OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.

AH?

OBAMA
4
80%
BOEHENERHER
1
20%
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am
Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by miditek » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:38 pm

browneyedgirl wrote:REPUBLICANS want the entire burden of the deficit reduction to be carried on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the poor, working families, and children. While the blueblooded folks who think they are better than everyone else don't make any sacrifices at all. that's NOT going to work anymore, and these snobs better get used to that.
What do Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Brad Pitt, the Kennedys, Barbra Streisand and countless other celebs and politicos have in common?

- They are all filthy rich

- They don't give a shit about the "little guy"

- They are all moonbat libtards that want to turn Amerika into a third-world shithole.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member
Posts:3585
Joined:Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by AAAAAAAAAA » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:40 pm

browneyedgirl wrote:While the blueblooded folks who think they are better than everyone else don't make any sacrifices at all.
Like I said, the top 1% already pay 40% of the total (income) taxes. The bottom 50% (half the country), pay a total of only 2.4%.

I'm curious, if you would rewrite the tax system how would you change these numbers?

I don't mean this question in any sarcastic way, I'm really curious about what you guys think.

Should the bottom 50% pay 0% of taxes and the top 1% pay 60%? 80%? All of it? What's reasonable?

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by miditek » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 pm

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:
browneyedgirl wrote:While the blueblooded folks who think they are better than everyone else don't make any sacrifices at all.
Like I said, the top 1% already pay 40% of the total (income) taxes. The bottom 50% (half the country), pay a total of only 2.4%.

I'm curious, if you would rewrite the tax system how would you change these numbers?

I don't mean this question in any sarcastic way, I'm really curious about what you guys think.

Should the bottom 50% pay 0% of taxes and the top 1% pay 60%? 80%? All of it? What's reasonable?
If I might add, how many poor people actually create jobs, pay benefits, meet weekly payrolls, pay benefits and employment and personalty (usage) taxes?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:13 am

Well, an economic expert who wrote an article for the Wall Street journal newspaper said if taxes were not raised across the board, even just a few percentage points, in about six months to a year the country will be going through this mess again. So, I don't know. :(

User avatar
JensJohansson
Administrator
Posts:1490
Joined:Thu Feb 28, 2002 10:45 pm
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by JensJohansson » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:25 am

miditek wrote:If I might add, how many poor people actually create jobs, pay benefits, meet weekly payrolls, pay benefits and employment and personalty (usage) taxes?
But without poor people, who would rich people be rich in comparison to?

It's all statistics somehow anyway. The poorest 3% of Americans are probably still better off than say the middle 30% of the people in Congo. (Source: figures i just pulled out of my as.. I mean hat)

The poorest 0.1% of the whole Earth's population today are like millionaires and magicians compared to the richest and most sophisticated and advanced humans living 50000 years ago.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by miditek » Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:55 am

JensJohansson wrote:
miditek wrote:If I might add, how many poor people actually create jobs, pay benefits, meet weekly payrolls, pay benefits and employment and personalty (usage) taxes?
But without poor people, who would rich people be rich in comparison to?

It's all statistics somehow anyway. The poorest 3% of Americans are probably still better off than say the middle 30% of the people in Congo. (Source: figures i just pulled out of my as.. I mean hat)

The poorest 0.1% of the whole Earth's population today are like millionaires and magicians compared to the richest and most sophisticated and advanced humans living 50000 years ago.
The economist Walter Williams once pointed out that the majority of poor people in America have color televisions, automobiles, mobile phones, cable television, computers, Internet access, etc. and so on. That would certainly seem to give credence to your comparison of poor Americans v. poor Congolese.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:21 pm

