# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Americans take back hijacked ship

## Nooomoto

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...l/6364440.html

So apparently, some Somali pirates hijacked an American cargo ship carrying relief supplies to Kenya. Then the American crew of 20 managed to somehow take back control of the ship, and may have even captured one of the pirates.

Good show, crew!

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

haha, Pretty cool.

Like watching a movie. I didn't know pirates still roamed.

----------


## RA

Problem is its hard to track them...

----------


## sloth9

So did you hear about the skipper trying to escape, yeah the navy ship should have been on the ball cause when he jumped out he could have gone under water and the navy could have sniped many the pirates before they could have hurt the skipper. Also why havent they sniped the pirates yet, if they had a sniper ready blast them when they come to the opening, no more pirates and guess what skipper has a great chance of survival. Any way Obama is a p*ssy and so the skipper will probably be paid for or die one or the other, Our government is a bunch of idiots, did you hear about Kerry saying I am going to call for senate talks, and Hillary saying she was going to talk to the U.N. riiiigggggghhhhhhht! the U.N. is the biggest joke in history, screw the U.N. when we need help nothing happens but when they say jump we say how high. Stupid liberals, I hope they all die hugging trees. 

I hope the Skipper gets away and comes home, I really do but Obama doesnt care at all, so we need to brace ourselves for the skipper to come home in a casket. Thanks alot Liberal morons

----------


## TexSavant

> So did you hear about the skipper trying to escape, yeah the navy ship should have been on the ball cause when he jumped out he could have gone under water and the navy could have sniped many the pirates before they could have hurt the skipper. Also why havent they sniped the pirates yet, if they had a sniper ready blast them when they come to the opening, no more pirates and guess what skipper has a great chance of survival. Any way Obama is a p*ssy and so the skipper will probably be paid for or die one or the other, Our government is a bunch of idiots, did you hear about Kerry saying I am going to call for senate talks, and Hillary saying she was going to talk to the U.N. riiiigggggghhhhhhht! the U.N. is the biggest joke in history, screw the U.N. when we need help nothing happens but when they say jump we say how high. Stupid liberals, I hope they all die hugging trees. 
> 
> I hope the Skipper gets away and comes home, I really do but Obama doesnt care at all, so we need to brace ourselves for the skipper to come home in a casket. Thanks alot Liberal morons


While I do not share your contempt for President Obama, I agree with the sentiment you express. Its frustrating to see this happen. What we need to do is send the SEALs in and try to save the guy. And Kill the pirates of course. Maybe if we put them on stakes and line them up on the beach this sh*t won't happen to american ships anymore. I Cant believe we're just hangin out NEGOTIATING WITH PIRATES, while THE FRENCH are Kicking ass and not bothering to take names.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> Hillary saying she was going to talk to the U.N. riiiigggggghhhhhhht! the U.N. is the biggest joke in history, screw the U.N. when we need help nothing happens but when they say jump we say how high. Stupid liberals, I hope they all die hugging trees.


When Iraq invades a country without UN approval, then America uses this as a justification for sanctions and bombing of Iraq. HOW DARE YOU INVADE A COUNTRY, utter the Americans. Yet these same Americans sanction America taking "unilateral action" (i.e. invading countries illegally without UN approval). Hypocrisy at its finest.




> Liberal morons


I have found that the liberals are usually the educated ones from the prestigious schools of the nation, whereas the neo-cons are the dumber ones.  :Smilie:  The neo-cons have a simplistic understanding: "let's go destroy them all, and then let God sort it out"...whereas liberals give nuanced and balanced (educated) answers.




> While I do not share your contempt for President Obama, I agree with the sentiment you express. Its frustrating to see this happen. What we need to do is send the SEALs in and try to save the guy. And Kill the pirates of course. Maybe if we put them on stakes and line them up on the beach this sh*t won't happen to american ships anymore. I Cant believe we're just hangin out NEGOTIATING WITH PIRATES, while THE FRENCH are Kicking ass and not bothering to take names.


Somalia has been through fifteen plus years of anarchy and is in a very dire situation. Western countries have devastated Somalia's fishing industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjreRSFNLTI

And here is a more reliable source about how Somalia's fishing industry is being destroyed:

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/il...rag-report.pdf

----------


## MuscleScience

> I have found that the liberals are usually the educated ones from the prestigious schools of the nation, whereas the neo-cons are the dumber ones.  The neo-cons have a simplistic understanding: "let's go destroy them all, and then let God sort it out"...whereas liberals give nuanced and balanced (educated) answers.
> [/url]


According to my IQ scores which place me in the the top few percentile of the population, I find that most liberals are only liberal because their Harvard East Coast buddies are liberal. Additionally they live in a world not based on reality. They think in terms only how their liberal ivy league Poly Sci or Soc Professor told them living in the mid west or the South makes you an ignorant red neck, that spanking your kids is bad and that being white is somehow bad and that all the pale skin racist should pay for the sins of their fathers. But only at the expense of those of the average middle class. Oh and liberals like to yell at people that label other people only to label them as uneducated when they disagree with there perverse understanding of how the world should work not how it really works. In conclusion I believe this link says it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAxailJPU5Q

----------


## BuffedGuy

> According to my IQ scores which place me in the the top few percentile of the population, I find that most liberals are only liberal because their Harvard East Coast buddies are liberal. Additionally they live in a world not based on reality. They think in terms only how their liberal ivy league Poly Sci or Soc Professor told them living in the mid west or the South makes you an ignorant red neck, that spanking your kids is bad and that being white is somehow bad and that all the pale skin racist should pay for the sins of their fathers. But only at the expense of those of the average middle class. Oh and liberals like to yell at people that label other people only to label them as uneducated when they disagree with there perverse understanding of how the world should work not how it really works. In conclusion I believe this link says it best.


