Usa Thread

[kamui]

Khun Kamui...

 

Wait until u see Newt debate Obama...You'll then get a chance to see how stupid Obama looks and IS. Obama is going to regret scuttling NASA, cuz he'll be looking to escape to that moon colony. 5555555555555

 

HH

 

Do you really think Newt will win the nomination? He seems to be extremely disliked by many rep- and independent voters.

 

Currently it seems that GOP candidates inflict such heavy damages on each other that the Dem are only need the recycle the extremely negative GOP candidate attack ads.

 

 

 

PS: and please don't repeat the empty phrases about marxism e.g.. How about some real substance added to your opinions?

[Steve]

kamui, the American people are that stupid. I was once that stupid. I think a huge part of Americans being able to be fooled is that we don't travel. We don't even see our own country. Less than 20% of us have a passport and even less use it. You see America from the outside in when you travel. Its not the sole reason but its a factor. Of course hasn't helped everyone, even some smart people but you can't save all.

 

The FACT is if Bush was running against Obama some would still vote for Bush. Party politics IS a religion. I won't even ask if some members on here would still vote for Bush. The same can be said for the Dems to some extent as well.

 

Anyway, I still think Romney will get the nomination. The party leadership wants him. Why? Not because he has the best ideas. Its based on one thing and one thing only. He polls the best against Obama. That's how fcked up things are. Its why I give the Dems credit. Hillary was a shoe in had she gotten the nomination. She was a given. However, the masses went with their hearts and someone who they had no idea if he could even win. They went with the person who seemed to have a clue.

 

I don't think Romney will win though. First, I think he'll lose the debates with Obama. On a side note, HH, I wouldn't think its such a foregone conclusion Obama can't debate Newt. Obama is not as good off the cuff but he is formidable. Anyway, the second reason I don't think Romney will win is because the republican masses aren't excited about him. Newt's emergence and Cain's rise before him shows the republican masses are desperate for one of their own and they are so desperate they are taking a close look at Newt who isn't even one of their own. He's never been religious and his personal life is so antithesis to what they believe in. I don't see Romney winning and if its Newt it will be an easy win for Obama. Obama has a lot of money. I mean tons of it. (which is a problem in itself because one has to look at the source of that money). Money wins elections in America. Always been that way for some time now. My guess is the GOP heirarchy knows this and know they are more of a long shot like they were in '08. My guess is they are really looking at the '14 off year elections to build up for the '16 election. Just my guess.

[kamui]

The incompetent GOP candidates aside, there seems to be a glimmer of hope for the US economy and if the economy really picks up in the upcoming month the GOP will lose a main argument against Obama.

[Steve]

kamui, to be fair both parties to that (go at each other in the primaries). In '08, the Presidency was up for grabs and Hillary went after Obama and visa versa. Its how it is here. Its the current system. The party bosses used to pick the person in the 1800s. Teddy Roosevelt was in one of the first primaries but the party bosses wanted someone else. Even though TR won it they didn't take him and he ran a 3rd party called the Bull Moose party and split the Republican vote and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.

[Steve]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/welfare-drug-testing-bill_n_1237333.html

 

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

 

"There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

 

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

 

"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

 

McMillin's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

 

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

 

"After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money."

 

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

 

McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

 

"I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test."

 

When I was in my early 20s I was much more conservative. I'd have been saying 'hell yeah, test all of them'. I grew up seeing welfare. We could have gotten it but chose not to. In all honesty, some people in our neighborhood neede it. Some didn't and that pissed me off.

 

However, with age and hopefully some wisdom, I've amended my stance. Clinton really did change welfare dramatically and many of us who never took it still see it in the old ways. Its much tougher to get on and stay on and there's a time limit, work provisions, etc.

 

As the article says, about 30 states have tried to do this. There was a debate on another forum I go about it. As this article says there is scant evidence that people on welfare are abusing drugs higher than anyone else. Michigan had the best records when it tested a few hundred people and found nothing harder that pot in a several people. Frankly, there was no evidence those folks used welfare to buy it. If you're a chick, guys give it to you. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. But its not the norm. We do a lot of stereotyping and welfare recipients in poor areas aren't crack addicted, drug takers and the like. A good number of the women I saw on it were mid 30s and up growing up and as far as I knew, weren't drug abusers.

 

So, without evidence that its a problem, why are law makers willing to spend money to test a group that the limited evidence we have so far indicates its not worth the money. The tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to either sub contract it out or hire people to do?

 

In Florida it was because one of the proponents had a stake in clinics that would profit from it being contracted out. In other states its pure political staging that at its best uses stereotypes for political gain.

