American Politics during the Obama Presidency

The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no compairson no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal!

They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415043]The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no comparison no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal! [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415047]They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out! [/QUOTE]Don't do us any more favors, please. In two years, Dems have managed to spend so much that the entire country's debt rating is now in question.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/business/economy/14place.html?_r=1[/url]

But, of course, Moody's, S&P, and the bondholders who will refuse to refinance our debt are all partisans, too. Hey, at least all that spending kept unemployment under 8 percent, just like the President's team promised.

Thank goodness for the mid-terms. We'd be far worse than Greece with another two years of that Congress. Unfortunately, it's going to take longer than two years to undo the damage wrought by one-party control, especially since that one party still controls the Senate and the Presidency.

At least the Dems were smart enough not to re-elect Nancy Pelosi. Oh wait, they not only re-elected her, she's still their leader along with Harry Reed, even after the biggest mid-term shellacking in a generation. Those who don't learn from their mistakes. . . .

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 414867]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/14-states-may-target-birthright-citizenship[/url]

Mongers-

I just encountered this article on yahoo news concerning the status of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. My opinion on this matter is that it is about time that some level of government do something to deal with this clearly out of control situation. Children born to LEGAL immigrants, meaning those holding permanent residency papers should automatically be granted birthright citizenship. Children born to ILLEGAL immigrants or visitors temporarily in the United States on either tourist, work or other non-immigrant visas should absolutely not be given birthright citizenship. If I had just happened to be born in Switzerland while my parents just happened to be working there I would NOT have been granted citizenship. In addition, when foreigners enter US medical facilities they should be required to demonstrate their legal presence in the country (entry stamp on passport, green card, copy of student, work, or other visa etc) OR face automatic arrest and deportation AFTER medical services are administered. In addition, in order to attend public schools, proof of LEGAL residency for non-US citizens should be required. These measures would lessen the incentive for potential illegal immigrants to live, work, and have families in the United States illegally. If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Normally, I never comment on this thread as I am not a US citizen or a resident. But I was simply SHOCKED to read the above note! Why so much hatred for the immigrants? Isn't this a fact, just that some people are born in a country with a favorable passport which allows him/her to go and live/work any where of his choice. While the poor illegal immigrant with a unfavorable passport is treated like shit and has to look for ways to travel to another country where he/she would like to work and live!

So it all ultimately boils down to citizenship and the passport one holds on to! And henceforth the illegal immigrant or even a tourist uses the "citizenship by birth" option for his/her child in order that the child does not have to face the hardships which his/her parents did, because he/she was born in a country with a Tier 4 passport.

So this point of view above, which you are 100% entitled to, shocks me simply because, this is despite the fact that you guys are currently living in a country that welcomes foreigners with open arms unlike the US.

Same approach is in places like Hong Kong and Singapore; these are two countries where just about every nationality on the planet can enter without a visa. The need of the hour is to have a more relaxed police with visas/work permits/investment visas/ retirement visas etc for the US to open doors for the new immigrants wannabe.

Propping the door wide open for foreigners provides significant economic benefits; people are more likely to visit (and spend their money) in a place where they are treated well, and they’re more likely to do business in a place where they feel comfortable. You guys on this forum are great examples!

The exact opposite end of the spectrum is the United States… and to a growing degree, the UK. Foreigners who arrive to the US are subjected to discourteous, disrespectful measures and made to feel like lowlife criminal terrorists.

For many, it’s an absolutely horrific experience. Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol division takes itself way too seriously, and its uniformed chimpanzees are convinced of their own righteousness… that their actions are actually defending the homeland.

Rather than wasting taxpayer ( you guys) dollars such nonsense, the US government should be rolling out the red carpet for all nationalities with welcome signs saying “Thank you for spending your hard earned savings in our economy… and while you’re at it, please consider mopping up our excess housing inventory!”

I mention housing because it’s such a massive problem; the latest census data shows that there are 19 million vacant homes in the US… and climbing. There are only a handful of ways to clear out this surplus.

First, the country can wait it out until a new generation of Americans ( your kids?) comes of age, moves away from mom, and establishes a new household. Given the country’s anemic growth rate over the last decade, this option will take years. And years.

Second, the excess inventory could be consumed by a sudden surge in Americans’ wealth that sends them on a shopping spree for second and third homes.

