The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[ewingxmanstarks]

^If your trying to say I'm painting to much of a negative view on what society has become, your probably right...still parts of our culture has been eroding...the family has been dismantled, sportscenter is the new news, its not cool to embrace faith, manufacturing is all but gone...we live in a very confusing society...we are inundated with information from all different types of new media outlets, we are very divided...we have less objectivity...Those who have agendas push and pull us apart....I'm not saying we haven't made progress too, but it would be nice to get back some of the moral fabric, that I think has been lost.

[MF Doom]

^If your trying to say I'm painting to much of a negative view on what society has become, your probably right...still parts of our culture has been eroding...the family has been dismantled, sportscenter is the new news, its not cool to embrace faith, manufacturing is all but gone...we live in a very confusing society...we are inundated with information from all different types of new media outlets, we are very divided...we have less objectivity...Those who have agendas push and pull us apart....I'm not saying we haven't made progress too, but it would be nice to get back some of the moral fabric, that I think has been lost.

What do you think led to the dismantlement of the family?

[ewingxmanstarks]

That's a complex question...probably many things

[HarthorneWingo]

^If your trying to say I'm painting to much of a negative view on what society has become, your probably right...still parts of our culture has been eroding...the family has been dismantled, sportscenter is the new news, its not cool to embrace faith, manufacturing is all but gone...we live in a very confusing society...we are inundated with information from all different types of new media outlets, we are very divided...we have less objectivity...Those who have agendas push and pull us apart....I'm not saying we haven't made progress too, but it would be nice to get back some of the moral fabric, that I think has been lost.

What do you think led to the dismantlement of the family?

Strippers?

[HarthorneWingo]

Btw, I was very disappointed in President Obama's speech today on Afghanistan. This is a bunch of nonsense. There's no good reason to spend another dime in that shythole.

[mugzi]

Heres one thing I agree with Bawney Fwank about, lol. If anyone is going to legalize mary jane its this administration and thats some chaneg I can believe in, lol.



A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana …
A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday. The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana. Sixteen of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
But planting, selling or commercially distributing marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
Last year, California citizens voted not to legalize recreational marijuana use, although the debate continues in about half a dozen other states. Three weeks ago a group of ex-presidents of Latin America as well as former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan denounced the failure of the global war on drugs and called for urgent changes, including the legalization of cannabis.

Between 1998 and 2008, worldwide consumption of opiates increased 35 percent, with cocaine use growing 27 percent and marijuana use growing 8.5 percent, according to the Global Commission on Drug Policy. June marks the 40th anniversary of the "War on Drugs" launched by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the first major US anti-drug initiative.

[mugzi]

in the media for their own favor, especially if they think it can help get the politicians who are going to work in their interests to help them. That is a rational action for those companies to make.

Has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with human nature, and that it is natural for people to look for ways to benefit themselves. We do exist in a world of scarcity, after all.

Dude you have NOTHING to apologize for. Frankly, thats the problem with the GOP today. We can't reconcile or see eye to eye with these people. We need to disagree with them at every turn and never give them an inch because they'll take a mile. They are so deluded in their thinking they have no ability to critically think or have any semblance of honor or morality. They are byproducts of a bankrupt Godless culture brought on by communist subversion over a period of 6 decades. The cold war was not won by us, it was lost as evidenced by the dumbing down of our culture, the entitlement mentality- medicare medicaid Obamacare welfare, social security food stamps subsidies, etc etc etc, the 30 million plus illegal immigrants contributing nothing to our tax rolls, you like Greece? Thats our very near future, and when that happens their will be riots, there will be blood which is what these demoncat nanny state fascists want. They want to be able to declare martial law.

I hope you're ready, because preparation is necessary for what lies ahead. Its always better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.[/quote]


You are definitely a smart man, and I very much appreciate the support.

The problem is some of these people aren't expressing their beliefs, they are just gran standing...They don't have a developed political belief system...I don't want them to subscribe to my beliefs...what they should do is just listen, hear out other beliefs, follow whats going on in the world, learn some history, get to know the different ideologies, develop opinion, identify their personal biases, use critical thinking to process what they hear and read.

I've seen people post comments like "How do we really know Osama really is a terrorist?", "The government just wants to kill us all , so they can keep all the oil.", "The government, Churches, Banks, teachers, corporations, cops, firemen, hospitals, the media, the military, herb williams, etc.....are all doing the devils work, and we"re all bind to the hypnosis."

