The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

Yes, because people are born, just wanting to be impoverished and living off the government. No one ever filled out in their year 3 "what do you want to be when you grow up" essay "Dole bludger"............
BUT, as you bring it up, how about you -look- at who are the biggest "welfare queens" in the US?
In 2015 the top users of the SNAP program were (% is % of population receiving SNAP per capita):
1: DC: 21.97% = Blue
2: Mississippi: 21.74% = Red
3: New Mexico: 21.5% = Red
4: West Virginia: 19.96% = Red
5: Oregon: 19.93% =Blue
6: Tennessee: 19.58% = Red
7: Louisiana: 18.67% = Red

If you are so inclined, go a bit further and see what states are more federally dependant for yourself and you might just change your mind on who the welfare queens -really- are.

While that might be true, that more red states are at the top of the food chain 'so to speak', the whole welfare system has been seriously increased UNDER the dems than it ever was under the GOP..

That's interesting but to base health premiums on ones fitness or other data is quite a bit discriminatory IMHO when all clients should be paying the one flat fee for whatever services they use. I an not in favour of such a system where data is used to group or segregate clients into one stream or another and charge them differently to everyone else.

So you don't think, that someone who say does a lot of extreme sports, drinks 2 six-packs a day and smokes a carton a week, should pay more health premiums than someone who does not drink/smoke/do dangerous sports should?

[Womble]

Ahh, I see. I assumed that Russia would be importing far more food than that given the climate.
Thank you

Southern Russia is sitting on some of the world's most fertile lands (chernozem), and they generally have a tremendous amount of land suitable for cultuvation. Russia's low agricultural outputs during the USSR times were mainly due to woefully inefficient management, rejection of genetics research and lack of access to modern agricultural technologies. Russia became a major grain exporter in the 2000th, though, due to better management, purchase of some advanced tech and crop strains, and generally favorable weather.

Russia also cares little for the quality of their processed foods, so they can do some pretty amazing things, like achieving explosive growth of cheese production while milk production falls (but palm oil imports increase). About 75% of cheese on the Russian market does not meet the requirements to be defined as "cheese". Russian sausages are the butt of jokes because of how little actual meat goes into them.

Do you think they will return to an expansionist mindset to get what they want?

I don't think they will try to invade another country, but I suspect you can expect them to get aggressive in some other way. The Syrian war worked out well for them and their political goals - breaking out of isolation after Crimea and turning into an indispensible political player in world power game - were successfully achieved due to Western indecision and non-response. Basically, with the way the world currently works, playing by the rules gets you nothing but it pays off handsomely to be an assertive troublemaker, and it is as true for Russia as it was for Iran, North Korea and the Palestinians.

[Womble]

Radical Islam is a threat, there is absolutely no question of that. Can it spread the way people are claiming? That is something I very much doubt. Take Sharia law as an example. Do you think that the people of any Western Democracy will vote in a theological based legal system? England all but kicked out Catholicism to replace it with Anglicanism, the USA was in part founded on the notion of religious freedom and the separation of church and state and Western Europe is becoming more Atheistic and based on humanist philosophy. Do you honestly believe that the people's of such nations will willingly vote to become legally theocratic states?

With current demographic composition, no. But that's changing.

[Falcon Horus]

Oh my

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...on-voice-mails

Anything goes in war... any sort of war...

You have a very strong influence from your Islamic acquaintances.
It's always been there.. from the moment these GW conversations began years ago.

Except I met them only 6 months ago (give or take a few days).

I grew up having Muslim friends in school, as neighbors (loved that family to bits). I didn't define them as Muslim, or Turkish or whatever. They were my friends.
I see it as an enrichment to my multicultural upbringing.

That is the goal / viewpoint of the Islamic State...

Of course, it would be. They have a 5-year plan, which is currently being bombed into a gazillion pieces.

...teaming up with the Boco Haram, Muslim Brotherhood and even possibly Al Qaeda, based on what they've all accomplished thus far, they may end up accomplishing their goal within the next 10 years or less. (my guesstimate, not theirs).

