Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Maybe shipping, but we could look to North America for all of our energy needs if we wanted to.

No. Not right now we can't (but I would love to see some investments into it), plus our economy is not just shipping and oil, but products, jobs, corporations, and influence that are spread out over the world, and also include NATO and our other European and Eurasian allies' interests. We are the world "police" unfortunately because we set ourselves up for that with interventionist policies backed by clandestine operations, coups, and support for corporations.

Maybe we could start moving back towards our previous non-interventionist policies but our world political and financial influence would wane, and this is definitely not something that can be done immediately.

As Tommy said, our political capital is laying on the "red line" right now. That is a bad place to be with China and Russia supporting Syria. Our only option is to do something.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
We really don't need them for that...We make it seem like we do, but in reality, we're just hoarders.

Valid point. It is also very cheap there for the corporations too and our good friends in power make lots of money. That is why the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by the US and Britain in the 1950s because Iran nationalized the oil companies.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
I don't see us going into Syria unless we get the full backing of the UN Security Council. That won't happen unless there's concrete evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. As of right now, there just isn't any. That's not to say that the UN inspectors haven't found anything, we'll have to wait for their report.

There's also the problem of getting Congress' full authorization. There's some on the right, and a few on the left, that want the Security Council's blessing.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I don't see us going into Syria unless we get the full backing of the UN Security Council. That won't happen unless there's concrete evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. As of right now, there just isn't any. That's not to say that the UN inspectors haven't found anything, we'll have to wait for their report.

There's also the problem of getting Congress' full authorization. There's some on the right, and a few on the left, that want the Security Council's blessing.

It'll also give the United States some political cover if the U.N. Security Council doesn't give backing for a strike. Obama and Congress can say, "As much we may have wanted to act against this unconscionable use of chemical weapons against the people of Syria, we respect the authority of the U.N. Security Council and will heed the wishes of the international community." Then the president can breathe a big sigh on relief in private that he didn't have to authorized a military strike.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Many were for it, because Bush and Co lied to the American people about there being WMDs there, which we later found out they didn't know existed and allies even doubted at all.

If you're saying Bush lied about the WMD's, you have to call several other countries liars too. Others believed Saddam had the WMD's or believed he did but weren't willing to send troops in.

Was it worth the money and 5000 US lives lost? Debatable. But it cannot be argued that Saddam violated many resolutions and at the very least it was a humanitarian mission.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
I don't see us going into Syria unless we get the full backing of the UN Security Council. That won't happen unless there's concrete evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. As of right now, there just isn't any. That's not to say that the UN inspectors haven't found anything, we'll have to wait for their report.

There's also the problem of getting Congress' full authorization. There's some on the right, and a few on the left, that want the Security Council's blessing.

China and Russia have made their position quite clear. I doubt the US will get the backing of the UN Security Council.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
We also used them in World War I. That doesn't mean we should ignore it now.

The US would have much more credibility if they weren't ok with countries using them about 20 years ago and hadn't helped them acquire them. There are atrocities going on constantly around the world yet they do not get involved.

Then there's also the fact the US implied the same thing in March of this year... that is until it was actually proven the "rebel forces" were behind the "use" of the chemical weapons.
 
Last edited:

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
So in Syria we have Assad and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood on the other side. Wonder which one is our enemy?

....

I don't think anyone can figure it out.

Iran is pro-Assad even though they're also pro-Hamas, which backs the anti-Assad Muslim Brotherhood. Obama, the Gulf States (except Turkey) and the Muslim Brotherhood are anti-Assad.

The Gulf States are pro-General Sisi, but the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

So Obama is assisting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is backed by Hamas, which is anti-U.S. And Hamas is backed by Iran, which is also anti-U.S. and pro-Assad.
 

Kanye West

Yeezus
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
43
I don't think anyone wants to go to Syria. They killed what? 500 people with chemical weapons, is that any worse than killing 100,000 people with regular weapons. The end result is still the same. This won't end well if we do go in. As a 19 year old, I do not want any government intervention. Even though I am a pacifist, I do not want a war to cripple any generation let alone my generation.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
This is why a bunch of people in their mid to late 20's are living at home with Mommy and Daddy. This is why the whiny socialists of Occupy Wall Street exist. Everyone's going to college, everyone's getting loans, everyone's a genius and magnificent because of all the PC garbage these kids have been fed.

More people than ever are going to college, but very few are leaving college with the skills/ intellect/ discipline needed to contribute to the workplace. Good thing for the food industry and Starbucks.


