ForumsWEPR2016 Obama's America

62 5883
joeyman2
offline
joeyman2
65 posts
525

has anyone seen the movie (i know this could be in the movies section but its also very political) i had heard about it and i was wondering if anyone knew if it was good and whats in it.

  • 62 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

That's not to say that I don't believe Obama is 'weak', as some right-wing radio show hosts might have said. You know the US Embassy attacks? Obama APOLOGIZED for it. To the radical Islamists who were the exact same people who caused 9/11, he APOLOGIZED. To the creators of a nation-wide panic that killed thousands of American lives, he APOLOGIZED. To the people who are angry that we killed Osama Bin Laden, which was Obama's most agreeable 'accomplishment', he APOLOGIZED.


Let's get the record straight. Obama apologized to these "Islamists", those who protested against the anti Islam film or the Koran practices NOT because he supported their millenarian views, not because he was weak, but because it was tactful. Many of the ME nations have the deeply entrenched notion since decades ago that thr USA is just the pure embodiment of Satan. It's called diplomacy. Look what "standing up" did to Bush. If anything, these "Islamists" have a bigger right to protest, they're killed over a man they hate too. The Taliban or Al Qaeda isn't exactly well liked by the majority of Muslims. 


Let's also set the record straight for small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the Small Business Administration is "to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters". 

The SBA has survived a number of threats to its existence. In 1996, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives planned to eliminate the agency. It survived and went on to receive a record high budget in 2000. Renewed efforts by the Bush Administration to end the SBA loan program met congressional resistance, although the SBA's budget was repeatedly cut, and in 2004 certain expenditures were frozen. The Obama Administration has supported the SBA budget. Significant supplemental appropriations for the agency strengthened SBA lending through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. 

The SBJA in 2010 provides$12 billion in tax cuts, including a 100% exclusion of capital gains taxes on small business investments.
It allows for small businesses to carry back general business tax credits to offset the tax burden from the previous five years. Small businesses also will be able to use these credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax.
It boosts the tax deduction for start-up expenses to $10,000, for small business owners who spend $60,000 or less to start their business.

Overall through the SBA he has supported tax cuts for small businesses 18 times. It is true that in some areas he raised taxes, but overall he was business friendly. Obama supported small businesses. The Republicans tried to thumb them down.

Let's set the record straight too for my opinions. I dont dislike and no support the Republicans because I detest all of them. There are some that I did admire. Snowe. The old Romney. What I disagree is the evolution towards the repellant Christian right they are taking. And I cannot in good conscience agree with those policies.

Yet you claim to be objective in your views. Yet you also claim we should form our opinions, but not on information from the media, because it's often "propaganda"? Aren't these seemingly contradicting? 
jeol
offline
jeol
3,845 posts
6,080

Let's get the record straight. Obama apologized to these "Islamists", those who protested against the anti Islam film or the Koran practices NOT because he supported their millenarian views, not because he was weak, but because it was tactful. Many of the ME nations have the deeply entrenched notion since decades ago that thr USA is just the pure embodiment of Satan. It's called diplomacy. Look what "standing up" did to Bush. If anything, these "Islamists" have a bigger right to protest, they're killed over a man they hate too. The Taliban or Al Qaeda isn't exactly well liked by the majority of Muslims.

USA is USA, you can't change that. Standing up was no problem with Reagan. Why should he change America to match the Middle East? America is a nation based on Enlightenment principles, free from religious restraint. I suppose you probably understand symbolism more than most people. Then you know what burning a flag means? Simple comes to simple, that means they don't like us. Trying to make friends with enemies in terms of global power usually doesn't mean you get the good side of the stick, or everyone does, or whatever that expression means. Also, I understand the difference between Radical Muslims and Muslims, as to why I mentioned Radical Islam instead of just Islam. That doesn't change what I said, other than how you may interpret it.

Let's also set the record straight for small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the Small Business Administration is "to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters".

An increase in minimum wage, even for the larger corporations, makes it harder to employ people because that money could go into the much needed investment of the business. Sure, it means more benefits for the employees. But would you rather have a low-paying job or a low chance at having a job at all? It actually kills business because employers can't hire anybody to expand upon their businesses. Obama may have supported the SBA, but that may also support the claim that Obama is just trying to look good. Anything I look at says a raise in minimum wage.