An ivory-tower education usually makes one more progressive thinking. It expands one's mind, and thereby makes it harder to be bigoted.

Said another way: the "hicks" don't get a good university education, and hence are left to fester in their intolerance, bigotry, and simple mindedness.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Said another way: the "hicks" don't get a good university education, and hence are left to fester in their intolerance, bigotry, and simple mindedness.


Thus who fights the wars.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> Thus who fights the wars.


Edit: never mind.

----------


## TexSavant

> An ivory-tower education usually makes one more progressive thinking. It expands one's mind, and thereby makes it harder to be bigoted.
> 
> Said another way: the "hicks" don't get a good university education, and hence are left to fester in their intolerance, bigotry, and simple mindedness.


I changed significantly in college, though it was only partially due to the education. Most of it was life experience independent of school. I am a thinker & researcher by nature and I'm committed to the idea of always learning. Most of all, I want to get the right answer with as little regard for rigid political philosophy as humanly possible. A natural result of this is that I have NO RESPECT for political correctness, and deem it a debilitating phenomenon which blinds some from the truth, and attempts to stiffle those who can see it from sharing it. I'm liberal on labor, environmental, and drug policy. I'm one of the few people in this state that doesn't think that same-sex marriage will destroy the country. Though I am concerned about the "slippery-slope" (i.e. polygamy, which is antithetical to the entire history of western culture) But when it comes to foreign policy, I do not believe we can afford to roll the dice on liberal idealism. The world requires ORDER. The United States and our allies have a duty to maintain it. Piracy has long been a capital offense. They are a species of terrorist. 

As for Somalia, they have mostly themselves to blame. Somalia is a FAILED, Hell-hole country FIRST and FOREMOST because their political factions would rather kill each other than have civilized elections. They haven't the cultural tool-set to function in modernity. Hence they resemble a medieval feudal state of warlords and their pitifully impoverished servants. The central government fell 19 years ago. Somalia would be better off reverting to a British/Italian colony, seeing as how they can't govern themselves the way a civilized society is expected too. The only real hope they have is to invite UN / western forces in to help maintain order while disarming and perhaps sending their most sophisticated to those Ivory-Tower colleges you talk about so they can learn how to run a proper parliamentary or presidential democracy.
THE CHOICE IS THEIRS, and it is stark. Become a modern society with a successful political model, or wallow in medieval misery.

Think about it : The only truly successful nations on this earth are the ones that have embraced and adopted modernity. It started in the West, but Japan & South Korea are excellent examples of what can be accomplished when people DECIDE they want to have a better country. China is remarkable despite its left-over Maoist instincts. I believe in China. It will be a good thing when they finally come of age, since the world needs TWO Superpowers to regulate this planet.

----------


## Nooomoto

WTF does any of this have to do with pirates?

 : Hijack:

----------


## MuscleScience

> Edit: never mind.


No no no buddy, you cant do that. Come on now you know I can handle it....

Spit it out.... :7up:

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

Pirates these days... Send me after them!!

----------


## sloth9

> I changed significantly in college, though it was only partially due to the education. Most of it was life experience independent of school. I am a thinker & researcher by nature and I'm committed to the idea of always learning. Most of all, I want to get the right answer with as little regard for rigid political philosophy as humanly possible. A natural result of this is that I have NO RESPECT for political correctness, and deem it a debilitating phenomenon which blinds some from the truth, and attempts to stiffle those who can see it from sharing it. I'm liberal on labor, environmental, and drug policy. I'm one of the few people in this state that doesn't think that same-sex marriage will destroy the country. Though I am concerned about the "slippery-slope" (i.e. polygamy, which is antithetical to the entire history of western culture) But when it comes to foreign policy, I do not believe we can afford to roll the dice on liberal idealism. The world requires ORDER. The United States and our allies have a duty to maintain it. Piracy has long been a capital offense. They are a species of terrorist. 
> 
> As for Somalia, they have mostly themselves to blame. Somalia is a FAILED, Hell-hole country FIRST and FOREMOST because their political factions would rather kill each other than have civilized elections. They haven't the cultural tool-set to function in modernity. Hence they resemble a medieval feudal state of warlords and their pitifully impoverished servants. The central government fell 19 years ago. Somalia would be better off reverting to a British/Italian colony, seeing as how they can't govern themselves the way a civilized society is expected too. The only real hope they have is to invite UN / western forces in to help maintain order while disarming and perhaps sending their most sophisticated to those Ivory-Tower colleges you talk about so they can learn how to run a proper parliamentary or presidential democracy.
> THE CHOICE IS THEIRS, and it is stark. Become a modern society with a successful political model, or wallow in medieval misery.
> 
> Think about it : The only truly successful nations on this earth are the ones that have embraced and adopted modernity. It started in the West, but Japan & South Korea are excellent examples of what can be accomplished when people DECIDE they want to have a better country. China is remarkable despite its left-over Maoist instincts. I believe in China. It will be a good thing when they finally come of age, since the world needs TWO Superpowers to regulate this planet.


