Usa Thread

[think_too_mut]

Do you guys really think US has the clout over Asia as it used to have?

 

I live in Asia, Japan, to me seems that US enjoys the same rating that Americans grant to Mexicans.

 

Just about work. Americans do "manana work".

 

A big, robust, burly buddy that can help in a pub brawl, but nothing to copy from them.

 

At that, Burma's junta just had them (Clinton visited there just the other day) the way the want it. An Asian way.

[Flashermac]

The US government is running around like a chicken with its head cut off, involved in too many places and in places that don't really matter to us. How many wars does the government think it needs anyway? And God help us if the morons get us into another one over Iran.

 

Maybe we could get a constitutional amendment adding a requirement that all members of Congress must have served at least one 12-month combat tour in a combat arms MOS before they are eligible to run. That might help them think twice about getting us into wars.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Now they want Cain to step down from his Church.

[Flashermac]

Why? Dr Martin Luther King carried on scandalously, but that was all right. Of course, King was a Democrat.

[Steve]

Flash, I'd say this. Yes, I think the guy should have stopped hitting the girls but I would still find him not guilty. First, is its heated moment. Easy to think rationally when you're not involved. Remember, it was 2 people. Women maybe but tough women and it was two of them. Second, his survival instinct from prison clicked in. Third, even if the first two reasons are bullshyt, no way I'm gonna reward someone who acted an ass and jumped the counter. I don't wish a fractured skull and possible brain damage on anyone but she brought it on herself. She creaed her own predicament.

 

As for America, yes our influence is waning. We are a declining power. Countries are going to have a make a choice between us or China soon in Asia and we will lose out. Long term China is the best bet. Look at Taiwan, we can't protect it as well as we could any longer. They will become part of China one day. China is bent on it and they think way farther than we do. We think are short term for the most part except in a few areas like Cuba, Israel for example.

[Steve]

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/

 

Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law

The United States Senate is set to vote this week on a bill that would categorize the entire USA as a “battlefield,†allowing law enforcement duties to be dished out by the American Military, who in turn could detain any US citizen as a war criminal — even coming into their own homes to issue arrests.

The National Defense Authorization Act regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but the latest provision, S. 1867, proves to be the most powerful one yet in raping constitutional freedoms from Americans. Move over, Patriot Act. Should S. 1867 pass, lawmakers could conjure the text to keep even regular citizens detained indefinitely by their own military.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield†and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) sits on the same side of the aisle and agrees wholeheartedly. “America is part of the battlefield,†says the lawmaker.

America’s Military is already operating in roughly 200 countries, dishing out detention and executions to citizens of other nations. As unrest erupts on the country’s own soil amid a recession, economic collapse and protests in hundreds of cities from coast-to-coast, is it that much of a surprise that lawmakers finally want to declare the US a warzone?

Maybe not, but if the Senate has their way, the consequential could be detrimental to the US Constitution.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world,†adds Anders. “The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.â€

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?†asks Anders.

Just like its supporters, the provision has attracted its share of critics as well. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill if it makes its way through Congress, but given the president’s poor standing among the American public (his disapproval rating is at its highest ever in recent polling), a hawkish Republican could usurp Obama as commander-in-chief as the 2012 election is less than a year away and the unemployment level stays stagnant and sad. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the frontrunners currently vying for the Republican Party’s nomination for the presidency have remained outspoken in their support for not just increasing American military presence overseas at a time when the Pentagon’s budget dwarfs many governmental sectors, but in adding provisions to the Patriot Act itself to further remove freedoms from the people.

During last week’s GOP debate televised on CNN, former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that the country must “try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security.†That same night, pizzaman Herman Cain said suspected terrorists should be killed before identified and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Muslims should be profiled by the American government because, “obviously,†they are the group “that are most likely to be committing these crimes,†speaking broadly of his assumption of those that construct terrorist attacks.