Also, you may not grasp this idea, but I don't actually agree with everything the Republicans say or seem to do. I don't agree with a bunch of stuff that Bush did, and the only reason that he actually got into office was because his opponent was an idiot. There are liberal Republicans, and in some cases there are conservative democrats. The two-party system is pretty ****, and horrible labels, but there's not much to do about it at this point.

But the ironic thing is, you claim that most of what the Republicans stood for would make the country horrible but you also claim that Obama's policies, while they may seem horrible now with all this spending that built up, looks bad now, but down the road will save the country. Unless that was someone else. That might have been someone else; I get my liberals confused sometimes. My point is, the country will probably not last that long. This constant printing of money is causing inflation and will most likely crash the economy and force a reformation within the 'walls' (that aren't really being built, *cough*) of America itself. It's a little obvious that Obama is trying to be friends with everyone, but you can't be friends with everyone when it comes to policy and religion. Universalism has tried that, and it only shows that people hate it even more than legitimate religion. It often makes all sides go against you. I'm not saying that that will happen, but it is oversight.
Let's set the record straight too for my opinions. I dont dislike and no support the Republicans because I detest all of them. There are some that I did admire. Snowe. The old Romney. What I disagree is the evolution towards the repellant Christian right they are taking. And I cannot in good conscience agree with those policies.

Yet you claim to be objective in your views. Yet you also claim we should form our opinions, but not on information from the media, because it's often "propaganda"? Aren't these seemingly contradicting?

Ah, I see you may understand the label concept somewhat. I see a few 'exceptions' to a generalist belief. (No offense meant.)

I don't disagree with that; there are a lot of stupid things people say and believe, but it's not my position to insult them for that. I honestly respect your opinion in that matter.

I don't claim to be objective in my views; I try to be as logical and reasonable as I can be, but that still means that I take a side. And obviously, I grew up at some point, and I naturally soaked in the beliefs of those around me. However, I see that it was in their best interest and do my best to see objective to my emotions. It is virtually impossible to be completely objective of beliefs and opinions and misunderstandings, especially when your head houses a human brain. However, you can strive to use it to the best of your ability.

The media is biased. Not all propaganda is bad, of course, but people should still form a reasonable conclusion on their own and not rely on the petty things that media so conveniently shoves into your face. As a general question, when was the last time you perhaps saw an article about how this person is stupid, found both sides' relating opinions, and judged it based on the facts that you see? Even apart from emotional attachment to whatever person or 'party' or beliefs you have, but straight from the source to the deducing portions of your brain. This may be treated as a rhetorical question, but hopefully it does spark something to think about.

Also, perhaps it may be useful to point out that I may argue an opposite point at times just to try and create a counter-tension or perhaps spark an epiphany about some idea or simply get a better grasp of a logical conclusion. While at heart I am a conservative Christian, I do try and keep logic and reasoning in situations, to at least get people to think. It's more fun that way.
SubZero007
offline
SubZero007
942 posts
1,250

Gents, while this is a beautiful conversation y'all are having about politics, don't you think it's a little beside the point of the quality of the movie?

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

USA is USA, you can't change that. Standing up was no problem with Reagan. Why should he change America to match the Middle East? America is a nation based on Enlightenment principles, free from religious restraint. I suppose you probably understand symbolism more than most people. Then you know what burning a flag means? Simple comes to simple, that means they don't like us. Trying to make friends with enemies in terms of global power usually doesn't mean you get the good side of the stick, or everyone does, or whatever that expression means. Also, I understand the difference between Radical Muslims and Muslims, as to why I mentioned Radical Islam instead of just Islam. That doesn't change what I said, other than how you may interpret it.


Let's also note what Reagan did since you're an advocate of the Reagan Victory School. Reagan stood up in his first term; he was remarkably dovish in his second, sharing a paradoxical streak of virulent anti-nuclearism much more akin to his Left opponents than the Right. He personally met up with Gorbachev at 4 summits which fostered better understanding in a remarkable convergence; hardly the sigh of someone who firmly stands up. The collapse of the Cold War caught everyone by surprise, particularly the hardliners who had believes the Soviet US struggle was a permanent feature of the world. As Zbigniew Brzezinski the former National Security Council advisor said in 1986 "The American Soviet Contest is not some temporary aberration but a historical rivalry that will long endure". 