Although I have 2 associate degrees 1 in automotive and one in medical technology and I have 1 bachelor in mechanical engineering built on from the automotive tech degree, I did not let the liberal "ivy league" try to change me, I actually almost failed my composition 1301 because of my "neo con" views. I had to work harder and make sure my points were rock solid, and my writing had to be A+ work in order to get a B this guy was a jerk from the NY and he hated me, but I pulled a B and later got it an A because I took my case to the president at school. The thing is you guys make a good point, but because I am so strong in my views and I am very opinionated I had to work very hard in school to pull some good grades. I do not feel "neo cons" are dumb we are the ones who fight the wars, and work the jobs that built America. Just like me I have been working in power plants for a couple of years now and were would liberals be without people like me who keep the power coming to your tree hugging lives and houses. For the most part Buffed guys comments make no sense, all the northern states are losing people everyday because of Ivy league liberals taxes, and ideas. People are coming down to the southern states to leave liberals and their rediculous taxes. Anyway I do not feel the need to back up every view I have on a forum we are not all doctors and refined ivy league people. you may pm on any more ideas or thoughts I will not flame you on these topics but I can go head to head with ya, or we can start a new thread on it. 

Now back to the Pirates, Americas policy is no negotiation with terrorist's these pirates are terrorist's and need to die. See I bet Obama will kiss their butts and give them the money, yes the family wants the skipper home, but I bet the Skipper doesnt want to live so bad that America bows down to scum like them. He is ex-military so he has pride, and know the drill. They do need to take these pirates out asap, before more come and then it involves more countries' hostages, if America moves once the pirate reinforcements get there it could put more at risk. I feel Obama is making some serious mistakes here and if the pirates get away with or kill the Skipper -Phillips that will be a huge negative effect to Obama's crew. But it is not a surprising one because this is the stance liberals take, no war and violence and we can talk it out. Look at Carter, he thought he was doing good and the Iranians laughed at him and gave him a cell phone saying we will call you when we make a decision. I bet he still carries that cell phone around thinking it could happen. America wil get tired of Obama and there will be another 12 years at least of Conservatives in office. The problem is that we need a whole new government entity, alot of republicans are corrupt and most of the Dems are too, see republicans can be liberal too.

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

Got the captain back...good news.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

SEALs are so badass

----------


## sloth9

I read that this afternoon, I am so ecstatic, man we didnt have to negotiate and we showed them screw with the USA you die. I just hope we can keep this up in the future. I am just so thankful he didnt have to die to prove a point, you guys just dont know how happy I am to be wrong about this situation, I thought he would be killed or taken to Somalia, I am proud to be wrong. Thankyou God, and to the brave men in the military, and thankyou to the awesome Seals who rescued him. That is our military at its best, I also have to give props to Obama for approving this operation, I do not like him still but he made a good decision, just too bad not sooner. I am very thrilled that he was saved and is on his way home.

----------


## BritishColumbian

> SEALs are so badass


Fvckin eh, They dont mess around!

----------


## Nooomoto

I'm glad...I was getting scared that we were gonna be gay and let the Captain die.

----------


## Tigershark

I loved hearing the Navy Seals took those pricks out. But just watch and see..the Somali government or the Amnisty International douche bags are going to start whinning because the forth one was on board the Navy warship negotiating his release already. Hope they fed those pirates to the sharks.

----------


## Kratos

> Somalia has been through fifteen plus years of anarchy and is in a very dire situation. Western countries have devastated Somalia's fishing industry:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjreRSFNLTI
> 
> And here is a more reliable source about how Somalia's fishing industry is being destroyed:
> 
> http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/il...rag-report.pdf


Do you even read your own links? Or just spout off Amercan and western hate then hope nobody will look? There is a table of contens, it doesn't take long. Here, I'll quote for you the section on unregulated fishing's impact. Hmm, doesn't seem to me like the West are the ones doing the poaching.

4.1.1.4. East Africa
Moving to the Indian Ocean, east African countries appear to suffer from IUU fishing
of many resources including shrimp, but here tuna is of greater importance. Some of
this IUU is from border-hopping activities – such as the reported IUU fishing by
Kenyan shrimp trawlers in Somali waters – and some of it is DWFN activity, such as
the Taiwanese longline activity in Tanzanian waters that in 2001 we estimate to have
been worth about $20m (Annex A). Recent reports is that this has been brought
under control by Tanzanian authorities, through improved licensing schemes, but this
has yet to be validated and there are other aspects of IUU in Tanzanian waters that
would bear scrutiny, such as possible underreporting by DWFN under access
agreements. As with the situation in Sierra Leone, the rampant IUU activity (tuna and
shrimp) in Somali waters is caused by low MCS capability but most importantly weak
regulatory structures and corruption 94brought on by the recent protracted civil war.

As for your other youtube video blaming nuclear waste for destruction of fishing industry and the west making them sick...that asshole isn't exactly telling the whole story either, is he? Just the exciting part he wants you to hear, all while criticizing the news for doing the same.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle418665.ece

"Local warlords, many of them former ministers in Siad Barre’s last government, received large payments from Swiss and Italian firms for access to their respective fiefdoms"

"contracts signed by the two companies and representatives of the then “President” — Ali Mahdi Mohamed — to accept 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million (then about £60 million)."


Why not blame the people who sold the rights to the waters when you can blame the West? There must be a better place for you to go hate America then here.

