American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 26

View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27

Rev BS

01-25-15, 21:28

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/republicans_comparing_barack_obama_to_hitler_my_favorite_examples_of_the.htmlere

Yes, we are all capable of saying stupid stuff, especially when we are angry. And there are more than enough people who are mad at Obama. Enough to even compare Obama to Hitler. Some of you might recognize yourselves in this article. I mean in the mirror.

Punter 127

01-29-15, 21:30

"RATINGS: FOX #1 FOR 13TH YEAR, MSNBC COLLAPSES BY DOUBLE DIGITS"

Ratings for January 2015 show that for the 13th year in a row Fox News beat its left-wing competition at CNN and MSNBC. Fox is the leader in all areas: total viewers and demo viewers. MSNBC had a terrible January, losing -23% of total viewers and -39% of demo viewers in primetime compared to January of last year. CNN boosted its viewership by double digits but had nowhere to go but up.
CNNs turn to the political left is obviously draining viewers away from MSNBC. CNN has beat MSNBC for seven consecutive months now.
Despite being blacked out from millions of potential viewers due to a (now resolved) dispute with Dish Network for three weeks in this ratings period of January, Fox News is still king.If you go back and RTFF you would find what seems like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?

The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.

Rev BS

01-31-15, 00:17

The only American news station I happen to have is Fox. I have not allowed it to discourage my outlook on life and people. Since the channel is right next to Bloomberg, I do stop there occasionally to get a dose of morning sickness. And to put a crimp on the cobra under my pajamas. Lately, Hannity and O'Reilly have their lost their potency. Now, the sure cure is Megyn Kelley. Her slightly nasal hard tone combined with the stridency of her rapid-fire delivery is the antidote to any aspiring hardness.

Yes, you could make a case about the authenticity of my promising cobra head but that is irrelevant. It is just sad to report that I have witnessed the evolution and loss of american femininity in the course of my life. And it is spreading fast.

Rc Collins

01-31-15, 03:55

The idea that high ratings equates to creditably is so cartoonish that Jerry Springer who has a show with absolutely no redeeming value or credibility but a higher rating that all news shows (including Fox) combined would find this conclusion illogical. Less than 10% of the American populous consistently watch cable news show or are regular devoted viewers so that is the number being fought over here.

Don't remember anyone here attacking Fox but do recall members, myself including saying that Fox was not fair nor credible. Prior to the 2012 elections, every Karl (Rove) Dick (Morris) and Hannity on Fox told their audience the election was in the bag for Romney. They said this despite all the polls that showed Romney was going to lose. We all know how that turned out and Dick hasn't been seen on Fox since.

That Fox is fair or creditable is akin to saying that reality shows whose rating are all higher than Fox and all other cable news shows combined are also credible or real because their rating are the highest. As Mike Tyson would say, that's ludicrous. Take note of how many times Fox has erred with erroneous graphics and wording only to offer insincere five second apologies. Notice that their errors are always made to paint the Democrats and Obama in a negative light.

Fox has been the ratings leader in the cable news programs for some time now but despite their high rating and non-stop Obama bashing they couldn't push their candidates over the finish line in the last two national elections. Surely if they has so much credibility they could have been the difference maker, alas they were not. The car crash effect, the confrontations and the female leg shots all have something to do with the ratings as not only conservatives are watching Fox.

Fox is also the leading news organization with erroneous information 31 percent of the time and Forbes found that Fox News voters are the most uninformed. Not hard to see why after the last two national elections.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

ElAlamoPalermo

01-31-15, 06:33

If you go back and RTFF you would find what seems like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?

The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.Fox News is essentially the "news" equivalent of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). All intelligent people understand that both Fox News and the WWE are fake and not to be taken seriously are useful merely for their entertainment value. Not coincidentally Fox New's viewer base is probably identical to the WWE's view base.

HotRod11

01-31-15, 06:58

I am heading to San Diego, Calif. Do you have a thread for domestic citys?

Jackson

01-31-15, 15:39

ElAlamoPalermo

01-31-15, 17:13

MSNBC is essentially the "news" equivalent of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). All intelligent people understand that both MSNBC and the WWE are fake and not to be taken seriously are useful merely for their entertainment value. Not coincidentally MSNBC's viewer base is probably identical to the WWE's view base.This isn't a discussion of the merits of MSNBC. Can you really do no better to defend your beloved Fox News than a name swap? In addition to it being lame, it's not even accurate; I guarantee you that the WWE's viewer base IS NOT the same as MSNBC's viewer base.

Esten

01-31-15, 17:58

Fox News.... LOL! The network being sued by the mayor of Paris for slander.

As RC correctly noted, ratings do not equate with credibility. The main reasons Fox News gets higher TV ratings are (i) more Americans are conservative than liberal, (ii) Fox is the only conservative channel among the major media players, and (iii) the conservative demographic is older, and older people are more likely to get their news from TV than from the internet. If you look up the most popular news websites, Fox comes in at #6 behind Yahoo, Google, Huffington Post, CNN and New York Times.

Fox News ratings are also driven by people who tune in not so much to get the news, but to see how Fox News is spinning the news. I'm in that group, though I've been watching less lately, because I more quickly get turned off by some of the trash they peddle as "news". Though it can be amusing too. I have a friend who I've occasionally watched Fox News with for a few minutes, to see what they are saying, and we've often laughed our asses off.

Member #4112

01-31-15, 20:33

Tiny12

01-31-15, 21:23

More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.

First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Second, we could have been looking at these kind of numbers four years ago if Obama hadn't buttfucked every taxpayer and every employer in the country by borowing trillions of dollars to give to his constituents and by shoving Obamacare up the country's collective asses.

Third, the reason we are now FINALLY showing some signs of economic improvement (abet 4 years late) is because A) the new Republican majority in the Congress has given the job creators in the country reason to be optimistic in the knowledge that Obama'a radical agenda has now been thwarted, and B) oil production on PRIVATE land in the USA has driven down the price of energy, no thanks to Obama.Approximately 2.7 to 3 million additional jobs were created in 2014. A new working paper from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) indicates 1.8 million of these jobs resulted from cuts in unemployment benefits:

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/67070-w20884.pdf

These cuts in the length of time of unemployment benefits resulted from the Republican House of Representatives refusing to renew programs that expired, and the cuts were fought tooth and nail by Obama.

So the job growth is analogous to your comment about Obama taking credit for increases in oil and gas production. It happened in spite of his policies, not because of them. And, as shown by your Bureau of Labor Statistics link, given the increase in population, the level of job growth wasn't that impressive anyway.

WorldTravel69

02-01-15, 03:15

How was it when Bush and his cronies were in office?

Approximately 2.7 to 3 million additional jobs were created in 2014. A new working paper from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) indicates 1.8 million of these jobs resulted from cuts in unemployment benefits:

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/67070-w20884.pdf

These cuts in the length of time of unemployment benefits resulted from the Republican House of Representatives refusing to renew programs that expired, and the cuts were fought tooth and nail by Obama.

So the job growth is analogous to your comment about Obama taking credit for increases in oil and gas production. It happened in spite of his policies, not because of them. And, as shown by your Bureau of Labor Statistics link, given the increase in population, the level of job growth wasn't that impressive anyway.

WorldTravel69

02-01-15, 03:33

What are the ratings for each State and City.

I tried to find out, but only could find out that FOX are in about 15 or so foreign countries. MSNBC are in about 5.

I would say those stations were bought by Koch (aka COKE Brothers), Murdoch and can in still their bullshit to mid western and southern TV and radio stations, they have more money the Demos.

I am sure the Democrats do not have the money to buy TV and Radio stations like the right can. The workers can not afford to give away their little wages to support the working class party.

I hope you all watch the History channel, because what happen in the past is now happening. Someone said lest we forget the past we will repeat in.

http://www.history.com/shows/sons-of-liberty/videos/a-dangerous-game?m=5189717d404fa&s=All&f=1&free=false&mkwid=rn6JcTCe|c_pcrid_4313595070_pkw_sons%20of%20liberty%20history%20channel_pmt_e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=sons%20of%20liberty%20history%20channel&utm_campaign=M_Sons+of+Liberty&paidlink=1&cmpid=PaidSearch_bing_M_Sons+of+Liberty_sons%20 of%20 liberty%20 history%20 channel.

What Southern States were there at that time still did not support the Colonials. Same as now!

If you go back and RTFF you would find what seems like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?

The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.

Tiny12

02-01-15, 13:47

How was it when Bush and his cronies were in office?Agreed. However if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Bush or Obama, I'd vote for Bush.

BadMan

02-01-15, 14:18

Both these goldman sachs / JPMorgan shills are worthless sock puppets. But as long as there is an " illusion " of choice we're good. And by good I mean good and fucked.

Tiny12

02-02-15, 01:05

When I've compared some on the left to Chavistas or to Kirchneristas, I didn't really believe it. I was just trying to piss you off. But now I'm beginning to wonder, based on your posts in the Corruption in Argentina thread. As a card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I contributed to protecting free speech of groups and causes I hated. You on the other hand feel compelled to take freedom of speech away from anyone you disagree with.

The United States has one television news organization that's right of center, Fox News. It has one that's far left (MSNBC) and four that are somewhat left of center (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC). Fox gets more viewers than any of the others. So what's the solution? Ban purchase of media properties by rich people like Rupert Murdoch, or take away their right to exercise free speech. This is something right out of the playbook of Chavez or Kirchner.

How about Citizens United? They produced and presented a film bashing Hillary Clinton, and aired commercials to promote the film. They of course should be shut down. Michael Moore however had every right to air and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, which was critical of Bush.

Unions and groups of attorneys should be able to exercise their rights to free speech to sway political thought, but businesses should not.

Here's an interesting poll. Scroll about 1/4 down the page until you see the section on Hate Speech:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Please note that 51% of Democrats would make it a crime to say things that most of us here would find reprehensible. On the other hand, 53% of Independents and 49% of Republicans would protect free speech, even when it involves sexism, racism, homophobia, genocide, etc. This shows something about the mindset of the left vs. Independents and Republicans.

Jackson, I wish you'd quit mis-using the word liberal. Your detractors are anything but.

Rc Collins

02-03-15, 00:19

For accurate score keeping or for those who care, Fox is the leader in the cable news networks wars (MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Fox) not against the broadcast channels like ABC, NBC and CBS as reported below. NBC news is the current leader followed by ABC then CBS.

SteveC

02-04-15, 01:36

I've criticised him before, but credit where credit is due, I agree with him for once.

http://aattp.org/all-aboard-the-crazy-train-ben-carson-is-now-the-only-gop-voice-of-reason-on-vaccines/

Don B

02-04-15, 14:10

I consider posting in this forum a waste of time but I'll give it another try.

Don B.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peterschwartz/religion-freedom-and-the-_b_6598524.html

Member #4112

02-04-15, 15:22

DonB the cited article is a reasonable explanation of the differences and a pretty good definition of "moderate Muslim", of which there appear to be few.

As the article points out the Muslim world not experience a similar renaissance as occurred in Europe, breaking down total religious authority resulting in a gradual movement to personal freedom, but remained tied a single political system dictated by their religion therefore leaving them perpetually locked in the 13th century as the rest of the western world moved on.

Esten

02-05-15, 02:01

Fox is not being sued by the mayor of Paris for lander, total BS from the master of BS.
Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo: We intend to sue Fox News
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/20/media/paris-mayor-sue-fox-news/

CNN analyst urges Fox to settle Paris lawsuit: Unlike US, French have 'criminalized' slander
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0b_1421786649

Doppel, Fox News likely won't tell you about the lawsuit. It was covered by other networks though. If your point is that the lawsuit is not filed, let's just say the mayor of Paris is planning to sue Fox News. Check out this Youtube news clip from CNN. First you have a CNN Legal Analyst stating that Fox News was embarrassed, humiliated, and is a JOKE in France (emphasis his). Then later at around 3:40 in the video there's a clip from a TV show in France that is mocking Fox News. They had some guy dressed up as a Fox News reporter out on the streets of Paris, pretty funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPxlxZ7FvNg.

Every day Fox has some new or recycled garbage. I tuned in today for a few minutes, what do I hear but Bill O'Reilly giving his "Obama has no strategy against ISIS" monologue for the umpteenth time. His point is that because ISIS continues to release more videos, obviously Obama must not have a strategy. I can't fathom what kind of viewer actually believes such a superficial argument, but probably some Fox viewers do. In fact the reality is quite opposite, Obama has a smart strategy of not rushing in to be the world's policeman again and do all the work, but engaging and assisting a regional and global coalition to unite against them. I laughed out loud when O'Reilly then said that Susan Rice was about to give a speech on strategy, and that he believed Fox News was responsible for the Obama administration finally developing a strategy. LOL!!

Rev BS

02-05-15, 07:08

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/fashion/the-bruce-jenner-story-goes-from-gossip-to-news.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&

1976, Montreal Olympic Games. I was actually there. I saw Bruce Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon. He was Mr. America, and now or soon to be, he will be Ms. America. I have seen it all now, I can die happy.

Perhaps he got involved with the East German women & steroids. They won 10 out of 14 women track & field finals. But then, the steroids are about masculine hormones, very puzzling. Oh, I got it! It's the evolution of the American man, soon to be in every family & household. You see, he is surrounded by a nest of dominant women who made all the decisions and gets all the media attention. Who cares about an ex-Olympian jock! Like plants, being out of the sunlight, they shrivel & fade away. Let's see what happen to Lamar Odom, then we will know for sure.

Lucky I get all the sun I need from my tennis. I think I will be a cactus.

The Truth

02-05-15, 19:16

On Sunday, Jan 11, dozens of world leaders linked arms and marched in solidarity for freedom of the press and to honor those who were killed by terrorists last week. The rally was a response to the massacre at the office of Charlie Hebdo, which was targeted for publishing cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed. It was the largest demonstration in the history of France.

Don't look for Obama or Biden among the photos of 44 heads of state who locked arms and marched down Boulevard Voltaire in Paris. Nor did they join a companion march the French Embassy organized in Washington on Sunday afternoon.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-charlie-hebdo-events-no-show-114166.html#ixzz3 QuJbyljE.

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama For Not Participating In Paris Rally: 'Unbelievable!

http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/jon-stewart-slams-obama-participating-paris-rally-unbelievable-01123096

Anderson Cooper Mocks Obama, Biden For Skipping Paris March.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/13/anderson-cooper-mocks-obama-biden-for-skipping-paris-march/

Barack Obama's French kiss-off.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-charlie-hebdo-events-no-show-114166.html

"I wish our US President had gone to Paris to stand with our European allies," tweeted James Stavridis, the retired Navy admiral and current dean of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

"It's stunning, truly stunning," said Aaron David Miller, who among other responsibilities during his time at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations, helped deliberate over which officials to send to which events. "It's a poster child for tone deafness. ".

Rev BS

02-07-15, 07:47

Raising hell, reminding us about abuses committed in the name of Christianity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?tid=pm_pop

The Truth

02-07-15, 14:56

Barack Obama is apparently not Charlie, and everyone's angry about it.

On Sunday, world leaders from 44 nations joined millions of citizens in Paris to honor the victims of last week's terrorist attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. It was the city's largest March since the fall of Nazi Germany in 1944. But one key head of state was conspicuously absent: the president of the United States.

Also absent were Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, who was actually in Paris for a meeting this weekend but still failed attend the massive rally. The USA Ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, did join the March, but that wasn't enough to stave off a wave of anger directed at the Obama administration.

29442

"You can't handle the Truth!"

Rev BS

02-07-15, 19:52

I am very fond of my handle, but I am thinking of changing it to THe REAL TRUTH. Maybe, even a built a statue somewhere! How can people strut around like that!

SteveC

02-08-15, 02:36

"I wish our US President had gone to Paris to stand with our European allies," tweeted James Stavridis, the retired Navy admiral and current dean of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

"It's stunning, truly stunning," said Aaron David Miller, who among other responsibilities during his time at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations, helped deliberate over which officials to send to which events. "It's a poster child for tone deafness. ".Hardly throughout the world. And you'll really hate to know it but Obama has been the most popular president outside the US in my lifetime. JFK and Clinton maybe. That's from someone who's actually lived in 5 different countries. If you want mockery, just look back to W. Bush, now he was mocked mercilessly. Obama is still, despite all his faults, extremely popular outside the USA. Not that it matters of course.

Esten

02-08-15, 14:50

President Obama mocked throught the world

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama For Not Participating In Paris Rally: 'Unbelievable!