haha This reminds me of my sister-in-law who ended her 12 year marriage to an abusive husband. She had 2 young children so she went on welfare and food stamps for many years. She also got a free apartmemt which was very nice--it was not one of these Harlem-type ghetto places, either. If she had had to pay rent for this apartment it would have been easily $800 a month, and this was in the 1980s! For about 10 years they lived on government assistance until her son joined the navy, and her daughter graduated high school, and married which meant the end of my S-I-L's dole. By "coincidence", about a week before her daughter married my SIL met a guy and had a whirlwind relationship, and married about a week after her daughter did. :wink: Are you getting the connection? On top of that, about a month after her marriage my SIL had a mysterious nervous breakdown, and since that time has been on SSI. The weird thing is, she appears to have perfect mental sense. How she was able to swing getting a $500 a month "crazy check" is beyond me.??? She actually has more sense than i do :lol: :lol: :lol: and I have never even considered "selling my soul" to get on the dole. How do people with supposedly normal mental facilities get these checks?
My husband is on disability for COPD, and heart problems yet he had to undergo a year's battery of testing to 4 different doctors, and 2 were located several counties away. The same for my Mom who had cancer twice, and she had to go through alot to get her SSI, and she was deathly sick!

So---how do these people like my SIL get checks so easily when they seem perfectly healthy? It boggles my mind!

Also, there is a guy who lives near us--he's only 33 years old, and he draws full SSI, food stamps, and has Section 8 for the 4-bedroom house he and his family is living in. He has 4 children under 6 years old and they get government assisttance, too. My husband says,"How in the Hell does that guy qualify for disability? Any guy who can produce 4 children in 6 years, and have sex like he apparently can cannot logically be disabled!" :lol:
I have to admit he has a point because this randy guy is always bragging to anyone who will listen how much sex he&his wife has, then he will turn around and try to sell people his food stamps to buy cigarettes! :lol: Stuff like this pisses people off who are truly disabled, because "fakers" bring shame on everyone in the system. So, something needs to be done, I agree with that.

User avatar
icecab21
Sr. Member
Posts:3520
Joined:Mon May 19, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by icecab21 » Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:57 pm

ike I said, the top 1% already pay 40% of the total (income) taxes. The bottom 50% (half the country), pay a total of only 2.4%.

I'm curious, if you would rewrite the tax system how would you change these numbers?

I don't mean this question in any sarcastic way, I'm really curious about what you guys think.

Should the bottom 50% pay 0% of taxes and the top 1% pay 60%? 80%? All of it? What's reasonable?
if 1% makes 40% of the income , they should pay 40% of income taxes. if 50% makes 2.4% of the income, they should pay 2.4% of the income tax. lets go flat percentages all around.

TwilightEagle
Sr. Member
Posts:322
Joined:Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by TwilightEagle » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:53 pm

Sometimes it seems, that some Republicans only care about the low taxes to the rich people, keeping the military costs high and making the society more conservative and religious. So they don't care a fuck about the "little people", but they care about the "white Christian redneck" ideology.

You know, that Bush took debt to the Afganistan and Iraq war and some other military purposes. Here's a picture about US military costs, which are 707.3 bn. Even Democrats and Obama hasn't cut the military costs. Maybe he have to do that, because of the debt crisis.

Image

Please note, that this is a view of a person, who is not an American.

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:52 pm

Bush gave money freely to finance those wars, and dipped into the Social Security emergency fund to the tune of several TRILLION dollars to bail out Wall Street. This was BEFORE Obama was elected. The USA needs that money and now does not have it because of George W. Bush.

Once again, when FDR created Social Security to help poor and elderly the Republicans were dead set against it, and tried to vote it down. Just keep that in mind. :wink:

CCCCCCCC
Member
Posts:108
Joined:Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:23 pm
Location:I had 4 biscuits, then I ate one, now I only have 3

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by CCCCCCCC » Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:10 pm

End the fed End the fed!!!!!!!!eueueueu!!!!!!

CCCCCCCC
Member
Posts:108
Joined:Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:23 pm
Location:I had 4 biscuits, then I ate one, now I only have 3

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by CCCCCCCC » Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:17 pm

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

SHUT UP AND ENJOY THE MUSIC!