Considering that the government has spent a few trillion dollars to create a few hundred thousand temporary and low-paying jobs, however, this seems unlikely.

Third, foreigners could provide the much-needed influx of people and capital that are required to purchase and fill the surplus of homes. Given the way that the government has so distastefully mistreated foreigners over the last several years, however, those cries would likely fall on deaf ears.

Just ten to fifteen years ago, if the US housing market had been in a similar situation, foreigners from all over the world would have been lining up to buy cheap property in the states; there was no greater status symbol than having a home in New York, San Francisco, or Florida.

Today, foreigners understand that the world is a big place, and that there are dozens of other countries that will treat them like human beings, and offer attractive incentives to boot.

Though the immigrants from 3rd world countries are still heading for the US, the smart ones understand that their are other opportunities outside the US.

Meanwhile, the US government will continue to treat visitors like criminals, scare citizens about terrorist threats, and wrap itself up in a blanket of righteousness… all while failing to realize that instead of protecting the homeland, these policies take an active role in the destruction of the economy.

Captain, I don't agree with you entirely, but you bring up some good points that I can't refute. All the same, there are some circumstances and events behind the behavior that you're condemning; I don't offer them as defense of that behavior, but the people behaving that way would use them as "excuses".

Let's address the TSA and Homeland Security. I'll start my "explanation" with a question: When was the last time somebody hijacked airliners and crashed them deliberately into buildings in one of your country's largest cities? Or when somebody tried to blow up an airliner flying into your country?

The Department of Homeland Security was hauled together in response to 9-11-2001, and continues by "virtue" of our nation's government perceiving itself as running around with a big bullseye painted on its backside. Their increasingly-intrusive restrictions are responses to increasingly-subtle attacks: box-cutters, explosives in shoes, liquid explosives in soda bottles, explosives sewn into undergarments. [i]I don't say this to defend or justify their actions or the policies behind them. [/i] But any nation has the obligation to defend its people and its territory from attack, or at least has to be perceived as defending its people and territory from attack.

What's the answer of "officialdom," of our elected representatives in Congress?"To The Barricades!" Put a whole lot of security, scanners, sniffers, pat-downs, in front of the gates to the airplane. But don't be caught "profiling", you have to treat Grandma and little Susie the same way you treat the nervous young man with the Muslim name and Middle Eastern passport. Otherwise you're "violating the rights of minorities" and that will get the Government sued in court.

As for the "uniformed chimpanzees," they have got a miserable job at the point-position of this obnoxious and intrusive "homeland security" system. I don't like having my toys groped, at least not by "officialdom"; but how would you like the job of doing these "enhanced pat-downs" on a Federally-mandated proportion of air travelers, every goddam day? I'm actually sorry for the poor sods.

Is the USA going about this the wrong way? Could be. But our elected nobility can go back to the pee-pul and say,"Look at all we're doing to protect you! Those rotten terrorists won't get by us NEXT time!"

As I said, not defense, just an explanation of "excuses."

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415047]They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out! [/QUOTE]Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "fucking up the country".

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fuck[ed] up the country".

Thanks,

Jackson

Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

A tourist is an individual who is visiting a country on a temporary basis, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

Tourists are not immigrants.

An immigrant is an individual who is or has permanently moved into a country, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for its laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

Jackson

Captain,

Your pious attitude regarding US Immigration policy is most amusing when compared to India's position regarding the illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh over the years.

Here's a partial quote from wikipedia:

[quote]In Assam, agitation against immigrants started as early as 1979, led by All Assam Students Union. Their demand was to put a stop on the influx of immigrants and deportation of those who have already settled. It gradually took violent form and ethnic violence started between Assamese and Bengalis, mostly Muslim. It eventually led to the infamous Nellie massacre in 1983 due to a controversy over the 1983 election. In 1985 Indian Government signed the Assam accord with the leaders of the agitation to stop the issue. As per the accord [B][U]India started building a fence along the Assam-Bangladesh border which is now almost complete[/U][/B].[/quote]


From: [url]Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_India[/url]

Here's a couple more for you:

[url]http://mishingrenaissance.blogspot.com/2008/08/bangladeshi-illegal-infiltration-north.html[/url]

[url]http://www.ukasian.co.uk/blog/103/demographic-invasion-of-assam-by-bangladeshi-muslim-immigrants/[/url]

So it would appear that many of your fellow countrymen do not share your stated "open borders" position, repeated as follows:

[quote]Propping the door wide open for foreigners provides significant economic benefits; people are more likely to visit (and spend their money) in a place where they are treated well, and they're more likely to do business in a place where they feel comfortable.[/quote]Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415063]Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "fucking up the country".