...snip

Anderson Cooper Mocks Obama, Biden For Skipping Paris March

...snip

... tweeted James Stavridis, the retired Navy admiral and current dean of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

...snip

... said Aaron David Miller, who among other responsibilities during his time at the State DepartmentHey Punter, these guys are all in the US. Where is the "throught the world" part?

LOL

The Truth

02-08-15, 15:03

In a stunning admission in today's White House press briefing, official Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest admitted that "we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there".

More than 40 world leaders, including the British, German and Israeli heads of state and Russia's foreign minister, joined at least 1. 5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity March that became France's biggest-ever public demonstration.

But Obama and his administration's top hands were nowhere to be found -- an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity.

The United States appeared to have options to send to the March: Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule. Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend, also with a blank public schedule. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings -- and even recorded interviews with several USA Sunday morning programs -- but he didn't attend the March.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/12/politics/obama-kerry-paris/
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/wh-admits-error-in-france-unity-rally-383415875884

In further news.

Kerry arrives in Paris following global criticism over US absence at rally.
http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/kerry-arrives-in-paris-for-meeting-with-hollande-384767555594

Criticism towards White House grows over Paris rally.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/criticism-towards-wh-grows-over-paris-rally-383340099655

White House responds to criticism of Obama no-show at French unity rally.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-piles-obama-skipping-paris-solidarity-rally

"You can't handle the Truth!"

Big Boss Man

02-08-15, 15:20

Member #4112

02-08-15, 16:25

The US is spending more cash and I am spending more money on taxes for the War on Terrorism then anybody that was linked in arms marching in Paris and singing Kumbaya. How is that for the Truth? Here is a deal. You take the symbolism and I will take the money as a sign of commitment.Compared to the "War on Poverty", which we lost by the way, and all the other social engineering giveaways which includes the illegal subsidies in ObamaCare, killing terrorist is cheap.

Big Boss Man

02-08-15, 18:51

Compared to the "War on Poverty" and all the other social engineering giveaways which includes on the illegal subsidies in ObamaCare, killing terrorist is cheap.Okay Doppelganger. Go sing Kumbaya if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just realize because I don't does not mean I am not making a contribution to the war on terrorism. I can't stay in key when I sing anyway.

To say Obama has been a poor commander in chief because of the strategies and tactics he has chosen in the war on terrorism is an arguable point. You can read the debate in many newspapers and journals. To say the United States has not supported and fought a war on terrorism over the last six years because we did not show up for a parade is just ridiculous. I think that any who believes so is an idiot. Yes Doppelganger, that means I think you are idiot.

I respect your prowess as a monger. You probably get laid more often by better looking women than I do. You seem to frequent the high end places.

Punter 127

02-08-15, 22:28

Wrong again Inspector Clouseau,

Alias 'The Truth' mocked on AP.

Hey Punter, these guys are all in the US. Where is the "throught the world" part?

LOL"The Truth" has post dating all the way back to 2003. RTFF.

Esten, do you also write "Rape on Campus" articles for Rolling Stone, or perhaps you're an anchorman at NBC News?

LOL

BayBoy

02-09-15, 08:07

The Republicans and especially the right-wing hacks on this site just don't get it.

President Obama is not running for Pres. Anymore, in 2 more years his term is over. You're wasteing your time trying to nit pick about every little thing he does and doesn't do and how terrible and evil he is. They're attacking the wrong guy; it doesn't matter what his poll numbers are, it doesn't matter it the world likes or doesn't like him. He's not running anymore, get over it.

Member #4112

02-09-15, 11:52

Okay Doppelganger. Go sing Kumbaya if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just realize because I don't does not mean I am not making a contribution to the war on terrorism. I can't stay in key when I sing anyway.

To say Obama has been a poor commander in chief because of the strategies and tactics he has chosen in the war on terrorism is an arguable point. You can read the debate in many newspapers and journals. To say the United States has not supported and fought a war on terrorism over the last six years because we did not show up for a parade is just ridiculous. I think that any who believes so is an idiot. Yes Doppelganger, that means I think you are idiot.

I respect your prowess as a monger. You probably get laid more often by better looking women than I do. You seem to frequent the high end places.BBM you were complying about the cost, I just answered you on COST. It's cheaper to kill terrorist than all the other federal giveaway programs, and once you kill a terrorist he does not come back while the freeloaders on the federal programs just keep coming back for more each month.

By the way I did not say anything about Obama not showing up in Paris, but even his staff said it was a mistake. So what, it would have been another meaningless gesture by the king of meaningless gestures.

Jackson

02-09-15, 19:16

BayBoy

02-09-15, 20:22

Tiny12

02-09-15, 22:08

BadMan

02-09-15, 22:48

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

ElAlamoPalermo

02-10-15, 00:01

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Thanks, Bayboy.These sort of lame retorts and lack of creativity just demonstrate that Jackson is exhibiting the first signs of senility.

Esten

02-10-15, 00:11

Wrong again Inspector Clouseau,

"The Truth" has post dating all the way back to 2003. RTFF.
So "The Truth" has been around a long time, just like you.

With a similar posting style, and referencing Breitbart too. And chimes in when others have rebutted one of your posts, and you need more ammo.

Man, that's way too coincidental and convenient!

Esten

02-10-15, 00:29

I am very fond of my handle, but I am thinking of changing it to THe REAL TRUTH. Maybe, even a built a statue somewhere! How can people strut around like that!I wouldn't bother. "The Truth" is clearly following in the footsteps of right wing propaganda sources like Fox News, who believe that proclaiming their credibility (eg. "No Spin Zone") gives them more credibility. Of course this is farcical to people who have basic critical thinking skills, and usually just the opposite is true.

Tiny12

02-10-15, 01:58

Tiny12

02-10-15, 02:02

The Democrats and especially the left-wing hacks on this site just don't get it.

President Bush is not running for President anymore, his term is over. You're wasteing your time trying to nit pick about every little thing he does and doesn't do and how terrible and evil he is. They're attacking the wrong guy; it doesn't matter what his poll numbers are, it doesn't matter it the world likes or doesn't like him. He's not running anymore, get over it.BayBoy, Doesn't this make more sense than what you originally posted? I'm no admirer of Obama or Bush. However, Obama is president of the USA and the leader of the free world. Bush has gone out of his way to stay out of politics since he left office six years ago, yet still some of you keep blaming all of America's problems on him. WT69 was on his case a few days ago.

Btw, I agree with SteveC and disagree with you. It does matter whether the world likes Obama, even if it likes him for sometimes spurious reasons.

Member #4112

02-10-15, 11:44

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspxThanks BadMan, good article. Sound a bit like U6?

BadMan

02-10-15, 23:16

http://player.theplatform.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=3000353564&size=530_298#.

Rev BS

02-11-15, 00:07

Maybe it was a commercial decision. He's going to have his own reality television show after the sex change.

That sounds just like what a Democrat would do for money, get his testicles chopped off. He must be an Obama supporter. (jk)Different, but same, same!

Despite screaming and proclaiming what they represent & stand for, when it comes to money in their pockets, people are the same everywhere. And events can really control your take on issues. Like Cheney with a gay daughter. What can he do when confronted with his own flesh & blood. The same with many parents who have had their children killed in Iraq for oil. Definitely, it was not for political stability.

Joking aside, most Obama supporters have had a great deal to swallow in terms of expectations. But REASONABLE supporters can thank their lucky stars for how things turn out.

BayBoy

02-11-15, 01:54

BayBoy, Doesn't this make more sense than what you originally posted? I'm no admirer of Obama or Bush. However, Obama is president of the USA and the leader of the free world. Bush has gone out of his way to stay out of politics since he left office six years ago, yet still some of you keep blaming all of America's problems on him. WT69 was on his case a few days ago.

Btw, I agree with SteveC and disagree with you. It does matter whether the world likes Obama, even if it likes him for sometimes spurious reasons.Tiny. We don't have much of a disagreement. Yes Obama is the leader of the free world. And it does matter whether the world likes him or not. But the world does like him whether or not he went to the Paris demonstration about the deaths at Charlie Hebdo. (Personally I think he should have gone there or at least Sec. Of State Kerry).

Now Pres. Bush was a different story, he was NOT liked by the world.

Jackson

02-11-15, 13:50

Now Pres. Bush was a different story, he was NOT liked by the world.Really? Just for starters, I think the kuwaitis might have a different opinion.

Nevertheless, let me pose a question: Can you name one country with which the USA enjoys a better relationship today than when Obama first took office?

Just one?

Thanks,

Jax.

Don B

02-11-15, 14:02

Really? Just for starters, I think the kuwaitis might have a different opinion.

Nevertheless, let me pose a question: Can you name one country with which the USA enjoys a better relationship today than when Obama first took office?

Just one?

Thanks,

Jax.How about Iran?

Don.

BayBoy

02-11-15, 14:17

Jackson

02-11-15, 14:35

Ukraine.

Thanks,

Bayboy.Bayboy,

I will defer to BadMan, our in-house expert on all things Ukraine, to respond to your supposition.

Thanks,

Jax.

BadMan

02-11-15, 22:13

Yeah. No. Thats not true. Obama is en epic fuck up. No two ways about it. But its not his fault. Hes just reading the script. That poor multiethnic bastard. I hope he gets a good pension. That shiftless hippie.

Ukraine. Wants his head on a silver platter.

Ukraine.

Thanks,

Bayboy.

Esten

02-11-15, 23:47

Nevertheless, let me pose a question: Can you name one country with which the USA enjoys a better relationship today than when Obama first took office?Your question inevitably requires a comparison versus Bush. And there's really no comparison. Major allies like France, Britain, Germany, Japan and others have WAY more confidence in Obama than Bush.

29445

I can only conclude you posed this question because your mass consumption of right wing media actually made you BELIEVE your premise was correct.

WOW, that's sad.

Jackson, when are you going to realize that right wing media like Fox News are either lying or deliberately spinning their "news" ?

BadMan

02-12-15, 02:52

This idiot and his rogues gallery of advisors are even bigger asshats than I thought.

For those with a sense of humor, a strong stomach and a penchant for sci fi.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

The hegemon fears the sovereign. .

WorldTravel69

02-12-15, 05:09

Come on You Haters of Obama.

He wants to open the country for us travelers.

Tell your congressmen, and oh yes their congress women how much you supported the Cuban people when you were there and not the Cuban Government.

Write your republican congressmen and one women to open the travel restrictions.

BadMan

02-12-15, 11:02

Obama doesn't want anything. His " advisors " are only reacting to someone elses move. About a couple weeks before Obama announced these easing of tensions with Cuba, Russia had just announced they would be reopening the Lourdes SIGINT station in Cuba. I'm pretty sure this move by Obama is meant to try and either kill that deal or at least slow it down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694468/Russia-reopen-Cold-War-Cuban-listening-post-used-spy-America.html

Also American companies are sick and tired of losing contracts to the Russian and Chinese companies. They have been wanting a piece of the Cuban pie for quite some time. They simply realized the " stick " wasn't working. Just like it didn't work with Iran. Just like its hopelessly doomed to fail with Russia as well. So instead Obama is opening up a spy base, I mean US Embassy, in Cuba. Nobody in Cuba with half a brain sees it any other way. Will Cubans be offered Nudelman cookies in exchange for plunging their country into civil war?

Rank amateur foreign policy by the corporately sponsored muppets in office. As usual.

Come on You Haters of Obama.

He wants to open the country for us travelers.

Tell your congressmen, and oh yes their congress women how much you supported the Cuban people when you were there and not the Cuban Government.

Write your republican congressmen and one women to open the travel restrictions.

BadMan

02-12-15, 17:27

Good luck with that.

BadMan

02-13-15, 02:33

I found this one rather amusing.

M2. Another total waste of time. But at least the algos had an excuse.

Punter 127

02-13-15, 08:38

Punter, I wouldn't bother arguing with Esten. Esten is clearly following in the footsteps of left wing propaganda sources like MSNBC, who believe that proclaiming their credibility gives them more credibility. Of course this is farcical to people who have basic critical thinking skills, and usually just the opposite is true. See the following:

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

This confirms Pew's earlier research, in 2012, that 90% of MSNBC's prime time coverage is opinion / commentary. Fox indeed is much more "fair and balanced", although CNN leads the pack.You're right Tiny, I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with Esten over his asinine accusation. I fail to see what advantage he thinks two names would have. He does however provide some good material for a headline, how do you like this one;.

Esten says Punter 127 is "The Truth"! .... I like it, thanks Esten.

This is not the first time Esten has pulled a stunt like this, remember when he questioned if I had ever mongered in BA? When I revealed some of my BA and forum activities and suggested we compare our experiences he tucked his tail and never mentioned the subject again.

This whole TT thing doesn't pass the smell test, but a little surfing of the forum has revealed TT's pervious name and that we have some mutual acquaintances, so I suspect there are forum members who have met both of us.

In typical Esten fashion his asinine accusation is an argument from ignorance because he can't prove it, and the reason he can't prove it is because it's not true.

Esten

02-14-15, 15:01

OK Punter. The similarities are remarkable, but if you say you are not "The Truth" then I'll take your word for it.

Esten says Punter 127 is not "The Truth"!

And my previous question about your BA mongering was a fair question, as I didn't recall ever seeing any report from you in all the years we have both been posting. You've explained that before so no need to again. Aren't you overdue for a trip down to BA?

Delta Indigo

02-15-15, 08:10

Hi Guys,

I would like to ask a question without starting a massive argument. Please understand that I am asking a question irrespective of whatever political beliefs I might have, I do have a degree in Political Science and this has engendered my curiosity. I live in Europe and am most familiar with US expats in Europe and how they think.

In my experience most Americans who seek to move abroad are overwhelmingly left of center or Democrats to say the least. It tends to be left of center people who find most fault with their society and move abroad and believe it can be better elsewhere, although I am aware that Argentina is not socially or politically progressive in any meaningful measure.

I am surprised by reading this forum how many right of center Americans or Republicans live in Argentina. Usually this political affiliation goes with patriotism and sometimes an unconditional love of America.

So the question I would like to ask, out of curiosity, is what attracts the ex pat Republicans to living in Argentina? Is it just to escape the sex prison? We all need to get laid irrespective of political proclivities or is it something else as well? Why Argentina for Republicans?

Dickhead

02-15-15, 15:09

Tiny12

02-16-15, 03:52

I do think Punter and Tiny might be long lost cousins, though.Yes, and proof positive that genetics are so strong here in the south that if you breed members of the same family, you end up with children that are even more intelligent than their parents.

Just kidding, I wanted to provide a little bit of joy in the lives of El Alamo Palermo and WT69, falsely confirming their theories about red state residents, before letting them down hard.

Punter 127

02-17-15, 05:43

"The Truth" and "Punter 127" don't have anywhere near the same writing style. You can disguise that for a while but not for very long. And although Punter and I are not quite at the same end of the political spectrum, there is no way he would bother impersonating anyone to express his views. He expresses them quite nicely on his own.

I do think Punter and Tiny might be long lost cousins, though.Thanks DH,

Sometimes I think Esten just throws shit at the wall to see if it'll stick or not, but at other times I wonder if there's more to it.

I will take you remark about cousin Tiny and me as a compliment. LOL.

Punter 127

02-17-15, 06:33

OK Punter. The similarities are remarkable, but if you say you are not "The Truth" then I'll take your word for it.Wise move, but the adult thing to do would be an apology.

Esten says Punter 127 is not "The Truth"!Esten flip flops on "The Truth"... LOL.

And my previous question about your BA mongering was a fair question, as I didn't recall ever seeing any report from you in all the years we have both been posting. You've explained that before so no need to again. Aren't you overdue for a trip down to BA?Not only are your questions not fair they are inappropriate because they're personal in nature.

This forum has no Argentina visit or forum post requirements. Even if there were such requirements you are not the moderator and you have zero authority here. The short answer to your questions is; mind your own fucking business!

When someone that I don't know persist in asking questions about my personal experiences or future plans I see red flags and start wondering what their motives are. Esten I don't think you're looking to me as a mentor or a wingman, so why are you asking such questions? What do these question have to do with the political thread? Are you working undercover or as an informant for some government agency or some Coalition?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/us/more-federal-agencies-are-using-undercover-operations.html?_r=0

Esten

02-18-15, 02:21

"The Truth" and "Punter 127" don't have anywhere near the same writing style. You are probably basing your opinion only on recent posting history over the last few months since you returned.

However, Punter has a "headline-style" post format which he has used many times in the past. It's a format which is almost identical to The Truth. It goes like this: Somebody said Something that makes Obama or Democrats look bad. Followed by a quote and then a link. Few posters here have a format like that. Even fewer include links to Breitbart, a far-right website. And only two posters combine these things with their tell-tale signature: the use of large font in the title. In fact, AFAIK only two posters have ever gone out of their way in this thread to code large font in the title, let alone with the other commonalities I listed.