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬



User avatar
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member
Posts:3585
Joined:Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by AAAAAAAAAA » Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:26 am

TwilightEagle wrote: You know, that Bush took debt to the Afganistan and Iraq war and some other military purposes. Here's a picture about US military costs, which are 707.3 bn. Even Democrats and Obama hasn't cut the military costs. Maybe he have to do that, because of the debt crisis.
707 billion is a meaningless number outside the context of the whole federal budget. That number (which is the funding for the entire Department of Defense) is less than the funding for Social Security, which is 725 billion and also less than the Department of Health and Human Services (at 818 billion). All in all, defense accounts for only 18% of the US federal budget.
Sometimes it seems, that some Republicans only care about the low taxes to the rich people, keeping the military costs high and making the society more conservative and religious. So they don't care a fuck about the "little people", but they care about the "white Christian redneck" ideology.
Congratulations Mr. Moore, another convert! :lol:

What are some bills that have been brought before congress and have received substantial Republican support that you believe cater to "white Christian rednecks" and persecute the "little people"?
browneyedgirl wrote:Once again, when FDR created Social Security to help poor and elderly the Republicans were dead set against it, and tried to vote it down. Just keep that in mind.
Although the premise of social security is a good one, the debate is more a matter of implementation. Social Security is enormously expensive, and the system is failing and headed towards bankruptcy (especially with the impending retirement of the baby boomers).

I truly believe it is important to help the less fortunate, but the system is currently broken and its projected that Social Security will become bankrupt in 20 years.

Interestingly enough, I've found numerous sources which indicate that Republicans on average donate far larger amounts to charity than Democrats (by a whopping 30% in the link below). I don't think its fair to say that Republicans are unsympathetic toward the poor.

Link.

Of course, do your own research (google "Republicans vs. Democrats Charity" or something to that effect so you won't think I'm singling out sources).

The whole premise that Republicans are the party of the wealthy is also flawed, as there are as many Democrats now in the $130k+ income bracket as there are Republicans.

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:07 am

It was told on the news tonight that a deal is just about there, BUT some of the REPUBLICANS do not want to cut a penny from Defense. Figures. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Oh, btw, here is a chart from the Wall STREET Journal which lists the expenditures, and needed revenues for August:

Revenues available for August: 172 Billion
Government bills: 307 Billion
(from which we base the budget on)

Medicare&Medicaid: 50 Billion
Social Security/SSI 49 Billion
Defense vendors 31.7 Billion
Interest on Treasury funds 29 Billion
Federal salaries 14.2 Billion
Unemployment compensation 12 Billion
Food Stamps&Welfare&Housing Assistance
for the poor 9 Billion
IRS Refunds 3.9 Billion
Other 100 Billion

What "Other" is, I don't know but I assume it may be educational grants, and loans, and goevernment based job grants and such.

This chart was from Wall Street Journal, a very well respected conservative newspaper, so I think their figures are real.

So, if everything is cut in half, that should trim the unwanted waste. It all depends upon what the big bellies in Washington DC decide. Really nice. :roll: The fate of many peoples futures lie in the power of a bunch of wealthy bureaucrats. Tax dollars at work, as they say.

CCCCCCCC
Member
Posts:108
Joined:Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:23 pm
Location:I had 4 biscuits, then I ate one, now I only have 3

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by CCCCCCCC » Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:07 am

repubs and demos same shiiietttt

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by miditek » Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:20 am

TwilightEagle wrote:Please note, that this is a view of a person, who is not an American.
Apparently not. Which one of these morally bankrupt, multi-culturalist, third-world socialist utopias do you hail from? I am quite sure that your townfolk are far more cosmopolitan than colonial simpletons such as us.

Image
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
venezuela_boy
Member
Posts:55
Joined:Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:17 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by venezuela_boy » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:59 am

So....does Stratovarius come to Venezuela?

OR NOT??

Jaja :) Sorry my english, go CARACAS FC!! :ola:
I SORRY MY ENGLISH I AM FROM THE VENEZUELA!!!!!!