 

My view is this, if you're going to test welfare recipients, then test ALL students in that state that receives state grants for colleges. As well as ALL recipients of ANY state business grants. Make it fair and across the board. It doesn't pass the sniff test if its only welfare recipients. Basically ANYONE that gets free money from the state. That way there is no cry of racism and prejudice and frankly, it looks that way if its only welfare recipients.. I have a feeling if that's done, ironically, there would be a lot more college students testing positive than welfare recipients.

[Steve]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/27/wisconsin-gop-votes-to-break-native-american-treaties/

[Steve]

http://m.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/kansas-speaker-o-neal-asks-house-gop-to-pray-for-obama-s-death

 

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

 

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

 

The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

 

The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12:

 

'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.

Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.'

 

Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message:

 

“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!â€

 

News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason.

 

 

Ny personal opinion is that the guy's intent was to wish Obama was out of office. I would like to think (and do) that he wishes Obama no personal harm despite the passage. The passage was meant to express a sentiment than a verbatim, literal thought. That's what I assume but I would not argue with those who take it literaly.

 

I remember being told to pray for the President in sunday school. Pray for wisdom and safety and this was during Reagan's era as well as Dem ones.

 

The worrying thing about many conservatives and especially the religious right is that they view other Americans as enemies of the state. Americans who think different ideologically. They have transferred Christianity's either you or either you aren't dogma to idelogy. Its scary as hell frankly. Basically, someone could be a Christian or (a Democrat or Liberal Christian) but still be the enemy. Its frankly..well...unChristian and unbibilcal.

[Steve]

Fox News is evil. Nothing new...

 

[Flashermac]

I've read other accounts of Brewer vs Obama that says he got off the plane and immediately started tearing into her. She then fired back. If so, that puts a different slant on things. You should respect the Prez, but he should also respect you.

 

Google for "Obama Brewer Jindal" and a lot comes up, not all from the right either.

 

An example:

 

Obama ‘Scuffles’ With AZ Gov. Jan Brewer–Not The First Such Run-in

President Obama, during a visit to Arizona, was seen verbally sparring with Gov. Jan Brewer. At issue? Comments about the Prez in her new book, Scorpions For Breakfast.

 

Apparently, instead of replying to Brewer’s greeting, and invitation to tour the border and discuss other issues, Obama brought up an excerpt from her book, where he felt she was not cordial enough about the President and his policies. Apparently, according to AP Pool reporters and Brewer, Obama walked away while she was still talking.

 

Obama did the same thing to LA Gov. Bobby Jindal during the president’s visit to Louisiana during the Gulf Oil Spill crisis. Jindal later recounted in his book he was looking for words of reassurance and support from the Feds over the enviornmental issues, and other relevant topics. Instead, Jindal recounts, Obama was upset…over food stamps. Jindal and his administration had sent a letter the previous day to Ag. Secretary Tom Vilsack asking about the possibility of approving food assistance for those who were now unemployed due to the oil spill.

 

Jindal said it’s a rather routine request during such disasters, but somehow Obama took it to mean the Feds were not doing enough. Jindal said not one word was spoken about the oil spill, only Obama saying “careful†... “this is going to get bad for everyone.†He was more concerned about being made to look bad than addressing the oil situation. The Weekly Standard last fall wrote a fascinating piece called “Being Obama–It’s All About Him†which accurately sums up his view of being President.

 

My link

[Steve]

Respect goes both ways and if Obama ripped into her first then he should be more respectful of a governor as well. To be fair, I can see that in Obama, I recall a video of him pulling CT Sen. Joe Lieberman to the side in a way that was a bit forceful. I was thinking Obama learned some 'hood style' diplomacy in Chicago..haha.

 

So, the Az governor could be exonerated if Obama came disrespectfully first. The congressman who skipped out of the SOTU address dont get a pass though. They should have been there and I don't like the precedence. I also think their leadership should have told them to be there under no uncertain terms.

 

Anyway, if we think Obama is direct, imagine Newt? Not to excuse Obama if he did come both the LA and AZ governors that way but the Republicans have not exactly helped create an atmosphere for mutual respect. I recall Bush trying to bridge a gap and be cordial to Teddy Kennedy by inviting him to a White House viewing of a movie about his brother I think and Teddy pretty much ignored the gesture and went after him. A bit more aggressive than one would imagine someone to be that just invited you to their home. I thought it wasn't nice of Teddy. Bush held out an olive branch after an acrimonious recount and Teddy pretty much spat at it.