Boko Haram pledged their allegiance to IS - their goals are to have absolute control over African territory. They've been having a hard time doing so, notwithstanding all the bombings they've managed to execute.

Muslim Brotherhood is not IS. It's Egypt's oldest and largest Islamist organisation, founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. It has influenced Islamist movements worldwide and mixes political activism with charity work. It officially renounced violence in the 1970s and endorses democratic principles. It wants to create a state governed by Islamic law. It's slogan: "Islam is the solution".

Al-Qaeda is not affiliated with IS, and I think they would pretty much find a huge offence to be even considered being in alliance with those "monsters".

Al-Nusra in Syria is linked with Al-Qaeda, not IS.

...the I.S. claimed they were going to take over the Middle East, as well as portions of Europe and spread to the far East (Asian countries). Within one year, the I.S. has spread its tentacles into Europe and has influences within the Americas, Australia, AND into the Asian lands. That is quite an accomplishment.

Mmm... you mean, recruiting fodder for their campaigns? Yes, they certainly have plenty of foreign fodder in their ranks.

They, however, do not control the entire Middle-East. They can barely hold parts of Iraq and Syria as it is.
Sure, they are telling folks to blow up infidels, and to cause havoc. All-in-all, I have to say they have not been able to do much of that.

With the UN within the Islamic State's near grasp (getting ever closer to seeking a selected voice there), there is NO stopping of this.

You are aware there are peace-talks going on about Syria - guess who wasn't invited to the table?
Exactly IS.

Put a Muslim friendly leader/voice to take over Ban's role as UN chief, and where will that put the Islamic world (mainly, the I.S. and affiliates)?

Girl, now you sound like an anti-Islam/Muslim person.
Muslim-friendly? Really? If you're looking to become a member of Pegida (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), I'm sure they have a website where you can sign up.

Christianity didn't TRY to take over the planet.

Neither does Islam.

Besides, it was the Catholic Church that tried to control the world, not the early Christians.

And who do you think is the Catholic Church? The Muslims?

There is a distinct difference from completing an assignment (go ye into ALL of the world and tell about Jesus..) and then (letting go and) going on one's merry way. . . as opposed to forcing the world to obey or else.

Mmm... I shall not talk about the Crusades then.

I won't know until I get into the booth and make my selection then. Doubt it may be Hillary.

Okay, but who do you fancy? Don't have to tell me who you're gonna vote for.
Both Garkhal and Annoyed have given their preferences. I'm just curious.
Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Sanders, Carson?

I don't think they will try to invade another country, but I suspect you can expect them to get aggressive in some other way. The Syrian war worked out well for them and their political goals...

My sister and I were talking about Syria and the peace talks, and she think it's likely Russia will try to keep Assad under their ruling. Like, you can stick around but you're doing what we tell you to. As opposed to annexation of Syria altogether.

[Womble]

My sister and I were talking about Syria and the peace talks, and she think it's likely Russia will try to keep Assad under their ruling. Like, you can stick around but you're doing what we tell you to. As opposed to annexation of Syria altogether.

Russia already got what it wanted from the Syria war. Now it is looking for a way out of Syria that would allow them to claim an indisputable victory - not just "declare victory and go home" like some stupid American Democrat politicians thought they could leave Iraq, but actually make a convincing case that they brought about a change in the war's tide.

[Falcon Horus]

...but actually make a convincing case that they brought about a change in the war's tide.

Perhaps give the peace talks a chance. I hear the continued bombings are putting a wrench in the talks. Or maybe bomb IS and not Assad's opponents who are also battling IS.

[ClockworkNebari]

If I find anymore news on the 'regressive left' I will post it

That is the goal / viewpoint of the Islamic State, which they've stated on several occasions in the past year. Since they may now be teaming up with the Boco Haram, Muslim Brotherhood and even possibly Al Qaeda, based on what they've all accomplished thus far, they may end up accomplishing their goal within the next 10 years or less. (my guesstimate, not theirs).