If you were a detective, you might conclude you had matching fingerprints.

Have a look and see for yourself. And no, these are not isolated instances. Both Punter 127 and The Truth have multiple posts just like this. It's only that Punter hasn't posted any in the last few months. Frankly this is not a matter of great importance, but the remarkable similarities are a matter of fact not opinion.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=437147&viewfull=1#post437147
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=440858&viewfull=1#post440858

Tres3

02-18-15, 11:33

Who Cares?

Tres3.

Esten

02-20-15, 02:00

Hey Tres, what do you want to talk about. The latest Fox News criticism of Obama because he said something about Muslims but didn't mention Christians, or said something about Christians but didn't mention Muslims? More crafted messaging to rile up the base so they keep turning out to vote Republican. Post away Tres.

As for this episode with The Truth, I have found it not only interesting but rather intriguing. Some mystery poster posts a series of negative posts / attacks on Obama. It's pointed out that the style is uncannily similar to one used in the past by a long-time conservative poster. No surprise the AP conservatives want to change the topic. LOL!

I would agree this topic has run it's course, but one final point. Recent posts from "The Truth" were not about expressing his views. There are no personal views in these posts at all. They are just copy and paste headlines, quotes and articles to make Obama or Democrats look bad. Another voice to prop up the anti-Obama message surely has appeal in a thread where conservatives have been running out of ammo with their weak arguments.

Punter: Please know I have little interest in your personal affairs. The only "personal" question I asked before was if you had been to Argentina. Not inappropriate on this board at all. I would not have returned to it, but you brought it up yourself recently. When I replied and asked if you were due to come down to BA, I actually meant that as a friendly comment to break the ice a little. I can only laugh at being basically told to fuck off in response! Take a chill pill and don't be too paranoid.

Tiny12

02-20-15, 03:19

Another voice to prop up the anti-Obama message surely has appeal in a thread where conservatives have been running out of ammo with their weak arguments.Esten says the sky is dark green.

Tom says no, it's blue.

Esten says the sky is dark green.

Dick says no, it's blue.

Esten says the sky is dark green.

Harry says no, it's blue.

We're not running out of ammo. We're tired of banging our collective heads against a wall. We can shoot your arguments to hell, splatter them into a bloody heap, and you'll still claim they're not dead.

It's time to come out of the closet. Esten, I am The Truth. And The Truth shall set you free, if you take this test and then follow the instructions based on the results:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_brainwashed_by_the_democrats

Tres3

02-20-15, 11:09

Member #4112

02-20-15, 13:18

Esten says the sky is dark green.

Tom says no, it's blue.

Esten says the sky is dark green.

Dick says no, it's blue.

Esten says the sky is dark green.

Harry says no, it's blue.

We're not running out of ammo. We're tired of banging our collective heads against a wall. We can shoot your arguments to hell, splatter them into a bloody heap, and you'll still claim they're not dead.

It's time to come out of the closet. Esten, I am The Truth. And The Truth shall set you free, if you take this test and then follow the instructions based on the results:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_brainwashed_by_the_democratsTiny, why put up a quiz that is so slanted against Esten? You'are going to make him feel bad and hurt his little feelings.

Probably the two dumbest things I've seen lately are the State Department talking heads saying:

You don't win wars by killing the enemy.

Last time I checked as far back as recorded history goes killing the enemy in sufficient numbers is exactly how wars are won.

If we address the terrorists concerns, providing them economic opportunity, they would not pick up an AK47 but start a business.

Right, hey guys lets all start a business and stop raping, pillaging, killing, beheading folks, ect and forget all about our 12 century Islamic beliefs which tell us it's our God given right to rape, pillage, enslave, behead, and take what we want from the non-believer or even the Muslims who don't believe the way we do.

Well maybe they have started a business, harvesting organs from those they kill for sale on the black market. Is that what that dizzy bit#h had in mind?

I would love to drop these to airhead bit#hes in ISIS held territory and see if that might modify their perspective on the issues.

End of rant.

Carry on.

Don B

02-20-15, 14:04

Tiny, why put up a quiz that is so slanted against Esten? You'are going to make him feel bad and hurt his little feelings.

Probably the two dumbest things I've seen lately are the State Department talking heads saying:

You don't win wars by killing the enemy.

Last time I checked as far back as recorded history goes killing the enemy in sufficient numbers is exactly how wars are won.

If we address the terrorists concerns, providing them economic opportunity, they would not pick up an AK47 but start a business.

Right, hey guys lets all start a business and stop raping, pillaging, killing, beheading folks, ect and forget all about our 12 century Islamic beliefs which tell us it's our God given right to rape, pillage, enslave, behead, and take what we want from the non-believer or even the Muslim who don't believe the way we do.

Well maybe they have started a business, harvesting organs from those they kill for sale on the black market. Is that what that dizzy bit#h had in mind?

I would love to drop these to airhead bit#hes in ISIS held territory and see if that might modify their perspective on the issues.

End of rant.

Carry on.At last a strategy, WPA for ISIS.

Don B.

Jackson

02-20-15, 16:14

If we address the terrorists concerns, providing them economic opportunity, they would not pick up an AK47 but start a business.I think that you guys are being a bit short-sighted here. I mean, with a good jobs program in 1930's Germany, we might have been able to stop Hitler and the Nazis, but nobody had the courage to champion this idea at the time.

Now that we're in more enlightened times, we need to consider these sort of "Flaccid Power" options.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Jax

Tiny12

02-20-15, 16:42

I would love to drop these two airhead bit#hes in ISIS held territory and see if that might modify their perspective on the issues.
Doppelganger, They better have some damn good pussy, or those bit#hes would be toast.

Jackson

02-20-15, 17:08

Doppelganger, They better have some damn good pussy, or those bit#hes would be toast.I don't think that those ragheads would even know what to do with an actual pussy, given that so few of them have actually seen one (our President excluded, of course Jajajaja!).

SteveC

02-21-15, 01:04

I don't think that those ragheads would even know what to do with an actual pussy, given that so few of them have actually seen one (our President excluded, of course Jajajaja!).Not your best joke Jackson, but at least you don't believe he is a muslim. Anyone who does obviously has to be really seriously dumb. Any policy on racist comments on the board? And if there is are muslims excluded from it?

Esten

02-21-15, 18:08

It's time to come out of the closet. Esten, I am The Truth. And The Truth shall set you free, if you take this test and then follow the instructions based on the results:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_brainwashed_by_the_democratsThanks for clearing that up Tiny. BTW, I looked up your "test" and it's full of bad grammar and spelling errors:

4. Do you believe that socialized medical is a good thing?
5. Do you think Hillary Clinto would be a good President?
7. Do you that the concept of social darwinism should effect how policy making?
9. Was Clinton a better president ten Bush?

Seriously ? LOL

As for Tres...

WHO CARES?TOUGH SHITSKY

Member #4112

02-22-15, 21:31

Thanks for clearing that up Tiny. BTW, I looked up your "test" and it's full of bad grammar and spelling errors:

4. Do you believe that socialized medical is a good thing?
5. Do you think Hillary Clinto would be a good President?
7. Do you that the concept of social darwinism should effect how policy making?
9. Was Clinton a better president ten Bush?

Seriously ? LOL

As for Tres...

TOUGH SHITSKYEsten, at least come up with your own material. That one is mine.

Rev BS

02-23-15, 17:16

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

http://deadline.com/2015/02/bill-oreilly-covered-falklands-war-from-expense-account-zone-says-fellow-cbs-news-correspondent-eric-engberg-1201378589/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-23/new-york-times-reporter-contradicts-o-reilly-s-war-claims

When a reporter says I cover the Iraq War, your take is that he was actually in Iraq. Not in Istanbul covering demonstrations?

No spin zone. You know the man. In fact, there are a few posters in AP who releases the same kind of smoke. Usually very loud, opinionated and display the raw mix of the personalities of Trump/O'Reilly/Limbaugh. The Holy Trinity of the AP Temple.

Esten

02-25-15, 01:09

When a reporter says I cover the Iraq War, your take is that he was actually in Iraq. Not in Istanbul covering demonstrations? O'Reilly clearly lied or grossly embellished (take your pick) when he boasted about being in a "war zone". Neither of the two main exhibits he presented in his defense (the CBS letter and CBS video) disproved the claims in the Mother Jones article. Notice he sure acted like they did; this was classic Bill O'Reilly, attempting to fool his viewership by presenting selective information in a loud, confident manner.

O'Reilly also lied when he said "They were doing real bullets. They were just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the street. " But reports at the time say the shots were fired over the heads of protestors, and the CBS video itself said that rubber bullets were used. He suggested some protestors had died, but there is no evidence. A total of 7 former CBS staffers have now gone on record refuting O'Reilly's account.

Notice how O'Reilly responded to his critics. He called the author of the Mother Jones article a liar, implied one of the CBS critics was a liar, and has threatened a reporter from the New York Times.

O'Reilly is a smart guy and very good at what he does. What he does is entertain. On his program, and elsewhere with his "Killing" books and his comedy tours. Who else but an entertainer would have the balls to proclaim "The Spin Stops Here" on a program with overwhelming documented bias and distortion?

The Truth

02-25-15, 16:57

The 21 men beheaded on a Mediterranean beach in a video released by Islamist savages Sunday were killed because of their Coptic Christian faith, by men who proclaimed the reason for the murders before the whole world.

In a pathetic statment in a White House press briefing, official Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest stated that...

"The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of 21 Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists".

"ISILs barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity. This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL."Typical of the Obama White House, the statement waffles on the one central fact of the matter. The men butchered on the beach weren't just Egyptian "citizens." And they weren't just "innocents.".

They were Christians, murdered for their faith. And the murderers made no bones about it. The sick propaganda movie describes the victims as "people of the cross, followers of the hostile Egyptian (Coptic) church. ".

But the White House remains stubbornly, deliberately obtuse.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted during a later press conference that he "can't account for" why a statement put out under his name neglects to mention that fact that the 21 Egyptians beheaded by ISIS were killed for their Christian faith.

Obama WH Refuses to Call ISIS Victims Christians Says Political Resolution Needed to Defeat ISIL
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/obama-wh-refuses-to-call-isis-victims-christians-says-political-resolution-is-needed-to-defeat-terrorists/#!

Obama Wont Call Beheaded Victims Christians; Goes Golfing
http://conservativebyte.com/2015/02/obama-wont-call-beheaded-victims-christians-goes-golfing/#

Now Obama Regime WILL NOT Call the 21 Christians Beheaded by ISIS Christians; Instead, They Call Them 'Innocents'
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/16/now-obama-regime-will-not-call-the-21-christians-beheaded-by-isis-christians-instead-they-call-them-this/

"You can't handle the Truth!"

Rev BS

02-26-15, 17:55

Are you a true Christian? Or just a zealous right wing wannabee?

Matthew 5:44, And Jesus said "But I say unto you. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. And pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you. ".

And don't forget about Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. ".

Many "patriotic" Americans questioned Obama's faith, they are blinded by their hatred. For what is being manifested right in front of their face is Christian values as taught by Jesus. Self righteousness is a sin.

Repent, brother.

Don B

02-26-15, 20:52

Punter 127

02-26-15, 22:53

I think Obama's faith is pretty obvious.

I mean we can take him at his word can't we? Has he ever lied to us?

There are a few posters in AP who releases the same kind of smoke. Usually very loud, opinionated and display the raw mix of the personalities of Rev Wright / Sharpton / Farrakhan.

Be very leery of those who idolize false prophets.

Don B

02-27-15, 02:20

The progressives will, of course, disagree with this.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/02/say-good-night-internet/

Don.

Rev BS

02-27-15, 07:48

Nothing like a response based on reason.

Don B.Why do you exist? Just to eat & defecate? And to be suspicious? Here's a good Reason to Believe. Song by Tim Hardin, recorded by Glenn Campbell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffcbv7Pb6I

Don B

02-27-15, 11:30

Why do you exist? Just to eat & defecate? And to be suspicious? Here's a good Reason to Believe. Song by Tim Hardin, recorded by Glenn Campbell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffcbv7Pb6I

Why do you exist? Just to make asinine comments?

Don B.

Rev BS

02-27-15, 11:40

Why do you exist? Just to make asinine comments?

Don B.But I exist on AP, to make the day brighter for everyone. And to make sure Obama gets a fair shake.

Don B

03-02-15, 17:10

But I exist on AP, to make the day brighter for everyone. And to make sure Obama gets a fair shake.Here is a fair shake for my sons and granddaughters.

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-economic-damage-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Don B.

Don B

03-02-15, 21:24

Here is a fair shake for my sons and granddaughters.

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-economic-damage-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Don B.BS, Specifically what points that Dick Morris made regarding the massive debt that your hero has added do you disagree with?

And I do have hard feelings.

Don B.

Rev BS

03-02-15, 21:56

BS, Specifically what points that Dick Morris made regarding the massive debt that your hero has added do you disagree with?

And I do have hard feelings.

Don B.One look at Dick Morris' face, red & bloated, and you know that he has cardiovascular problems. A gluttony issue, and he's talking about trimming the fat. So after his damnation of Obama's borrowing, he touted for his sponsor, a Dr Sears, who has a miracle cancer cure. So go ahead and spent some money there. All he doing is enforcing your beliefs. Blame it on the bossa nova, I mean Obama.

Yes, the national debt is a colossal problem and it is going to take everyone in America to come to terms with themselves as to what they want to do about it. How about if everyone pay 25% flat tax? You like that! I am willing. And a balanced budget? So far, almost all politicians do not have the balls to watch their waistlines. So be serious and don't hide under that Obama Hate Hat.

Obama is not my hero. The Guy Upstairs is my hero. Anyway, come to BK, and we can patch it up.

Rev BS

03-03-15, 09:25

That's the rumor going on here in Lad Phrao, Bangkok. To further embarrass President Obama as a weak, indecisive leader with a leaky foreign policy, the GOP has sent overtures to the dictator, Kim Jong-Un to come to Washington. While there, Kim will suit up with the Washington Bullets to achieve one of his fantasies, to play in NBA. Scouting reports say that Kim possess a deadly two-handed 3 point shot. So far, no one in North Korea has has ever dare block his shots.

Further speculation abound about a rap song that Kim has compose that will feature him & Dennis Rodman. My Man, My Brother, Suck Me.

And the beat goes on. I mean the heat goes on. Damn hot & muggy here.

Rev BS

03-08-15, 14:01

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0310-frey-no-racial-majority-america-20150310-story.html

Whether you think it is good or bad, there is no stopping America's demographic destiny. This is the underlying reason of why we have been angrily shouting about Obama the last 6 years. For he represent the no racial majority scenario of the future. The youth of America got that already, it is just the aging dinosaurs that are in denial and opposing the rising tide.

"Over the next 15 years, the entire under-65 white population will get smaller. By 2044, whites will no longer comprise a racial majority in the United States".

It is just reality, America has given every color under the sun the opportunity to succeed. Just look at the names of your doctors, reporters, teachers, athletes, even politicians.

So will America be better, will America still be #1? You bet.

Tiny12

03-08-15, 16:38

Reverend,

Interesting posts. First I applaud you for recognizing the deficit as a major problem, and proposing a flat tax, which presumably would also involve closing loopholes and making the tax system more efficient and easier to comply with. Unlike some of those posting here who lean to the left, you've shown yourself to be rational, and not a person who tows 100% of the Democrat party line.

Second, I have no idea what the best strategy for Iran is. Maybe what Obama's doing, trying to delay the day of reckoning for 10 years, will work. Maybe by then a government more hospitable to the west will take power there. Or maybe the Republican strategy of continuing sanctions is better -- something similar kept the Iraqi's from developing WMD, although at a huge cost to the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, many of whom lacked good nutrition and adequate medical care as a result of sanctions and Saddam Hussein's intransigence. Or perhaps bombing their nuclear facilities, or letting the Israeli's do it, is the best solution. I don't believe there was anything wrong with a Republican Congress inviting Netanyahu to speak. I also don't think there was anything wrong with Obama writing Iran's Supreme Leader, trying to create a dialog. People should talk and express their opinions. When they're prevented from doing so, outcomes are often worse.

A common thread, though, is that Obama is going to kick the can down the road instead of trying to come up with solutions. He believes kicking the can is the best thing for the Democrat party. And that is more important to him than doing what's best for the USA. Contrast Obama with Clinton and Reagan. Clinton and Reagan were uniters, not dividers. They worked with Congressional leaders from across the aisle to balance the budget and institute welfare reform (Clinton), and institute a fairer, more rational tax system and bring down the Soviet empire (Reagan).