“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,†responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.â€

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has already aligned himself as an opponent of the legislation, but needs to garner the backing of others if he wants to keep Congress from enacting the provision. “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil,†the Senator said in a speech last month. “Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the US military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.â€

[Bangkoktraveler]

Why? Dr Martin Luther King carried on scandalously, but that was all right. Of course, King was a Democrat.

 

 

Why it is 'wrong' for Cain to carry on affairs is because he is a Conservative Republican which means he is hole-y than the rest of us sinners.

[Bangkoktraveler]

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/

 

Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law

The United States Senate is set to vote this week on a bill that would categorize the entire USA as a “battlefield,†allowing law enforcement duties to be dished out by the American Military, who in turn could detain any US citizen as a war criminal — even coming into their own homes to issue arrests.

The National Defense Authorization Act regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but the latest provision, S. 1867, proves to be the most powerful one yet in raping constitutional freedoms from Americans. Move over, Patriot Act. Should S. 1867 pass, lawmakers could conjure the text to keep even regular citizens detained indefinitely by their own military.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield†and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) sits on the same side of the aisle and agrees wholeheartedly. “America is part of the battlefield,†says the lawmaker.

America’s Military is already operating in roughly 200 countries, dishing out detention and executions to citizens of other nations. As unrest erupts on the country’s own soil amid a recession, economic collapse and protests in hundreds of cities from coast-to-coast, is it that much of a surprise that lawmakers finally want to declare the US a warzone?

Maybe not, but if the Senate has their way, the consequential could be detrimental to the US Constitution.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world,†adds Anders. “The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.â€

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?†asks Anders.

Just like its supporters, the provision has attracted its share of critics as well. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill if it makes its way through Congress, but given the president’s poor standing among the American public (his disapproval rating is at its highest ever in recent polling), a hawkish Republican could usurp Obama as commander-in-chief as the 2012 election is less than a year away and the unemployment level stays stagnant and sad. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the frontrunners currently vying for the Republican Party’s nomination for the presidency have remained outspoken in their support for not just increasing American military presence overseas at a time when the Pentagon’s budget dwarfs many governmental sectors, but in adding provisions to the Patriot Act itself to further remove freedoms from the people.

During last week’s GOP debate televised on CNN, former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that the country must “try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security.†That same night, pizzaman Herman Cain said suspected terrorists should be killed before identified and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Muslims should be profiled by the American government because, “obviously,†they are the group “that are most likely to be committing these crimes,†speaking broadly of his assumption of those that construct terrorist attacks.

“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,†responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.â€

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has already aligned himself as an opponent of the legislation, but needs to garner the backing of others if he wants to keep Congress from enacting the provision. “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil,†the Senator said in a speech last month. “Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the US military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.â€

 

 

Sounds like military occupation as it was after the US Civil War.

[TroyinEwa/Perv]

Jimmy Carter never cheated on his wife and we had 7 percent unemployment, 18 percent inflation, Bill Clinton cheated on his wife every chance he could get and we had only 4 percent unemployment, 1 percent inflation and a balanced budget. Herman Cain: Because when presidents get laid, you get paid.

[kamui]

Jimmy Carter never cheated on his wife and we had 7 percent unemployment, 18 percent inflation, Bill Clinton cheated on his wife every chance he could get and we had only 4 percent unemployment, 1 percent inflation and a balanced budget. Herman Cain: Because when presidents get laid, you get paid.

 

Following this logic the blow job Clinton received was worth billions of US$ for the common Americans. When GWB took office - a man who probably even did not have sex with his wife - everything went down.

 

The difference between the Dems and GOP: The GOP tried to put Clinton out of office for one proven blow job with an intern. McCain did want to become president with three known cases of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair which lasted for several years. Now the GOP has the problem that their candidates are being measured by the GOP's forcefully promoted moral standards when they tried to impeach Clinton: being faithful to your wife 100%. This of course might/should eliminate McCain as well as Newt Gingrich.

 

I guess the GOP never expected that their moral standards would become an Boomerang to their own candidates.