Gee, let's see, the I.S. claimed they were going to take over the Middle East, as well as portions of Europe and spread to the far East (Asian countries). Within one year, the I.S. has spread its tentacles into Europe and has influences within the Americas, Australia, AND into the Asian lands. That is quite an accomplishment.

One interesting person I have found in all these kinds of debates is the woman named Pamella Geller, while I might not agree with all she says I respect her right to say and I have seen commentary on blogs. Geller has responded to this criticism by accusing the media of enforcing Sharia Law, and she is maybe correct.

I quote


the media never thought twice about showing “Piss Christ” or giving rave reviews to “The Book of Mormon” on Broadway. Christians and Mormons might have been offended but they weren’t intimidated by the insult, and there was next to zero risk that any of them were going to go blow up theaters and art galleries in protest.
Geller has responded to this criticism by accusing the media of enforcing Sharia Law, and she is correct.
And here are 9 pieces of incontrovertible evidence that prove Geller 100% correct.

The Book of Mormon
Dogma (1999)
Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
Piss Christ
Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (1983)
Hunky Jesus & Foxy Mary
The Da Vinci Code franchise
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Priest (1994)

Provocative criticism, withering satire, in-your-face defiance… All nine of the items listed above are nothing more than Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contests in a difference format. The ONLY difference is how the media and the religious groups targeted respond to them.


The ONLY difference is how the media and the religious groups targeted respond to them.
When “The Book of Mormon” hit Broadway, a biting satire of the Mormon religion and a runaway hit, no one in the media attacked its creators as bigots. In fact, the media promoted the hell out of the show, and my guess is that many of them attended and howled with laughter.
Every Easter when thousands show up in San Francisco for the blasphemous and provocative Hunky Jesus contest, no one on the media attacks the organizers or attendees as bigots.
First Amendment protections are not limited to speech you like, or speakers that you like.
You can support the RIGHT to speak without supporting the CONTENT of the speech. Geller’s event was just as offensive as Piss Christ and The Book of Mormon, but that they believed that the event was an important exercise of free speech.

Chris Cuomo pointed out that the media will show a picture of Piss Christ but blur Muhammad cartoons.

That is enforcing Sharia Law, not a principled opposition to offending the religious.

Yep don't agree with what all Pamella Geller is saying
but I respect her "strong dedication" I don't know what exactly I find wrong with this. I think some ways she maybe comes across sometimes a little heated in debate but I fully agree her rights should be respected just as the writer Rushdie or the South Park Cartoonists rights should be respected.
From my perspective the CNN host lost the arguement.

[Gatefan1976]

While that might be true, that more red states are at the top of the food chain 'so to speak', the whole welfare system has been seriously increased UNDER the dems than it ever was under the GOP..

Yes, well, someone had to make sure that the red states still functioned, and it wasn't the Republicans, was it.
See what I mean about voting against your own interests? The Republicans -complain- about the increase in welfare spending, but in many cases they are the -reason- for increased spending.

[Gatefan1976]

Southern Russia is sitting on some of the world's most fertile lands (chernozem), and they generally have a tremendous amount of land suitable for cultuvation. Russia's low agricultural outputs during the USSR times were mainly due to woefully inefficient management, rejection of genetics research and lack of access to modern agricultural technologies. Russia became a major grain exporter in the 2000th, though, due to better management, purchase of some advanced tech and crop strains, and generally favorable weather.

Ahh, I see. Thank you

Russia also cares little for the quality of their processed foods, so they can do some pretty amazing things, like achieving explosive growth of cheese production while milk production falls (but palm oil imports increase). About 75% of cheese on the Russian market does not meet the requirements to be defined as "cheese". Russian sausages are the butt of jokes because of how little actual meat goes into them.

Cheese in a can Womble, Russia seems not to be the only country that does not care about such things either
Dare I ask -what- goes into the sausages if it is not meat?