----------


## RA

> When Iraq invades a country without UN approval, then America uses this as a justification for sanctions and bombing of Iraq. HOW DARE YOU INVADE A COUNTRY, utter the Americans. Yet these same Americans sanction America taking "unilateral action" (i.e. invading countries illegally without UN approval). Hypocrisy at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> I have found that the liberals are usually the educated ones from the prestigious schools of the nation, whereas the neo-cons are the dumber ones.  The neo-cons have a simplistic understanding: "let's go destroy them all, and then let God sort it out"...whereas liberals give nuanced and balanced (educated) answers.


Actually we were backing up a un resolution by invading Iraq..

Yes, the old liberal montra. We are the smart, educated ones and anyone that doesnt think like us must be a idiot. Anymore it cracks me up. Especially when you look at liberal policies that never work for the benefit of the US. Liberals base there success on intentions, not outcome.

----------


## Kratos

http://www.illegal-fishing.info/item...5&approach_id=

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/05/us...gan,%20Timothy

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/iu...rt_summary.pdf

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...una/index.html

The west is stealing their fish, so they have the right to turn to piracy...stupidity.
And there is no evidence of toxic waste reducing fish stocks in Somolia.

----------


## PT

> When Iraq invades a country without UN approval, then America uses this as a justification for sanctions and bombing of Iraq. HOW DARE YOU INVADE A COUNTRY, utter the Americans. Yet these same Americans sanction America taking "unilateral action" (i.e. invading countries illegally without UN approval). Hypocrisy at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> I have found that the liberals are usually the educated ones from the prestigious schools of the nation, whereas the neo-cons are the dumber ones.  The neo-cons have a simplistic understanding: "let's go destroy them all, and then let God sort it out"...whereas liberals give nuanced and balanced (educated) answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia has been through fifteen plus years of anarchy and is in a very dire situation. Western countries have devastated Somalia's fishing industry:
> ...


 
you do realize you are american right? sometimes it seems like you have forgotten that. my advice to you is to move to the middle east or better yet somalia since you seem to be so anti-american and see how those animals treat you

----------


## BgMc31

> Actually we were backing up a un resolution by invading Iraq..
> 
> Yes, the old liberal montra. We are the smart, educated ones and anyone that doesnt think like us must be a idiot. Anymore it cracks me up. Especially when you look at liberal policies that never work for the benefit of the US. Liberals base there success on intentions, not outcome.


Funny how many of your conservatives stoop to liberal bashing. But let's face it, BOTH liberal and conservative policies have FVCKED up this country. When we had a conservative government (most of Bush's tenure) there was bad policy after bad policy. Now with Obama and an all-liberal government there are many policies that could potentially ruin the country. And I'm a huge Obama supporter. I'm just more willing to give the guy more than 90days to make my assessment. 

Also strange how no one pointed out that Obama gave the go ahead for this military action. Conservatives are always whining that he won't protect Americans, his actions here proved otherwise. But now the conservatives are saying he waited about announcing this because he's a political opportunist and that if this would have gone badly, the 'mainstream' media would have pushed it under the rug. So no matter what the man does, he won't garner conservative support, so I admire him for sticking to his guns. Bush did the same thing while he was president. He knew he wouldn't get any support from liberals, but he didn't give a fvck as long as he had support from his conservative supporters.

----------


## RA

I wasnt really liberal bashing...just responding to an earlier post. 

The biggest problem I had with Bush is he wasnt a true conservative. We havent had one since Reagan. 

Im just looking at what Obama is proposing and an totally against most of it. I dont dislike the guy..just his policies. From over the top spending to universal healthcare. Like I pointed out, we have govt run healthcare in the military. I have several family members in the military and their healthcare sucks.

I do like the fact that Obama ordered the seals to go in. He gets props for that for sure. :Wink/Grin: 





> Funny how many of your conservatives stoop to liberal bashing. But let's face it, BOTH liberal and conservative policies have FVCKED up this country. When we had a conservative government (most of Bush's tenure) there was bad policy after bad policy. Now with Obama and an all-liberal government there are many policies that could potentially ruin the country. And I'm a huge Obama supporter. I'm just more willing to give the guy more than 90days to make my assessment. 
> 
> Also strange how no one pointed out that Obama gave the go ahead for this military action. Conservatives are always whining that he won't protect Americans, his actions here proved otherwise. But now the conservatives are saying he waited about announcing this because he's a political opportunist and that if this would have gone badly, the 'mainstream' media would have pushed it under the rug. So no matter what the man does, he won't garner conservative support, so I admire him for sticking to his guns. Bush did the same thing while he was president. He knew he wouldn't get any support from liberals, but he didn't give a fvck as long as he had support from his conservative supporters.

----------


## SMCengineer

> The biggest problem I had with Bush is he wasnt a true conservative. We havent had one since Reagan.


I would argue since Grover Cleveland. Reagan spoke of small government, but expanded it exponentially. Strictly cutting taxes is not conservatism.

----------


## RA

lol, I saw you lurking...I knew you would disagree with something I said :LOL: 

Theres only so much you can do with a dem controlled congress. But he was far far more conservative than Bush Sr and Jr.





> I would argue since Grover Cleveland. Reagan spoke of small government, but expanded it exponentially. Strictly cutting taxes is not conservatism.

----------


## BgMc31

Didn't Reagan raise taxes a number of times?

----------


## RA

No, cut taxes. Thats what sparked the economic boom.





> Didn't Reagan raise taxes a number of times?

----------


## j4ever41

Like I pointed out, we have govt run healthcare in the military. I have several family members in the military and their healthcare sucks.

I can personally back up this statement,it was like the healthcare i received while in the military was running 25 years behind the times and that includes the skill level of the surgeons, i finally had enough of the incompetence and went into a civy hospital with a civy surgeon and it was like night and day.