For everyone of Reagans rhetoric of the Evil Empire, he matched with his extreme anti nuclearism; seen in his views at the 1985 Geneva Conference that pushed for cooperation with the Soviets.

Egypt is a good friend of America. So is Saudi Arabia. So are the smaller gulf states. Yet they are all avowedly Islamic and radical at that, especially the puritanical Wahhabi monarchy. Saying that it's impossible to make friends with them is only to invite a permanent rift, and to ignore reality. It also entrenches the mindset that that the rest of the world has of the US; belligerent bullies.

 
An increase in minimum wage, even for the larger corporations, makes it harder to employ people because that money could go into the much needed investment of the business. Sure, it means more benefits for the employees. But would you rather have a low-paying job or a low chance at having a job at all? It actually kills business because employers can't hire anybody to expand upon their businesses. Obama may have supported the SBA, but that may also support the claim that Obama is just trying to look good. Anything I look at says a raise in minimum wage.


Obama's blatant deep measures to support small businesses is just to look good? That's so silly I giggled. It's concrete proof that he supports small businesses; even if we're cynical enough to claim every action as a political ploy, the irrefutable bottom line is, he supported them.

As for the minimum wage rising, yes basic economics does state that it'll lead to a surplus of labour And hence unemployment. Yet we must consider why the government might choose to narrow the inequity gap over faster economic growth. Simply put, it's a more pressing problem. 

Even at $10 an hour, the minimum wage would still be below 1968 levels when adjusted for inflation. Real wages hasn't kept up with inflation; nominal wages might have increased, but this is misleading. The  purchasing power of the average American has decreased. The rich poor gap has increased too much to be ignored.

And in any case, whilst businesses have to pay more wages, they get massive tax cuts. Ultimately they all benefit. 

And in any case, Two thirds of the American public -- including a majority of Republicans -- supported raising the minimum wage in a October 2010 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.
It's curious the Republicans dislike it under Obama, yet Congress increased the wage in 2006 under Bush. 

Yet another argument to refute the minimum wage claim is that Obama hasn't even enacted such a policy. He did promise it in 2008; It is now four years later, and there has been no increase to the minimum wage. There has been no congressional vote, much less a whisper from the White House on the minimum wage, apart from congressmen occasionally piping the idea. 

President Obama understood the importance of this issue in 2008. The merits of raising the minimum wage havenât changed since then, but his political courage has. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has been in decline since the 1960s, losing over 30 percent of its value and leaving hard-working Americans struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. At the same time, the cost of living has continued to rise steadily, further eroding the value of a minimum wage. Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, today it would be at $10.57 per hour, instead of the current federal minimum wage of $7.25.

Studies show that the minimum wage could help jump-start the economy and increase consumer spending. A 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank found that for every dollar increase to the hourly pay of a minimum wage worker, the result is $2,800 in new consumer spending from that workerâs household over the year. And a 2009 study from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that simply by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour, $60 billion in additional spending would be added to the economy over a two-year period.

What is shameful therefore is not that Obama has implemented a minimum wage; but that he didn't. The charges leveled against him should come from the disgruntled 2008 Obama supporters and not Republicans.


But the ironic thing is, you claim that most of what the Republicans stood for would make the country horrible but you also claim that Obama's policies, while they may seem horrible now with all this spending that built up, looks bad now, but down the road will save the country. Unless that was someone else. That might have been someone else; I get my liberals confused sometimes. My point is, the country will probably not last that long. This constant printing of money is causing inflation and will most likely crash the economy and force a reformation within the 'walls' (that aren't really being built, *cough*) of America itself. It's a little obvious that Obama is trying to be friends with everyone, but you can't be friends with everyone when it comes to policy and religion. Universalism has tried that, and it only shows that people hate it even more than legitimate religion. It often makes all sides go against you. I'm not saying that that will happen, but it is oversight.


