United Socialist States of America - USSA

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
I'm not arguing with your point of view, I am trying to understand your statement that all these problems persist and are currently underway. Are you talking about the war in Afghanistan?

Didn't say you were arguing with my point of view and thus no need to bring it up.

Had you read what was said, in line with what others have noted as well when the same was brought up, there'd be understading of what was said when it comes to issues/problems continuing in the U.S as a DIRECT result of it choosing to be hypocritical in claiming it stands for "Freedom" and "Democracy." Focus....as it doesn't take long for anyone to see things as they are when examining the consistent treatment of Native Americans within this country, gentrification, debt slavery, the Hmmong (from the Vietnam War), child soldiers/terrorists sponsored by the U.S in Sudan, the imperialistic policies toward Latin America and a host of other things. All recent and mentioned....thus, why there was no remote need to be talking as if others were thinking about Afghanistan.

Not that difficult to understand.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61439736 said:
No need for excuses, as the same could be said of multiple others who give citation/reference---including people you've agreed with if it supported your viewpoint. Nothing said has been remotely close to a a "dissertation" (which is ironic in light of what was noted to another earlier who noted where things were ignored and it was said that ridicule was not something you appreciated) nor would it mean one can't see basic facts for themselves if being honest with hisotry....be it researching gentrification in the U.S, the ways Native Americans are still treated, the ways the U.S has harmed others THROUGHOUT history (i.e. Hmmong, Latin Americans, etc) or getting basic facts right when it comes to understanding what socialism is and having the definitions used properly. Much of that was often said briefly and you ignored that when it was said. Thus, the ad-hominem about thousands of words is baseless and it has NOTHING to do with whether or addressing the issues. Others have done better..

I've already answered as have others---and if you cannto deal with what is given, you're not concerned with the facts. Period. Deal with issues as they are rather than how you'd like them to be if claiming concern for what really happens in the history of the U.S. It's not as if there's nothing being said plainly. We just had issue in Syria with the U.S getting involved where it should not have been (more at Syria: Orthodox Christians Wary of Their Future in Post-Assad Regime : A Russian Orthodox Church Website ) and it's this kind of junk that gets others so peeved about our country since the U.S. knows absolutely ZILCH about what is going on in Syria, and the situation with all its people, but it can decide that their leader needs to go. So long as the U.S sees itself as the beacon of hope to the rest of the world and considers itself to be "Big Brother" , you'll always see mess happen where the U.S gets involved in countries/wars that it has no buisness being involved in since they don't even have all the facts---and sometimes, make up their own facts if they want to get involved for the sake of their own interests. The Monroe Doctrine was developed to express that the U.S was to be involved policing the Nothern/Southern Hemisphere and seeing it as something within its realm of protection from Europe...and the Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. But that later evolved into the U.S feeling the need to police other areas on their side of the world and it has led to a world of mess..

With the rise of the "War on Terror", expansion of "protection" ideology has spread on a more global scale...and it is a pity.

Will be praying for the believers there in Syria who don't know what will happen to them...and praying that the Lord will give them wisdom on knowing what to do within the situation. But as it concerns the U.S, it seems it'll always do what it does...even in corruption. Even when they go in/take out those deemed to be "terrorists", many times people are unaware of how the U.S got involved for the sake of causing a problem and often threw out the label while concealing other facts that could implicate them as wel.

In example, there is the reality that many times, what others deem "terrorist" acts is simply acts of state-sponsored terrorism that the U.S. Government has sanctioned in the attempt to develop a a solution.

Terrorism is truly a means to an end.

Talked with mom about this once, as she was born/raised in Panama as were my other relatives from her side. My Great-Grandfather (who's 102yrs old) moved there from Barbados during the building of the Panama Canal to find work..and he/the family saw many wild things. My mom and our relatives have often discussed some of what went down in her homeland and what much of her side of the family often noted when it came to things we in the U.S have done around the world that are indeed "terroristic"...........long before the Al-Queda terrorists of 9/11 ever showed up....and yet, those affected negatively by the U.S often didn't have their own story told.

One documentary series that covers the issue:

The Panama Deception

Also, for more info from others who are concerned with the facts:

---"U.S. Terrorism in Vietnam" ( )

--United States and state terrorism" ( )

Zeitgeist - Part 3: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain

Zeitgeist: The Movie (HD) Part III - Men Behind the Curtain

ZEITGEIST-The U.S. Government IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOL!