----------


## RA

Thanks for your input bro. Any responses?





> Like I pointed out, we have govt run healthcare in the military. I have several family members in the military and their healthcare sucks.
> 
> I can personally back up this statement,it was like the healthcare i received while in the military was running 25 years behind the times and that includes the skill level of the surgeons, i finally had enough of the incompetence and went into a civy hospital with a civy surgeon and it was like night and day.

----------


## sloth9

> Like I pointed out, we have govt run healthcare in the military. I have several family members in the military and their healthcare sucks.
> 
> I can personally back up this statement,it was like the healthcare i received while in the military was running 25 years behind the times and that includes the skill level of the surgeons, i finally had enough of the incompetence and went into a civy hospital with a civy surgeon and it was like night and day.


See I always compare the govt. run healthcare to the post office, if you hate your job and make over 40,000 a year then you work for the post office. These people here treat you like crap I actually had to tell a post master to shut up and do his job, because he was whining about manually entering 6 different packages in their computer instead of him scanning some sticker that i could print off my computer, if I wanted to spend money on the stickers and printer ink, I told him your shipping already cost enough as it is why should I pay more so your job is easier? I then told him how much do you make, 18 an hour? Why dont you shut up and do your job, and after that get me your boss. He said I am the post master. I said so you make 25-30 an hour and your whining about using a computer, try working on a fa steam turbine for 12 hours a day, and shut the hell up until you do some real work. well he kicked me out, lol and I went to the main office around here and talked to the post master there, he is the one over all the offices in this city, well needless to say no more lip from capt. jack off. This is the whole reason I dont want the govt. running anything that is going to give me medicine or cut me open.




> Funny how many of your conservatives stoop to liberal bashing. But let's face it, BOTH liberal and conservative policies have FVCKED up this country. When we had a conservative government (most of Bush's tenure) there was bad policy after bad policy. Now with Obama and an all-liberal government there are many policies that could potentially ruin the country. And I'm a huge Obama supporter. I'm just more willing to give the guy more than 90days to make my assessment. 
> 
> Also strange how no one pointed out that Obama gave the go ahead for this military action. Conservatives are always whining that he won't protect Americans, his actions here proved otherwise. But now the conservatives are saying he waited about announcing this because he's a political opportunist and that if this would have gone badly, the 'mainstream' media would have pushed it under the rug. So no matter what the man does, he won't garner conservative support, so I admire him for sticking to his guns. Bush did the same thing while he was president. He knew he wouldn't get any support from liberals, but he didn't give a fvck as long as he had support from his conservative supporters.


Obama gave the go ahead if imminent danger occurred, the seals made sure that it was imminent danger. I am not trying to put a play on words but the military did. Obama should have moved faster, but he could have said no and we would still be following. like I said I dont like Obama I cant give him full credit for the rescue it was the military who played the words and made it happen. To your both parties had screwed up the country that is true, that is why I have been talking about a government change we need new politicians, But for the most part liberal policies have caused people to lose their homes leave their states due to high taxes and now alot of companies are opening up here in Texas to get away from high taxes, and unions. Truthfully liberal policies cannot be changed easily, and for the mostpart cause more grief in the public, than helping the public. Truthfully though you cant change our minds, and we probably cant change your mind either, we can bash Obama all day it is our freedoms that we are exercising, because you anti-american liberals bashed on Bush, Bush Jr., and Reagan, so get over it.

----------


## SMCengineer

> lol, I saw you lurking...I knew you would disagree with something I said
> 
> Theres only so much you can do with a dem controlled congress. But he was far far more conservative than Bush Sr and Jr.


Haha, not so much disagreeing with you just correcting the myth that Reagan was a conservative. Don't get me wrong Reagan had some amazing rhetoric and if he governed half as good as he spoke we'd be better off for it (no dept. of education, etc.). Kinda like Thomas Jefferson who was probably one of the greatest political thinkers and one of the greatest founders. That is until he became the president and than all that changed for the worse.

----------


## Nooomoto

> Also strange how no one pointed out that Obama gave the go ahead for this military action.


Legally, Obama was obligated to "authorize" deadly force. He had no choice. The only time hostages do not take priority over all else in a situation is when there is a nuclear weapon involved. This is the ONLY time that hostages can be legally expendable.

So yeah, he "authorized" the killing of the pirates, but really he had no other choice.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Didn't Reagan raise taxes a number of times?


Several, in fact: 
-TEFRA in 1982 (which included about 200 billion in additional taxes) 
-Deficit Reduction Act 
-a 5 cent increase on gasoline 
-taxes on truckers 
-a huge expansion of Social security (which increased payroll taxes) 
-reduced many loopholes for businesses 
-raised corporate taxes and closed corporate tax loopholes in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 
-plus deficit financed spending (essentially a future tax)

