|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 4, 2015 3:48:27 GMT 5
Obama, a socialist? No way, tough certainly more so than a few others (and that's a good thing, of course it does not appear you actually know what socialism is).
A little bit of socialism wouldn't hurt the US. At least there'd be universal healthcare…
It isn't doing nothing while innocent people are being beheaded. It's about not wasting a huge amount of monney on a disproportionately large military to get involved in wars that make the situation in these ccountries worse and only serve to demonstrate power or secure oil resources. If you are so concerned about humaan rights in other countries that you think it justifies starting wars, then surely you'd happily go there yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jan 4, 2015 12:16:57 GMT 5
By eating away at our rights, especially freedom of choice ( the right to make decisions for ourselves ) and making such insignificant decisions such as how much sugar or fats should be allowed in a doughnut simply gets the people used to being controlled. Our younger generation simply sees this as normal because they have never experienced life when a person was allowed to make his own decisions. America is ripe for a dictator to take full control. Obama is himself a socialist.
And this new generation prefers to sit on their hands while innocent people are being beheaded. Turn your backs and pretend it isn't happening; after all, it isn't your heads - yet. *I'm finished with this topic - it is pointless to argue with those who refuse to open their eyes. Look to you're northern border. Canada has no dictatorship, nor has one even been attempted, if what your saying is turn why is that? We are a leftist country and we are more free than you are. |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Jan 4, 2015 15:23:08 GMT 5
So far, Obama seems to have at least done better than Bush - In a pigs eye! The world has lost respect for America.The big American stereotype floating a round is not some PC liberal. It's someone who is overly patriotic. ? Lol what? Did Obama give terrorists a "bomb building/get out of jail free" card? America already spends the most on military. Obama has "allowed" a grand total of zero terrorist attacks. Just couldn't resist, huh? Anyway, Obama is a Christian. jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=646710 Just because you have never personal met someone who died from tabaco doesn't mean it doesnt happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jan 16, 2015 2:26:04 GMT 5
USA spends more on the military than they do on health care and education combined. Also: www.usdebtclock.org/A shrinking military is the last thing an American needs to worry about right now. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 16, 2015 18:25:40 GMT 5
Really? I know that they spend a lot on military, but really that much? I thought the expenses looked more like this:  Even though yours sounds a bit more logical, since education and health care are privately financed in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jan 24, 2015 8:38:54 GMT 5
I don't know. Every pie chart I find seems to be based on completely different statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 24, 2015 19:07:32 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 24, 2015 19:14:35 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 24, 2015 20:42:29 GMT 5
Maybe they are and have ridiculous excuses, just like how racists try to explain the correlation between racism and low IQ.
The most simply excuse would be "this is all propaganda".
|
|
drone
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 53 
|
Post by drone on May 23, 2015 7:52:17 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 19, 2016 20:40:03 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Apr 20, 2016 1:43:15 GMT 5
because it is only republicans that would do this, right? wrong it would seem. this bill (H.R.347 was passed by Obama in 2012 and is basically an 'upgraded' version of a bill passed in the early 1970's. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/textcorrection: strong stances on inmmigration reform dealing with illegal immigration. from your link: "Republicans believe that family and skill should be prioritized when granting citizenship to those who go through the proper legal channels to enter the country. Priority should be given to children and spouses of immigrants that are already legally in the country. They believe the government should emphasize the skills that our economy needs most when determining eligibility, and that the Labor Certification Program should be overhauled. These two measures together would help match qualified workers with work that is in urgent need of filling positions in the country. Despite accusations of being anti-immigration, Republicans do understand the value that immigrants bring to this country, when entering via legal methods. In the Republican Platform adopted at the 2000 GOP convention, the Republican Party declared that it supports increasing the number of H-1B visas, to ensure that high-tech workers are provided to specialized positions, as well as expanding the H-2A program for temporary agricultural workers.
Republicans believe that reforming the Immigration and Naturalization Service could streamline this process. If the service were split into two agencies, one to focus on enforcement and one to focus on service, both processes would flow more smoothly, and get more of the attention they need as national issues."so where does it say they oppose the right to immigrate, exactly? because the prisoners of guantanamo bay have uniformly and unarguably been shown to be detained here without evidence, right? i've got a feeling this is largely a subjective semantic issue. "republicans and democrats support the death penalty but republicans favor it more so they don't support the right to live" which is erroneous and laughable on its own. and i'm not even remotely sure how you get the notion republicans don't support the right to live from the second link at all, it's a very far stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Apr 20, 2016 5:52:42 GMT 5
“Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am." So she's basically implying that she has no credentials on the matter of climate change  . |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Apr 20, 2016 12:10:36 GMT 5
"because the prisoners of guantanamo bay have uniformly and unarguably been shown to be detained here without evidence, right?" Cerato, that's a strawman. Gizmo does violate the right to be not infinitely detained without evidence (among other things). Keeping it open furthers that. meh if it appears to be one i didn't mean for it to be, but moreso a question. i know guantanamo isn't a piece of heaven. but another question, how many prisoners there currently are being held without evidence for their crimes? i'm not to well versed on this particular matter |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 20, 2016 13:37:05 GMT 5
|
|
.