ACT: Third of High School Grads Not College Ready
WASHINGTON August 21, 2013 (AP)
By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press


Almost a third of this year's high school graduates who took the ACT tests are not prepared for college-level writing, biology, algebra or social science classes, according to data the testing company released Wednesday.

The company's annual report also found a gap between students' interests now and projected job opportunities when they graduate, adding to the dire outlook for the class of 2013.

"The readiness of students leaves a lot to be desired," said Jon Erickson, president of the Iowa-based company's education division.

The ACT reported that 31 percent of all high school graduates tested were not ready for any college coursework requiring English, science, math or reading skills. The other 69 percent of test takers met at least one of the four subject-area standards.

Just a quarter of this year's high school graduates cleared the bar in all four subjects, demonstrating the skills they'll need for college or a career, according to company data. The numbers are even worse for black high school graduates: Only 5 percent were deemed fully ready for life after high school.

The report's findings suggest that many students will struggle when they arrive on campus or they'll be forced to take remedial courses — often without earning credits — to catch their peers.

The data reveal a downturn in overall student scores since 2009. Company officials attribute the slide to updated standards and more students taking the exams — including many with no intention of attending two- or four-year colleges.

In terms of careers, the report found a chasm between what students want to study and where they might find jobs down the road. ACT compared federal Bureau of Labor Statistics projections with their own questionnaires and found insufficient student interest in the five fastest-growing industries with workers who require some college.

For instance, the government estimates that 17 percent of job openings in 2020 will be in education fields but only 6 percent of test takers told ACT they wanted a job there. Computer and information technologies will account for 11 percent of openings in 2020, but only 2 percent of students indicated they want a career in that industry.

The government estimates 9 percent of job openings will be in sales and marketing, community services and management fields. ACT reports that 2 percent of test takers are interested in sales and marketing, 7 percent in community services and 6 percent in management.

The ACT report is based on the 54 percent of high school graduates this year who took the exams. Roughly the same percentage took the SAT — the other major college entrance exam — and many students took both tests. Those who took only the SAT were not included in the report.

Under ACT's definition, a young adult is ready to start college or trade school if he or she has the knowledge to succeed without taking remedial courses. Success is defined as the student's having a 75 percent chance of earning a C grade and a 50 percent chance of earning a B, based on results on each of the four ACT subject areas, which are measured on a scale from 1 to 36 points.

Of all ACT-tested high school graduates this year, 64 percent met the English benchmark of 18 points that predicts success in a composition course. In science, 36 percent scored 23 or higher, the benchmark for success in a college biology course. In math, 44 percent met the 22-point baseline to predict success in an algebra course. And in reading, 44 percent met the 22 point threshold that indicates readiness for an introductory social science course.

Only 26 percent of students met the benchmarks for all four sections of the ACT test.

Of the 1.7 million students who took the 215-question ACT exam, as many as 290,000 were within 2 points of meeting at least one of the four readiness thresholds.

"There is a group that's on the fence," Erickson said. "With a little further instruction or motivation, perhaps some additional remediation or refreshing some of their past skills, they may be able to achieve that benchmark."

When the testing agency broke down the results by race, fault lines emerged. Just 5 percent of black students are ready for college work in all four areas. Among American Indians, 10 percent are ready in all subjects, while 14 percent of Hispanics are ready. Pacific Islanders post a 19 percent readiness rate for all four subjects. White students have a 33 percent rate, and 43 percent of Asian-American students are ready for studies in all four subjects.

Students from all racial backgrounds did best in English and worst in science.

Some states and school districts have begun requiring more students to take the tests. About 22 percent more students took the ACT test in 2013 than in 2009. In the past four years, ACT has increased its share of the test market, climbing from 45 percent of high school graduates in 2009 to 54 percent this year.

ACT said it updated its benchmarks for success in reading and science this year to better reflect what students need to know. The percentage of students with reading skills needed to succeed after graduation slid from 53 in 2009 to 44 this year, while science readiness scores climbed from 28 percent in 2009 to 36 percent this year. Both differences may have been caused in part by changes in the benchmarks.

In English, readiness scores slid from 67 percent in 2009 to 64 percent this year. In math, scores increased slightly, from 42 percent in 2009 to 44 percent this year. The benchmarks were not changed for either of those subjects.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Bahahahahaahahahahahaha

Obama: Americans Wrong About Obamacare; "It's Going To Be A Good Deal"


JOSE DIAZ-BALART, TELEMUNDO: The Affordable Care Act takes effect next month, The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Americans oppose it, believing it will produce damaging results. Fifty-two percent believe the law will raise their health care costs. Is everybody wrong?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Yes, they are.