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fuck[ed] up the country".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]How dare you contaminate these highly emotional issues with FACTS?

And it's even worse to regard them LOGICALLY!

No, no, no, you are supposed to strike out BLINDLY against the Eee-vils of the Other Side!

The Democrats are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Republicans." The Republicans are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Democrats." Both sides are going to wave their arms and holler at each other, and steadfastly IGNORE any dirty laundry on their own side of the aisle. It's the Amurrican Way.

Jackson-

The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415064]Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for it's laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Mr Jackson,

I do understand the difference between a immigrant and a tourist ( its not Rocket science after all). From what I know their are both legal immigrants and tourists participating on this forum. And I guess all are accepted with open arms here. In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.

I do not (personally) agree that a illegal immigrant is a "criminal" similar to a "criminal" who becomes a criminal in literal meaning of the word. Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own. And by the virtue of the passport he / she holds, he / she may not be allowed to. This is pretty harsh as compared to citizens of first world countries with tier 1 passports who can walk in just about any country in the world and many times just stay put there or use the 3 month exit rule to do visa exits every 3 months and live "legally" there for rest of his life.

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!

And hence to break free from this bad luck allocated by virtue of one's birth place, its fair enough the illegal immigrants or the tourists or those on work visas should endeavor that at least children break free from this.

I know you would not agree with this. Its just my viewpoint.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.[/quote]If that's the immigration law that the Argentines want to enact and enforce, then that's their right.

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own.[/quote]First, that's not a justification for violating the laws of another country, and second, perhaps they should be exerting their energies towards improving their own country.

BTW, how are all those illegal Bangladeshiins in Assam working out for the Indian people? Did the border fence the Indians built eventually work?

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born![/QUOTE]No, the difference between those two groups is that one group is adhering to the laws enacted by the citizens of the host country, and the other group is willfully choosing to violate them.

Thanks,

Jackson

Any business that perpetualy loses money is forced to close its doors.

Individuals who spend more than they earn become insolvent.

Businesses and individuals usually get their houses in order - not by spending more but by spending less.

However, this does not apply to the Frankenstein called government.

The issue is not a lack of taxes, the issue is spending money like drunken sailors.

And who are the most vocal proponents of this reckless spending. You guessed it. People not paying taxes and the liberal politicians pandering to them. Their brains are programmed to say dame, dame, dame- give me, give me, give me. Just like an 8 track tape playing the same music over and over again.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415070]Any business that perpetualy loses money is forced to close its doors.

Individuals who spend more than they earn become insolvent.

Businesses and individuals usually get their houses in order. Not by spending more but by spending less.

However, this does not apply to the Frankenstein called government.

The issue is not a lack of taxes, the issue is spending money like drunken sailors.

And who are the most vocal proponents of this reckless spending. You guessed it. People not paying taxes and the liberal politicians pandering to them. Their brains are programmed to say dame, dame, dame- give me, give me, give me. Just like an 8 track tape playing the same music over and over again. [/QUOTE]The top spending cut chosen was "Reduce Social Security for wealthy" at 63%.

The question on taxes which got 9% support was a generic "Pay more in taxes". There was another choice "Both" (cut spending and raise taxes) for combined 18% support for tax increases. Still a low number, but this poll is lacking.

Such a non-specific question on taxation fails to delve into details on whether some forms of taxation may be preferred over others. Last week I posted another poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the wealthy. Taking both polls together, [b]most Americans think it is appropriate to shift wealth away from the wealthy[/b].

This is the single most important thing we can do in the US - transfer more of the economic burden to the rich. And it is entirely justified because the wealthy have received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades.

The next time Warren Buffet takes over a company which is nearly bankrupt thanks to out of control spending and noncompetetive products Warren might benefit from Esten's business plan.

Straightaway

1) increase the out of control spending, and

2) raise the prices of the noncompetetive products.

This should put the company out of its misery in quick order.