When I challenge Wat they say, they want to debate....If I bruise their ego, it comes back stronger, if I pull a Wingo and Placate, then their ego also grows....He doesn't care about these people, he just wants support or more Dem votes.....I can't help these people,and I don't get anything out of taking to them either.

I do realise that America is losing a culture war, and it's sad, but things always change...there was a time when men came home from hard honest work,ate dinner with their families,watched the news,had fun and meaningful conversation with their friends and family....Now there is no family, men aren't working, kids embrace gang culture, young women are dyking out with young women so they can be more "sexy",etc....

If i was capable of changing things, then I would, but I don't have all the answers..Wingo might think he's "solving problems", but he's delusional....I have no power, I'm just one voice..[/quote]

There's no reasoning with these guys, think about where you are. This is NY one of the most liberal cities in the country. Im a NY'er but I never bought into the democrats lies. And the GOP has their own problems, they are anemic in many facets but the democrats are beyond redemption. They have been for a long time.

The culture war we're losing is due to a combination of factors. The homosexual agenda has chipped away at the nuclear family. I dont care if gay people marry even though I dont agree with it. But every child needs a positive MALE AND FEMALE parental influence in their life.

But it goes way deeper than that. Inflation has caused people to work harder and longer for less. Incessant marketing conditions people to live beyond their means. We have become slaves to debt, possessions and many have become devoid of a spiritual foundation or any semblance of honor or personal responsibility. People have less time to spend with their children, less inclination to teach them how to be well adjusted.

And who promulgates most of the garbage people are fed through television and the media? The same liberal sycophants these guys love. Hollyweird. I lived there for 10 yrs I know more about that city then these guys could ever know. Ive seen plenty of crazy ish there and its in many ways a modern day Babylon.

All I can say man is keep doing what youre doing. Evil thoughts thrive when good ones do nothing to stop them.

[mugzi]

Id like to point out I was for the Afghan war when it started, but I feel with the lack of an overall mission {many generals cant even articulate what the mission is there anymore} and the fact that Afghanistan is a 7th century craphole that can't be brought into the 21st century. We do need to get out of there and should have done so 5 to 7 years ago.

However, I wanted to point out what to me was overt liberal bias and simultaneous butt kissing to the president in this TIME article. Time is a joke, they are a well known liberal publication. But since media bias has been a recent topic I felt it was only right to highlight what I mean. Ive highlighted and commented next to the biased parts.


In November of 1986, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev addressed the Politburo about his country's futile war in Afghanistan. The conflict had already dragged on for six years, Gorbachev told his comrades, but no end was in sight. "In general, we haven't found the key to resolving this problem," the communist leader explained, according to Gregory Feifer's book, The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. "We need to finish this process as soon as possible." That was especially true in a nation whose economy was groaning from the expense of the war. Soon after, Gorbachev informed American officials that the Soviets would begin their exit from Afghanistan.
Gorbachev's retreat from Central Asia was an admission of defeat and a sign that the Soviet era was coming to a close. For Barack Obama and the United States, the picture is not so dire. Not quite. But the president's announcement last night that he will withdraw 33,000 American troops from Afghanistan by next summer, and that the U.S. combat mission there will end by 2014, was also an admission about waning power. Obama understands that, after 10 years of war and an economic catastrophe, America has neither the will nor the resources to continue an all-out fight in Afghanistan. When George W. Bush fought on stubbornly to rescue Iraq, he had the luxury of a relatively healthy economy and a national debt that Obama would envy.

"An admission of waning power." So here is Time echoing the presidents prior comment about the waning of American exceptionalism and power. Hmm I wonder why? Why would any American who loves this country admit and promote such a view? {Globalist, cough cough}

So this president who doubled down on the Afghan war by approving the 30k troop surge there didn't fight on stubbornly to rescue Afghanistan? But W did in Iraq? Ok, standard blame Bush liberal tactic here.

And lets look at the healthy economy and nat'l debt this president would envy. Why did the economy collapse? One reason and one reason only. The mortgage business. Subprime loans given to unqualified borrowers. Well what brought about the climate for this financial lunacy? Redlining/HUD and Bill Clinton. Thats a fact, doesnt take much to research, if you want to know the truth.

And what has this president done to "pull the car out of its economic ditch?" Nada, zero, zilch.