The Centre for Automatic Research reports that the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented âadditional personal income lossesâ of nearly 97 billion". Obama's bailouts didnt spectacularly turn the economy around into a powerful engine for growth; no policy can in 4 years. He has not fulfilled his election promises that's for sure, but no President has. Yet he has gone down with the grit and grime and pulled the USA out of a far worst fate. Just ask Spain what's I like to have a 24% unemployment rate.

Also, printing money doesn't automatically lead to inflation. The inflation rate is at an incredibly low 1.14%; because America's economy isn't at full potential; it isn't approaching then vertical portion of the AD/AS diagram. It is absurd to claim that inflation and money printing will destroy the economy; inflation is the least of America's worries now. The Volcker Shock of the 1970s was an example of high inflation, this isn't. 

The media is biased. Not all propaganda is bad, of course, but people should still form a reasonable conclusion on their own and not rely on the petty things that media so conveniently shoves into your face. As a general question, when was the last time you perhaps saw an article about how this person is stupid, found both sides' relating opinions, and judged it based on the facts that you see? Even apart from emotional attachment to whatever person or 'party' or beliefs you have, but straight from the source to the deducing portions of your brain. This may be treated as a rhetorical question, but hopefully it does spark something to think about.


Just actually, when I was reviewing my lecture notes for the Reagan Victory school article. So do my sources for economic policies; I read newspaper articles that merely print facts and not opinion pieces. I then form my own opinions based on economics framework that I have been taught. 
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170


Gents, while this is a beautiful conversation y'all are having about politics, don't you think it's a little beside the point of the quality of the movie?


Take it that I'm refuting some of the claims the Right likes to make, much like the movie producer.
jeol
offline
jeol
3,845 posts
6,080

Also, printing money doesn't automatically lead to inflation. The inflation rate is at an incredibly low 1.14%; because America's economy isn't at full potential; it isn't approaching then vertical portion of the AD/AS diagram. It is absurd to claim that inflation and money printing will destroy the economy; inflation is the least of America's worries now. The Volcker Shock of the 1970s was an example of high inflation, this isn't.

Than what happens? All that money that was magically made does nothing? They are adding more money than there is revenue, which must lead to some form of inflation. Did you know that the US Dollar is equal with the Canadian Dollar right now? I remember the US Dollar having more worth yet a few years ago.

The thing is, with inflation also comes a drop in value. I'm sure you know that. Whenever mass amounts of more money is printed, people are losing money because their money is worth less now. That's part of the reason that people are becoming so poor; the savings rate is actually negative in the United States - a rate of -0.2%, I think? Even France has a higher savings rate than that
(actually has the highest savings rate, I think, which perhaps is the reason I thought of it). Part of this may not even be blamed on the state but on the people, as well. I could well attest that most US citizens hate saving money. Of course, most US 'poor' US citizens tend to be rich in the eyes of other countries, in the form of living, of course. Some people are further in debt than they could possibly pay off.

However, on that chart, did you know that if you're 19 and you put $2,000 dollars in a mutual fund (8% interest) a year for the next eight years, when you're 65 you'll have over $2,000,000 dollars? But, if you wait until you're 27 and save $2,000 dollars a year until you're 65 in the same mutual fund, you'll have around $700,000 less? One person saves $16,000 and earns over two million... Another person saves $78,000 and earns just over one and a half million dollars. Of course, if you count inflation over 46 years, it will probably be worth a bit less than it even does now, but considering, that's still a decent difference.

... Funny thing, I actually have to explain that to two different people as a school assignment in my financial class this week... I don't suppose you want to fill in for one person? :P

Also, I can't help but wonder if going to a gold-back system would be better. Then you actually know that your money is worth something, and depends on the market, not how much the government decided to put in circulation that year. Just a thought.
Egypt is a good friend of America. So is Saudi Arabia. So are the smaller gulf states. Yet they are all avowedly Islamic and radical at that, especially the puritanical Wahhabi monarchy. Saying that it's impossible to make friends with them is only to invite a permanent rift, and to ignore reality. It also entrenches the mindset that that the rest of the world has of the US; belligerent bullies.

I would call friendly burning our flag. I realize that may not be of the wish of the entire country, but they definitely look like they were looking for a nice little apology that insults the honor of the US. It's a bit unpatriotic, and he's THE leader of the United States, the person in charge of it - and he pretty much slapped in the face anyone who had any hope in restoring honor in our nation. It does show that his foreign policy is a bit weak.