User avatar
Borat Sagdiyev
Jr. Member
Posts:3
Joined:Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:36 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by Borat Sagdiyev » Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:41 am

khazakhstan number1 cantry in tha world

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:51 pm

Well, the compromise has been reached. The drama is over...........until the next time. :roll:

TwilightEagle
Sr. Member
Posts:322
Joined:Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by TwilightEagle » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:06 pm

707 billion is a meaningless number outside the context of the whole federal budget. That number (which is the funding for the entire Department of Defense) is less than the funding for Social Security, which is 725 billion and also less than the Department of Health and Human Services (at 818 billion). All in all, defense accounts for only 18% of the US federal budget.
18% is a quite large amount of money...
Congratulations Mr. Moore, another convert! :lol:

What are some bills that have been brought before congress and have received substantial Republican support that you believe cater to "white Christian rednecks" and persecute the "little people"?
Republicans like Palin doesn't care about the little people, but they care about conservatism, militarism and the religious things. Basically they're trying to make the society more conservative and religious, almost like in the muslim countries.
Apparently not. Which one of these morally bankrupt, multi-culturalist, third-world socialist utopias do you hail from? I am quite sure that your townfolk are far more cosmopolitan than colonial simpletons such as us.
What kind of society do you want? A close, militaristic and religious society like in the muslim countries you hate?

User avatar
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member
Posts:3585
Joined:Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by AAAAAAAAAA » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:49 am

TwilightEagle wrote:
707 billion is a meaningless number outside the context of the whole federal budget. That number (which is the funding for the entire Department of Defense) is less than the funding for Social Security, which is 725 billion and also less than the Department of Health and Human Services (at 818 billion). All in all, defense accounts for only 18% of the US federal budget.
18% is a quite large amount of money...
Of course, that is true. Spending 18% of the budget on defense is quite a bit, by international standards.

BTW, 20% of that 18% is spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (159 billion, in 2011).
TwilightEagle wrote: Republicans like Palin doesn't care about the little people, but they care about conservatism, militarism and the religious things. Basically they're trying to make the society more conservative and religious, almost like in the muslim countries.
For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.

User avatar
Derrick Rose
Sr. Member
Posts:591
Joined:Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:02 am
Location:Chicago

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by Derrick Rose » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:52 am

Borat Sagdiyev wrote:khazakhstan number1 cantry in tha world
So you vote for the Boner?

I don't see how you all spell the country name anyhow.

TwilightEagle
Sr. Member
Posts:322
Joined:Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by TwilightEagle » Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:33 pm

For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.
I'm not saying, that all Republicans are "white Christian militant fanatics", but I'm talking about the some candidates, like Palin.

The one thing, which pisses my off with SOME Republicans, like Palin is it they think, that there's only one (or actually two ;)) religions which are the "real" ones and the others are "violent bullshit".

Is burning Korans a peaceful way, like the "redneck white Christians" are calling themselves and saying, that all Muslims are terrorists and militants and all Christians are peaceful?

I have nothing against any religion, but making the politics with the religion is the thing, what pissed me off. Same for both islamists and US redneck political Christians. Their goal is same, to control the society with the religion. It's their weapon. Example Palin and some other redneck Republicans wants to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, not free and peaceful, like most of the European politicians do (if we don't count the extreme right populists). Of course SOME Democrats also do the same, but for me the Democrats are the "less worse" ones.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:26 pm

So let me get this straight, instead of very slightly increasing the taxes of the richest people on earth, they are going to cut education and social programs?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Rebel
Sr. Member
Posts:2142
Joined:Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:41 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by Rebel » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:27 am

TwilightEagle wrote:
For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.
I'm not saying, that all Republicans are "white Christian militant fanatics", but I'm talking about the some candidates, like Palin.

The one thing, which pisses my off with SOME Republicans, like Palin is it they think, that there's only one (or actually two ;)) religions which are the "real" ones and the others are "violent bullshit".

Is burning Korans a peaceful way, like the "redneck white Christians" are calling themselves and saying, that all Muslims are terrorists and militants and all Christians are peaceful?

I have nothing against any religion, but making the politics with the religion is the thing, what pissed me off. Same for both islamists and US redneck political Christians. Their goal is same, to control the society with the religion. It's their weapon. Example Palin and some other redneck Republicans wants to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, not free and peaceful, like most of the European politicians do (if we don't count the extreme right populists). Of course SOME Democrats also do the same, but for me the Democrats are the "less worse" ones.
What is your opinion on the United Nations?

