Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Zoznam diskusných klubov
Nie je vám dovolené písať správy do tohto klubu. Minimálna úroveň členstva vyžadovaná na písanie v tomto klube je Brain pešiak.
Subjekt: Something smells....there's much much more to this story
L’Affaire Sherrod provided a rare peek into a potential legal and government boondoogle: The Pigford Settlement. The Settlement arose out of a handful of credible claims of racism by black farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tens of thousands of claims later, the final chunk of money to pay off the settlement, about $1.5 billion, awaits action by the U.S. Senate.
Soon after Shirley Sherrod was fired by the USDA, it was revealed that she and her husband were among the biggest recipients of Pigford, personally receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for ‘pain and suffering’, while their collective farm was tapped to get over $13 million. It also emerged that Ms. Sherrod was hired by the USDA just days after her settlement was announced. Hmm.
Subjekt: Another brilliant piece by Charles Krauthammer
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq.
Subjekt: US high military spending means others do not have to?
Some argue that high US military spending allows other nations to spend less. But this view seems to change the order of historical events:
* During the Cold War, high spending was common around the world. * High spending was reduced by allies such as various European and Asian countries as the Cold War ended (almost 2 decades ago) not because other nations felt they would be protected by the US — a dangerous foreign policy choice by any sovereign nation to rely so much on others in this way — but because they perceived any global threat from the Cold War had diminished and simply didn’t need such high spending any more; globalization of trade was supposed to be ushered in and lead to a new era. * It was only the US as the remaining global super power that maintained a high budget. Many argue this was to strengthen its position as sole super power and that its “military industrial complex” was able to convince their public to maintain it.
Past empires have throughout history have justified their position as being good for the world. The US is no exception.
However, whether this global hegemony and stability actually means positive stability, peace and prosperity for the entire world (or most of it) is subjective. That is, certainly the hegemony at the time, and its allies would benefit from the stability, relative peace and prosperity for themselves, but often ignored in this is whether the policies pursued for their advantages breeds contempt elsewhere.
As the global peace index chart shown earlier reveals, massive military spending has not led to a much global peace.
As noted in other parts of this site, unfortunately more powerful countries have also pursued policies that have contributed to more poverty, and at times even overthrown fledgling democracies in favor of dictatorships or more malleable democracies. (Osama Bin Laden, for example, was part of an enormous Islamic militancy encouraged and trained by the US to help fight the Soviet Union. Of course, these extremists are all too happy to take credit for fighting off the Soviets in Afghanistan, never acknowledging that it would have been impossible without their so-called “great satan” friend-turned-enemy!)
So the global good hegemon theory may help justify high spending and even stability for a number of other countries, but it does not necessarily apply to the whole world. To be fair, this criticism can also be a bit simplistic especially if an empire finds itself against a competitor with similar ambitions, that risks polarizing the world, and answers are likely difficult to find.
But even for the large US economy, the high military spending may not be sustainable in the long term. Noting trends in military spending, SIPRI added that the massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. SIPRI continues that, “In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2.267 trillion.”
Artful Dodger: That's true right now, but we have 2 mos left. Plenty of time for the radical "Tea Party" favorites who are taking over your party to ruin it for ya.
Artful Dodger: Does the article include all the costs involved in Iraq, or are they just (as it seems) using the war related defence budget spending figures.
.. there is also the contractors costs, the cost of all the equipment the US Military want serviced, withdrawal costs
Artful Dodger: Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, etc. I don't blame their handlers for keeping them out of the press. They all have bad cases of foot-in-mouth disease. Then there is Nikki Haley in SC. Our illustrious GOP nominee for Gov. She calls for accountability in state gov't, but she hasn't paid taxes in 6 year, and released her emails 3 mos. after rumors spread about affairs via email. She is just sitting around waiting for Sarah Palin's "coat tails" to kick in for the General Election.
The Republicans are so self righteous & arrogant about taking over the House & Senate that they could be overplaying their hand. I'd be carefull about putting out such lofty expectations. You could be disappointed on election night. But, unlike the GOP, I don't have a crystal ball, so, I'm not making any grandiose pronouncements.
Tuesday: How so? YOu must mean by exercising his Constitutional right to free speech and assembly. I forgot that you libs were against that part of the Constitution when it comes to those with opposing views.
Glen Beck rally drew thousands. How many thousands? Some estimates have it as several hundred thousand. By contrast, Al Sharpton's counter-rally drew only 3,000. Even left wing critics had to concede that the rally was a "huge success." But the left won't stay quiet about Beck's success. As one blogger put it, "The many on the left who hate and fear Beck already, just got a jolt of fear-based adrenalin from this event. Their loathing and inner turmoil can only increase.."
Tuesday: And you're sure of this because??? BTW, isn't your son in the military? There were many ex military in attendance. You have something against the military?
And what's all this nonsense about tolerance? Where's yours?
The Col: Your side stopped making sense long ago and that's why the country is turning against the libs. A huge majority of Americans of all stripes are turning (and have turned) away from the liberal agenda. It's not what the people want for the country.
The tea party has ideas. Liberal have lies and name calling.
Subjekt: Re:How so? YOu must mean by exercising his Constitutional right to free speech and assembly. I forgot that you libs were against that part of the Constitution when it comes to those with opposing views.
Artful Dodger: Sooooo.. everyone is allowed to have an opinion... true. Then anyone who isn't .. as it were.. 'in your camp' is allowed to disagree as per free speech. But you seem to be against that!!
N' last I heard.. Conservative Christianity and Mormons didn't mix.. One 'born again' Conservative type use to go on and on and on about how The Mormon prophet was a big fat liar and his followers were deluded and on the road to hell.
(skryť) Pokiaľ pravidelne čítate niekoľko vybraných diskusných klubov, môžete ich pridať do zoznamu obľúbených kliknutím na odkaz “pridať k obľúbeným klubom” na stránke príslušného klubu. (pauloaguia) (zobraziť všetky tipy)