There's a documentary I saw years ago, concerning many of the things that may've gone down behind the scenes in the name of the American Dream and denouncing terrorism even when it seems that there were times we in the U.S have been willing to tolerate it.

There've been many ways that terrorism/suppression has often gone done with the support of the U.S (if others felt it would benefit us) and somehow it became a "right"...for we show ourselves hypocritical discussing our quest for a "war on terrorism" when we've already supported known terrorists and states for terrorism when it was seen as something we felt was necessary. Many times, the U.S. has done things such as "FALSE FLAGS" where they will either ALLOW an enemy to attack blantantly or attack themselves...and then blame it on the enemy so they can gain support from the public for enacting another policy that would benefit others.

For a good review, one can investigate the work entitled "The War On Terror: An Exercise in Hypocrisy" . Also, as it concerns things one can investigate for themselves:

--"US-Funded Somalia Using Child Soldiers" (( )

--"Global Connections . U.S. Foreign Policy | PBS" ( )

--"Western support for terrorism Global Issues" ( )

--"Child Soldiers in Somalia Fighting US War on Terror" ( )

--"The New Children of War << Peter W. Singer , PhD* ( )

--"UN condemns Somalia's use of child soldiers, but US aid still .flows." ( )

--"[PDF] State-Supported Terrorism and the U.S. Courts: Some Foreign Policy" ( )

--The United States is a Leading Terrorist StateNoam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian ( )

What exactly are we currently doing in Syria that you don't agree with?

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Git said:
Why are people constantly mixing up hardcore communism with socialism?

.

A lot of things get mixed up sadly....

wing2000 · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
Yes, I do want private companies involved in medical care, but I don't like the individual mandate, nor do I like Obamacare in general, and 60% of Americans agree with me.

...oh, so you "don't like it". Well, I don't like paying for people's choice not to have health insurance.

Now that we got our dislikes out of the way, can you explain how the mandate specifically will lead to:

1. All income will be taxed at 95%. You won't need much, because government will be providing all your basic needs.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Git said:
Mitt Romney is not a sinister politician? Everything he does is because either 1. He gets profits from it, 2. His higher socioeconomic class gets profits from it and 3. Some companies which are owned by some people with whom he is in close contact get profits from it.

Pretty much, for those who've taken extensive time to document how much he's very much symbolic of the concept "rule by the rich" and has never shown concern for others who are truly poor. People that celebrate him while denouncing the current President often seem very clueless (IMHO ) as to how things really are and actions speak louder than words.

Seeing the people he already uses as advisors (including people from companies advocating corporatism that've harmed others and often disconnected from the poor or others in differing camps, including Planned Parenthood, when it comes to abortion under certain cases), I'd say that it's rather easy to see how the man is just as much an issue as what many find to be present in the current president. He has already said he's "not concerned about the very poor," citing the social safety net in place for that segment of the populace and adding that he's focused on the middle class. As the very poor are a big deal and the net's broken at points, that's HUGE. And that's something I take seriously...

He has already been called out multiple times on commentary/policies he has supported that do not really favor black communities---and I'm not surprised as to why in light of his faith. Black Republicans, regardless of what Romney says, are right (IMHO) to note that Romney's lack of interest in the black community is shameful....just as much as with President Obama's actions.

His stances toward Hispanics also don't seem favorale, IMHO, as it concerns immigration---ironic, IMHO, in light of his background

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

wing2000 said:
...oh, so you "don't like it". Well, I don't like paying for people's choice not to have health insurance.

Now that we got our dislikes out of the way, can you explain how the mandate specifically will lead to:

1. All income will be taxed at 95%. You won't need much, because government will be providing all your basic needs.

Already explained! This was a supposition of the original thought experiment. I never claimed it as fact. Nice try, though!

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61439854 said:
Pretty much, for those who've taken extensive time to document how much he's very much symbolic of the concept "rule by the rich" and has never shown concern for others who are truly poor.

So you don't think his $4M donation to charities (including his church) last year count for much?

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
So you don't think his $4M donation to charities (including his church) last year count for much?