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by browneyedgirl » Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:19 am

NeonVomit wrote:So let me get this straight, instead of very slightly increasing the taxes of the richest people on earth, they are going to cut education and social programs?
Yep. Unfortunately the Democrats had to give in to the republicans tantrums on this issue or else. The Democrats will hopefully get the last laugh and make most of the spending cuts in Defense, and space programs, and maybe not be so generous with grants to wealthy corporations.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a predition that the economy is going to be the deciding factor in the next election. So, Republicans, WE will remember. :wink:

TwilightEagle
Sr. Member
Posts:322
Joined:Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by TwilightEagle » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:52 am

Rebel wrote:
TwilightEagle wrote:
For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.
I'm not saying, that all Republicans are "white Christian militant fanatics", but I'm talking about the some candidates, like Palin.

The one thing, which pisses my off with SOME Republicans, like Palin is it they think, that there's only one (or actually two ;)) religions which are the "real" ones and the others are "violent bullshit".

Is burning Korans a peaceful way, like the "redneck white Christians" are calling themselves and saying, that all Muslims are terrorists and militants and all Christians are peaceful?

I have nothing against any religion, but making the politics with the religion is the thing, what pissed me off. Same for both islamists and US redneck political Christians. Their goal is same, to control the society with the religion. It's their weapon. Example Palin and some other redneck Republicans wants to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, not free and peaceful, like most of the European politicians do (if we don't count the extreme right populists). Of course SOME Democrats also do the same, but for me the Democrats are the "less worse" ones.
What is your opinion on the United Nations?
Why do ask this from me? :lol: Seriously, it's an important organization.

User avatar
Rebel
Sr. Member
Posts:2142
Joined:Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:41 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by Rebel » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:25 pm

TwilightEagle wrote:
Rebel wrote:
TwilightEagle wrote:
For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.
I'm not saying, that all Republicans are "white Christian militant fanatics", but I'm talking about the some candidates, like Palin.

The one thing, which pisses my off with SOME Republicans, like Palin is it they think, that there's only one (or actually two ;)) religions which are the "real" ones and the others are "violent bullshit".

Is burning Korans a peaceful way, like the "redneck white Christians" are calling themselves and saying, that all Muslims are terrorists and militants and all Christians are peaceful?

I have nothing against any religion, but making the politics with the religion is the thing, what pissed me off. Same for both islamists and US redneck political Christians. Their goal is same, to control the society with the religion. It's their weapon. Example Palin and some other redneck Republicans wants to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, not free and peaceful, like most of the European politicians do (if we don't count the extreme right populists). Of course SOME Democrats also do the same, but for me the Democrats are the "less worse" ones.
What is your opinion on the United Nations?
Why do ask this from me? :lol: Seriously, it's an important organization.
Well I ask because, if you know your history, the United Nations (And the league of nations, in its original form) was of course, the brainchild of United States president Woodrow Wilson. More than his political views, more than his election goals, more than any single concerns, the profound religious fervor of Wilson is what motivated him to his furious campaign for peace in the aftermath of World War I, and it was the points where the more vindictive, angry, and vengeful European Powers, as well as the politically motived, selfish American politicians took away from Wilson's plan that directly led to World War II

TwilightEagle
Sr. Member
Posts:322
Joined:Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by TwilightEagle » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:05 pm

Rebel wrote:
TwilightEagle wrote:
Rebel wrote:
TwilightEagle wrote:
For every "Republicans are Christian militant fanatics" there's a "Liberals are baby-killing socialists". If we just repeat silly things we heard somewhere, the whole discussion is meaningless.

If you really feel that way, you should substantiate your opinion with some real evidence. Here is the voters database of the US Congress. Of course, its a lot of information to sift through and much of it isn't really as political or dramatic as the issues we discuss.
I'm not saying, that all Republicans are "white Christian militant fanatics", but I'm talking about the some candidates, like Palin.

The one thing, which pisses my off with SOME Republicans, like Palin is it they think, that there's only one (or actually two ;)) religions which are the "real" ones and the others are "violent bullshit".

Is burning Korans a peaceful way, like the "redneck white Christians" are calling themselves and saying, that all Muslims are terrorists and militants and all Christians are peaceful?

