American Politics

[quote=jelly donut]before i started the chatter here, no one had posted anything to this thread since this past march. so, in the sense that i've given you some reason to post, some reason to get your blood up - you are welcome.

though i'm not really sure where the "racist" comes from. to bring you up-to-speed, the most recent notable case of high school girls making a 'pact' to get pregnant was in gloucester, massachusetts. as far as i know, all the girls involved were white. i know a couple of white girls who game the system, juggling boyfriends and pumping out kids. it did not occur to me that what i was saying had anything to do with race at all. so, if you think what i said is racist, that's more about you, not about me.

but, yeah, it's conservative thinking. i would be very surprised if you don't believe in ownership on some level - are you suggesting a person should not even have self-ownership? that everything belongs to the community?


i guess i agree. for instance, i earned 73 cents today in my prosper.com account. in theory, that's money i got "for nothing" lending it out to various people who need it. of course, i did work for the money i was lending out and earning that 73 cents meant taking on some risk. it surprises me how much money it takes to earn 73 cents a day. you have to work hard to get something for nothing.

it surprises me that american government generally taxes savings like this more than, say, purchasing comic books or junk food.

a lot of people own things in the united states. many people own homes (far more today than 10 years ago) and many people are invested in financial markets. and, generally, these are the people who vote. the politics reflect this. so, did not disagree with you - "the election is always won by the owning class - the only real constituent for either party". it's just the "owning class" is a big thing in the united states, a lot of people own stuff.[/quote]

its the glided age part 2, as to ownage of "stuff" one man in a cnbc doc about how the rich spend there money can't remember how many homes he had, it wasn't mcsain either.

said man got rich of the start of the sub prime lending.... hmmm

i guess that goes with the "right place at the right time" edict

this time however, there is [i]hope[/i] from the "poor" side of america and you'll see 70% voter turn out and that's high or record breaking in this country.

don't believe the poles, its obama's to loose and he's not loosing, sarah palin is going to be made the escape goat here, she'll go back to juno and nobody we'll even know she was here.

the "owning" class may control overall what happens, but us "nobodys" will have something to say nov 4th and that's not to say obama doesn't owe big business any favors for putting up the huge sums of money. we don't see the ads in california, its a confirmed blue state, no reason too. but in purple states and confirmed red states he needs to carry, that's where you'll see all the tactics played out.

after this, i'll still pay attention, i always have and mostly because i find it dayum interesting (as the rest of the world does) and quite amazing, that we as "americans" manage to speak out of both sides of our mouths at the same time... ie - hypocrates!

Am ready to puke while watching this RNC babble.

Gentlemen,

When the founders wrote the Dec. Of Ind. Which we sent to King of the limeys, George, we declared our natural right to "life, liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness. "" Some of the more "conservative" founders wanted to replace "pursuit of happiness" with "property. " The founders wisely rejected "property. " My point is this, property is not what America is about to me. It is the freedom to do what makes one happy without hurting another citizen. So while all the right-wingers cry about taxation, it is the Freedom to do what I like without some psuedoreligous / fundementalist / hypocrite / corporateapologist / warmonger trying to force me to live as "God" tell them we should that I value. Hell I donot even know what the hell started this rant, but I watched some of the Repugs convention and got sick.

Meluvulongtime

"The measure also makes it a crime for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident traveling in foreign commerce to engage, or attempt to engage, in illicit sexual conduct, even though the individual did not travel with the intent of engaging in these acts"

[url]http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=61[/url]

Congresswoman Maloney represents the 14th district, New York. She is a Democrat and is not working for your liberty or your happiness.

[QUOTE=Jelly Donut]"The measure also makes it a crime for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident traveling in foreign commerce to engage, or attempt to engage, in illicit sexual conduct, even though the individual did not travel with the intent of engaging in these acts"

[url]http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=61[/url]

Congresswoman Maloney represents the 14th district, New York. She is a Democrat and is not working for your liberty or your happiness. [/QUOTE] What? You mean it’s not just the religious conservative rightwing that’s against prostitution?

Next you'll be telling me that organization like the” National Organization of Woman” is against a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body, or at least when it comes to prostitution?

Hmmmmm....The “National Organization of Woman” is supporting “BO” (I think), you don’t suppose old “H” has made any promises to any of these groups do you?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]What? You mean it’s not just the religious conservative rightwing that’s against prostitution? [/QUOTE]

Right. The reality is the Democratic platform is specific in targeting the "demand" side of prostitution and it seems to me that some of the folks who post here don't understand the full implications of that language.

[QUOTE=MeLuvULongTime]
Some of the more "conservative" founders wanted to replace "pursuit of happiness" with "property. " The founders wisely rejected "property. " [/QUOTE]

Of course, on your larger point, I agree with you. You are a very clear-headed person. A good life is more about chasing dreams and being happy.

But as a matter of government, property is important. Ideas about property are very important. For instance, in the United States, you own yourself.