Did you know that because of his apology, there were actually attacks on other embassies in other nations as well? Just putting that out there.

And I won't bother arguing the other points, because I don't really have anything to counter that. Nice discussion, by the way.
Gents, while this is a beautiful conversation y'all are having about politics, don't you think it's a little beside the point of the quality of the movie?

Quality? Maybe. But most of this discussion stemmed from a post I made on the last page, which shows how our discussion may be a bit relevant.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Than what happens? All that money that was magically made does nothing? They are adding more money than there is revenue, which must lead to some form of inflation. Did you know that the US Dollar is equal with the Canadian Dollar right now? I remember the US Dollar having more worth yet a few years ago.

The thing is, with inflation also comes a drop in value. I'm sure you know that. Whenever mass amounts of more money is printed, people are losing money because their money is worth less now. That's part of the reason that people are becoming so poor; the savings rate is actually negative in the United States - a rate of -0.2%, I think? Even France has a higher savings rate than that
(actually has the highest savings rate, I think, which perhaps is the reason I thought of it). Part of this may not even be blamed on the state but on the people, as well. I could well attest that most US citizens hate saving money. Of course, most US 'poor' US citizens tend to be rich in the eyes of other countries, in the form of living, of course. Some people are further in debt than they could possibly pay off.


The government always adds money into the market, even when there isn't a crisis; yet in normal times the value doesn't fluctuate drastically. The basic facts are there. With a low economic growth, general price levels (GPL) will remain low mathematically; real value won't be erode as much. I can't post a diagram on my phone, but searching an AD/AS diagram will help.

I would pin the depreciation NOT on Obama's policies. The dollar has always been depreciating; it's not a magical shift that happened only since "last year". In fact, as an example of this trend,  the year of 2004 was the third consecutive year since 2000 for the depreciation of US dollar against the Euro-dollar. In fact, the US dollar has always been on a downhill slope since 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the fixed exchange rate of 35 dollars to an ounce of gold, leading to the Nixon Shock. 

The depreciation in theory is the bitter medicine that America has to swallow. As you rightfully pointed out, America has an extremely low savings rate; most money is spent. 70% of the American economy is fueled by consumption (C) one of the Components of Aggregate Demand apart from Investment (I), Government Expenditure (G) and Net Imports (X-M). America has been importing far far more than exporting, this trade deficit ( different from a budget deficit) if is prolonged like Americas case since it has recorded almost annual deficits since the 1970s, leads to a steady depreciation. A depreciation will in theory make America's exports more competitive since domestic produced goods are cheaper in foreign currency, and imports will be more expensive. This net effect is supposed to cancel the trade deficit over time; yet America's lack of competitiveness in many areas, such as it's inefficient steel industry, and it's high marginal propensity to import and consume means this trend does not buckle. 

However, on that chart, did you know that if you're 19 and you put $2,000 dollars in a mutual fund (8% interest) a year for the next eight years, when you're 65 you'll have over $2,000,000 dollars? But, if you wait until you're 27 and save $2,000 dollars a year until you're 65 in the same mutual fund, you'll have around $700,000 less? One person saves $16,000 and earns over two million... Another person saves $78,000 and earns just over one and a half million dollars. Of course, if you count inflation over 46 years, it will probably be worth a bit less than it even does now, but considering, that's still a decent difference.

... Funny thing, I actually have to explain that to two different people as a school assignment in my financial class this week... I don't suppose you want to fill in for one person? :P

Also, I can't help but wonder if going to a gold-back system would be better. Then you actually know that your money is worth something, and depends on the market, not how much the government decided to put in circulation that year. Just a thought.


Inflation is not a new thing. We've seen that for decades, Singapore's compulsory savings scheme has been plagued by real value eroding since it was implemented in the 1960s. It is not something you can cure on the spot, unless drastic structuring of the economy is done which will take a long time; to ensure that productivity increases at an appropriate pace, and the long run aggregate supply moves at an appropriate rate, allowing the US the ability to compete, keep real, not nominal wages up. 

A fixed exchange rate system is a horrible idea in the best of times and a gravestone in the wort of times, I.e where the US is now. There's a reason why moat nations use a managed or dirty float instead of free floating or fixed exchange rates.