###

OBAMA: The problem we have is that over the last four years billions of dollars have been spent misinforming people about what this law is about. All of the horror stories that were talked about have not come true. It is going to be a good deal and we expect that once it is fully implemented -- a year from now, two years from now, five years from now -- people will look back and, they'll be asking what was the argument about. Why is everybody fighting this so much?
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
lead by example Barry... get yourself, your democrat friends, your family, your union buddies and all of the corporate donors that you exempted from this thing on board first.... then I'll listen.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
lead by example Barry... get yourself, your democrat friends, your family, your union buddies and all of the corporate donors that you exempted from this thing on board first.... then I'll listen.

...hey well...ya know...the coolaid is for the followers...

Rev. Jim Jones
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I think it's very sad that something designed in the spirit of helping people has been demonized so much. We can do anything we put our minds to here in the US. The people trying to tear it apart aren't doing so because it's a bad program, they're doing it in spite.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I think it's very sad that something designed in the spirit of helping people has been demonized so much. We can do anything we put our minds to here in the US. The people trying to tear it apart aren't doing so because it's a bad program, they're doing it in spite.

Bobd I believe the sentiment often gets confused with a "good program".

This is NOT a good program...it is the program forwarded on the desire and sentiment to solve the healthcare problem...but it solved NOTHING. Acamp summed up clear signs/symptoms its NOT a good program...those he listed did their own homework, and DESPITE their political druthers said HELL NO. Until EVERYONE drinks the coolaid...including the "preachers"...well uncle sam can cram this piece of sh!t right back where it came from...and yes, we as Americans can do anything, but why would we settle for this?
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Bobd I believe the sentiment often gets confused with a "good program".

This is NOT a good program...it is the program forwarded on the desire and sentiment to solve the healthcare problem...but it solved NOTHING. Acamp summed up clear signs/symptoms its NOT a good program...those he listed did their own homework, and DESPITE their political druthers said HELL NO. Until EVERYONE drinks the coolaid...including the "preachers"...well uncle sam can cram this piece of sh!t right back where it came from...and yes, we as Americans can do anything, but why would we settle for this?

There is not one program of this magnitude anyone could put together that wouldn't contain huge elements of financial risk. America has become a country were it's hard to get anything going because of fear. We might have to revamp this program several times, which is ok by me as long as we can come to a consensus that we need health care for everyone and along with education, there should be no higher priorities.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
There is not one program of this magnitude anyone could put together that wouldn't contain huge elements of financial risk. America has become a country were it's hard to get anything going because of fear. We might have to revamp this program several times, which is ok by me as long as we can come to a consensus that we need health care for everyone and along with education, there should be no higher priorities.

I don't disagree that those things are priorities...

We probably disagree on the fundamental issue of government's role, however putting that aside for a moment...

As more rubber meets the road on this program, we learn it was never a "program" by conventional definition...there was no plan. Just some visionary words, hijacked funding, dates, and a bunch of language of deferment to yet-to-be-determined organizations and personnel...you touch on risk...but you see, that is the issue that makes this thing so fvcking offensive to me...its ALL RISK because its not a PROGRAM !!!!!! It was heart string legislation portrayed as if it were a PROGRAM...and that is FAILURE. You can't fix it fast enough...

...next time I bid work for DoD, I will model my "Program Plan" after the affordable care act...think I'll win...or be debarred for even trying it?

Bobd, I still would like you to speak to "exempt", and who is on that list...and you, with your street smarts...whats that tellin' ya.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I don't disagree that those things are priorities...


Bobd, I still would like you to speak to "exempt", and who is on that list...and you, with your street smarts...whats that tellin' ya.

??? Sorry, I don't think I understand your question.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
HhSolved nothing?

Medicare savings have lowered health cost 10 year deficit is lowered by hundreds of billions of dollars. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance without them.

Solved everthing? No didn't

But there are these things:

Insurance exchanges will allow for competition/comparisons on the individual market. You can say "premiums on the exchanges are 125-250 percent higher" but that is only compare them with premiums with crappy coverage, high deductibles and out of pocket costs, and plans with screening questions that eliminated customers with predisposition to certain health risk. Exchange plans had to cover certain provisions.

Subsidies for individuals under 400 percent of poverty line can get quality coverage for 8 percent of their income or less.