----------


## BgMc31

> See I always compare the govt. run healthcare to the post office, if you hate your job and make over 40,000 a year then you work for the post office. These people here treat you like crap I actually had to tell a post master to shut up and do his job, because he was whining about manually entering 6 different packages in their computer instead of him scanning some sticker that i could print off my computer, if I wanted to spend money on the stickers and printer ink, I told him your shipping already cost enough as it is why should I pay more so your job is easier? I then told him how much do you make, 18 an hour? Why dont you shut up and do your job, and after that get me your boss. He said I am the post master. I said so you make 25-30 an hour and your whining about using a computer, try working on a fa steam turbine for 12 hours a day, and shut the hell up until you do some real work. well he kicked me out, lol and I went to the main office around here and talked to the post master there, he is the one over all the offices in this city, well needless to say no more lip from capt. jack off. This is the whole reason I dont want the govt. running anything that is going to give me medicine or cut me open.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama gave the go ahead if imminent danger occurred, the seals made sure that it was imminent danger. I am not trying to put a play on words but the military did. Obama should have moved faster, but he could have said no and we would still be following. like I said I dont like Obama I cant give him full credit for the rescue it was the military who played the words and made it happen. To your both parties had screwed up the country that is true, that is why I have been talking about a government change we need new politicians, But for the most part liberal policies have caused people to lose their homes leave their states due to high taxes and now alot of companies are opening up here in Texas to get away from high taxes, and unions. Truthfully liberal policies cannot be changed easily, and for the mostpart cause more grief in the public, than helping the public. Truthfully though you cant change our minds, and we probably cant change your mind either, we can bash Obama all day it is our freedoms that we are exercising, because you *anti-american liberals* bashed on Bush, Bush Jr., and Reagan, so get over it.


Utterly ridiculous statement!!! Conservatives always stoop to that bullshit rhetoric. Just because we can not only see America's greatness and also America's shortcomings, we are considered anti-american. I could guarantee that many that you call anti-american have deeper roots in this country than people like you. That statement was definately uncalled for!!

----------


## BgMc31

> Several, in fact: 
> -TEFRA in 1982 (which included about 200 billion in additional taxes) 
> -Deficit Reduction Act 
> -a 5 cent increase on gasoline 
> -taxes on truckers 
> -a huge expansion of Social security (which increased payroll taxes) 
> -reduced many loopholes for businesses 
> -raised corporate taxes and closed corporate tax loopholes in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 
> -plus deficit financed spending (essentially a future tax)


My point exactly, but leave it to conservatives and Ronald Reagan with THE super conservative, role model!! People need to learn their history!

----------


## RA

lol, so a 25% accross the board tax cut doesnt earn him a reputation as a tax cutter hey? 





> My point exactly, but leave it to conservatives and Ronald Reagan with THE super conservative, role model!! People need to learn their history!

----------


## thegodfather

> Actually we were backing up a un resolution by invading Iraq..
> 
> Yes, the old liberal montra. We are the smart, educated ones and anyone that doesnt think like us must be a idiot. Anymore it cracks me up. Especially when you look at liberal policies that never work for the benefit of the US. Liberals base there success on intentions, not outcome.


Why should we let our foreign policy be dictated by a foreign organization? Adhering to UN mandates only serves to further erode the sovereignty of the United States, and quells the voice and desires of the American people to have a say in what their government does. 

A "true" conservative like you are claiming to be, respects constitutional doctrines, and would only advocate going to war on a declaration by Congress, the representatives closest to the people, and most apt to know what they want or what is in their best interests. In this case, you seem to suggest that the UN knew what was best for us, or that one person(POTUS) knew what was best for us, and was allowed to make that decision. In either case I dont see how EITHER justification adheres to conservative ideology.

----------


## SMCengineer

> lol, so a 25% accross the board tax cut doesnt earn him a reputation as a tax cutter hey?


He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.

----------


## sloth9

> Utterly ridiculous statement!!! Conservatives always stoop to that bullshit rhetoric. Just because we can not only see America's greatness and also America's shortcomings, we are considered anti-american. I could guarantee that many that you call anti-american have deeper roots in this country than people like you. That statement was definately uncalled for!!


Get over it, that was not an uncalled for statement, your people are destroying our countries' morals, and basic values, I have no more respect for liberals and it obviously got your blood boiling because part of it is true. Huh? I must have struck a nerve. I have some pretty deep roots in America, Most of my family is from Germany, but the otherside is from the colonial days, I have record's of my family starting in the old west, I have records from family going as far back as the original colonies, you want to talk deep we can talk deep. See you are basically the same bs liberal spouting off the same crap the media preaches. You have the right to sit and bash conservatives, and Bush and any other republican, but when a conservative comes into play and starts calling you out, you get defensive and start crying "you mean conservatives are always picking on us". American Greatness you liberals want america to be a socialist nation and to bring america to its knees. Liberals are a joke and a disappointment to America, but you know what its you right and freedom to vocalize how you feel and what you believe, I agree we all deserve this and would die for that right for either side. Now you need to sit down and shut up with all your conservative bashing unless you can stop getting so defensive when we bash Anti-American liberals. Anyway if you come to this forum you need to leave your feelings at the door, because in a political environment you cant wear your feelings on your shoulder.

----------


## RA

I agree. I wouldnt give two squirts of piss for the un. Just responding the buff when he said we went in without un approval. IMO, we should kick them out of our country. Its just a huge anti-american organization. 





> Why should we let our foreign policy be dictated by a foreign organization? Adhering to UN mandates only serves to further erode the sovereignty of the United States, and quells the voice and desires of the American people to have a say in what their government does. 
> 
> A "true" conservative like you are claiming to be, respects constitutional doctrines, and would only advocate going to war on a declaration by Congress, the representatives closest to the people, and most apt to know what they want or what is in their best interests. In this case, you seem to suggest that the UN knew what was best for us, or that one person(POTUS) knew what was best for us, and was allowed to make that decision. In either case I dont see how EITHER justification adheres to conservative ideology.

----------


## RA

Im going to call  :Bs: ..he didnt raise other taxes enough to make us revenue neutral.




