, though with support of the Democrats to be fair, and increased defense related spending from $366B in 2001, Clinton's last budget, to $794B in 2009, Bush's last budget. That is nearly a 120% increase in eight years. Discretionary spending increased on average 8.45% during those eight years, while it averages -.55% under Obama. They took four consecutive years of budget surpluses and turned it into nearly a $1.5T deficit. I'll leave it at that. |
The neoconservatives from the former think tank PNAC, like Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz are anything but conservative:
| Quote: | The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.
[...]
Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century |
These jackholes are the same people that have railed against the Iran deal:
The fact that a lot of these guys, like Wolfowitz are involved with Jeb Bush's foreign policy should scare the hell out of everyone.
Wolfowitz, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Kagan and their ilk have been screwing this country over and dragging us into wars for more than 30 years, and if we don't watch it, these (bleep) will do it again with Jeb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: |
The neoconservatives from the former think tank PNAC, like Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz are anything but conservative:
|
That is true, an aggressive foreign policy of perpetual war is not small c conservative, but it is Republican--less the Paul's--and to a lesser extent, though significant, Democrats as well.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense. |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in. |
And wants boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and is itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. This is the same party who wanted less government, that also instituted the Department of Homeland Security, though with support of the Democrats to be fair, and increased defense related spending from $366B in 2001, Clinton's last budget, to $794B in 2009, Bush's last budget. That is nearly a 120% increase in eight years. Discretionary spending increased on average 8.45% during those eight years, while it averages -.55% under Obama. They took four consecutive years of budget surpluses and turned it into nearly a $1.5T deficit. I'll leave it at that. |
That was mainly what soured me on the Republican party for good. While too much military is dangerous, too little is as well. I have to admit I felt much safer pre-Obama than I do with him in office. We are headed for some troubling times and lack the resources to deal with them. If the Iran deal is Obama's crown jewel of International diplomacy, he will be looked on in the future as a failure. I guess it is all about payoffs, you can be strong in foreign policy but weak in domestic policy, or the opposite.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense. |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in. |
And wants boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and is itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. This is the same party who wanted less government, that also instituted the Department of Homeland Security, though with support of the Democrats to be fair, and increased defense related spending from $366B in 2001, Clinton's last budget, to $794B in 2009, Bush's last budget. That is nearly a 120% increase in eight years. Discretionary spending increased on average 8.45% during those eight years, while it averages -.55% under Obama. They took four consecutive years of budget surpluses and turned it into nearly a $1.5T deficit. I'll leave it at that. |
That was mainly what soured me on the Republican party for good. While too much military is dangerous, too little is as well. I have to admit I felt much safer pre-Obama than I do with him in office. We are headed for some troubling times and lack the resources to deal with them. If the Iran deal is Obama's crown jewel of International diplomacy, he will be looked on in the future as a failure. I guess it is all about payoffs, you can be strong in foreign policy but weak in domestic policy, or the opposite. |
The only reason to consider the Iran deal a failure is political. If Iran holds to the deal, they are significantly pushed back at worst in getting a bomb. If they end up cheating, they are still delayed and every remedy available now is still available then.
Not to mention that the current sanctions will not continue even without the deal, or the fact that aside from right wing groups in the US and Israel, the deal is supported overwhelmingly. Even the last two heads of Mossad support it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason to consider the Iran deal a failure is because it has no teeth. Expecting Iran to hold to the deal is fantasy at its best.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | The reason to consider the Iran deal a failure is because it has no teeth. Expecting Iran to hold to the deal is fantasy at its best. |
What are the current "teeth"? Threat of military intervention? Still available. Sanctions? Still available but not going to be there short term. So what is your alternative that works and has teeth? No deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are no current teeth, nor are there any with the deal. The only difference is that Iran got their sanctions lifted. That is what the deal will show in the future.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | The reason to consider the Iran deal a failure is because it has no teeth. Expecting Iran to hold to the deal is fantasy at its best. |
Out of curiosity, how does one put "Teeth" into a deal where you are essentially trying to get a sovereign nation to accept being bullied. We've gone to them and basically said:
"Whilst we have WMD's, and your sworn enemies have WMD's, and sure that would be a good reason for any nation to desire WMD's, You can't have WMD's"
That's being duplisitously bullied no matter what way you look at it. We're asking them to slow down doing something we've done, their enemy has done, and as a sovereign nation they've every bit as much right to do as we did. And our threat is "If you don't accept being bullied, then we'll attack you and start a war to prevent you from potentially starting a war.
