Jump to content

Usa Thread


Recommended Posts






Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.


"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."


The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.


"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"


"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."


Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.


The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.


"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."


My link :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans' Satisfaction Almost as Low as It Was Under Carter



It's February, nine months before a presidential election, and only 22 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going. Voters haven't been this unhappy with the country since George H.W. Bush's presidency, when only 21 percent of Americans reported being happy with the country's direction. And before that, the lowest approval rating was 19 percent during Jimmy Carter's first term.


What do the two presidencies have in common? Neither of them won re-election. And, if the trends holds true, Obama looks to be in an equally precarious situation.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research released its 2012 campaign outlook, and it's clear Obama's sitting in the same position George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were in during the February before their election losses—voters don't feel good about the country.


Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush—presidents who won re-election—all had at least 41 percent of voters optimistic with the state of the union.

Nobody for President! :soapbox:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


There's an agenda behind those cookies the Girl Scouts sell, one bent on promoting communism, lesbianism and subverting "traditional American family values," according to an Indiana lawmaker.

That's the reason Rep. Bob Morris, a Republican representing Fort Wayne, insists he won't go along with a resolution meant to honor the Girls Scouts on the organization's 100th anniversary.




Michelle Tompkins, a spokeswoman for the Girl Scouts, responded to Morris' assertions by telling NBC station WISE of Fort Wayne, "Not only is Rep. Morris off the mark on his claims, it's also unfortunate in his limited research that he failed to discover that, since 1917, every first lady has served as the honorary leader of Girl Scouts, including Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush."

"We believe that leadership is about hearing from all sides of an issue before making up one's mind," Tompkins said. "We only wish we had the chance to speak with the freshman representative before he distributed his letter."

For its part, Planned Parenthood of Indiana called Morris' comments "inflammatory, misleading, woefully inaccurate and harmful," saying he'd insulted not only it but also the Girl Scouts and Obama.

"Planned Parenthood currently has no formal partnership with the Girl Scouts, but supports their mission and recognizes their century of contributions to our society," the organization said in a statement to NBC station WTHR of Indianapolis.


Dems have their fair share of fringe guys but c'mon. This guy is out there. Catering to some nut case constituents probably. For goodness sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Very controversial Affirmative Action case reaches the high court. Touchy subject. I recall not wanting to be tagged with it and kept my race off college admissions. In fact, I think I got delayed in my acceptence from Dartmouth (couldn't afford to go anyway) because at that time Alums gave personal interviews and he noticed I didn't put a race and was a very liberal guy I think and didn't like my reasoning at the time. I think I got dinged.


When I went to Auburn I didn't put my race down either. I just didn't want someone to say I got there because I was black. I was getting in anyway because I was an athlete.


As time has gone by and I've gotten soft with age, I still have mixed feelings. Obvisouly a quota is out and illegal. Some of more prominent people in America got to where they were because of Affirmative Action. Colin Powell, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Obama himself. 2 of the 3 aforementioned support AA.


My view is that either make it all down to academics or don't. Schools do have their own preferences that are accepted practice and never challenged. The rich and famous get preferential treatment. I've heard a couple of the Kennedy's including Teddy wouldn't not have been accepted to Harvard if it wasn't for their family name.


Athletes are given preferential treatment. People justify saying they bring money into the school. So what? Rich people do as well. So, my view is its hard for me to argue against race being used as one of several criteria (and its done to add 'diversity') if we are allowing other groups or peoples preferential treatment.


I have now heard there is an unoffical quote on Asians as well as women in a lot of top tier schools. Women are making up larger numbers of classes now, especially in Grad school.


There is also the disadvantge the poor have, whether they are black, white, latino, etc. because they have had inferior k-12 schools and therefore are not as prepared as richer kids who had better k-12 schools. How do we balance that out? Do we just say that's how it is or do we give preferential treatment to those who through no fault of their own went to far inferior schools. It alsmost happened to me. I was fortunate to get into a program to go to a good suburban HS.


No easy solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the GOP candidates Americans swing back to Obama.


I guess it's no surprise, since the GOP candidates have all moved towards the hardcore right.

And I guess Americans are now moving towards the lesser of the two evils. That's what politics is all about in the end.


The question is, if any of the GOP candidates will be able to move back towards the center for to become electable?


Poll: Obama tops 50% vs. all comers

By: MJ Lee

February 22, 2012 06:20 AM EST


President Barack Obama is topping 50 percent support in match-ups against each of the four Republican presidential candidates, a new poll finds.


In a general election contest against Mitt Romney, the president leads his Republican opponent 51 to 43 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK survey on Wednesday. This demonstrates a significant lead for Obama compared to the December poll when the two were virtually tied at 47 to 46 percent.


Meanwhile, Obama would lead Rick Santorum 52 to 43 percent, Newt Gingrich 52 to 42 percent, and Ron Paul 53 to 44 percent.


While both candidates are trailing well behind Obama, Santorum is virtually tied with Romney as the preferred presidential nominee among Republican voters. Thirty-three percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said they would like to see Santorum seize the party’s nomination, while 32 percent chose Romney. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were both the preferred nominees of 15 percent of Republicans.


Romney was shown with the highest favorability rating in the GOP field at 50 percent; Paul and Santorum were next with 47 and 44 percent favorability ratings, respectively, while Gingrich trailed behind at 33 percent.