As to your thoughts about race and Obama, Obama has much more in common with your average white Democrat elitist from blue states, like Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington where he has lived, than he does with most blacks in America. He was brought up by a white mother and grandparents. Culturally he is a white leftist. While I believe Obama is the worst president during my lifetime, if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Obama, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, I'd vote for Obama. Please note that Warren and Sanders are undisputedly white. I bring up these names because Sanders and Warren are among the most frequently mentioned names for candidates for the Democrat presidential nominee for the 2016 election.

Most Republicans would vote for Ben Carson, who's black, over any white Democrat candidate for president.

Rev BS

03-08-15, 21:31

Obama's legacy will be more clear in about another decade or more as America continues to re-define itself in many arenas.

Not really want to harp on the White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized. The middle class is shrinking as technology & competition has made many jobs obsolete.

There is a large pool of Americans who are too old to reinvent themselves even as they live longer and need more income. The adage of the young taking care of the old is seeing a reverse in America. Consumerism is the face of America today, that is where the banks make their money, not from your savings.

Immigrants are still coming in everyday. Their energy & skills are making up for the lethargy of the home grown.

Do we want Israel to run our foreign policy? Or Sheldon Adelson. Islam vs Christianity! Obama has been trying to avoid that headline.

But I can hear the war cries. Oh, I forgot, the blind cannot see. Pardon me.

Esten

03-10-15, 01:16

First I applaud you for recognizing the deficit as a major problem, and proposing a flat tax, which presumably would also involve closing loopholes and making the tax system more efficient and easier to comply with. Unlike some of those posting here who lean to the left, you've shown yourself to be rational, and not a person who tows 100% of the Democrat party line. Well, people who understand a flat tax in general would help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, oppose it on moral and economic grounds, not because of anything to do with party line. Some 95% of recent income gains have gone to the wealthiest 1%. Those are staggering numbers. Numbers that would have been even worse without tax provisions that Obama signed into law.

The Republican answer to this issue is don't worry, let the free market operate freely. If the rich get richer that's OK, more wealth will trickle down to everyone else. Well in fact not much trickles down anymore - shareholders want it all. And when it doesn't trickle down, Republicans say so what, it's their money.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.

Instead of a flat tax, what we need is the Buffett Rule. Warren Buffett correctly noted that the wealthy are winning the class warfare battle. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy trying to distract us by stunt after stunt in Washington. Endless Benghazi investigations, attempts to change immigration policy by holding federal employees hostage, politically motivated and divisive invitations to foreign leaders up for re-election to come make speeches, and writing letters to Iran to undermine Obama's foreign policy efforts (a move which Iran's foreign minister himself dismissed as a "propaganda ploy"). These clown circus antics from Republicans are surely effective in steering the conversation away from how Wall Street is helping the wealthy maximize their take of the pie.

WorldTravel69

03-10-15, 17:57

Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the USA Lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.

Find the whole article yourself.

Jackson

03-10-15, 19:18

Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the USA Lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" a subject in which he is a professor "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.

Find the whole article yourself.Hey WT69,

Have you been reading the Islamic al jazeera website again?

Perhaps you might instead consider reading the actual US Constitution, which specifically provides that all treaties with other countries must be ratified (approved) by the US Senate.

Do you understand what that means, or are you assuming that Obama will once again ignore the Constitution and in this case make a deal with Iran without bothering to get the approval of the Senate? Perhaps he will call it something other than a "treaty", perhaps he will call it a "Memo between Countries"? Perhaps he will simply issue an executive order? I can see that getting unanimously rebuked by the Supreme Court as they did with his unconstitutional recess appointments.

Anyway, the purpose of the Senator's letter was to remind the Iranians that whatever "agreement" they make with the politically desperate Obama must go through them, and they're not the pussies that our President is.

The fact is that Obama is a complete neophyte when it comes to negotiating, which is not a surprise because he's had no executive management experience.

For one thing, as a basic tenant of negotiating, it's not a negotiation if you're not willing to walk away, and the Iranians know that Obama is so desperate to make a deal that he can be pressured into almost any concession because he clearly doesn't have the political courage to walk away.

Another thing is that Obama doesn't understand is that he holds the strongest hand: The economic sanctions and collapsing oil prices have crippled the Iranian economy, their GDP being cut by almost 30% in the past couple of years. It is in fact the mullahs who are desperate to make a deal, and now is the time to ratchet up the sanctions and force the mullahs to capitulate, which they'll do because they don't want to be ousted in another revolution.

I hope that history will record that the Senate stood strong and refused to approve a treaty with Iran that would have allowed them to develop a nuclear bomb.

Thanks,

Jax

Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior using a private, non-government email account hosted on a private server for all of her email communications while she was Secretary of State.

Dosruedas

03-10-15, 21:14

Well, people who understand a flat tax in general would help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, oppose it on moral and economic grounds, not because of anything to do with party line. Some 95% of recent income gains have gone to the wealthiest 1%. Those are staggering numbers. Numbers that would have been even worse without tax provisions that Obama signed into law.

The Republican answer to this issue is don't worry, let the free market operate freely. If the rich get richer that's OK, more wealth will trickle down to everyone else. Well in fact not much trickles down anymore - shareholders want it all. And when it doesn't trickle down, Republicans say so what, it's their money.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.

Instead of a flat tax, what we need is the Buffett Rule. Warren Buffett correctly noted that the wealthy are winning the class warfare battle. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy trying to distract us by stunt after stunt in Washington. Endless Benghazi investigations, attempts to change immigration policy by holding federal employees hostage, politically motivated and divisive invitations to foreign leaders up for re-election to come make speeches, and writing letters to Iran to undermine Obama's foreign policy efforts (a move which Iran's foreign minister himself dismissed as a "propaganda ploy"). These clown circus antics from Republicans are surely effective in steering the conversation away from how Wall Street is helping the wealthy maximize their take of the pie.Dude. You need to get focused. Your Party-Line talking points just don't get it. Fact is, Flat-Tax works better for all involved. Wealthy people buys yachts, planes, and Lamborghinis. Poor people buy barbecue, used cars, and second-hand clothing. The wealthy spends a couple of million a year. And the poor spend a few thousand. Say the tax is 7% of all purchases. And even you're smart enough to see the wealthy pays more.

Under our present tax system, which is about 20,000 pages of legal interpretation and loopholds, inequality runs rampant. The IRS's fiendish appetite is used to gobble up the weak. And its used as a political tool to punish enemies and inhibit free thought and expression. Just ask the Tea Party. Who are deserving of Non-Tax Status.

I need to ask you where you got your education. Mine comes from 67 years of the streets, a Masters Degree, homeowner, builder, and veteran talking.

Let me add some more clarity. Trickle-down economics work. (its called Jobs. Not Shareholders) Reagan brought Trickle-Down to fruition after the disastrous years of Carter's economic policy. (fact is, democratic policies I. E. Growth of government doesn't work) And in doing so led the economic recovery that carried the economy all the way through the Clinton years in the White House. At least "White-Bubba" was smart enough to fiddle with his peter rather than a functioning economy.

Look, I hate to add to your eventual sobriety. But here's some more. There is protocol in the Balance of Powers in our Federal Government. This was effectively choked-off by Obozo, Nancy Pelosi, and Hairy Reed for the last six years. The past-leader of the Senate stopped over 300 bills to enter debate. And by doing so, they stifled the political process and workable solutions for the people. This teamwork with our "Transparent-President" and his leaders in Congress left the door open to outright tyranny and ruthless violations to our Constitution. Sure, the Repubs *****. They got a right to. And if you ever get off that slow moving merry-go-round. You'll *****, too.

They say "absolute power corrupts. " And in my lifetime its never been as bad as it is today.

I got to go on. Especially with your "accumulation of wealth at the top" comment which is more of "Keep the People Down" mentality. In case you didn't know it, that mindset keeps you believing that government is the answer to financial security.

Get this. You cannot tax your way to financial security. Buffet, Gates, and tons of others began with nothing. But each believed in the risk they took. And it paid off. Ask yourself about the risk you're willing to take. Just remember, the doors on Wall Street are open to everybody. Including you.

The sad part of your Rant stems from a stagnant perspective. You are free to go where you want, create what you want, sleep where you want, invest where you want. Government will never pave your way to financial freedom. They'll throw you a bone while they sit in the luxury of power. And they'll laugh at each and every voter who put them there.

Good luck.

Tres3

03-11-15, 00:28

The sad part of your Rant stems from a stagnant perspective.Unfortunately Esten has been stagnant for a long time. Nothing anyone says changes his thought process or what he says. If he cannot find a "fact" to support his position, he just fabricates one. Those of us who post regularly gave up trying to argue with him long ago, because his mind is made up and arguing with him is akin to beating your head against a brick wall.

Tres3.

Tiny12

03-11-15, 01:10

Esten, The title of your post, "Republican stunts distract from Wall Street class warfare", is ironic. You're taking two words out of my post, "flat tax", to distract from my point that Obama isn't going to do jack shit about tackling America's long term problems. He'll do nothing about deficits, huge medical costs, entitlements that left unreformed will bankrupt the country, and economic inefficiency caused by the tax code. In fact, he's made these problems worse. His chief concern is doing what's best for his party. Damn the country, and our children and grandchildren that will pay for his profligacy.

But I'll take the bait. Yes, institute a 25% flat tax (the level proposed by Rev BS), on individuals and corporations. Provide a generous exemption so that the poor pay no tax. As I already said, close loopholes. Greatly simplify the tax code so that people aren't collectively spending 6.6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms. Do this and in the long term the total amount of tax paid, by the wealthy and others, would go up, as the economy grows and people don't go to great lengths to avoid 40%+ tax rates. The country would be better off, except politicians who benefit from granting special favors, including the Democrat hypocrites who harp on inequality at the same time they pass handouts to their crony capitalist buddies.

The Democrat answer is to recognize this tremendous accumulation of wealth at the top, and that the trend isn't changing much. To recognize that waiting for the pie to grow just means more pie for the wealthy. To recognize that many so-called wealthy "job creators" are actually job killers. Their solution is to take measures to shift more of the pie to the poor and middle class. It's about policy that works for everyone, not about party line or buying votes or envy or hating the rich.Not true. The Democrat answer, and the answer of some Republicans as well, is to shift more and more of the pie from main street to Washington D.C. Pick the pockets of hard working Americans and funnel the money to the federal government, where a large part of our hard earned money can be wasted.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-27/why-does-maryland-have-most-millionaires-capita-answer-might-make-you-angry

Esten

03-11-15, 01:34

While Dosruedas instantly hurt his chances at being taken seriously by using the term "Obozo", I welcome him to the discussion and have no doubt he would learn a few things here. As for Tres, a quick review of his recent posts shows him to be almost completely substance-less, oscillating between his obsessive attacks on me, and his one-line posts "Here's an article from the newspaper" along with a link to a newspaper article.

The fallout from the Iran letter has been fast and furious. As it should be. Of all the ridiculous and despicable stunts that Republicans have pulled over the years, this is one of the lowest. Writing letters directly to foreign governments to undermine a sitting president's foreign policy? Unbelievable. Never mind that their constitutional "lesson" contained a significant error, or that foreign countries are once again mocking US Republicans (seems to be a pattern), and that some Republicans are admitting it was a bad idea. Above all, it was disrespectful, divisive, and weakens the image of the US internationally. Biden said the letter was beneath the dignity of the Senate, and added "In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous." I couldn't agree more.

29493

Tiny12

03-11-15, 01:50

Not really want to harp on the White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized....Immigrants are still coming in everyday. Reverend, I have a sincere question that you're eminently qualified to answer. You're Asian-American, born in a country that rose from impoverishment to become one of the most successful in the world by pursuing policies that run counter to those favored by Obama and the Democrat party. I think you'd qualify as an independent, who currently leans more toward the Democrat party but who in the past has voted for Republican candidates too. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My question is, why are Asian Americans predominantly Democrats? I may be guilty of stereotyping, but when I look at the values and work ethic of Asian Americans, they seem more Republican to me. I believe the Democrat Party favors policies more similar to those popular in Western Europe, while Tea Party Republicans (but not necessarily mainstream Republicans) favor policies that are more popular in dynamic Asian economies. I'd sincerely be interested in your thoughts.

Rev BS

03-11-15, 12:24

And speaking only for myself, not for any other Asian American.

Asians suffered from immigration & exclusion laws early on. So with other discriminated groups, they united to have enough power to have a voice in legislation and so they found themselves under the Democratic umbrella(a possible story GOP story here).

Asians are united in their reverence & respect for religion, family, society, elders, authority, law, education, work ethics, etc. Conservative values that have been lost by the wayside in secular America today. And because of these values, individuality is often sacrifice for the "greater good" of family & society. The result is that as a group, they tend to be better educated and therefore successful. That will tell you all about Singapore. And so they have their most talented people in government.

More happy? Not necessary but if stability in income & self esteem are bricks in the foundation of contentment, then maybe they are.

When Singapore became independent, it was under the socialist banner of the People's Action Party. A party that was closely linked to the Communist Party before Lee Kuan Yew jailed his former colleagues without trial until they agreed to abandon politics. With independence came the need to be successful and self-sufficient.And the need to draw foreign investment meant that there had to be stability in government, good infrastructure & an educated stable labor work force. Lee often talked of a"rugged society". He was afraid that with success, people would get"soft" as in America. What he meant was not just physical, but mental & emotionally as well. And that is how the People's Action Party started to trend away from it's socialist beginnings.

So there you go.

Jackson

03-11-15, 13:29

...Biden said the letter was beneath the dignity of the Senate, and added "In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous." Who gives a fuck what Joe Biden has to say?

Anyway, the Senator's letter did not suggest that "Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments". What it said in plain language was that the Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on Americas commitments without the involvement of the US Senate, which is in fact true.

Nevertheless, the entire premise of Biden's comments is laughable, given that in the past 6 years Obama has provided the world with numerous of examples of his inability to "deliver on Americas commitments, thank you very much.

Jax

Rev BS

03-11-15, 18:45

The coins jingling from their pockets, they came from Sheldon Adelson.

Bomb makers will always leave their signatures, and Sheldon Adelson's fingerprints are all over this bomb.

Jackson

03-11-15, 20:06

The coins jingling from their pockets, they came from Sheldon Adelson.

Bomb makers will always leave their signatures, and Sheldon Adelson's fingerprints are all over this bomb.Rev,

Your suggestion that the 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran did so because they would be personally enriched is patently ridiculous.

I openly defy you to find any evidence the demonstrates that even so much as 10 of these Senators would be enriched by this action.

Thanks,

Jax

Rev BS

03-11-15, 21:17

Rev,

Your suggestion that the 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran did so because they would be personally enriched is patently ridiculous.

I openly defy you to find any evidence the demonstrates that even so much as 10 of these Senators would be enriched by this action.

Thanks,

JaxAll these guys are rich a long time ago. American corruption is not bags of money delivered in darkness.

I was suggesting that any investigative reporter (not me) would find political contributions from Adelson in their campaign funds.

That they were doing the bidding of someone. And the stunt was initiated by a paymaster for a reason. So what was the reason?

I give you a hint. It was related to the visit by a diamond dealer from a middle eastern country.

Oh, I just found something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-is-it-sheldons-world.html?_r=0

Rc Collins

03-11-15, 22:07

A man who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency is certainly someone I want to listen to. Man has over 20 plus years as a U.S Senator and a sitting VP certainly knows a thing or two more than the average Joe. The elephants do not know everything and have been wrong on enough occasions to demonstrated that to us. Cheney is a non stop talker who was asleep at the switch along with his boss and allowed many innocent people to die on their watch but the right still wants to listen to him with his endless calls for war, wiretapping and water boarding, classic hypocrites.

Even on Fox they're not calling what Hillary did criminal but on AP without any evidence the verdict is in and she is now a criminal. Fair, balance and independent coverage at its worst, you can feel the hate. They can't wait for Obama to get out of there but as extreme fringe prognosticator Dr. Leopole Arthur once said the replacement for the incumbent we so loathe made us yearned for his return.

If Democratic Senators did this on a Republican president's watch they would be call traitors and every other name in the book. Flip the script and its almost always ok when the right does it, despite some saying they may have broken the law with that letter. Kelly from Fox and the ultra conservative WSJ are also not in agreement with this letter as seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1kwZYRy9PI

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-gop-senators-broke-law-iran-letter/story?id=29528727

WorldTravel69

03-12-15, 13:56

Is it possible that they could be charged with Treason?

