Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

You guys are nuts...haha..really. Thank you but hell no! Two main issues, one is I have a 'past', Thailand amongst them (I would legalize prostitution in America for one Makes absolutely no sense we tell a woman she has control over her body to abort a baby but not make a profit off the pussy it came out of? Millions of athletes make a living based on their body, why can't a woman?) Second, I would be wayyy too honest and get assassinated over it. haha..really. The first thing I'd tell my campaign staff, don't expect jobs because you helped get me elected. Only the most qualified for every department, etc. I dont' care if they are a woman, gay, purple, wear women's underwear under their suit, if they are the best for the job, then so be it.

 

Prostitution was legal in 'America......... so was drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this:

But best to check the state government veterans agent.

Each state usually has a veterans office at the respective state house.

Note: I think one has to claim residency - live there - before signing up in any military branch.

 

While this went into effect in 2008, some states have been providing tuition waivers at public colleges and universities to veterans for years:

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

Montana

South Dakota

Texas

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Additionally, most states in the country provide tuition waivers to spouses and/or children of veterans who were either killed in action or missing in action. Each state has different policies so it’s important to check the respective state’s veterans affairs website.

 

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black lawmakers lament flaring of racial tensions under Obama

 

 

When President Obama follows in Martin Luther King Jr.’s footsteps on Wednesday with an address at the Lincoln Memorial, he will face a nation where race remains the great divide.

 

Black lawmakers say the election of the nation’s first African-America president has not been a salve for racial tensions, a view that the public has also voiced in recent polling.

 

While Democratic lawmakers place the lion’s share of the blame on Republicans for the state of affairs, they betray disappointment that more progress has not been made since the civil rights movement won its biggest victories.

 

Asked whether the overall trajectory of race relations has been positive or negative in recent years, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) paused for a moment.

 

“Right after the election of the president, I would have thought it was going in a positive direction, but I am not so sure anymore,†she said.

 

“I think we have lost ground as it relates to our tolerance of people who are different or people who we believe have not worked hard enough. You hear the language all the time on talk radio — the buzzwords, often primarily directed at low-income people and communities of color.â€

 

Fudge’s party colleague and fellow CBC member Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) suggested that the presence of the first black president has sparked more open conversation about racial issues. This, she suggested, could be seen as a positive development overall, yet one that has also led to bruised feelings.

 

In the past, “so much was swept under the rug,†Lee said. “The country, for whatever reason, has not confronted race in the way that it should. With stop-and-frisk and all the issues around income inequality, you really have to wonder [how much things have improved.] But I think a lot of it is to do with the idea that race has been an issue that we can talk about.â€

 

Large swathes of the general public also hold a nuanced view of the country’s progress, according to a poll released last week by the Pew Research Center.

 

While 45 percent of Americans said they think the United States has made a lot of progress toward realizing King’s dream of racial equality, 36 percent were more circumspect, saying only “some†progress has been made. Fifteen percent said that the advancements had either been small or nonexistent.

 

Forty-nine percent of Americans believe there is a long way to go before something akin to a color-blind society can be realized.

 

Pew was also the latest of numerous surveys to underline how economic disparities have tracked along racial lines during Obama’s presidency, just as they did before.

 

The survey noted that the gap between the median income of a three-person black household compared to a three-person white household has increased during the past five decades.

 

In today’s dollars, the differential in the late 1960s between whites and blacks was around $19,000. Today, it is around $27,000 — and the gap has not narrowed appreciably since 2009.

 

The most recent unemployment figures, covering the month of July, showed the black unemployment rate at 12.6 percent, a mere one-tenth of a percentage point lower than when Obama took office in January 2009. Statistics on home ownership and per capita income also show blacks faring worse than whites during the Obama years.

 

Put those economic factors together with the high-voltage legal cases on the killing of Trayvon Martin and the curtailment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it is easy to see why black politicians, and liberals in general, are ambivalent over where things stand.

 

Many Democrats insist that the ferocious opposition to Obama has a racial component.