But America can no longer win at all costs. The bills are stacking up, the patience is running out. Obama sent a message when he promised steady draw down without any reference to "conditions on the ground": Maybe this time failure is an option. (Watch "Obama Addresses the Nation on Afghan Withdrawal.")
This is not a commentary on Obama's fortitude, or about his determination to defeat al Qaeda. The killing of Osama bin Laden answers that silly question. Moreover, a senior administration official told reporters on Wednesday that it's been at least seven years since a serious al Qaeda threat to the U.S. homeland has emerged from Afghanistan, and that fewer than 75 al Qaeda fighters are in the country today, mostly embedded within the Haqqani network and focused on attacking U.S. troops in the region, not Manhattan or Washington. The difference between the Americans and the Soviets is that we have achieved one important goal, which is eradicating al Qaeda's presence from Afghanistan.

Again more cheerleading for their frontman. Yes lets continue to ride OBL death for 15 more months!!

But the other key goal is preventing the Taliban from re-conquering Afghanistan and potentially allowing al Qaeda to create a new safe haven in the country. And in its discussion of timelines and its promise that "the tide of war is receding," Obama's speech made no allowances for what happens if, say, the Taliban threaten to take Kabul in the spring of 2013. Would he surge again? Nothing in his speech makes it seem likely. (In Speech on Afghanistan, Obama Turns to the Battle For America's Future.)
Does that make Obama a "declinist"? Republicans are already saying so. But it might also be evidence of his innate pragmatism. Obama saw a waning threat, a rising debt, a restless public, and a mounting death toll. Surely he remembers the warnings from some of his top advisors that an exit on anything but favorable terms could hand Islamic radicals a propaganda and recruiting prize, just as it did when the last Soviet troops crossed the steel Friendship Bridge into Uzbekistan on February 16, 1989. But he also knows that America's presence in Afghanistan, and the awful civilian deaths that result, is itself a recruiting tool, not to mention that out scarce resources might be better devoted to fighting al Qaeda in havens like Somalia and Yemen.

No moron, this makes him a politician angling for re-election. If the man had the vision or courage of a real leader he'd do a state of the union address and say "I campaigned on getting this nation out of the fog of war, and it hasn't as quickly as I hoped but by this date we will have removed all of our troops from Afghanistan." But that requires real principles and vision and the will to be decisive.





Commentators will fixate on the military dimensions of Obama's new policy. In truth the test for him now is the far more complicated political settlement of which he spoke. That is a huge diplomatic challenge, an elaborate dance between the Karzai government, the Taliban, and our frenemies in Islamabad. A real long term solution will likely involve Delhi as well, and even Tehran. In the coming days Obama's conservative critics will talk at length about David Petraeus's frustrations. But what matters more is this game of three-dimensional diplomatic chess. The Soviets, too, thought they could arrange a face-saving political solution, one that also involved Pakistan's deep involvement. They were proven wrong when the country soon devolved to a horrendous civil war that wiped out their political allies. Obama's challenge now is to avoid a repeat of that history. And to achieve diplomatically what seems futile militarily: an outcome that will prevent America's adventure in Afghanistan from being recorded as another revelation of a great power's decline.

One last jab at conservatives and reiterating the notion that we are a nation on the decline not on the rise.

Do these hacks at Time really think they're clever? Anyone with the ability to use analytical thinking regardless of their politics could see through their smoke and mirrors. Maybe thats why Time is such decline, not a lot of people take them seriously anymore.

[mugzi]

Lets hear it again for free speech! And speaking truth to power.

Geert Wilders acquitted of all charges (Free Speech victory!)
Geert Wilders ^ | 23 June 2011
Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 07:06:30 by CounterCounterCulture

Wilders acquitted of all charges

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 June 2011 09:35

This morning the Court of Amsterdam has acquitted Geert Wilders of all charges.

“I am delighted with this ruling,” says Geert Wilders. “It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about islam, and resistance against islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

[mugzi]

Uh oh spaghetti-oh.


Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on ObamaCare?
American Thinker | June 23, 2011 | Frank Miniter


On June 16 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case (U.S. v. Bond) back to a lower court on Tenth Amendment grounds. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the Court's "swing vote"), hints that ObamaCare just might be ruled unconstitutional. How? Justice Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Bond showed he still believes the federal government is restricted by the enumerated powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. His viewpoint was expressed in a case the Lifetime network is probably making a movie about right now.

In this case, Carol Anne Bond learned that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant. Bond thought that was great until she found out that the baby was fathered by her husband of 14 years, Clifford. Naturally, Bond, a microbiologist residing in suburban Philadelphia, wanted revenge. She began in the usual way by threatening Haynes over the telephone: "I [am] going to make your life a living hell." Subsequently, Bond's attempts to make Haynes life a "living hell" got her convicted for harassment in 2005.