From Yahoo News:

"That law – still on the books today, but not even attempted to be enforced since 1803 – makes it a crime with a potential prison sentence of up to three years for "any citizen" of the USA, acting without government authority, to "directly or indirectly correspond" with any foreign government or foreign official with the aim of influencing their dealings on any controversies with the USA Government, or of defeating a USA Government action. ".

Hey WT69,

Have you been reading the Islamic al jazeera website again?

Perhaps you might instead consider reading the actual US Constitution, which specifically provides that all treaties with other countries must be ratified (approved) by the US Senate.

Do you understand what that means, or are you assuming that Obama will once again ignore the Constitution and in this case make a deal with Iran without bothering to get the approval of the Senate? Perhaps he will call it something other than a "treaty", perhaps he will call it a "Memo between Countries"? Perhaps he will simply issue an executive order? I can see that getting unanimously rebuked by the Supreme Court as they did with his unconstitutional recess appointments.

Anyway, the purpose of the Senator's letter was to remind the Iranians that whatever "agreement" they make with the politically desperate Obama must go through them, and they're not the pussies that our President is.

The fact is that Obama is a complete neophyte when it comes to negotiating, which is not a surprise because he's had no executive management experience.

For one thing, as a basic tenant of negotiating, it's not a negotiation if you're not willing to walk away, and the Iranians know that Obama is so desperate to make a deal that he can be pressured into almost any concession because he clearly doesn't have the political courage to walk away.

Another thing is that Obama doesn't understand is that he holds the strongest hand: The economic sanctions and collapsing oil prices have crippled the Iranian economy, their GDP being cut by almost 30% in the past couple of years. It is in fact the mullahs who are desperate to make a deal, and now is the time to ratchet up the sanctions and force the mullahs to capitulate, which they'll do because they don't want to be ousted in another revolution.

I hope that history will record that the Senate stood strong and refused to approve a treaty with Iran that would have allowed them to develop a nuclear bomb.

Thanks,

Jax

Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior using a private, non-government email account hosted on a private server for all of her email communications while she was Secretary of State.

Punter 127

03-12-15, 15:32

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. "

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

Rev BS

03-12-15, 19:03

Iran, also known as Persia, the ancient country of Biblical times. But since the American hostage crisis in late 1970's, it was not a natural country to visit for Americans.

But I am now encouraged by the "Open" letter signed by 47 GOP Senators to try to establish dialogue for common ground on the Nuclear issue. Before that, GOP policy was to just bomb the hell out of Teheran. Perhaps, I will wait until Ted Cruz and the Ayotollah are smoking peace pipes in Austin before I make my final decision.

Meanwhile, all I have to do is check on State policy regard private visits by Americans.

Jackson

03-12-15, 19:35

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Rev,

The only purpose of your post was to push Punter's research off of the top of the page.

Nice try.

Jax
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, why. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact why. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright. ".

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. ".

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

Don B

03-12-15, 20:23

Is it possible that they could be charged with Treason?

From Yahoo News:

"That law still on the books today, but not even attempted to be enforced since 1803 makes it a crime with a potential prison sentence of up to three years for "any citizen" of the USA, acting without government authority, to "directly or indirectly correspond" with any foreign government or foreign official with the aim of influencing their dealings on any controversies with the USA Government, or of defeating a USA Government action. ".http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-disclosing-records-form/2015/03/11/id/629656/?ns_mail_uid=21332800&ns_mail_job=1612817_03122015&s=al&dkt_nbr=dmmqfews

Our resident, legal expert, should refer to 18 USA C. 1001 in the matter of H. Clinton.

Don B.

Esten

03-13-15, 00:37

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ". Hey Jax or Punter, where in this example did a Democrat advise Syria to oppose Bush? I missed it. It's obvious that Breitbart, a trashy right wing website, is trying to fool people with weak examples.

None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.

White House Petition Seeks Prosecution Of 47 Senators Who Sent Treasonous Iran Letter
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/white-house-petition-seeks-prosecution-of-47-senators-who-sent-treasonous-iran-letter

Jackson

03-13-15, 00:44

Hey Jax or Punter, where in this example did a Democrat advise Syria to oppose Bush? I missed it. Perhaps you missed it too, if you didn't read what you posted. It's obvious that Breitbart, a trashy right wing website, is trying to fool people with weak examples.

None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.So fucking what?

That's. 00078 of the population of the United States.

Liberals are always trying to impress their idiot sycophants with impressive sounding figures that can't hold up under even the most modicum of reviews.

Remember Joe Biden bragging about the administration having created 4 million jobs. Of course what they didn't say was that they would have needed to have created 6 million jobs just to keep up with the country's population growth during that same period.

Does anyone doubt that the RNC could get 255,000 signatures on a petition to have Obama impeached?

Anyway...

7 TIMES DEMOCRATS ADVISED AMERICAS ENEMIES TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT

"Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant (John) Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, why. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. " Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact why. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Like other rational people, (Kennedy) is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984,10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for "taking steps to open up the political process in your country. " House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. "We don't have any idea what's going on," an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan's arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a "detailed cease-fire proposal. "The New York Times said, "Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright. ".

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels. That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow. " Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them (the Sandinistas), they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war. " McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value. " Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. " That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. " Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy even if it's being led by the opposition. ".

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the USA Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. ".

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy. " Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it. " As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate. ".

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Joe Biden seems to have a bit of a "recall" problem.

Esten

03-13-15, 01:11

They already tried a petition to impeach Obama, using the same White House petition form as the one I mentioned. I just checked and it only got 49,890 signatures.

Anyways...

Nevertheless, the entire premise of Biden's comments is laughable, given that in the past 6 years Obama has provided the world with numerous of examples of his inability to "deliver on Americas commitments, thank you very much.Please provide two examples. I know one so-called example you are likely to choose, which is easily shot down. So I'd like to see what else you have. Just two examples. You stated that quite matter-of-factly so let's see what you got.

Tiny12

03-13-15, 03:06

But I am now encouraged by the "Open" letter signed by 47 GOP Senators to try to establish dialogue for common ground on the Nuclear issue. Before that, GOP policy was to just bomb the hell out of Teheran. Perhaps, I will wait until Ted Cruz and the Ayotollah are smoking peace pipes in Austin before I make my final decision.Not sure whether or not you're serious Reverend, but stranger things have been known to happen. It did take Nixon to normalize relations with China, and Reagan with Russia.

Tiny12

03-13-15, 03:17

None of these examples is as direct and blatant as the letter that the 47 Republican Senators sent to Iran, in the midst of negotiations. A letter that received global media attention, with the clear intent to undermine the US President. And in case you didn't notice, some of the global coverage has triggered more mocking of US Republicans. Again! Go look it up yourselves and witness the embarrassing spectacle that Republicans are creating for themselves internationally.

Additionally, it doesn't seem any of these examples triggered a petition to file charges for treason. The petition was created March 9 with the goal to reach 100 K signatures in one month. It received over 255,000 signatures in just 3 days.

White House Petition Seeks Prosecution Of 47 Senators Who Sent Treasonous Iran Letter
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/white-house-petition-seeks-prosecution-of-47-senators-who-sent-treasonous-iran-letter There's a common thread. You don't believe people should say or listen to things you disagree with. You were on a rant against Fox News a few weeks ago. Then there were the 501 (c)(4) organizations. You believed it was appropriate that the IRS prevent Tea Party groups from exercising free political speech. Now you have a problem with 47 Senators writing a letter, because they're Republicans. I don't know what the law says, but the principal of Freedom of Speech would lead me to believe they should be able to write what they want, just as the Democrats listed in Punter's post should be free to go to Cuba, Syria, etc. , and talk with whoever they want.

So you believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason? That's interesting. It sounds like something right out of Hugo Chavez's playbook.

Rev BS

03-13-15, 19:37

Not sure whether or not you're serious Reverend, but stranger things have been known to happen. It did take Nixon to normalize relations with China, and Reagan
with Russia.Face it, crystal clear. This was all about Israel and Adelson pulling their puppets' strings. And you can see how far their reach is, all the way to Buenos Aires and the AP Board.

Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be.

Much that I write is tongue in cheek. So take it for what it is. A good read or a bad read. The Fundamentalists have a hard time dealing with it. And they are no different in their blind beliefs from the rabble you seen in the streets in Dasmacus, Cairo, or Teheran.

Jackson

03-14-15, 00:26

They already tried a petition to impeach Obama, using the same White House petition form as the one I mentioned. I just checked and it only got 49,890 signatures.

Anyways...

Please provide two examples. I know one so-called example you are likely to choose, which is easily shot down. So I'd like to see what else you have. Just two examples. You stated that quite matter-of-factly so let's see what you got.Okay, here's another poll.

On November 6th, 2012, more than 60 million people officially registered their objections to Obama being the president.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

03-14-15, 01:12

Are you related?

WorldTravel69

03-14-15, 11:40

65 million voted for him.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

Okay, here's another poll.

On November 6th, 2012, more than 60 million people officially registered their objections to Obama being the president.

Thanks,

Jax.

Tiny12

03-14-15, 15:36

Face it, crystal clear. This was all about Israel and Adelson pulling their puppets' strings. And you can see how far their reach is, all the way to Buenos Aires and the AP Board.

Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be.I disagree about Adelson, although I understand your argument about Israel. Most of the 47 Senators believed what they signed, or put the pen to the paper on account of their constituents, not because of Sheldon Adelson. Yes, the USA has, sometimes blindly, provided massive amounts of foreign aid to Israel and supported the country diplomatically. Chalk that up to the American Jewish community, and a large population of fundamentalist Christians who believe Israel must be supported at all costs, not Sheldon Adelson.

If indeed Iran does become the dominant power in the Middle East, expect the region to slip into even worse instability. Sunni's outnumber Shias, and aren't going to sit idly by. Look for the Saudis to develop a nuclear weapon if Iran does. I don't know what the best solution is, for the Iranian problem. Unfortunately all the USA's potential strategies in dealing with the situation have weaknesses.

The USA's outsized involvement in the region hasn't been solely on account of Israel. Oil has played a bigger part in our interventions. Tom Steyer, a Democrat, is now spending more on politics than Adelson and getting a lot more bang for his buck. Steyer has succeeded in preventing the Keystone pipeline, at least for the time being. Keystone and further development of USA oil and gas resources, opposed by Steyer, would make it where our leaders didn't feel compelled to become involved in every conflagration in the Middle East. To be fair, Steyer would argue renewable energy would achieve the same ends. The problem is that renewables won't be viable on a large scale for decades.

Still, I don't believe a muzzle should be put on Steyer, what he should be allowed to say or who he should be allowed to support. Or Adelson. Or Netanyahu speaking to Congress, or Congressmen writing letters. When government starts doing that, it's the first step on the road to totalitarianism. (Reverend, this last part isn't directed to you. You believe in looking at all sides of an issue, and change your mind from time to time based on the evidence.).

Esten

03-16-15, 00:24

There's a common thread. You don't believe people should say or listen to things you disagree with. Wow Tiny. What a dumb thing to say. I strongly support free speech and difference of opinion. Seeing all sides of an argument helps to get at the truth. However, it is also appropriate to consider motive and integrity, and to point out dishonesty and deception. And that's where I find much of my intellectual stimulation in discussing politics.

You believed it was appropriate that the IRS prevent Tea Party groups from exercising free political speech. Wrong. I believe it was appropriate for the IRS to screen and investigate potentially fraudulant applications for tax-exempt status. Especially in the case of the Tea Party, which was widely considered a political movement, whereas the requirement for 501c tax-exempt status is that a group is primarily non-political (promoting social improvement).

Now you have a problem with 47 Senators writing a letter, because they're Republicans. Wrong again. I have no problem with Republicans voicing their opinion and writing a letter. But they should have written it to the editors of American newspapers like the New York Times, or taken out a full-page ad. Not to a foreign government in the middle of negotiations with our President.

So you believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason? That's interesting. Wrong again. Did I say that? Your pattern is saying I said things or took positions that I didn't. I don't believe the 47 Senators should be prosecuted for treason. And it will never happen, Obama is too reasonable and level-headed to counter one distraction with another. I do believe they did something stupid and damaging to our country. It's fair to point out that Democrats have taken actions out of step with Republican presidents in the past. But like I said, the letter to Iran was on a different level, a direct and blatant effort to undermine our President in the midst of negotiations. I doubt any of those other examples triggered the backlash we are seeing against the 47 Republican Senators.

Tiny I appreciate you making the effort for some real debate and discussion. But stop mis-characterizing my statements and positions. It's dishonest.

HotRod11

03-16-15, 03:48

I am so sorry I know this is not the place to make this post but I just dont know were. I make several trips to BA a year. I would like to plan my next trip to coincide with a party at jacksons....Jackson if you would be so kind as to give me a heads up on your next party if its any time other than the first 2 weeks in May I will be there .... Regard.

Tiny12

03-16-15, 12:34

Esten, Then why the applause in your post below for the 255,000 people who signed the petition to prosecute the 47 senators for treason? O.K., I guess I misunderstood. You were commenting on popular disapproval of the Senators' letter, but don't believe they should be imprisoned.

Writing what you already know, if an organization wants to primarily promote political candidates it will organize as a TAX EXEMPT PAC, instead of a 501(c)(4). If a group wants to promote a particular issue like reproductive rights (Planned Parenthood), the Environment (Sierra Club) or lower taxes and lower government spending (Tea Party groups), and will be involved in politics in doing so, it forms a 501(c)(4). If a 501(c)(4) like Moveon.org Civic Action, or President Obama's Organization for Action, or Citizens for Tax Justice were stonewalled by the IRS, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

You need to consider whether partisanship is blinding you. What's frightening is that it did blind President Obama and at least four senators, who made pronouncements, or wrote letters to the IRS, encouraging it to clamp down on 501(c)(4)'s that they disagreed with.

Jackson

03-16-15, 16:33

...He was afraid that with success, people would get "soft" as in America. What he meant was not just physical, but mental & emotionally as well.
...Iran is the power in the Middle East, and the sooner you recognize that, the easier life will be...The Fundamentalists have a hard time dealing with it. And they [the Americans] are no different in their blind beliefs from the rabble you seen in the streets in Dasmacus, Cairo, or Teheran.
Not really want to harp on the White American issue, but the rise of the rest of the world economically, and the corresponding rise of the minorities at home has them feeling marginalized. The middle class is shrinking as technology & competition has made many jobs obsolete.

There is a large pool of Americans who are too old to reinvent themselves even as they live longer and need more income. The adage of the young taking care of the old is seeing a reverse in America. Consumerism is the face of America today, that is where the banks make their money, not from your savings.

Immigrants are still coming in everyday. Their [the immigrants] energy & skills are making up for the lethargy of the home grown.
...1976, Montreal Olympic Games. I was actually there. I saw Bruce Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon. He was Mr. America, and now or soon to be, he will be Ms. America. I have seen it all now, I can die happy.

Perhaps he got involved with the East German women & steroids. They won 10 out of 14 women track & field finals. But then, the steroids are about masculine hormones, very puzzling. Oh, I got it! It's the evolution of the American man, soon to be in every family & household. You see, he is surrounded by a nest of dominant women who made all the decisions and gets all the media attention. Who cares about an ex-Olympian jock! Like plants, being out of the sunlight, they shrivel & fade away. Let's see what happen to Lamar Odom, then we will know for sure...More back-handed racist / sexist / anti-Caucasian / anti-America / anti-American male comments by Rev BS as he gleefully decries the what he believes is their inevitable extinction.

Rev, I'm going to start calling you out on this racist/sexist hate-speech every time I see it.

Enough is enough.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

03-16-15, 17:51

More back-handed racist / sexist / anti-Caucasian / anti-America / anti-American male comments by Rev BS as he gleefully decries the what he believes is their inevitable extinction.

Rev, I'm going to start calling you out on this racist/sexist hate-speech every time I see it.

Enough is enough.

Thanks,

Jax.Ah, Stonewall Jackson.

If you just want me to stop posting, why don't you just say so.

Extinction???? And you forgot to include American women.

Jackson

03-17-15, 18:06

Ah, Stonewall Jackson.

If you just want me to stop posting, why don't you just say so.

Extinction???? And you forgot to include American women.Hey Rev,

I want you to stop posting racist anti-American comments here!

Instead, I suggest that perhaps you might consider participating in the al jazeera website forum where you will be welcomed as a hero.

Thanks,

Jax

Rev BS

03-17-15, 19:49

I don't want you to go into cardiac arrest.