> He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.

----------


## Kratos

> He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.


I'm not sure that's accurate blome. Taxes were less, some new taxes were imposed but not anywhere near as substantial as cuts...the economy grew to more than make up the difference for the cuts.

He did nearly 2x the deficit, but that was almost entirely spending on military build up. Increase in defense spending from 1981 to 1989 ($806 billion) was larger than the entire cumulative increase in the budget deficit ($779 billion) in those years. Weather it was worth the investment or not depends on if you feel the military build up contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If it did, it was worth the cost many times over.

Domestic spending did not increase really at all

He maintained a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation. If the recovery had been driven by a hike in the demand for goods and services rather than by a supply-side effect of greater output, inflation would have risen rather than fallen.

Not saying he's perfect of fits the model of true conserv, but I thought he did alright.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Im going to call ..he didnt raise other taxes enough to make us revenue neutral.


I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant. 

You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending _dramatically_ increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.

Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens. 

When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers. 

This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners. 

In total the $1.48T tax cut that Reagan enacted was offset by the $1.5T in increased taxes, fees, loophole closing, and bracket creep.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Utterly ridiculous statement!!! *Conservatives always stoop to that bullshit rhetoric.* Just because we can not only see America's greatness and also America's shortcomings, we are considered anti-american. I could guarantee that many that you call anti-american have deeper roots in this country than people like you. That statement was definately uncalled for!!


I think the most idiotic thing we as Americans do is label ourselves as polar opposites. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, Right Wing or Left Wing. I mean seriously don't be a sheep to the two party system. Then we go on to blame the other side for the short comings of our inept political quagmire. 

Not Picking on you specifically BgMC31, just this whole idiotic draw a line in the sand mentality we have in our political system. I can say with certainty that
the American people are more diverse than Blue state vs Red state.

----------


## MuscleScience

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

> Oh and speaking of history lessons for all. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw


Well what are we suppose to do? To end this 2 party hissy fit?

----------


## MuscleScience

> Well what are we suppose to do? To end this 2 party hissy fit?


Move back to the Republic to which we were founded. It would be very easy to do since we have a document that mandates how we can do it. (Constitution)

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

> Move back to the Republic to which we were founded. It would be very easy to do since we have a document that mandates how we can do it. (Constitution)


Yeah I know. But realistically speaking. lol
It seems like we are so far into this 2 party system.
Seems like more than half the people I've talked to didn't even know you could vote for a 3rd person during election time.

What needs to be done? On your part, my part, the peoples part? I mean, is this gonna be a grab your guns, revolution time thing or what?


It really just aggravates me. And I guess what frustrates me more is Im such a political newb  :1laugh: . But Im trying here.  :Smilie:  Thanks to some fellow friends around here

----------


## MuscleScience

> Yeah I know. But realistically speaking. lol
> It seems like we are so far into this 2 party system.
> Seems like more than half the people I've talked to didn't even know you could vote for a 3rd person during election time.
> 
> What needs to be done? On your part, my part, the peoples part? I mean, is this gonna be a grab your guns, revolution time thing or what?
> 
> 
> It really just aggravates me. And I guess what frustrates me more is Im such a political newb . But Im trying here.  Thanks to some fellow friends around here


The only way a people can truly be free is to be educated about the happenings of the government that governs over them. I dont mean to be educated by the government itself, because obviously you can see how dangerous that is.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Oh and speaking of history lessons for all. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw


Good video. I particullary dislike when people use the word "democracy" to describe our government and it's so pervasive most think it's what we actually have.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Good video. I particullary dislike when people use the word "democracy" to describe our government and it's so pervasive most think it's what we actually have.


And really its more correct to say that the US Government is really a Federation as appose to a pure republic. Under the US constitution all member States of the union had to have a republic style government. Where as the states early on were most responsible for the running the day to day lives of its citizens far more so than that of the Federal Government. Of course we know over time, against the Founding Fathers intents the Federal government took much more control of these duties than was originally intended.

----------


## RA

Your looking at the numbers wrong. Why do you think more money came into the treasury even though he cut taxes? 





> I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant. 
> 
> You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending _dramatically_ increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.
> 
> Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens. 
> 
> When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers. 
> 
> This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners. 
> ...

----------


## SMCengineer

> Your looking at the numbers wrong. Why do you think more money came into the treasury even though he cut taxes?


I'm not sure what you mean, are you talking about total government revenues or are you referring to the Laffer curve?

----------


## RA

> I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant. 
> 
> *You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b* and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending _dramatically_ increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.
> 
> Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens. 
> 
> When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers. 
> 
> This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners. 
> ...


 
Thats what Im talking about. When you cut taxes that sparks an economic boom your going to have more money come into the treasury..not less.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Thats what Im talking about. When you cut taxes that sparks an economic boom your going to have more money come into the treasury..not less.


That wasn't meant to emphasize total government revenues that was meant to emphasize deficit financed spending which is nothing more than a fututre tax. What you're talking about is the laffer curve. That means, as taxes decrease total government revenue increases in a bell curve which is absolutely true, but I never refuted that.

----------


## RA

Not much you can do when the lib congress is spending to beat hell.




> That wasn't meant to emphasize total government revenues that was meant to emphasize deficit financed spending which is nothing more than a fututre tax. What you're talking about is the laffer curve. That means, as taxes decrease total government revenue increases in a bell curve which is absolutely true, but I never refuted that.