Bond, however, was still out for revenge. Bond next smeared poisonous chemicals, such as an arsenic-based chemical (remember she is a microbiologist) on Haynes' car door handle, mailbox, and other places. Haynes got a burn from the chemicals and reported it to the police. The police, however, didn't know what to make of Haynes' claims. But then the U.S. Postal Inspection Service got involved because the mailbox had been tampered with. After its investigation, Bond was charged with a violating U.S. Code, Section 229, a statute that then prompted federal prosecutors to also throw the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention at Bond. Bond subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court and got a six-year sentence and nearly $12,000 in fines and restitution.

The use of this federal treaty on chemical weapons, however, was a bit much, so Bond's lawyers appealed by arguing that using the federal government's Chemical Weapons Convention against Bond is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.")

On appeal, the 3rd Circuit then ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the Tenth Amendment.

With this constitutional question in the balance, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case and heard it last January. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement represented Bond at the Supreme Court hearing. Clement argued that "the structural provisions of the Constitution are there to protect the liberty of citizens." He articulated that states have the authority to resolve their own criminal justice cases -- some international treaty on chemical weapons shouldn't preclude this state right.

Which gets us back to Justice Kennedy and his tell on how he might rule on ObamaCare. Justice Kennedy said at the hearing: "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?" This made court watchers wonder if this might forecast how Justice Kennedy might vote on ObamaCare.

Then, on June 16, the Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Bond that the U.S. Congress overstepped its authority by infringing on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. (Bond, however, will have to make and win the Tenth Amendment argument in a lower court, as the Supreme Court only sent the case back down to the lower court while saying that Bond can fight her conviction on Tenth Amendment grounds.)

So here's where it gets interesting for those wondering how the Court will vote on ObamaCare. The Obama Administration's argument is that it can mandate that people buy government-approved health insurance under the power the Constitution's Commerce Clause (The U.S. Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes....") gives the federal government. The Commerce Clause has been viewed to be an expansive power by the Supreme Court; for example, the Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that the federal government can even regulate whether a farmer can grow wheat for his chickens. But the Court has never found that the government can mandate that citizens actively do something, such as purchase a product. This is why Justice Kennedy's opinion expressed in U.S. v. Bond is interesting, as it indicates his preference for state rights under the Tenth Amendment.

For example, in his opinion on U.S. v. Bond, Kennedy quoted the Supreme Court case New York v. U.S. (1992): "Federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." And then Justice Kennedy said, "[Federalism] protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.... By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states."

So in U.S. v. Bond Justice Kennedy found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. Let's hope he'll do the same when Obamacare makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Pharmcat]

Its the white american male, the most vilified and mocked subsection of society.

I did not know that.

stuff like this never helps

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/accu ... 4IYHCXitxH

hope they get harshest penalty allowed

[ewingxmanstarks]

^How is that a race issue?

[mugzi]

Its the white american male, the most vilified and mocked subsection of society.

I did not know that.

stuff like this never helps

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/accu ... 4IYHCXitxH

hope they get harshest penalty allowed

I dont care what race you are, I know its not white but frankly I dont care. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Answer this question for me since you're so well informed.

What is the national prison population demographic breakdown by race/etnicity?

Mostly whites right?

You know the answer, I know the answer, but you're too cowardly to admit it. And the point I made which was lost on such an accomplished academic as yourself is that via the media portraying the white male in as a lazy, beer drinking, self-centered dumb man {sitcoms, cartoons-some of which I love- but the point still remains, articles, etc} and every other race having some kind of special interest group to promote " social jussssssssssssstice" the white male is the everyman.

Everyman's punching bag, fodder for jokes, etc.

And to the other bleeding heart who made the adroit point that the white man controls everything in this country, tell that to the tens of millions of whites in this country who are unemployed, underemployed or straight destitute.

You guys want to make everything about race, fine. This is about race, and the simple fact is that some minorities use their race to glom benefits, money, jobs they dont deserve based on their aptitude or qualifications, subsidies for education, etc etc.

Why do certain races get jobs and benefits and considerations that whites don't? White man's guilt?

NO APOLOGIES. NO GUILT. Im sick of it. Either you're an American and a human being first or nothing. Your race, gender thats all secondary and frankly irrelevant.