This was an idea not fully realized by the founders. Some of them were on the right track, but as you know many of them owned other people. These radical ideas about property were only undone with the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (for which you can thank Republicans). The guy who came up with the "life, liberty, property" idea was an English philosopher who never owned slaves and was not in Philadelphia in 1776.

In sharp contrast, Jefferson, slaveholder and author of the Declaration, had hypocritical views on "property". Just because he adopted the powerful language "pursuit of happiness" didn't mean anything to regular people at Monticello. A cynical person might suggest he was avoiding the subject of self-ownership. Anyway, he talked an excellent game, but didn't walk the walk. Jefferson is often pointed to as one of the founding figures of the Democratic Party. So, I'd encourage you to be more thoughtful when you make generalizations about "conservatives".

I hope this is a joke because we all know how the average republican feels about the black youth. I would hate to see ole Johnny boy have a heart attack…


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELIG92GDXw[/url]

[QUOTE=Daddy Warbucks 1]I hope this is a joke because we all know how the average republican feels about the black youth. I would hate to see ole Johnny boy have a heart attack…


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELIG92GDXw[/url][/QUOTE]

Its a joke, its not true, but funny...

Bristol isn't bad looking, has big ole bitties and only 17.... US Magazine believes Trig in her child, she was holding him most of the time, HMMMMM.

If I was old boyfriend, I would be finding a way to get the hell away from that family after all this nonsense dies, he looks like a dear caught in headlights, has had no intention of marrying Bristol...

The Republican Party is so full of shit. They criticize Barack Obama for saying he would authorize US forces to go into Pakistan without Paks consent after Al Qaeda but then what does dictator Bush do? Does the same thing well got damn.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?ex=1378872000&en=bcb45afd964f57c7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink[/url]

[QUOTE=Daddy Warbucks 1]They criticize Barack Obama for saying he would authorize US forces to go into Pakistan without Paks consent after Al Qaeda but then what does dictator Bush do?
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?ex=1378872000&en=bcb45afd964f57c7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink[/url][/QUOTE]
Obama called for this back in August 2007. At the time, Obama was talking tough after having promised to meet unconditionally with heads of various countries which support terrorism in July 2007.

Of course, the United States had considered raids into Pakistan well before 2007.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html[/url]

However, since August 2007 we've seen the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 and the removal Pervez Musharraf as President of Pakistan. So things are different. I can't say I'm an expert on Pakistan, but it seems pretty clear the United States is circumstancing for the new President of Pakistan to "cave" to American pressure and increase Pakistani efforts against Al Queda in northern Pakistan.

I'd like to think the next President will be able to juggle these kinds of things regardless of party label.

"Ashley Alexandra Dupré, in the meantime, needs to be treated as a VICTIM! "
[url]http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/a-call-girls-story/[/url]

You could say the same thing about our contemporary American writers. It's a damn shame about David Foster Wallace and Iris Chang. Victims. Of something. I'm sure. Maybe we should put an end to writing or, at least, trafficking in books.

Certainly whoever came up with this phrase below has [i]something[/i] wrong with them, although I don't think the double-speak is an accident:

"[url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908][CodeWord908][/url] is modern-day slavery through labor or commercial sexual exploitation, [blue]and does not require transportation to occur[/blue], though transportation may be involved."

[url]http://www.polarisproject.org/[/url]

Apparently the vision is to charge people with [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908][CodeWord908][/url] when no 'victim' has been moved.

while i am in no way an advocate for oj he has put himself in bad positions of late but and all white jury and on top of that most of the jury admitted that they were against his murder verdict. this is not a jury of his peers forgive me for saying this but i don’t think people of opposite race should judge a person or at least make it half and half race wise. i am sorry but i wouldn’t trust all white jury or all asian jury they are not my peers….

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080912/en_afp/entertainmentuscrimetrialsimpson[/url]

On OJ, I don't know about half and half race-wise since the last time I checked blacks were way less than half the population of the US, Nevada, or Las Vegas but that bothered me as well.

On the Trig Palin thing, Down's Syndrome is clearly associated with older mothers and not younger ones so I doubt Trig is the daughter's baby. Wikipedia, a convenient if not always reliable source, says:

"Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19. Although the probability increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35, reflecting the overall fertility of that age group. Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42, also increases the risk of Down Syndrome manifesting in pregnancies in older mothers."

[QUOTE=Dickhead]On OJ, I don't know about half and half race-wise since the last time I checked blacks were way less than half the population of the US, Nevada, or Las Vegas but that bothered me as well.

[/QUOTE]

According to your logic if and only if half of the US pop was black then the jury should be half black if that’s the case then 13 percent of the US pop is black so 13 percent of 12 is roughly 1.5 rounded off would be two people. Ok given that AmeriKKKa couldn’t give him that. History has proved when the racial makeup of the jury goes against the defendant they are going to hang….