A floating or dirty float exchange rate would deal with a disequilibrium in the balance of payments without government interference, and with no effect on the domestic economy. If there is a deficit then the currency falls making you competitive again. However, with a fixed rate, the problem would have to be solved by a reduction in the level of aggregate demand. As demand drops people consume less imports and also the price level falls making you more competitive. 

Fixed exchange rates require a government to hold large scale reserves of foreign currency to maintain the fixed rate, because in the real world the value of currency always fluctuates - such reserves have an opportunity cost. Nor does the American government even have much reserves, at the last count they have even less than Apple. Unless it borrows to finance this fixed value, which is disastrous too because of the high debt levels already.

The needs of the exchange rate can dominate policy and this may not be best for the economy at that point. Interest rates and other policies may be set for the value of the exchange rate rather than the more important macro objectives of inflation and unemployment. This means the government can't use monetary policy as an economic tool, a shot in the foot due to the Economic Trilemma. 


Fixed rates are inherently unstable - Countries within a fixed rate mechanism often follow different economic policies, the result of which tends to be differing rates of inflation. What this means is that some countries will have low inflation and be very competitive and others will have high inflation and not be very competitive. The uncompetitive countries will be under severe pressure continually and may, ultimately, have to devalue. Speculators will know this and thus creates further pressure on that currency and, in turn, government.
The US is particularly uncompetitive now; fixed exchange rate will be awful for it. 

I would call friendly burning our flag. I realize that may not be of the wish of the entire country, but they definitely look like they were looking for a nice little apology that insults the honor of the US. It's a bit unpatriotic, and he's THE leader of the United States, the person in charge of it - and he pretty much slapped in the face anyone who had any hope in restoring honor in our nation. It does show that his foreign policy is a bit weak.

Did you know that because of his apology, there were actually attacks on other embassies in other nations as well? Just putting that out there.


It's called being diplomatic. Did you know that Bush's belligerence has almost single handedly inflamed the entire Muslim world, and is one of the major causes of why terrorists avow daily to attack the US? Did you know that the Grand Mosque attack in 1977 was caused by US insistence on deploying Troops in SA? 

What's with Americans, "Patriotism" and not stepping down for once? And people wonder why they have such an ugly rap worldwide, and why we constantly parody "patriotic" Americans. 

I do agree that a little face saving is sometimes needed to placate the public; yet if it means antagonizing an already tense situation worldwide, what with the recent Koran burnings, soldier urinating, anti Islam film, and Moderate Islamist governments coming into power everywhere, a bit of a loss of "dignity" seems the wisest way of preserving your nation. 
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

The Republiscums will try everything they can to stop Obama from being reelected because most of them are rich unpatriotic parasites who refuses to pay their fair share of taxes (insert Romney here


Romney made most of his money on investment returns, and the tax on investment returns is 15%. So you're really yelling at Romney for following the rules, lawlz. If you have a problem with the tax code, take it up with the Feds and the IRS.

I would assume though, that your feelings are mutual towards weathly Democrats and Liberals, as well as Independents?

They also want to continue their useless war against Arab countries so they can steal their oil


Then why is Romney advocating for domestic production? Why are gas prices as high as they are if the US is taking their oil? Why did the US pull out of Iraq and leave behind the vast oil reserves? Why is the US schedueled to pull out of Afghanistan and leave their oil reserves?

And finally want to take back what the women fought so hard to get


Suffrage?

control what they can do with their body and forces them to shove probes into their vagina which of course one of the scumservatives will profit from since they will charge them money for the degrading procedures


Er... What exactly are you talking about? Because it just sounds like you just don't like gynecologists.

All this to please the weasels who can't mind their own danm business (religious zealots and AKA American Taliban).


How is an Afghani Terrorist Organisation relevent to modern social conservatism? Because I'm not seeing the connection.

And no, I won't waste my money to see some right wing terrorist propaganda.


I think you've partaken overly of the koolaid my friend.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Then why is Romney advocating for domestic production? Why are gas prices as high as they are if the US is taking their oil? Why did the US pull out of Iraq and leave behind the vast oil reserves? Why is the US schedueled to pull out of Afghanistan and leave their oil reserves?