Esten

03-19-15, 01:11

Hey Rev, stick around though. Just don't use the words "America" and "American" and you should be fine LOL. Honestly, I have never taken your comments like Jackson did, they are mild compared to much of the mud thrown around here. Mud which in some cases (cough) some folks (cough cough) can't even back up when asked.

Tiny- yes my point in mentioning the petition was simply to point out how much disapproval there has been to the Iran letter. That petition is now up to 315,000 signatures. While it is no longer the top story, it is still getting mentioned in the news cycle a week later. Man, did you see some of these stories and editorials?

Germany lashes US Republicans over Iran letter (AFP)
Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter (Washington Post)
47 Senators Stomp On The Constitution (AZ Republic: Editorial)
GOP Senators Try A Reckless Move To Stop Iran Nuclear Talks (San Francisco Chronicle Editorial)
Senate Saboteurs (Kentucky The Courier Journal Editorial)
GOP Letter To Iran Is A Reckless Intrusion Into Nuclear Talks (MA Boston Globe Editorial)
GOP Letter To Iran Disgraces America (Detroit Free Press Editorial)
Hate Mail: Senators Seek To Sabotage Obamas Foreign Policy (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial)
GOP senators' DUMB-destructive letter (Massachusetts Daily News Editorial)

Here's a good rundown of the nationwide coverage:
Senate letter on Iran derided coast to coast as a "political abomination.".
https://storify.com/ReThinkDefense/senate-letter-on-iran-derided-coast-to-coast

WorldTravel69

03-19-15, 03:20

I am in agreement for a pipeline from Canada and Alaska.

But not for oil, but we do and will need is Water.

But my local politician said that there is not any profit in it, so the Republicans will not vote for what is needed for the people, only Big Business.

Can you right wingers live on Oil? And say there is no Climate Change and we do not need Clean Water?

Sure you can buy bottle water, that no one checks that it is Okay for you and I.

A lot of fish that we eat comes from Thailand. Only 2 % gets checked.

Check this out:

http://economyincrisis.org/content/dirty-water-dangerous-fish

http://www.youtube.com/embed/h1nEPzsFpc0?feature=player

SteveC

03-19-15, 07:38

Maybe I should have put this in the joke section. Watch Rick Santorum squirm at the rantings of someone who would be right at home here. Although I do agree with her about lobbyists. Never noticed that nuke in Charleston though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAYYGUP-pA

Rev BS

03-19-15, 13:09

Tiny12

03-19-15, 18:03

Mandatory voting. Surprise Ted Cruz did not think of it first.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/19/obama-broaches-the-idea-of-mandatory-voting/

And why not put it on the weekend if Big Business is so vehemently against a public holiday.
Oh, I forgot, we have football on.People shouldn't be forced to vote if they don't want to. If I don't know or care who the best candidate is for an office, I often don't vote. Better to leave the choice up to those who are informed and care.

I am in agreement for a pipeline from Canada and Alaska.

But not for oil, but we do and will need is Water.

But my local politician said that there is not any profit in it, so the Republicans will not vote for what is needed for the people, only Big Business.

Can you right wingers live on Oil? And say there is no Climate Change and we do not need Clean Water?

Sure you can buy bottle water, that no one checks that it is Okay for you and I.

A lot of fish that we eat comes from Thailand. Only 2 % gets checked.

Check this out:

http://economyincrisis.org/content/dirty-water-dangerous-fishSo why do you think no one will build a water pipeline? What right wingers are working against that? If you want to increase the clean water supply in northern California, where you live, nuke some of the nutty environmental regulations, like the one protecting the delta smelt. Ending that one alone would get you another million acre feet a year of useable water.

We've debated the oil pipeline again and again, and, respectfully, you're dead wrong. The increase in worldwide carbon emissions, if any, from the Keystone pipeline would be insignificant. It's safer and cheaper transporting oil from Canada and North Dakota by pipeline than by train. We're encouraging the Canadians to build pipelines to their west coast, for export to China, and to eastern Canada. This would be negative both for our energy security and jobs. You don't think we should get involved in Middle East wars, right? Well why don't you understand that having an additional 700,000 barrels a day of production from Canada shipped to USA Gulf Coast refineries makes us less likely to send young men to die in places like Iraq?

As to the fish from Thailand, there are antibiotics in chicken and beef produced in the USA. The latest studies indicate that people who eat vegetarian diets with fish are healthier than strict vegetarians or meat eaters. We're better off having affordable shrimp and tuna packaged in Thailand than not having it. It's better for peoples' health and better for their pocket books.

Thanks,

Sentinel Tiny.

Rev BS

03-19-15, 20:43

Tiny,

There is much to recommend about mandatory voting. Just raising awareness and civic duty especially among the younger voters will be a good thing.

I have respect for our soldiers even if they have been fighting in the wrong wars, but it is the people who tends to be not involve who do not give them respect. And that is because they do not vote.

I know that there is a Civics class in high school and mandatory voting will continue their further involvement in civic duties. People who are against it only think of self-interest.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/civics-instruction-moves-up-in-class-1419613231

Punter 127

03-20-15, 02:10

Mandatory Voting

People who are against it only think of self-interest.au contraire

People who want to deprive others of the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the selfish ones. They try to argue their case with cries of the "greater good," but they want to decide what's good for the rest of us.

Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.

"Since voting is a form of speech, not voting is also a form of speech a silent protest by those who don't like any of the candidates, perhaps.

Maybe Obama figures since he's issuing fines for not buying insurance, he can fine them for not speaking, too."

Rev BS

03-20-15, 04:33

Mandatory Voting

au contraire

People who want to deprive others of the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the selfish ones. They try to argue their case with cries of the "greater good," but they want to decide what's good for the rest of us.

Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.

"Since voting is a form of speech, not voting is also a form of speech a silent protest by those who don't like any of the candidates, perhaps.

Maybe Obama figures since he's issuing fines for not buying insurance, he can fine them for not speaking, too."That is why there is a vote. After the last vote, you said the majority does not speak for the minority. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. That says it all.

That's how the Indians ended up in reservations. I know that's a little before your time. So you and your Bible are excused.

Punter 127

03-20-15, 06:16

Complete Gibberish,

That is why there is a vote. After the last vote, you said the majority does not speak for the minority. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. That says it all.
That's how the Indians ended up in reservations. I know that's a little before your time. So you and your Bible are excused.I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say, but I don't remember saying anything about the majority speaking for the minority, (please show quote) nor do I see what that would have to do with "Mandatory Voting." I'm a little confused maybe you could elaborate a little on the Indian reservation thing? I also don't know where you came up with the "your Bible" crap, but I don't need you to excuse me for anything, you're not God... You just think you are!

You seem so very angry but it's not my fault you don't like (or understand) the Founding Principles of America.

I think you have completely lost it, but at least you didn't put some race baiting label on me...this time.

Have a nice day.

Rev BS

03-20-15, 13:21

Complete Gibberish,

I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say, but I don't remember saying anything about the majority speaking for the minority, (please show quote) nor do I see what that would have to do with "Mandatory Voting." I'm a little confused maybe you could elaborate a little on the Indian reservation thing? I also don't know where you came up with the "your Bible" crap, but I don't need you to excuse me for anything, you're not God... You just think you are!

You seem so very angry but it's not my fault you don't like (or understand) the Founding Principles of America.

I think you have completely lost it, but at least you didn't put some race baiting label on me...this time.

Have a nice day.When Obama won his second term, that is what came out of the AP Glee Club, that it did not mean shit!

The Presidency did not mean shit.

Angry over all this? You have always been the one spewing invectives. For sure, you will deny this. More times then not, we have always turn the other cheek. Just remember, anger is never productive. It just make you ugly.

Yes, of course, that American Indian/Reservation thing. Yeah, it was nothing, the Indians just lost. Too bad.

Me God? Now you are lost.

Tres3

03-20-15, 15:51

The increase in worldwide carbon emissions, if any, from the Keystone pipeline would be insignificant.
The oil companies have invested too much money not to mine the Canadian Oil Sands. Oil will be produced regardless of whether Keystone XL is built. Keystone is nothing more than a USA political football. In the past 12 months we have built over 5 times the length of Keystone XL domestically and will continue to build domestic pipelines. Pipelines may have spills, but they are still cheaper and safer than railroads.

Tres3.

Member #4112

03-20-15, 16:12

When Obama won his second term, that is what came out of the AP Glee Club, that it did not mean shit!
The Presidency did not mean shit.

Angry over all this? You have always been the one spewing invectives. For sure, you will deny this. More times then not, we have always turn the other cheek. Just remember, anger is never productive. It just make you ugly.

Yes, of course, that American Indian/Reservation thing. Yeah, it was nothing, the Indians just lost. Too bad.

Me God? Now you are lost.Rev, please get back on the meds.

Rev BS

03-20-15, 16:49

Rev, please get back on the meds.The soft or hard stuff?

WorldTravel69

03-20-15, 18:57

No one has proposed a water pipe line. I said I asked my local politician and said no one would do it because there is no money to be made from it.

And if our President wanted one, the do nothing Republican Congress would vote against it, even though it is for the People.

It has nothing to do with nuking anything. No Rain, No Water.

Yes, Monsanto is killing us with their chemicals in our food. And the Republicans support that; Big Business that is.

Did you not watch the video of fish farming in Thailand?

People shouldn't be forced to vote if they don't want to. If I don't know or care who the best candidate is for an office, I often don't vote. Better to leave the choice up to those who are informed and care.

So why do you think no one will build a water pipeline? What right wingers are working against that? If you want to increase the clean water supply in northern California, where you live, nuke some of the nutty environmental regulations, like the one protecting the delta smelt. Ending that one alone would get you another million acre feet a year of usable water.

We've debated the oil pipeline again and again, and, respectfully, you're dead wrong. The increase in worldwide carbon emissions, if any, from the Keystone pipeline would be insignificant. It's safer and cheaper transporting oil from Canada and North Dakota by pipeline than by train. We're encouraging the Canadians to build pipelines to their west coast, for export to China, and to eastern Canada. This would be negative both for our energy security and jobs. You don't think we should get involved in Middle East wars, right? Well why don't you understand that having an additional 700,000 barrels a day of production from Canada shipped to USA Gulf Coast refineries makes us less likely to send young men to die in places like Iraq?

As to the fish from Thailand, there are antibiotics in chicken and beef produced in the USA. The latest studies indicate that people who eat vegetarian diets with fish are healthier than strict vegetarians or meat eaters. We're better off having affordable shrimp and tuna packaged in Thailand than not having it. It's better for peoples' health and better for their pocket books.

Thanks,

Sentinel Tiny.

Rocky2

03-20-15, 22:11

Tiny12

03-21-15, 02:56

No one has proposed a water pipe line. I said I asked my local politician and said no one would do it because there is no money to be made from it.

And if our President wanted one, the do nothing Republican Congress would vote against it, even though it is for the People.

It has nothing to do with nuking anything. No Rain, No Water.

Yes, Monsanto is killing us with their chemicals in our food. And the Republicans support that; Big Business that is.

Did you not watch the video of fish farming in Thailand?"No one has proposed a water pipeline....but if our President wanted one, the do nothing Republican Congress would vote against it, even though it is for the People.".

That makes a lot of sense WT69. If the President wants something no one else would propose, it's the job of the legislative branch to approve it. However, you're not alone. That's typical of the blind acceptance you see among many Obama supporters.

Your video was about catfish from Vietnam. If you had complained about Vietnam I would have agreed with you. However if you commie pinkos think you're going to take large, plump succulent Thai shrimp off my plate and replace them with scrawny, grainy Gulf shrimp that cost 5 times more, well then, fuck you.

Seriously, joking aside, I may stop eating catfish in restaurants after looking at your video, and do understand there are problems with the quantities of drugs and chemicals used in Vietnamese fish farming. I'm very comfortable with seafood from Thailand. Thai aquaculture and processors meet European standards, which are more strict than ours. About your Monsanto comment, my argument would be the same as for seafood. Eat genetically modified apples that were grown with fertilizers and pesticides, instead of french fries and Cheetos, and you're going to be much better off.

Punter 127

03-21-15, 03:44

When Obama won his second term, that is what came out of the AP Glee Club, that it did not mean shit!
The Presidency did not mean shit.First you claimed I said it, now you say the "AP Glee Club" said it, I don't think anybody said it, I think you just made that crapola up. (forked tongue? Selective memory?).

BTW just what is the "AP Glee Club" is it akin to "the attack dogs, that at first sniff, they go crazy...You have your rabies shot yet?" No spewing invectives from Rev BS right? That's just a small sample of some of your vituperative comments...the list goes on.

Angry over all this? You have always been the one spewing invectives. For sure, you will deny this. More times then not, we have always turn the other cheek. Just remember, anger is never productive. It just make you ugly.You have repeatedly tried to label me as angry, but it's not true, put simply you don't have enough on the ball to make me angry. I do get a little frustrated with stupidity from time to time.

Yes, of course, that American Indian/Reservation thing. Yeah, it was nothing, the Indians just lost. Too bad.Really? You think it's "too bad" the Indians lost? Do you really hate America that much?

Me God? Now you are lost.I did not say you was God, I said you think you're God, and that's the way you come across to me.

Lets not forget the original topic was "Mandatory Voting" and you brought all this other BS up because I said "Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.".

Maybe you would like to tell us how you feel about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Did you ever read them? After you finish that look up the word Liberty.

TejanoLibre

03-21-15, 04:11

First you claimed I said it, now you say the "AP Glee Club" said it, I don't think anybody said it, I think you just made that crapola up. (forked tongue? Selective memory?).

BTW just what is the "AP Glee Club" is it akin to "the attack dogs, that at first sniff, they go crazy...You have your rabies shot yet?" No spewing invectives from Rev BS right? That's just a small sample of some of your vituperative comments...the list goes on.

You have repeatedly tried to label me as angry, but it's not true, put simply you don't have enough on the ball to make me angry. I do get a little frustrated with stupidity from time to time.

Really? You think it's "too bad" the Indians lost? Do you really hate America that much?

I did not say you was God, I said you think you're God, and that's the way you come across to me.

Lets not forget the original topic was "Mandatory Voting" and you brought all this other BS up because I said "Mandatory voting flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence and it has Constitutional First Amendment problems.".

Maybe you would like to tell us how you feel about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Did you ever read them? After you finish that look up the word Liberty.And we were all doing so well just a while ago !

Talking and Living and Eating Pussy !

New girls on the board . Maybe ?

No infighting . Not much .

Club News .

Come on Boys !

Nobody is right and Nobody is wrong .

Except the super liberal S.O.Bs .

Lose this thread .

Only 4 people will miss it !

It knocks the important Pussy info off the board eventually .

Just a thought .

TL29499.

My Favorite Privado.

Rev BS

03-21-15, 04:49

Can't believe I am typing this shit in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Interestingly enough, I did check the archives for this thread this morning. And pages from early 2012 to late 2012 were missing. But we can carry on this forever, and nobody's going to be wrong. We will let the the readers justify the postings.

Punter 127

03-21-15, 05:09

TejanoLibre

This thread has been here for six years and I suspect in two years there will be another thread with a new Presidents name.

Nobody is forced to read this thread, but if you really want it gone I suggest you take it up with Jackson, it is after all his thread.

ElAlamoPalermo

03-21-15, 07:52

WorldTravel69

03-21-15, 13:12

You are right there are canals all over California. The problem is the they getting very dry. Our mountains did not get much snow in the last four years. Our winter season is over for this year.

I am talking about pipelines from States that have lots of rain. Washington gets lots of rain, Oregon gets more than us.

I am just suggesting a water line for emergencies like now.

It would be nice if we could get a lot of the snow from the East coast.

When it is water being transported they call them canals. They are everywhere.

Tiny12

03-21-15, 13:27

The title of this thread should be changed to "Jackson and His Lackey Fascist Fan-Boy's Obama Hate Group". An alternative thread title could be "Jackson and Fellow Sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome Support Group".That's rich El Alamo Palermo. Obama is an economic fascist, which by extension means you are too, since you unquestioningly praise everything he says and does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

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

Rev BS

03-21-15, 23:35

Maybe you would like to tell us how you feel about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Did you ever read them? After you finish that look up the word Liberty.While 1776 will exist and will remain the core of our existence, the Supreme Court is here to deal with our ever daily changing world.

I look up Liberty, and I saw you in a white strait jacket!

I hope you have a sense of humor, we already know you have a high intellect.

Punter 127

03-22-15, 08:18

I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.

While 1776 will exist and will remain the core of our existence, the Supreme Court is here to deal with our ever daily changing world.Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.

"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".