 

“How do you overcome it?†Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a founding member of the CBC said, referring to racial inequalities. “We certainly haven’t done it with an African-American president.

 

“I saw the people who scream and shout about ObamaCare. I saw the hatred that was in people’s eyes. People are not being honest with themselves if they don’t realize that the roots of racism go deep, that we still have not been able to cut that cancer out of the side of America.â€

 

“I think electing President Obama was a big, big, big positive. Now, the reactions to that election have not always been positive,†said Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the number three Democrat in the House. “It was a positive for people who look like me. It was a negative for a lot of people, and they reacted negatively.â€

 

Still, Clyburn, Rangel and many other members of the CBC remember just how bad things were in an earlier era. The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington has also prompted them to recall the first kindling of bigger hopes.

 

“I could not believe that everyone was saying they were going to Washington — they didn’t know anybody, how were they going to get there?†Rangel recalled. “But for most of the people, you just had to tell them where the buses were at 7 o’clock in the morning. I put people on buses, these broken-down school buses people were renting.â€

 

About 750 miles south of Rangel’s New York home, Clyburn, then a young public school teacher, was seeing buses off from Charleston, S.C. At the time, teachers were prohibited from attending political rallies, he recalled.

 

“I said goodbye to one of the buses that left going up to the march. Though my body remained in Charleston, my heart and soul were in Washington,†he said.

 

Lee was in high school in California at the time. She wanted to be a cheerleader, but there had never been a black girl in that role. There wasn’t an explicit rule that said “no blacks,†she recalled, but the regulations governing membership of the squad “wouldn’t allow a dark-skinned person with my kind of hair.â€

 

The rules changed the same year as King’s speech, and she became the first black cheerleader at the school.

 

Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) is the first black woman to hold a congressional seat in her native state. Part of a younger generation of black lawmakers, she was born 16 months after the March on Washington took place.

 

“My dad grew up in Selma, but our experiences are as different as night and day,†she said. “I can’t imagine my dad drinking from colored-only water fountains. But it happened.â€

 

Sewell emphasizes the economic inequalities, racial and otherwise, that continue to bedevil the nation. But she insisted that Obama’s tenure has pushed the United States at least somewhat closer to King’s dream.

 

“I think his very presence has made a big difference,†she said. “My little nephew wants to be a CEO or the president — and there is Barack Obama running the United States of America. That changes the psyche, and the willingness of other generations to see beyond race.â€

 

-------------

 

This is the first in a series of three articles to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. On Tuesday, black conservatives will reflect on Dr. King’s legacy. On Wednesday, The Hill will carry an extensive interview with Martin Luther King III.

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/318601-black-lawmakers-lament-flaring-of-racial-tensions-under-obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racial tensions.

After Obama elected president.

 

The rise of the Tea Party.

 

In my little low population hick town I have not heard the "N" word in decades.

Until the formation of the Tea Party.

Combined with the constant and incessant drone of negativity and hate mongering preached by Fox News.

 

I have now heard the "N" word from two hard core Tea Party people. And the "N" word from two whose only news outlet is Fox News. Four different people, four different occasions four different times four different locations four different people. And of course, all white people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticles/item/6651-hate-groups-see-dramatic-increase.html

When Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election and became the first African-American president in the nation’s history, it set off a rise in the number of radical extremist and white supremacy groups in the nation, a trend that has been increasing and is expected to escalate even more with his re-election....According to Potok, the number of Patriot movement groups shot up from 149 in 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

“We don’t have the 2012 numbers yet, but I can say that these groups have been getting angrier and even angrier over Obama’s re-election,†Potok said. “The fury we’re seeing is a reflection of the radical right’s perception that they’re losing the battle. We could seal the borders tomorrow and not allow another immigrant into the country, and whites would still no longer be the majority. They perceive they’re losing, and their fury is rising. Basically, there are major changes in the country and some people can’t stand it. It’s a small percentage - and some of them might become violent.â€

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

 

 

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

 

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all†each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

 

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

 

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

 

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the groundâ€, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

 

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

 

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.

 

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

 

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violenceâ€. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

 

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...