No one owes anyone anything. You owe yourself an education as far as you can or want to take it, or a vocation and you owe this country that affords you its freedoms, a career whatever it may be that you can do without harming anyone else. Nothing more or less.

Make sense?

Or is it too esoteric for you to grasp?

[rsavaj]

Mugzi, my friend grew up with two moms, lacking the "POSITIVE MALE AND FEMALE" influence you speak so highly of. He's about to finish his neurosurgery residency, so I'd say he's doing just fine.

[Pharmcat]

Mugzi, my friend grew up with two moms, lacking the "POSITIVE MALE AND FEMALE" influence you speak so highly of. He's about to finish his neurosurgery residency, so I'd say he's doing just fine.

holy smokes, congrats to him, that is tough stuff

its not really a concern

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... usted-kids

[mugzi]

Well good for him, how many siblings did his two moms produce for him? Go peddle your gay is a ok agenda elsewhere. Im not going to let you attempt to belittle me with your Horatio Alger analogy. Im way too sharp to fall into a mouse trap.

[Pharmcat]

Heres one thing I agree with Bawney Fwank about, lol. If anyone is going to legalize mary jane its this administration and thats some chaneg I can believe in, lol.



A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana …
A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday. The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana. Sixteen of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
But planting, selling or commercially distributing marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
Last year, California citizens voted not to legalize recreational marijuana use, although the debate continues in about half a dozen other states. Three weeks ago a group of ex-presidents of Latin America as well as former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan denounced the failure of the global war on drugs and called for urgent changes, including the legalization of cannabis.

Between 1998 and 2008, worldwide consumption of opiates increased 35 percent, with cocaine use growing 27 percent and marijuana use growing 8.5 percent, according to the Global Commission on Drug Policy. June marks the 40th anniversary of the "War on Drugs" launched by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the first major US anti-drug initiative.

it should be legalized and taxed...no doubt bout it

[Pharmcat]

I dont care what race you are, I know its not white but frankly I dont care. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Answer this question for me since you're so well informed.

What is the national prison population demographic breakdown by race/etnicity?

Mostly whites right?

You know the answer, I know the answer, but you're too cowardly to admit it. And the point I made which was lost on such an accomplished academic as yourself is that via the media portraying the white male in as a lazy, beer drinking, self-centered dumb man {sitcoms, cartoons-some of which I love- but the point still remains, articles, etc} and every other race having some kind of special interest group to promote " social jussssssssssssstice" the white male is the everyman.

Everyman's punching bag, fodder for jokes, etc.

And to the other bleeding heart who made the adroit point that the white man controls everything in this country, tell that to the tens of millions of whites in this country who are unemployed, underemployed or straight destitute.

You guys want to make everything about race, fine. This is about race, and the simple fact is that some minorities use their race to glom benefits, money, jobs they dont deserve based on their aptitude or qualifications, subsidies for education, etc etc.

Why do certain races get jobs and benefits and considerations that whites don't? White man's guilt?

NO APOLOGIES. NO GUILT. Im sick of it. Either you're an American and a human being first or nothing. Your race, gender thats all secondary and frankly irrelevant.

No one owes anyone anything. You owe yourself an education as far as you can or want to take it, or a vocation and you owe this country that affords you its freedoms, a career whatever it may be that you can do without harming anyone else. Nothing more or less.

Make sense?

Or is it too esoteric for you to grasp?

and please its not fair on tv, we all know the white child who goes missing gets more attention than a minority child when he/she goes missing...so its not all that bad for whites on tv

[ewingxmanstarks]

Personally I think the whole racism in America is why over blown....We are not a racist country, but a country that is obsessed with race....take a look at Europe for example, they hate between gypsy's and other groups makes us look like one big happy family, iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Australia, ect..........

Every time a crime is committed that involves different races, people have been conditioned by politicians mostly from the left, and mainstream media to think race...the tactics used have very successfully divided us...sad but true..

Rsavaj, that's great to know about your friend, but it doesn't prove anything....There have been cases where kids that have grown up with no parents, and have gone on to do amazing things...Should we concluded that having no parents is best for ones development?

I do think that recreational pot use will be allowed on a state level, maybe even federal level, but not because of the power of the libertarian movement....It will be legal because politicians need the revenue, because they've over spent our money...I personal think that legalizing pot would be bad for our culture.

[rsavaj]

Nowhere did I suggest that it was "best", but to imply that not having the traditional nuclear family i wrong or some sort of major disadvantage/kiss of death would be unwise.