So the Supreme Court is not here to deal with "our ever daily changing world" but rather to make sure "our ever daily changing world" complies with the highest man made law of all...the Constitution.

I think part of the problem is you just don't understand our system, you (and others) don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, not even a Representative Democracy, but a Republic.

Maybe this will help;.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individuals God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.If you really care about the little guy (individual liberty) and Minorities you should be very happy we are a Republic.

The link has a more in depth explanation that everyone should read and try to understand.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.

I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?

WorldTravel69

03-22-15, 13:51

It is not the way you say it is.

It is Government by Big Business, for Big Business.

Buy a politician today.

I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.

Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.

"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".

So the Supreme Court is not here to deal with "our ever daily changing world" but rather to make sure "our ever daily changing world" complies with the highest man made law of all...the Constitution.

I think part of the problem is you just don't understand our system, you (and others) don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, not even a Representative Democracy, but a Republic.

Maybe this will help;.

If you really care about the little guy (individual liberty) and Minorities you should be very happy we are a Republic.

The link has a more in depth explanation that everyone should read and try to understand.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.

I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?

Rev BS

03-22-15, 20:35

I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.

Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.

"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".

So the Supreme Court is not

BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.

I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?The Greater Good is a when an individual or group is willing to give up up, compromise, sacrifice their right/gain/benefit in order that a Greater Number of people will gain from that action. Like dividing your loaf of bread. It actually starts when you treat and look at another human being as your brother.

Just look around you, there is so much harshness.

It is not crap.

Tiny12

03-23-15, 03:17

The Greater Good is a when an individual or group is willing to give up up, compromise, sacrifice their right/gain/benefit in order that a Greater Number of people will gain from that action. Like dividing your loaf of bread. It actually starts when you treat and look at another human being as your brother.
I have no desire to wade into an argument between two people I respect. This is just meant to be a possible explanation of a misunderstanding that I think some people have who are left of center. Libertarians believe that free markets and capitalism have lifted billions out of poverty, and we believe the policies we favor will benefit the greatest number of people. This is counter-intuitive, because Social Democrats and socialists would appear to have morality on their side. That is, how can businesses and people, competing against each other and pursuing their own selfish ends, create greater prosperity for more people than a society based on sharing and equality?

Reverend, Two people on separate occasions in the island nation where you were transiting the other day told me something like "Forty years ago, we were a wealthier country than Hong Kong/Singapore. Now look what happened." What happened was that Sri Lanka pursued economic policies like Europe. Industries were nationalized and taxes went up to among the highest in the developing world. And corruption remained a fixture in government. They blew it.

Don B

03-23-15, 12:08

Rev BS

03-23-15, 18:15

A challenge to the altruists in this forum, read and debate this.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2006/05/altruism-the-morality-of-logical-fallacies/

Don B.But do you have a heart? Anyway, it's a personal choice. Up to you.

Contrary to some accusations, I am not superior nor a saint.

BadMan

03-23-15, 18:30

Did anyone notice how the US just bent over for Eurasia over the AIIB?

Even the krauts told the US to buzz off. Now the US wants to cooperate. Lol. That's what these fools get for playing checkers with people who are masters at the long game. It seems everybody knows which way the wind is blowing. Except the rhetorical tards.

Rev BS

03-24-15, 00:07

Reverend, Two people on separate occasions in the island nation where you were transiting the other day told me something like "Forty years ago, we were a wealthier country than Hong Kong/Singapore. Now look what happened." What happened was that Sri Lanka pursued economic policies like Europe. Industries were nationalized and taxes went up to among the highest in the developing world. And corruption remained a fixture in government. They blew it.I profess no knowledge of Sri Lanka's economic story except to say that everything about Sri Lanka in the last 50 years has to be taken within the context of the civil strife that plague and consume the life out of Sri Lanka at every level.

If it were not for China's emergence as an economic power & leader during this time, what you describe of Sri Lanka is close to universal in lesser developed countries. And don't laugh, but Brazil might even fall into that category. And here, they are staging the Olympic Games next year! Correct me if I'm mistaken.

But for sure, I will be visiting Sri Lanka very soon.

BadMan

03-24-15, 00:31

Haha. I just read the Sri Lanka bit. Just hedge accordingly and enjoy the ride. The world is fucked 6 ways from Sunday. We are living in the midst of wwIII and the great decoupling. Either we all die ( those who advocate we stand up to Russia ) or there is a slow great paradigm shift. No two ways about it. I personally enjoy watching those with cognitive dissonance and paradigm paralysis. Its quite entertaining from an academic standpoint to say the least.

Don B

03-26-15, 21:22

But do you have a heart? Anyway, it's a personal choice. Up to you.
Contrary to some accusations, I am not superior nor a saint.What an outstanding defense of altruism.

Another try to remove the altruist's head's from their asses.

https://drhurd.com/ohio-gov-john-kasich-reveals-why-repulicans-are-losers/

Don B.

WorldTravel69

03-27-15, 12:25

The New Political System.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/25/new-american-order/

It is not the way you say it is.

It is Government by Big Business, for Big Business.

Buy a politician today.

Rev BS

03-27-15, 12:36

Tiny12

03-28-15, 16:26

What an outstanding defense of altruism.

Another try to remove the altruist's head's from their asses.

https://drhurd.com/ohio-gov-john-kasich-reveals-why-repulicans-are-losers/

Don B.We're on the same page on most issues but disagree on this one. I'm with the Reverend, Kasich is my man too. It would be great if he were the Republican nominee for President. He beat his Democrat opponent by 30 percentage points in the last Ohio gubernatorial election. Kasich didn't come up with the wasteful, inefficient, anti-free-enterprise U.S. Health care system. He'd be doing a disservice to his constituents if he didn't accept federal funds for Medicaid. I personally don't have a problem with government helping children and the poor with medical care, providing it's done efficiently, which it's not now. I'm also a big supporter of private altruism. Yes you want to make sure the funds are going to good use and aren't being siphoned off by administrative overhead or otherwise. Disaster relief and vaccinations and other basic medical care for children in third world countries are two of my favorites. Yes, public altruism has its problems. One example, paying Cargill and ADM millions for grain that's shipped to African countries to support American farmers. Sometimes the grain gets resold by corrupt government officials to China or who knows where. And it can put local farmers out of business, who can't compete with free food.

Don B

03-28-15, 16:41

We're on the same page on most issues but disagree on this one. I'm with the Reverend, Kasich is my man too. It would be great if he were the Republican nominee for President. He beat his Democrat opponent by 30 percentage points in the last Ohio gubernatorial election. Kasich didn't come up with the wasteful, inefficient, anti-free-enterprise U.S. Health care system. He'd be doing a disservice to his constituents if he didn't accept federal funds for Medicaid. I personally don't have a problem with government helping children and the poor with medical care, providing it's done efficiently, which it's not now. I'm also a big supporter of private altruism. Yes you want to make sure the funds are going to good use and aren't being siphoned off by administrative overhead or otherwise. Disaster relief and vaccinations and other basic medical care for children in third world countries are two of my favorites. Yes, public altruism has its problems. One example, paying Cargill and ADM millions for grain that's shipped to African countries to support American farmers. Sometimes the grain gets resold by corrupt government officials to China or who knows where. And it can put local farmers out of business, who can't compete with free food.You are confusing altruism with benevolence.

How does one persons need constitute a claim on another's life?

How can you morally justify using force, the government, to enforce that claim?

Don B.

Tiny12

03-28-15, 16:44

I profess no knowledge of Sri Lanka's economic story except to say that everything about Sri Lanka in the last 50 years has to be taken within the context of the civil strife that plague and consume the life out of Sri Lanka at every level.

If it were not for China's emergence as an economic power & leader during this time, what you describe of Sri Lanka is close to universal in lesser developed countries. And don't laugh, but Brazil might even fall into that category. And here, they are staging the Olympic Games next year! Correct me if I'm mistaken.

But for sure, I will be visiting Sri Lanka very soon.Excellent point about the conflict in Sri Lanka. You could argue that overshadows everything else.

I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. China emerged as an economic power because Deng Xiaoping started pursuing free market policies. This was in no small part because of the influence of the Singapore example, and advice from the Singapore Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.

Sri Lanka's biggest "export" is its people, many of whom work in other countries and remit funds back home, not commodities that have driven booms in some third world countries. I don't see the China connection, except that the old regime in Sri Lanka, like a number of African governments, courted Chinese investment and aid. The new government is promoting better relations with India, and Chinese investment may suffer as a result.

Yes, countries like Brazil did benefit from the commodity boom created by Chinese demand. Brazil is a poor example for your case though. I'd argue that the reason the country WILL fall into "that category" is because Dilma Rousseff has followed in Sri Lanka's footsteps and violated most of Tiny's rules for good governance, being smaller efficient government, avoidance of large fiscal deficits, low levels of corruption and crony capitalism, rule of law and property rights, and a good education system.

WorldTravel69

04-05-15, 00:33

Funny I thought there was a thread already.

This one is about Drugs and Politics.

Don't miss seeing this.

"Kill the Messenger".

I am sure the Government does not want you to watch this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216491/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Don B

04-06-15, 13:41

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8324

I remember 1938 as well as what happened a year later.

The rest of you will just have to read about it.

Don B.

BadMan

04-06-15, 17:49

BLS=BS?

Even the FED has to admit it. Now all future arguments that quote the BLS stats, you will be rightfully ridiculed because it's no longer ignorance. It's just plain stupid.

Rev BS

04-16-15, 21:49

Here is a take on Clinton's entry into the Presidential race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html

Rev BS

04-18-15, 00:18

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted because it constituted more anti-American hate-speech in yet another attempt by Rev BS to gleefully decry the what he believes is the inevitable extinction of the USA.

BadMan

04-18-15, 08:50

How can you? U.S. Citizens have allowed the country to be taken over by a bunch of kleptocrats and plutocrats while they keep yapping about republican democrat blah blah blah. And next election we get to choose between a Clinton and a bush. What a democracy. All the while serious governments around the world are doing their job while not having to bomb countries willy nilly. Hoi polloi get the government's they deserve. Enjoy.

Pride & Stubborness over Pragmatism. How can you identify yourself a patriot?

BadMan

04-18-15, 09:32

And this is what we are left with.

BadMan

04-18-15, 10:43

Well at least we have that. Who needs the AIIB?

Arriving at Lvov, the capital of Banderastan no less. Very symbolic.

BadMan

04-18-15, 10:50

So now we are arming AND training these guys. Are Americans proud yet? Winning.

BadMan

04-18-15, 20:11

Guess she can't be all that bad..

Rev BS

04-19-15, 00:50

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/republicans_support_benjamin_netanyahu_more_than_barack_obama_an_unprecedented.html

Republicans feel more allegiance to Benjamin Netanyahu than Barrack Obama.

I have to apologize for not consulting with the locals about Obama when I was in Nairobi a few weeks ago. Too much fun there, forgot all about the politics & hate.

Rev BS

04-19-15, 01:03

[Message to Admin deleted]

EDITOR's NOTE: This report was edited to remove a message directed to the Forum Admin.

The open Forum is not the appropriate venue to contact the Forum Administration regarding individual questions, complaints or comments about the administration of the Forum. Instead, please use the Contact Us link at the bottom of this page to send me an email voicing your complaints about the administration of the Forum, and I will respond as quickly as possible. Thanks!

HotRod11

04-19-15, 03:25

Rev BS

04-19-15, 04:12

This afternoon I was in my driveway here in the midwest checking the oil in my 12 year old car when this nicely dressed young man walked up holding his hand out for a hand shake saying my dad is running for county council and while cleaning my hands with a garage towel I looked him square in the eye and said all politicians are the skum of the earth. He said have a nice day sur turned around and walked away. No matter if you swing left or right you must admit...all politicians are the skum of the earth.What you say is almost 100% correct. But it comes down to morality, and what a person can resist. And that comes
with the surrounding enviroment and the existing culture. When you are knee-deep in dung, it's almost impossible to keep a white shirt spotless.

BadMan

04-19-15, 10:43

And now we have killed Oles Buzina. And the western puppet lackey media who masquerades as news. Not even a peep. Be proud of your government's policy. They killed an honest man.

A good friend once told me " In the end, they will have to pay. There is no getting out of it, they always have to pay in the end ". He wasn't speaking about this of course. But his incite and candor at that moment betrayed a much deeper truth.

A neo Nazi parade held in Odessa today. While our dirty blood stained politicians debate on how much more money arms and training to send the their fascist junta in Kiev.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hid0j-PQ7Xg

BadMan

04-19-15, 11:06

Very interesting military exercises being held July 15- September 15th. I'm sure it's just standard drills........

About 100+ citizens being killed by police in the U.S. Every month. 345 and counting for 2015.

http://killedbypolice.net/

Our " democracy " just keeps getting better and better. But let's just focus on the republican/democrat dialectic.

Rev BS

04-23-15, 12:44

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/lsu_academic_bankruptcy.html

LSU going under.

Rev BS

04-27-15, 22:13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2015/04/25/white-house-correspondents-dinner-2015-live-complete-coverage/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

Rev BS

05-14-15, 19:51

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/14/jeb-now-definitive-would-not-have-invaded-iraq/

I think Cheney will have a heart attack over this.

Don B

05-18-15, 15:03

The RevBS will probably disagree with this, but then he is anti-reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peterschwartz/religion-freedom-and-the-_b_6598524.html

Don B.

Don B

05-19-15, 17:54

It boggles my mind why Obama is still supported by
anyone with at least three brain cells to rub together.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/05/the-difference-between-winning-a-lottery-vs-building-a-successful-business/

Don B.

Dickhead

05-19-15, 20:26

Don B

05-19-15, 20:57

This would be so great if it really happened:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-benedict-option-why-the-religious-right-is-considering-an-all-out-withdrawal-from-politics/ar-BBjWOAJ

I hope they don't let the door hit them where the good lord split them, on their way out.As an Objectivist I consider the term "religious right" to be an oxymoron.

In the fight between the "religious right" and the leftists I am reminded of what Kissinger said.

About the Iran-Iraq war, "It's too bad both sides can't lose.".

Don B.

Dickhead

05-19-15, 21:54

That's a great quote from Kissinger. Ayn Rand would be truly proud. I kind of feel the same way when the Yankees play the Red Sox.

Don B

05-26-15, 14:12

Esten

05-27-15, 01:23

http://wp.me/p466Sb-2c5

I know, this stuff is all just made up, part of a right wing conspiracy.

Never in my lifetime do I remember so much disorder and that includes.

Three wars and the Great Depression.

Come on, let's hear it from the resident leftists about how wonderful it is.

Don B.Wow, where you do keep coming up with such crap ? Now things are worse than the World Wars and the Depression ? LOL.

Just another case study in how the right wing media keep people focused on negative narratives. And these days, working in a link to Hillary Clinton as well. It's all about psychological profiling and programming. It doesn't matter that most Americans don't support Right Wing solutions (war, cutting social programs, etc). Just keep pumping out those negative narratives.

Wonder why the Right Wing is obsessed by foreign policy over the economy ? Because the economy is doing fairly well, with unemployment down to 5.4%. Here's a blast from the past: What 2012 presidential candidate promised to do in 4 years what Obama did in 2 years ?

Romney promises unemployment down to 6% in 4 years
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/romney-unemployment-six-percent-/1#.VWU3ZE_Bz6l

Don B

05-27-15, 10:05

Wow, where you do keep coming up with such crap ? Now things are worse than the World Wars and the Depression ? LOL.

Just another case study in how the right wing media keep people focused on negative narratives. And these days, working in a link to Hillary Clinton as well. It's all about psychological profiling and programming. It doesn't matter that most Americans don't support Right Wing solutions (war, cutting social programs, etc). Just keep pumping out those negative narratives.

Wonder why the Right Wing is obsessed by foreign policy over the economy ? Because the economy is doing fairly well, with unemployment down to 5.4%. Here's a blast from the past: What 2012 presidential candidate promised to do in 4 years what Obama did in 2 years ?

Romney promises unemployment down to 6% in 4 years
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/romney-unemployment-six-percent-/1#.VWU3ZE_Bz6lWhy do you still have your head up your ass?

Don B.

Don B

05-27-15, 11:12

http://godfatherpolitics.com/22606/kool-aid-drinkers-want-californians-to-drink-sewage/#Gr2MPTBYmZIKOoZF.99.

And now those in California may now get a dose of their own crap.

Anybody here live in California?

Don B.

Don B

05-27-15, 13:24

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/05/are-hedge-funds-worth-more-than-kindergartens/

There are some things that are impossible, pulling a looney leftist head out of his ass falls in that category.

Don B.

