Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still think that a decision not to serve in wars like Vietnam shouldn't disqualify someone from public services, or for that matter be an excuse not to vote for him.

Would my father have volunteered for Vietnam?

I think not, but he went willingly and unconscripted to fight in WW2, because he saw that the world as he knew it was under threat.

Millions were like him, in 1942 even film stars and business executives joined the army.

Clinton had a choice, stay at school and miss the war.

Bush chose to play with expensive toys at the public expense and gets brownie points at election time. :confused:

 

Agree in theory but in practice, the ones that didn't see combat seemed to have the less respect for the lives of the military fighting men. Its no coincidence that its people like Ike and Colin Powell were hesitant to get involved in wars that were of a poltical nature and why Cheney and others like him were itching to get in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

 

Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people.

...

 

My link

The new way to wage war ...

 

 

Brave New World [Revisited]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/20111229175312305398.html

 

Generally speaking, the pro-Israeli adage and sound-bites are the brainchild of Israel lobbyists and Republican like Frank Luntz.

 

But even Luntz has warned: "Don’t pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault. It’s not true and no one believes it".

 

In his how-to-market-Israel guide, he adds, "We’re at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences -sophisticated, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences - Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending."

 

"You can be sure that Gingrich did not care a whit for what Palestinians, here or in the US, would think. The Palestinian vote will not decide swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or, above all, Florida; a considerable shift in the Jewish vote could."

 

Alas, there is no other point to this stupid statement. As Remnick said, Gingrich is ready to go very far to promote himself such as claiming that: "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz."

 

And yet, he has a lot of catching up to do with House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, an ardent Republican Jewish supporter of Israel who reckons "the 2,000-year-old dream of a Jewish state is in jeopardy, the Palestinian culture is infused with hatred and the international community is replete with anti-Semitic vitriol".

 

He and the other Republican leaders and candidates speak of Israel as if it is the only country in the Middle East; as the only reliable ride in a sea of tyranny. As if nothing changed over the last year, alas.

 

The Republicans have gone so far out, that Israel’s own friends and supporters in the US, have been repulsed including the J street lobby.

 

...So fearsome, it is referred to simply as "The Lobby". It’s not only what the Lobby can do to help, but more importantly what it could do to destroy a politician.

 

The Lobby has been quite irresponsible in the way it throws its weight in Washington in recent years. Back in 1992, then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, told the Lobby, for lack of better word, to shut up.

 

In recent days, the Lobby has alienated some of Israel’s own friends among the US elite, including some in the organised American Jewish community.

 

The New York Times widely-read columnist Thomas Friedman wrote:

 

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

 

Friedman stated the obvious, but also touched a nerve.

 

This is a very touchy subject. However, it is part of the presidential selection process. All the politicians try and 'out Irsael' each other. This is done at the expense of fairness in dealing with the middle east issues.

 

I'm a Christian. A born again Christian and a Zionist. Okay...okay...more accurately, I'm a hypocritical, whore mongering born again Christian. Happy? My views on Israel becoming a country can not be defended logically. Its from my view of the bible and I empathize with those who not only do not share that view but also say it should not be used as a reason for it to become a state since not everyone believes what the book I hold sacred as true. Totally agree. I do try and be fair with regards to the issues presently and the facts that I see is that Israel is too often a bully and antogonist when it settles into areas that are Palestinian and takes away water rights and the like. Israel does some things right but should also be criticized and dare I say, reprimanded for some things it does wrong.

 

I hold our nation dear and the process to choose a leader as well. What I think is abysmal is that not only our foreign policy but our candidates are basing their view on what Jewish voters in states such as Florida primarily will think or do. I have always had a sympathetic view of Jews. Primarily my beliefs, my parents are zionists as they believe scrhipture and we both share a history of slavery and coming out of the bondages of slavery. However, due to our modern histories of slavery and Jim Crow for blacks and rampant and blatant anti semistism and genocide for Jews many Blacks and Jews have become hypersensitive with regards to ANY criticism and view it as racist/anti-semitic. Jews have a far less case in America than Blacks given the successes they have but Blacks have also had meteoric rise as well. I would think no one who was of age in the '60s, my parents included, and they are a most optimstic pair, would envision the current success of Blacks in America including the Presidency. My parents didn't think I'd live long enough to see a Black president.

 

The political process is corrupted. Not only the Jewish vote, but the Cuban vote in Florida runs our policy towards Cuba.

 

Its has to stop. The influence has to stop. There needs to be enough Jews, Blacks, Cubans of more sober minds as well as enough of the rest of Americans to nullify the hyper sensitivity vote of the aforemeontioned groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre ...

 

<< There's a lot of 1980 in the 2012 presidential election, which doesn't mean it will end the same way, but still. The incumbent looks smaller than previous sitting presidents, as did Jimmy Carter. His efforts in the Oval Office have not been generally understood as successful. There's a broad sense it hasn't worked. And Democrats don't like him, as they didn't Jimmy Carter.

 

This continues as one of the most amazing and underappreciated facts of 2012—the sitting president's own party doesn't like him. The party's constituent pieces will stick with him, having no choice, but with a feeling of dissatisfaction. It is not only the Republicans who have been unhappy this year. All this will have some bearing on the coming year. >>

 

WSJ

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Carter got a poor deal, if his military solution to the Iran hostages had been successful he would have got back in, but instead it was left to Reagan to negotiate with the terrorists to free them.

 

A discourse on the economy at the time for HH to sneer at. :neener:

 

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

 

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.

 

Summary

 

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

 

Argument

 

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history."

 

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

 

I'm not going to try to post tables, here's the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarre ...

 

<< There's a lot of 1980 in the 2012 presidential election, which doesn't mean it will end the same way, but still. The incumbent looks smaller than previous sitting presidents, as did Jimmy Carter. His efforts in the Oval Office have not been generally understood as successful. There's a broad sense it hasn't worked. And Democrats don't like him, as they didn't Jimmy Carter.

 

This continues as one of the most amazing and underappreciated facts of 2012—the sitting president's own party doesn't like him.

 

The reasons may be that both Presidents were not the ones the party elites wanted. They were both outsiders and thereby not trusted. Also, Carter was aloof. He was not personable. Tip O'Neil the long time Dem head of the house actually got along with fellow Irishman Reagan than Carter. He did not like Carter at all. Obama hasn't forgotten that the entire Democratic leadership backed Hillary. They backed him only when they had to. It may also be his governing style as well.

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...