I have nothing against any religion, but making the politics with the religion is the thing, what pissed me off. Same for both islamists and US redneck political Christians. Their goal is same, to control the society with the religion. It's their weapon. Example Palin and some other redneck Republicans wants to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, not free and peaceful, like most of the European politicians do (if we don't count the extreme right populists). Of course SOME Democrats also do the same, but for me the Democrats are the "less worse" ones.
What is your opinion on the United Nations?
Why do ask this from me? :lol: Seriously, it's an important organization.
Well I ask because, if you know your history, the United Nations (And the league of nations, in its original form) was of course, the brainchild of United States president Woodrow Wilson. More than his political views, more than his election goals, more than any single concerns, the profound religious fervor of Wilson is what motivated him to his furious campaign for peace in the aftermath of World War I, and it was the points where the more vindictive, angry, and vengeful European Powers, as well as the politically motived, selfish American politicians took away from Wilson's plan that directly led to World War II
It was a different time in Europe. During WW2 there was nazism, fascism and communism rising in Europe and you know, that their goal is totalitarism, terror and victims. Today's Europe is huge different, than on that times, but there's some political forces, like far right populists and separatists who are trying to destroy the free and peaceful Europe. Even it's true, that separatists have been made more terror, than the islamists in Europe, although the far right populists are claiming, that every terror attack and the other problems are caused by Muslims.

There's a lot common between the European far right populists and the US "white redneck Christian" Republicans and especially the Tea Party and Palin. Both them are trying to make the society more closed, militaristic, nationalist and religious, actually just like in the Muslim countries, which they hate.

As to the juxtaposition between the Europe and the US, nowadays example the Great Britain is doing everything, what the white house says, especially in Bush's time, you know Blair and his doings.

My point was just it, that there's some Republicans, who are trying to make the society more closed, militaristic and religious, just like Bush did. They're justifying their politics by the religion, just like the islamists does. Example Palin or the other Christian far right Republicans would made it a lot worser way, than even Bush himself.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: OBAMA vs BOEHNER???

Post by miditek » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:35 am

Rebel wrote:Well I ask because, if you know your history, the United Nations (And the league of nations, in its original form) was of course, the brainchild of United States president Woodrow Wilson. More than his political views, more than his election goals, more than any single concerns, the profound religious fervor of Wilson is what motivated him to his furious campaign for peace in the aftermath of World War I, and it was the points where the more vindictive, angry, and vengeful European Powers, as well as the politically motivated, selfish American politicians took away from Wilson's plan that directly led to World War II
I believe that your assessment here is partially correct. Versailles was a rather punitive treaty, and after reading the specifics, Wilson had famously said that "this is not a treaty for peace, but a declaration for the next war.". I believe that Wilson's statement was, if anything, quite prophetic.

However, I do believe that there was quite a bit more to this rather sordid story than only the provisions of Versailles itself.

For quite some time, U.S. banks were providing a great deal of capital to Germany to rebuild the damage from the First World War, and as long as the money kept flowing, post-Imperial Germany began to recover slowly, but surely.

During this time however, there was the collapse on Wall Street, which heralded in the Great Depression. This phenomenon caused available capital via bank loans to Germany to dry up. When coupled with the double-whammy of extremely large war reparations, the German economy went into a tailspin. Other effects from this included the near complete devaluation of the Deutsche Mark, and unemployment climbed to extremely high levels, something along the lines of up to 25% or more traditional heads-of-households found themselves out of work.

In addition to this, there were millions of demobilized troops that had returned from the front, and there were few places for them to find work, since the Reichswehr was reduced to a maximum size of only 100,000 men. The swelling ranks of the SA (2.5 million at its peak), the SS, and other special units provide a tell-tale sign of the economic woes that had fallen on the country.

There were many, many other factors- too many in fact to list here, although I believe that the biggest failure was the Allies' unwillingness to actually enforce the provisions of Versailles to keep Germany disarmed. There were ample opportunities to stop Hitler, and even the Russians bear a degree of responsibility for helping to create the monster that became the Third Reich. Goring and Guderian, for example, began clandestine training in Russia for the then secret Luftwaffe, as well as the fledgling panzer corps- both of which had been forbidden by the treaty.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

Post Reply