Don B

05-28-15, 09:45

http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-age-of-communism-lives/

Where do I come up with this crap?

Don B.

Esten

05-29-15, 00:54

http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/the-age-of-communism-lives/Don I read this article you linked.

It's about how bad Communism was, how many people were killed under Communism (worse than the Nazi Holocaust, it is claimed), and how people today are generally uninformed about it.

BUT, I fail to see the connection to the title of your post: "Double standards of the left". Please enlighten us Don on the connection.

Punter 127

05-29-15, 03:59

I fail to see the connection {snip}"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

Don B

05-29-15, 11:42

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."I think Punter's post is all Mr. Critical Thinker deserves.

Don B.

Esten

05-31-15, 23:04

I think Punter's post is all Mr. Critical Thinker deserves.Don and his cronies can't articulate what the connection is between historical atrocities of communism, and double standards of the left. As such, it's just more gratuitous anti-left mudslinging. Probably in their heads there is some connection, but they're afraid to articulate it because it would be exposed for the flimsy crap it most likely is. Very pathetic, weasel-like behavior.

Tiny12

06-04-15, 01:16

Don and his cronies can't articulate what the connection is between historical atrocities of communism, and double standards of the left. As such, it's just more gratuitous anti-left mudslinging. Probably in their heads there is some connection, but they're afraid to articulate it because it would be exposed for the flimsy crap it most likely is. Very pathetic, weasel-like behavior.No one believes the left will reenact the historical atrocities of Communism in the USA. The second amendment will prevent that. As to analogies between the American left and communists, it's a matter of degree. American leftists would like for government to account for 50% of the economy. Communists would prefer 90%. American leftists believe that if someone's smart and works his ass off and creates a successful business, government should confiscate 60% of what he makes while he's alive, then take 50% of what's left when he dies. Communists on the other hand would allow the person to take home, maybe, $30/month if he lives in Cuba, or $1,000/month (adjusted for inflation) if he lived in the Soviet Union. American leftists would have the IRS hinder organizations they disagree with from exercising free speech. Communists would control outright the press.

Member #4112

06-04-15, 10:27

Welcome back Tiny.

While your delineation between American Leftist and Communist is accurate prior to Obama, I believe Obama's administration has blurred those lines via ruling by fiat.

ElAlamoPalermo

06-25-15, 18:27

ObamaCare TODAY, ObamaCare TOMORROW, ObamaCare FOREVER!!!!!!!! Now Jackson and his right wing fascist fan-boys can definitively bend over and open up their wallets nice and wide.

BadMan

06-25-15, 21:52

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people...

WorldTravel69

07-19-15, 03:28

For over a Month now, none of you has Anything to say bad about OUR President!

Because our country is in Great shape!

It you watch this you will see a comparison to what big business is doing to what was happening in the 30s.

Buy the politicians.

Everything that Lucky Luciano's Italian Mafia mob suggested in the 1930s is what big business is following.

So, how big are the Mafia today?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/10/amc-miniseries-making-of-the-mob-follows-lucky-lucianos-rise

Tell Us if I am Wrong??

Who Controls Big Business, Not us.

Dickhead

07-19-15, 11:16

I can't wait to watch this absorbing docu-drama to learn the "Italian" system of government as practiced by paisanos like Siegel and Lansky.

HappyGoLucky

07-20-15, 22:57

Great article, particularly to stop trafficking. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/4_reasons_to_decriminalize_prostitution_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow.

Rev BS

07-21-15, 04:12

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/americas/cuba-us-embassy-diplomatic-relations.html

Can we give Obama 3 claps for his salsa moves?

WorldTravel69

08-28-15, 20:25

Hard to get a Pinata.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Donald-Trump-is-a-pi-ata-he-s-just-made-6469625.php

Dickhead

09-07-15, 20:14

I definitely support Donald Trump for the Republican nomination and sincerely hope he embraces Sarah Palin as part of his proposed cabinet. I would recommend he choose Rick Perry as his running mate.

Jackson

09-10-15, 14:37

I definitely support Donald Trump for the Republican nomination and sincerely hope he embraces Sarah Palin as part of his proposed cabinet. I would recommend he choose Rick Perry as his running mate.What I like about Donald Trump is that he pisses off all the right people.

Dickhead

09-10-15, 15:01

What I like about him is he is completely unelectable, yet will probably get nominated. Tough to win without the black or latino vote these days. There are only so many Cuban Americans to go around and they only affect the vote in one state. But since we know that the economy does worse under Republicans than under Democrats, and since Trump has already gone bankrupt fourteen times, he is even more well poised to be the nominee.

Donald Trump understands the secret to wealth creation: inherit it. And, he obviously understands how to destroy wealth, as long as it isn't your own wealth: bankruptcy protection!

I might even volunteer to work on his campaign. Probably be more fun than working on Hilary's. I pray for his continued good health.

Dickhead

09-10-15, 16:15

“The Democrats have terribly screwed things up, and are basically giving us the next election … The Democrats have practically gift wrapped this election for us.”.

And then remember the context in which he said it. I'm just sayin'.

Dickhead

09-10-15, 16:30

S & P 500 total return Feb. 1, 1993 to Jan. 31, 2001 = Clinton = 15.001% annualized.

S & P 500 total return Feb. 1, 2001 to Jan. 31, 2009 = Bush Junior = -5.061% (the negative sign means if you had invested $1 under George Jr's watch you would have about 64 cents of it left by the end of his terms).

S & P 500 total return Feb. 1, 2009 to Aug. 31, 2105 = Obama = 14.764% annualized.

http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/

Any questions?

Dickhead

09-10-15, 17:01

GDP growth under Clinton: 3.56% (compounded annual average in each example).

GDP growth under the greatest military pilot of all time, Bush "2": 1.80%.

GDP growth under Obama (through last full reported quarter): 2.01%.

These figures are "real" (inflation-adjusted) and per capita.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDPC1.txt

Any questions?

Oh, and speaking of inflation, average inflation was less under the combination of Clinton and Obama than it was under Bush:

Clinton 2.60% per year, Right Handed Bush 2.37%, Obama 1.90%. I used the January figures in all three cases, as the base.

www.cpi.gov

If there are any other measures of economic health that we can compare across Republican and Democratic administrations, we can sure do that. Interest rates? Don't even go there!

Dickhead

09-10-15, 17:11

Under Clinton:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE

Under the draft dodger with the DUI:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE

Under the mulatto messiah:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE

The picture seems pretty clear!

Dickhead

09-10-15, 17:13

DallasNorte

09-12-15, 11:53

Times we were invaded under Clinton: None.

Effectiveness of response: None needed.

Times we were invaded under Bush the Second: One.

Effectiveness of response: Subjective; you be the judge!

Times we were in invaded under Obama: None so far ...

Plus:

Number of jurisdictions legalizing marijuana under any Republican president: None.

Number of jurisdictions legalizing marijuana under Obama: 5 and counting!I believe the correct number under Clinton was 5 and the effectiveness response was none.

1. The First WTC Attack Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000.

2. Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi killing 19 Americans.

3. 4. The Embassies on August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans.

5. The USS Cole bombed in Aden, Yemen came on October 12, 2000 killing 17 Americans.

Dickhead

09-12-15, 15:59

I believe the correct number under Clinton was 5 and the effectiveness response was none.

1. The First WTC Attack Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000.

2. Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi killing 19 Americans.

3. 4. The Embassies on August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans.

5. The USS Cole bombed in Aden, Yemen came on October 12, 2000 killing 17 Americans.You have a rather broad definition of "invasion." I believe those to come on US soil, from outside US soil. Some might extend that definition to embassies. I don't, but you could sure make the argument. I think less of an argument can be made for a warship. Not that any of those events were good, of course. And the first WTC attack (a truck bomb) did not originate from outside the country, so I think it's terrorism, but not an invasion.

DallasNorte

09-13-15, 11:47

You have a rather broad definition of "invasion." I believe those to come on US soil, from outside US soil. Some might extend that definition to embassies. I don't, but you could sure make the argument. I think less of an argument can be made for a warship. Not that any of those events were good, of course. And the first WTC attack (a truck bomb) did not originate from outside the country, so I think it's terrorism, but not an invasion.Using your limited definition of "invasion"--how do you explain that all of the convicted were foreigners?

Salameh and Nidal Ayyad are Palestinians. The other two convicted defendants are Ahmad Ajaj, 28, who is also Palestinian, and Mahmud Abouhalima, 34, who is an Egyptian-born German citizen. The prosecution charged that all four participated in the conspiracy because of anti-American beliefs.

HotRod11

09-16-15, 12:31

Jackson

09-16-15, 14:31

I am not sure this is the correct site to post this but here goes.

My first trip to BA was when the currency was 2.5 pesos to the dollar. This was an improvement from 1.1 to the dollar. I have now made maybe 15 trips to BA. I really like this city. I have health issues in my usa city but when this is resolved I will be back home in BA. I am retired and my intentions are to spend 8-9 months a year in BA. Please keep me posted on your party.. I would like to meet my fellow Xpats.Hotrod,

With all due respect, the American Politics thread is definitely NOT the place to go looking for friends.

I might suggest that you consider posting your announcement in the Travel Announcements / Who's in Town (=http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?795-Travel-Announcements-Who-s-in-Town) section of the forum.

Thanks,

Jax.

Gandolf50

09-22-15, 20:50

I'm surprised , no comments from anyone on Mr. Fannings appointment?

TejanoLibre

10-02-15, 17:00

I don't know anything about politics but this is the funniest thing that I have read in a long time and after that MF shot everyone in Oregon I needed a good laugh.

Things that I trust more than Hillary Clinton:

* Mexican tap water.

* A rattlesnake with a pet me sign.

* OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection.

* A fart when I have diarrhea.

* An elevator ride with Ray Rice.

* Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby.

* Michael Jackson's Doctor.

* An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran.

* A Palestinian on a motorcycle.

* Gas station Sushi.

* A Jimmy Carter economic plan.

* Brian Williams news reports.

* Loch Ness monster sightings.

* Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.

* An Obama endorsement.

* Bill Clinton chaperoning a group of 13 year old girls.

* Casey Anthony as my babysitter.

I Hope that nobody gets offended .

TL.

Member #4112

10-03-15, 13:18

Good Job TL I think you gave everyone a good laugh, insulted every liberal on the board but don't you think 13 is a little old for Bill?

TejanoLibre

10-04-15, 10:47

Good Job TL I think you gave everyone a good laugh, insulted every liberal on the board but don't you think 13 is a little old for Bill?A Big Thank You There Good Buddy!

Ok Boys , sorry to break my promise of posting on this thread only 1 time every 5 years or so.

I will try to wait another 5 years.

TL

Damn , couldn't do it.

Daddy Rulz

10-28-15, 11:58

Some good news to start your days.

http://nbc.com.co/obama-announces-third-term-presidential-run/

SteveC

11-03-15, 12:47

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1226070/Pres-Obama-blasts-GOP-candidates-NYC-fundraiser.html

Big Boss Man

01-16-16, 15:02

As a conversation starter, here is my theory that I have not seen published anywhere else yet.

Trump is using the birther argument against Cruz as a feint. Cruz is saying he is a constitutional lawyer and Trump does not know what he is talking about. Who is the other American president that was a constitutional lawyer? To save you the the research, it's Obama. So I would create an ad that shows soundbites of Cruz saying he has been a constitutional lawyer his whole life in the last debate juxtaposed against Obama saying he was a constitutional lawyer from the recent State of the Union speech. If it comes down between Trump and Cruz, I think this will be the closing argument. What do you want? A man who has built a great business or a man who was a lawyer most of his life? We just had eight years of the constitutional lawyer. Cruz will be more of the same. Cruz has far different ideas than Obama but the question remains, can he execute. Really it is the same argument Kasich, Christie and Bush are making. As governors, they have managed through crises.

I have no dog in this fight as I am a Democrat. However I do not think we have a winning candidate running as of now although we will get our 47% as Romney pointed out. I am hoping that if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden jumps back in. Clinton on top of all her baggage is making mistake after mistake in her campaign. I do not think physically she up to the challenge. I think her exhaustion and fatigue are creating errors in judgement. Remember the last month in the State Department she had to take a leave of absence due to health.

A good show to watch is "In All Due Respect." Halperin and Heileman were guys that wrote "Game Change". They are focused on the strategy and tactics of the campaigns.

WorldTravel69

01-29-16, 13:33

Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.html

Rev BS

02-05-16, 23:49

Why do they lie or do they just not do their homework?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gop-claims-carpet-bombs-kurds-031530748--finance.htmlThe thread is dead, the battle has been won.

WorldTravel69

02-14-16, 17:37

The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!!

Tres3

02-14-16, 20:07

The President will be able to pick a new Supreme Court Justice!!!The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.

Tres3.

Daddy Rulz

02-14-16, 21:06

The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.

Tres3.Depends on who they send up. They have pressure due to the rules for when there are not 9 justices. From what I understand if they hear a case (and they have open cases) and they tie then the lower court ruling is confirmed.

Additionally if Bernie wins... They can't tie it up for the next 5 years.

WorldTravel69

02-15-16, 13:49

Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.

But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.

The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.

How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.

He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.

So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?

The President can pick all he wants to, but if the Senate does not confirm his pick, the choice will go nowhere. Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate is going to confirm an Obama pick?? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. That's high school civics, WT.

Tres3.

Daddy Rulz

02-15-16, 16:30

So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?It's known as balance of powers.

There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.

Don B

02-15-16, 16:38

Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.

But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.

The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.

How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.

He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.

So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. The language has often been cleaned up to say “the Supreme Court follows the election returns” or “judges follow the election returns” or “the Supreme Court reads the elections returns.” The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution.

Don B.

AllIWantIsLove

02-15-16, 18:20

It's known as balance of powers.

There are many appointments the Senate has to confirm. It's the way the Founders intended for it to work.Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.

Daddy Rulz

02-15-16, 20:19

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. But I don't think that the Founders ever anticipated politicians who put party before country. And, of course, we should not send such politicians to Congress. But too many of us vote based on the sound bites we hear in 15 second commercials on TV.100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.

The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.

To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.

Don B

02-15-16, 22:07

100% I don't think the founders ever envisioned the current state of the body politic in the US. I think if they were alive today they would all probably be in jail for smacking every other person they spoke to across the mouth.

The Republicans aren't going to tie up the appointment because the person is good nor bad, they will tie it up for 11 months (nearly 1/4 of a term) because until Scalia died the appointments were 5/4 Republican appointees. Segue; that always made me scratch my head when neo-cons would talk about "liberal law making" judges.

To be fair and balanced, this administration should try and send up an appointee that is a strict constructionist to replace the strict constructionist that left. A friend of ours says that the court is best when it is a mix of conservative and progressive judges, I agree with that sentiment. I personally think the court should lean towards real, not neo conservatism.“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”.

However, that was back in 2007. Looks like Chucky Schmucky has evolved a little on this topic now that the shoe is on the other foot.

It depends on who is doing the nominating and who is doing the confirming.

Don B.

Don B

02-16-16, 02:25

Yes, it has been a long, long time since I was in High School.

But what I learned then was part fiction. Sort of.

The law I believe says something about the Justices not taking party sides on their decisions.

How many fund raisers did Scalia attend and give money to.

He should have been kicked out. As should a few others.

So, If the Republican Senate does not confirm a pick, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?And of course we all remember how FDR's attempt/threat to pack the Supreme Court with justices of his liken

caused the court to cave and pass favorably on the Constitutionality of his schemes.

In some circles, that would be called blackmail but then he is a hero to the loony left.

One of those cases was Helvering v Davis in which Cardoza 's opinion found the Social security Act to be Constitutional as it was actuarially sound.

It wasn't and what does that have to do with it anyway?

Don B.

BayBoy

03-24-16, 13:14

President Obama and First Lady Michelle is in Argentina now talking with Macri and doing the tango. Hope he likes the steak and chope.

Don B

03-24-16, 17:09

President Obama and First Lady Michelle is in Argentina now talking with Macri and doing the tango. Hope he likes the steak and chope.Q. Why did Obama go to a baseball game with Castro after sparing 51 seconds of his valuable time on the Brussels attacks?

A. Because Castro doesn't golf.

Don B.

WorldTravel69

03-25-16, 21:40

Tell us what you would do if you were the President?

Q. Why did Obama go to a baseball game with Castro after sparing 51 seconds of his valuable time on the Brussels attacks?

A. Because Castro doesn't golf.

Don B.

Rc Collins

03-30-16, 20:19

Tell us what you would do if you were the President?Good question but critics often have no answers as its so easy to be critical while providing solutions is much more tasking.