I don't think they will try to invade another country, but I suspect you can expect them to get aggressive in some other way. The Syrian war worked out well for them and their political goals - breaking out of isolation after Crimea and turning into an indispensible political player in world power game - were successfully achieved due to Western indecision and non-response. Basically, with the way the world currently works, playing by the rules gets you nothing but it pays off handsomely to be an assertive troublemaker, and it is as true for Russia as it was for Iran, North Korea and the Palestinians.

I agree it "got their hands cleaner" after Crimea, but I don't think they are indispensable yet. If they come up with a good way to deal with the situation in Turkey that put them in a "good light", then I feel they will be in a far better position. Of course, that is just a feeling, as you can tell, Russia is something I know woefully little about.

[Annoyed]

Yes, well, someone had to make sure that the red states still functioned, and it wasn't the Republicans, was it.
See what I mean about voting against your own interests? The Republicans -complain- about the increase in welfare spending, but in many cases they are the -reason- for increased spending.

Quite right, and this is why I favor Trump, *if* he runs and wins as an independent. The Republican party at the national level needs a wholesale housecleaning. And that is the best way I can think of do do that.

But the blame is shared by the Democrats, as they were just as eager to screw the economy up at the lower ends of the scale as the Republicans are.
The most recent attempt to gut the lower end of the socio-economic ladder economy was the Pacific Rim trade deal. Even the Democrats in Congress were smart enough to oppose that. The LSoS had to depend upon the Republicans to get it through.

That alone ought to speak volumes.

[Gatefan1976]

With current demographic composition, no. But that's changing.

Even with demographic change, it will take decades. African Americans comprise what, 14% of the US population, so around 45 million, and even still, getting anywhere against the entrenched white power structure is difficult. Women are over 50%, and they too struggle against it.
I will not say it -cannot- happen, but I think it is fair to say that the chances of it -actually- happening are a decided long shot.

[Gatefan1976]

Quite right, and this is why I favor Trump, *if* he runs and wins as an independent. The Republican party at the national level needs a wholesale housecleaning. And that is the best way I can think of do do that.

He cannot win as an independent. Democrats will not vote for him, and only some (even if a larger percentage) of Republicans will vote for him. To do it he would have to carry 34% minimum of the vote, and that be the highest, in enough states to force the Electoral college to put there votes to him.
Do you really feel this is a viable outcome?
Again, I do not disagree with your intent, I just feel your method will not work.

But the blame is shared by the Democrats, as they were just as eager to screw the economy up at the lower ends of the scale as the Republicans are.

Oh, never think I feel Democrats are the bee's knee's Annoyed. Coming from a country where voting is compulsory however, when you bother to pay attention to the political process, you do tend to work out who will screw you -less-, and not just think "this one good, this one bad". It's a running political joke out here that parties are not voted into office so much as they are voted out. Of course we still get purely partisan voters, but they simply are not as much of an issue for us as they are for you.

The most recent attempt to gut the lower end of the socio-economic ladder economy was the Pacific Rim trade deal. Even the Democrats in Congress were smart enough to oppose that. The LSoS had to depend upon the Republicans to get it through.

That alone ought to speak volumes.

It does.

[Annoyed]

He cannot win as an independent. Democrats will not vote for him, and only some (even if a larger percentage) of Republicans will vote for him. To do it he would have to carry 34% minimum of the vote, and that be the highest, in enough states to force the Electoral college to put there votes to him.
Do you really feel this is a viable outcome?
Again, I do not disagree with your intent, I just feel your method will not work.

Well, the Dems are going to run Hillary. She sat down for the LSoS in 2008, she's not going to sit down this time.
And with her every growing trail of scandals, by the time November rolls around, she might be unelectable.

So, the Trump/independent scenario is not out of the picture.

[Gatefan1976]

If I find anymore news on the 'regressive left' I will post it

One interesting person I have found in all these kinds of debates is the woman named Pamella Geller, while I might not agree with all she says I respect her right to say and I have seen commentary on blogs. Geller has responded to this criticism by accusing the media of enforcing Sharia Law, and she is maybe correct.