Emphasis on preventive care

Coverage for preexisting conditions

Employer premiums can't be 8.5 percent of employees income

Tax credit for small business purchasing health insurance

Insurance companies depending on regional cost must spend at least 80-85 percent of premiums directly on health care. Not CEO salaries and administrative costs.

The mandate is a messy issue. It is for me as well. I understand it necessity in some respects but am bothered by the principle. I think we can fix the problems with the law and keep the positives.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
HhSolved nothing?

Medicare savings have lowered health cost 10 year deficit is lowered by hundreds of billions of dollars. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance without them.

Solved everthing? No didn't

But there are these things:

Insurance exchanges will allow for competition/comparisons on the individual market. You can say "premiums on the exchanges are 125-250 percent higher" but that is only compare them with premiums with crappy coverage, high deductibles and out of pocket costs, and plans with screening questions that eliminated customers with predisposition to certain health risk. Exchange plans had to cover certain provisions.

Subsidies for individuals under 400 percent of poverty line can get quality coverage for 8 percent of their income or less.

Emphasis on preventive care

Coverage for preexisting conditions

Employer premiums can't be 8.5 percent of employees income

Tax credit for small business purchasing health insurance

Insurance companies depending on regional cost must spend at least 80-85 percent of premiums directly on health care. Not CEO salaries and administrative costs.

The mandate is a messy issue. It is for me as well. I understand it necessity in some respects but am bothered by the principle. I think we can fix the problems with the law and keep the positives.

didnt-read-lol-gif-5.gif


It was written by corporations, for corporations. That's all one needs to know.

Will some people be helped out? You betcha. Will the majority? Well, if the Farm Bill, Stimulus Bill, DoD spending bills, No Child Left Behind, TARP, and a whollleeee ****ing myriad of other spending and bailout bills and general recent history of the federal government are any indication...

no.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

Everyone speaks in terms of what this will accomplish, or has accomplished...what it does is add more cost...cost redirected to government agencies...so yea people get services...AT WHAT COST?

Not saying healthcare for those in need is bad...not saying it isn't worth doing...I'm saying when it is done as it has been done it will fail...and if we simply set the bar to measure success w/o ever saying at what cost, and what efficiency...FAIL.

Again the cause/sentiment can't be surrogates for programmatic restraint and economic vision. The job of those in DC is to look out for the health of the nation...so while looking out for the health of a segment of it, it cannot endanger the rest of it.

This entire "program" is a cluster fvck that good things fall out of...not good enough.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Heard on BBC radio that there is a new international science study/report that, either just came out or is about to come out that, proves the climate change impact and forecasts have been greatly exaggerated. Wondering if anyone heard about this or if they saw the report.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
If the same exact program was created by the Republicans, they would be calling it pure genius.

The Republicans are in shambles. Love that tea party.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
If the same exact program was created by the Republicans, they would be calling it pure genius.

The Republicans are in shambles. Love that tea party.

I don't doubt that republicans would do something similarly irresponsible...

which totally justifies doing ACA...I see it now...makes perfect sense...it is a legitimate program because Republicans would do it and the Tea Party is dumb :)
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
6,452
The "new" climate change report: we are coming up to a big meeting by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Anytime that the IPCC has a meeting aimed at a major report, certain interested parties mobilize for a media-blunting response to what they know will be bad news for them. "Today" this mobilization is headed by "scientists" who've abandoned their scientific philosophies for thinktank politics. The two most prominent of these individuals are Fred Singer [a highly-placed presidential advisor several administrations ago, and a constant "employee" of the Heartland Institute which is "fossil-fuel funded" {read Exxon and others}], Singer fought ferociously against the previous Ozone-depletion science, where he proved to be COMPLETELY wrong and even made up bad science "data" at one point; the other main pseudo-scientific player is Pat Michaels who runs a thinktank in Virginia funded by oil and coal companies, and who has a string of anti-CC claims, everyone of which has been shown to be in error.

The actual news out of the UK involved noting the Heartland Institute's call-to-war, plus a study showing that major media in 80% of stories emphasizes uncertainties, and is not at all biased towards "selling" climate change. This story included the note that IPCC scientists believe that [thankfully] our atmospheric feedback loops [the story wasn't worded this intelligently, but they're just reporters] are a LITTLE more resistant to tri-and-multiatomic carbon-containing molecules than feared, and, although this MIGHT give us a little more time to try to slow emissions, it does not change the trajectory demanding action. We can all guess with perfect accuracy what part of the IPCC report will be emphasized.
 
Last edited:
Top