The poll revealed a significant level of dissatisfaction among the Republican voting bloc about the current presidential field –39 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said they are not satisfied with their choice of 2012 candidates.


The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted Feb. 16-20 among 1,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the GOP candidates Americans swing back to Obama.



The question is, if any of the GOP candidates will be able to move back towards the center for to become electable?


Most GOP candidates have done the Nixon doctrine. Go far to the right in the prmiary to solidify the base and get the nomination, move to the center in the general election. His last move is govern left of center. Some GOPs don't do the last one though. Nixon actually did (trip to China and a host of liberal things EPA, Disabilities Act, Endangerd Species Act, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's Dividend Assault


A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.


President Obama's 2013 budget is the gift that keeps on giving—to government. One buried surprise is his proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends, which believe it or not is higher than in his previous budgets.


Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today's 15% rate.

Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.


In previous budgets, Mr. Obama proposed an increase to 23.8% on both dividends and capital gains. That's roughly a 60% increase in the tax on investments, but at least it would maintain parity between taxes on capital gains and dividends, a principle established as part of George W. Bush's 2003 tax cut.


With the same rate on both forms of income, the tax code doesn't bias corporate decisions on whether to retain and reinvest profits (and allow the earnings to be capitalized into the stock price), or distribute the money as dividends at the time they are earned.


Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.


The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.




And that's what happened. An American Economic Association study by University of California at Berkeley economists Raj Chetty and Emmanuel Saez examined dividend payouts by firms and concluded that "the tax reform played a significant role in the [2003 and 2004] increase in dividend payouts." They also found that the incentive for firms to pay dividends rather than sit on cash helped "reshuffle" capital from lower growth firms to "ventures with greater expected value," thus increasing capital-market efficiency.


If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives. The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.


Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.





We will ... we will ... TAX YOU!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would agree its a wrong move and I would not like to see the taxes raised such as that I am skeptical of the net effect on those that have these investments.

They may be 65 but that doesn't mean they are poor. Just my guess but anyone who is holding enough stocks and bonds to derive a pretty good income from the dividends and interest payments is very wealthy.

That doesn't mean we should tax them to death. I don't agree with that. I would not sign on to Obama's taxing at that rate. However, as I said before, I don't see it as a tax on poor seniors on a very limited budget. Its a tax on the rich and wealthy. My guess is that they have ways around the tax. Other write offs and such to offset it. Move into tax free bonds perhaps, or whatever. Their tax advisor can find ways. The tax does seem too high though. A moderate tax increase maybe only after we make cuts in waste elsewhere and have no choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham and a prominent evangelical leader in his own right, waded into contentious waters Tuesday when asked for his views on the religious beliefs of President Obama and the GOP hopefuls.

Graham, the CEO and president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told a Morning Joe panel he couldn't say for certain that Obama is a Christian.


“You have to ask him. I cannot answer that question for anybody. All I know is I’m a sinner, and that God has forgiven me of my sins," Graham said. "You have to ask every person. He has said he’s a Christian, so I just have to assume that he is.â€

But Graham also said he couldn't "categorically" say Obama wasn't a Muslim, in part, because Islam has gotten a "free pass" under Obama. Graham also said the Muslim world sees Obama as a "son of Islam," because the president's father and grandfather were Muslim.

According to Edina Lekovic, director of policy at the Muslim Public Affairs Council, being born in a Muslim family doesn't make one a Muslim. A person has to make an active choice to become a Muslim, Lekovic said.

Obama has said again and again that he is a Christian, both as a presidential candidate and as president.

Graham told the Morning Joe panel that he and Santorum share the same moral beliefs, and that he's confident Santorum is a fellow Christian.

"His values are so clear on moral issues, no question about it," he told the Morning Joe panel.

Graham spoke with a little less confidence about Gingrich's faith, and cast doubt on whether Romney's Mormonism is compatible with Christianity.

"I think Newt is a Christian, at least he told me he is," Graham said. He added that Romney's Mormon faith is not recognized as part of the Christian faith by most Christians, but he wouldn't give his own view.

Romney has stood by his faith, saying Mormonism's values are "as American as motherhood and apple pie."


Wow. Graham playing politics and being hypocritical about the faith he professes to believe in.


In Christianity if you publicly profess your faith you are considered a Christian. No ifs ands or buts. Graham knows this. Any 10 year old in Sunday School knows this. For him to doubt Obama's religion is NOT BIBLICAL.


It shouldn't matter anyway, but for him to say that (not knowing if Obama is really a Christian) is wrong pure and simple in terms of Christian doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, since you posted your views on affirmative action, I'd be interested on your views on Title 9, which mandates an equal amount of money at colleges be spent on females as well as male athletics. Obviously, the two big money makers at colleges are men's football and basketball, which help pay for every other program, men and woman's. Not even woman's basketball comes close to paying its own way. Most colleges have dropped programs, like wrestling and rowing, because they are mandated to provide both men and woman's programs in those sports. I can't say that I'm totally against title 9 (I know several woman that probably wouldn't have gone to college without a scholarship), but to put such strict guidelines on colleges that forces them to choose which programs to cut is wrong.

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

  • Create New...