His main point too was of Romney and the Republicans who are much more hawkish, such as supporting the strike against Iran.

Er... What exactly are you talking about? Because it just sounds like you just don't like gynecologists


Evangelicals have just as crazy beliefs as them. Americas has the highest rare of citizens believing angels exist, and that when Rapture comes, they will be whisked away naked into heaven. The conservative right has moved more and more towards it's religious brethren; Bush receives thousands of angry letters from them after he told Sharon to pull out his tanks, because they viewed it as a religious matter.
SSTG
online
SSTG
12,615 posts
9,475

Romney made most of his money on investment returns, and the tax on investment returns is 15%. So you're really yelling at Romney for following the rules, lawlz. If you have a problem with the tax code, take it up with the Feds and the IRS.

Passing such a crooked law was easy with all the corruption in Washington.

I would assume though, that your feelings are mutual towards weathly Democrats and Liberals, as well as Independents?

Absolutely, a weasel is a weasel.

Then why is Romney advocating for domestic production? Why are gas prices as high as they are if the US is taking their oil? Why did the US pull out of Iraq and leave behind the vast oil reserves? Why is the US schedueled to pull out of Afghanistan and leave their oil reserves?

Someone must have promised him lots of money for the deal.

Er... What exactly are you talking about? Because it just sounds like you just don't like gynecologists.

Religious zealots which pays the Tea Party (another terrorist organization) to push for fake Christians to become senators who will shove their idiotic beliefs in peoples throat.

How is an Afghani Terrorist Organisation relevent to modern social conservatism? Because I'm not seeing the connection.

Their Agendas and beliefs are almost the same except for the bombing part.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Would actually like to point out that Afghanistan has close to no oil; pulling out won't reduce America's energy aims.

SSTG
online
SSTG
12,615 posts
9,475

Would actually like to point out that Afghanistan has close to no oil; pulling out won't reduce America's energy aims.

I don't know where EnigmaX got the idea that the US attacked Afghanistan for their oil.

2500 years ago It would have been a good idea if you planned on robbing the caravans following the Silk Road but nowadays...
LegoMyLego27
offline
LegoMyLego27
101 posts
1,400

So glad i'm a libertarian

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Why would you if Ron Paul is out of the race? Not to mention being such a repulsive character with hideous policy ideas.

EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

His main point too was of Romney and the Republicans who are much more hawkish, such as supporting the strike against Iran.


Then whats the red line? Or do you think Iran should be allowed to procede in the face of 'sanctions' which do nothing to actually stop the enrichment process.

Evangelicals have just as crazy beliefs as them.


As gynecologists? What do you people have against female reproductive health?

Americas has the highest rare of citizens believing angels exist, and that when Rapture comes, they will be whisked away naked
into heaven.

And this is relevant how, exactly?

The conservative right has moved more and more towards it's religious brethren; Bush receives thousands of angry letters from them after he told Sharon to pull out his tanks, because they viewed it as a religious matter


Proof much?.

Passing such a crooked law was easy with all the corruption in Washington.


The purpose of the law was to help senior citins keep more of their money since their only other income is social security checks. A rather noble cause, I'd say.

Absolutely, a weasel is a weasel.


Then would you still have those feeliings if you knew that Obama was one of them. According to Forbes, Obama's net wealth is 6 million, which places him in the top 1% of wealth in the US.

Someone must have promised him lots of money for the deal.


But he wouldn't be able to accept it, since there are inter-governmental corruption watchdogs, as well as private organisations.

Religious zealots which pays the Tea Party (another terrorist organization) to push for fake Christians to become senators who will shove their idiotic beliefs in peoples throat.


How is the Tea Party a terrorist organisation? What acts have they done to inspire physical fear in someone? Fake Christians becoming senators? What are you talking about?

Their Agendas and beliefs are almost the same except for the bombing part.


So you're saying that the Tea Party wants to impose Sharia Law? lawlz

I don't know where EnigmaX got the idea that the US attacked Afghanistan for their oil.


From you.

You said the US invaded Arab nations for their oil.
Iraq is an Arab nation, and Afghanistan has significant Arab regions.
So according to you, Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded for their oil.
Showing 16-30 of 62