----------


## xlxBigSexyxlx

Now the pirates are after us... Americans 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_af/piracy


Here is part of the article

"A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.
"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.
"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun."

----------


## RA

Arrogant f**kng pricks. Park an aircraft carrier off the coast and any call comes in send a fighter screaming after the pirates ship. See how long they mouth off.





> Now the pirates are after us... Americans 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_af/piracy
> 
> 
> Here is part of the article
> 
> "A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.
> "We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.
> "We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun."

----------


## SMCengineer

Time to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

----------


## j4ever41

> Arrogant f**kng pricks. Park an aircraft carrier off the coast and any call comes in send a fighter screaming after the pirates ship. See how long they mouth off.


x2 on that,

why dont these companies hire small security teams to work detail on these ships? Be alot cheaper than paying out multi millions. So start killing these assholes, stop paying ransom and this shit will go away.

----------


## sloth9

> Oh and speaking of history lessons for all. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw


Man did you watch any of the others, its scary. How can we change America back without wars, and brutal force and keep from having riots and violence. I am very oppinionated but the last thing I want is violence to change our country. This was a great video props to you!

----------


## Kratos

> Time to issue letters of marque and reprisal.


Like hire private pirate bounty hunters?
Damn blome, nobody can say you aren't consistant.

I like the aircraft carrier idea, there could be an f-16 up there ass within 15 min and filling their little pirate ship with 20mm cannon rounds, if pirates should give chase. Only I think Egypt should have to foot some of the bill. They make 4.2 billion on the Suez and they could help protect it by tossing in a few hundred mil.

----------


## Kratos

> Oh and speaking of history lessons for all. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw


Great video, I'm gonna send to my little brother. He's a blome Jr. as far as politics.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Like hire private pirate bounty hunters?
> Damn blome, nobody can say you aren't consistant.
> 
> I like the aircraft carrier idea, there could be an f-16 up there ass within 15 min and filling their little pirate ship with 20mm cannon rounds, if pirates should give chase. Only I think Egypt should have to foot some of the bill. They make 4.2 billion on the Suez and they could help protect it by tossing in a few hundred mil.


Well, not so much private bounty hunters, but authorizing the shipowners themselves to act on behalf of the US to and protect their own ships by arming themselves.

----------


## SMCengineer

> Great video, I'm gonna send to my little brother. He's a blome Jr. as far as politics.


Haha, that's awesome!

----------


## Kratos

> Haha, that's awesome!


He got in an argument with one of his college profs who called America a democracy. There is hope yet for your revoloution. Ron Paul does make me a little nervous because I think he would just end up at odds with the house, creating a stale mate where nothing gets done if he were pres. But this country needs to find a way to balance itself soon.

----------


## Kratos

> Well, not so much private bounty hunters, but authorizing the shipowners themselves to act on behalf of the US to and protect their own ships by arming themselves.


The International Maritime Organization FORBIDS arming the crews of civilian vessels. They are only allowed to use fire hoses to ward off unwanted boarders. Not much good if the lead ship of the pirates has an RPG pointed at them. Anyway the crews are small and they aren't trained for it. I don't think giving a bunch of inexperienced sailors automatic weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammo would be a very good idea, and they'd never be allowd in any international ports.

----------


## SMCengineer

> The International Maritime Organization FORBIDS arming the crews of civilian vessels. They are only allowed to use fire hoses to ward off unwanted boarders. Not much good if the lead ship of the pirates has an RPG pointed at them. Anyway the crews are small and they aren't trained for it. I don't think giving a bunch of inexperienced sailors automatic weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammo would be a very good idea, and they'd never be allowd in any international ports.


I'm sure fighting off armed pirates with a fire hose will do the trick, haha. I see it as no surprise that pirates don't follow the International Maritime Organiization, but than again I guess criminals don't abide by the law.




> He got in an argument with one of his college profs who called America a democracy. There is hope yet for your revoloution. Ron Paul does make me a little nervous because I think he would just end up at odds with the house, creating a stale mate where nothing gets done if he were pres. But this country needs to find a way to balance itself soon.


Nothing wrong with stalemates. The less legislation the better.

----------


## BuffedGuy

Seems like I missed out on all the fun. Sorry guys, I was traveling (and now in my surgery rotation). Interestingly enough, the entire flight was full of American soldiers. Gotta admit: those guys are huge. But anyways, I will try to respond to some of the posts as time allows, God-Willing.

----------


## BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, *PT*.




> you do realize you are american right? sometimes it seems like you have forgotten that. my advice to you is to move to the middle east or better yet somalia since you seem to be so anti-american and *see how those animals treat you*


I am very much American. I am simply strongly opposed to the war-mongering foreign policy, which I believe is 100% un-American. Our Founding Fathers (including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, etc.) founded this country on the principle of non-interventionism. As Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling al.liance's with none." So what I call for is a return to what America was founded upon.

So who then is being anti-American? The one who upholds the beliefs that this country was founded upon, or the one who goes 100% against them?

Lastly, I think you really should reflect on the underlined part above. Are you implying that Middle Easterners and/or Somalians are "animals"? Do you realize how racist and bigoted that is? This is very much like how the whites used to tell blacks in the 1950s: "Stop complaining about America, and go back to Africa and see how those animals treat you."

Seriously bro, think on it. I am not trying to bash you here, but actually trying to get you to think, God-Willing.

With regards to this particular issue of Somalia, I do agree that America had the absolute right to strike back and recover its citizen. No doubt about that. 

More to come, God-Willing.

----------