I loved the look on the host's face whenever she (Geller) blurted out some kind of crap, it was priceless

I quote

From what?

the media never thought twice about showing “Piss Christ” or giving rave reviews to “The Book of Mormon” on Broadway. Christians and Mormons might have been offended but they weren’t intimidated by the insult, and there was next to zero risk that any of them were going to go blow up theaters and art galleries in protest.

Just a note on showing images of Christ.
There is nothing in the Bible that forbids images of Christ, in any way shape or form. This is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity because the Qu'ran -does- forbid it. I think it is a pretty stupid thing to have in your holy laws, but there it is. As for Christians committing violence in response to things they do not like, history would disagree with the statement that there is zero risk of it, but I will happily agree it is far, far less common -today-.

Geller has responded to this criticism by accusing the media of enforcing Sharia Law, and she is correct.
And here are 9 pieces of incontrovertible evidence that prove Geller 100% correct.

The Book of Mormon
Dogma (1999)
Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
Piss Christ
Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (1983)
Hunky Jesus & Foxy Mary
The Da Vinci Code franchise
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Priest (1994)

Provocative criticism, withering satire, in-your-face defiance… All nine of the items listed above are nothing more than Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contests in a difference format. The ONLY difference is how the media and the religious groups targeted respond to them.

No, the difference is, one treats it far more seriously, and to say that none of them were criticised by Christian groups is cognative dissonance of the first order. ALL of them were protested, or boycotted by Christian groups. Just because there was no body count attached to the protests -does not mean- it did not happen.

The ONLY difference is how the media and the religious groups targeted respond to them.
When “The Book of Mormon” hit Broadway, a biting satire of the Mormon religion and a runaway hit, no one in the media attacked its creators as bigots. In fact, the media promoted the hell out of the show, and my guess is that many of them attended and howled with laughter.

Probably.

Every Easter when thousands show up in San Francisco for the blasphemous and provocative Hunky Jesus contest, no one on the media attacks the organizers or attendees as bigots.

Probably not.

First Amendment protections are not limited to speech you like, or speakers that you like.
You can support the RIGHT to speak without supporting the CONTENT of the speech.

Very much so, in fact I would argue that protecting speech you do not like is the most important element here.

Geller’s event was just as offensive as Piss Christ and The Book of Mormon, but that they believed that the event was an important exercise of free speech. [/I]

No, it is not, because that event has a different intent. Contrary to popular belief, the right of free speech is not an absolute right, and what they did was the equivalent of walking into a public place and yelling fire. Guess what? You get in trouble for doing that as well! The response they got from a bunch of crazies was not the -by product-, it was what they were looking for to prove their point.

Chris Cuomo pointed out that the media will show a picture of Piss Christ but blur Muhammad cartoons.

That is enforcing Sharia Law, not a principled opposition to offending the religious.

Do you think that if Christianity had it's own injunction against showing images of Jesus, the media would show them?

Yep don't agree with what all Pamella Geller is saying
but I respect her "strong dedication" I don't know what exactly I find wrong with this. I think some ways she maybe comes across sometimes a little heated in debate but I fully agree her rights should be respected just as the writer Rushdie or the South Park Cartoonists rights should be respected.
From my perspective the CNN host lost the arguement.

Perhaps what you find wrong with it is that she really is just a bigot? She want's to say what she says, then get's all "you are going on a witch hunt against me" when she is challenged?

[Gatefan1976]

Well, the Dems are going to run Hillary. She sat down for the LSoS in 2008, she's not going to sit down this time.
And with her every growing trail of scandals, by the time November rolls around, she might be unelectable.

Every time Trump opens his yap he creates a scandal
Even Fox News ripped him for being afraid of Megyn Kelly.

So, the Trump/independent scenario is not out of the picture.

Him running independent if he wins enough places and does not get the nod, sure.
Him winning..............
I just can't see it.