If you were on the other end, exactly what type of deal would you be willing to accept? 
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the party that desires less government wants to spend billions on a federally funded wall equipped with military style drones.
Makes sense. |
Wants less government? Not sure what century you are living in. |
And wants boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and is itching to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. This is the same party who wanted less government, that also instituted the Department of Homeland Security, though with support of the Democrats to be fair, and increased defense related spending from $366B in 2001, Clinton's last budget, to $794B in 2009, Bush's last budget. That is nearly a 120% increase in eight years. Discretionary spending increased on average 8.45% during those eight years, while it averages -.55% under Obama. They took four consecutive years of budget surpluses and turned it into nearly a $1.5T deficit. I'll leave it at that. |
That was mainly what soured me on the Republican party for good. While too much military is dangerous, too little is as well. I have to admit I felt much safer pre-Obama than I do with him in office. We are headed for some troubling times and lack the resources to deal with them. If the Iran deal is Obama's crown jewel of International diplomacy, he will be looked on in the future as a failure. I guess it is all about payoffs, you can be strong in foreign policy but weak in domestic policy, or the opposite. |
We are still expected to spend $850B on defense in 2016, which doesn't include Homeland security or factor some of the defense related expenses such a the State Department, the CIA, nuclear development via the Department of Energy, or as some include, that portion of the debt paid each year that would be from past military expenditures. With all that it is something like $1T per year or more, and far beyond what any enemy spends. And every dollar that the US spends, means the UK, France, Germany, and all of Europe or our allies, don't have to spend. There are 38 commissioned aircraft carriers in the world. The US has 19 and our allies, 17.
As for the Iran deal you may be right, or if Iran does not develop and deploy a nuclear devise, it might be one of the greatest foreign policy accomplishments of any recent president.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67621
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm for downsizing military size because advanced technology is able to defend adequately with fewer personal.
Military spending is out of control
LINK A Jet Even the Military Doesn’t Want
The F-22 isn't useful in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would Congress order more?
| Quote: | | Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s without clearly identifying the source of funds. |
It's seems as though our representatives are more concerned about their cronies, those who're filling their coffers, than they are a out of control budget.
I feel safe with our present CIC. I like the Iran deal. The first step is a start.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
CNN just said 82% of Hispanics view Donald Trump unfavorably.
Who are the other 18%? Hispanics without access to TV and radio?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | There are no current teeth, nor are there any with the deal. The only difference is that Iran got their sanctions lifted. That is what the deal will show in the future. |
Not being bombed and having the sanctions stay lifted is a huge inducement to play ball. And like you said, nothing was working as is, so even moderate success is an improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38779
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | I'm for downsizing military size because advanced technology is able to defend adequately with fewer personal.
Military spending is out of control
LINK A Jet Even the Military Doesn’t Want
The F-22 isn't useful in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would Congress order more?
| Quote: | | Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s without clearly identifying the source of funds. |
It's seems as though our representatives are more concerned about their cronies, those who're filling their coffers, than they are a out of control budget.
I feel safe with our present CIC. I like the Iran deal. The first step is a start. |
F-22 wasn't designed to fight terrorists...it was designed to fight the Russians. As far as I know Russia and China are allocating resources to counter the F-22 with their own stealth planes, Russia with the PAK FA and China with the J-20.
Last edited by lakersken80 on Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38779
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | CNN just said 82% of Hispanics view Donald Trump unfavorably.
Who are the other 18%? Hispanics without access to TV and radio? |
I'm guessing they are "White Hispanics" like George Zimmerman...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nothing about the clerk in Kentucky eh? Suprising. Or is that in the religious thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerjoshua wrote: | | Nothing about the clerk in Kentucky eh? Suprising. Or is that in the religious thread? |
I wuld like to call her stupid, but she's making herself star and prbably pretty rich out of this. But the bottom line is pretty simple: Believe and live by what you wish personally, but you have to comply with the law at work. Give the licenses or quit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