There's a reason many have wisely noted that Romney 2011 and 2010 tax returns are tailored for public consumption. Unless we see 2009 or earlier, it's a meaningless release. Romney had to make 2011 Taxes conform to statements about never paying less that 13%. Interestingly, win or lose the election, Mitt can legally file an Amended Return, and get a full refund from the IRS for those deductions he chose not to take the first time around. And as much of the money went to the Mormon church, that's also a concern...

As another wisely noted:

Mitt did not apply all his deductions against his taxes,simply to keep his effective tax rate above 14%. While I commend him for contributing more to the health of our government,it seems odd for a man who recently said if he paid more than he had to in taxes “he would not be fit to be president”.

As noted in the WSJ, (the Romney’s)”$4 million donation proved to be so large that it threatened to drive their effective tax rate to near 10%. That would have exacerbated a critique from Democrats that says America’s wealthiest don’t pay their “fair” share.” Note that he can always go back after the election and amend his taxes to reclaim those

It’s worth noting,that most of Mr. Romney’s charitable giving goes to the Mormon Church,which is why he doesn’t make a bigger deal about his generosity. The reason? Over the past 27 years or so the Mormon church has spent about $327M in charitable donations. That comes out to about $12M a year. Compare that to the estimated $1 Billion the Mormon Church spent on building a shopping mall in Salt Lake City. One which includes establishments that server alcohol,which Mormons are forbidden to consume.
So is Mitt not discussing his charitable donations because he’s modest,or he doesn’t want to discuss where that money really goes?

Moreover, it is moot seeing donations to charity when there has already been made notice from his lips that he's not really concerned for the poor and has actions which harm the poor when it comes to seeking to slash government programs (including those working with non-profits/faith-based organizations) geared to helping the impoverished.....be it single mothers, children or the elderly. Plenty in Feudalism often gave to the poor but were not concerned with really seeking to aid them overall. With Romney, The largest portion of that 'donation' went to his church.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61440133 said:
There's a reason many have wisely noted that Romney 2011 and 2010 tax returns are tailored for public consumption. Unless we see 2009 or earlier, it's a meaningless release. Romney had to make 2011 Taxes conform to statements about never paying less that 13%. Interestingly, win or lose the election, Mitt can legally file an Amended Return, and get a full refund from the IRS for those deductions he chose not to take the first time around. And as much of the money went to the Mormon church, that's also a concern...

As another wisely noted:

Mitt did not apply all his deductions against his taxes,simply to keep his effective tax rate above 14%. While I commend him for contributing more to the health of our government,it seems odd for a man who recently said if he paid more than he had to in taxes he would not be fit to be president.

As noted in the WSJ, (the Romneys)$4 million donation proved to be so large that it threatened to drive their effective tax rate to near 10%. That would have exacerbated a critique from Democrats that says Americas wealthiest dont pay their fair share. Note that he can always go back after the election and amend his taxes to reclaim those

Its worth noting,that most of Mr. Romneys charitable giving goes to the Mormon Church,which is why he doesnt make a bigger deal about his generosity. The reason? Over the past 27 years or so the Mormon church has spent about $327M in charitable donations. That comes out to about $12M a year. Compare that to the estimated $1 Billion the Mormon Church spent on building a shopping mall in Salt Lake City. One which includes establishments that server alcohol,which Mormons are forbidden to consume.
So is Mitt not discussing his charitable donations because hes modest,or he doesnt want to discuss where that money really goes?

Moreover, it is moot seeing donations to charity when there has already been made notice from his lips that he's not really concerned for the poor and has actions which harm the poor when it comes to seeking to slash government programs (including those working with non-profits/faith-based organizations) geared to helping the impoverished.....be it single mothers, children or the elderly. Plenty in Feudalism often gave to the poor but were not concerned with really seeking to aid them overall. With Romney, The largest portion of that 'donation' went to his church.

Got anything to back up your soft peddled allegation of income tax manipulation by Romney, or are you just floating this?

So what is wrong with Romney giving money to the church of his faith?

What faith based organizational programs are you talking about that Romney wants to cut? How would he do that?

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
What exactly are we currently doing in Syria that you don't agree with?

As said before, getting involved in a country where the full dynamics of group interaction are not well understood...and in the process, harming others. One of the under-examined subplots of the ongoing violence in Syria has been the response by and toward Syrian Christians. Christians comprise around 10 percent of the Syrian population and have generally been left alone under President Assad's secular regime. For that reason, the Russian Orthodox Church has opposed efforts to intervene and expel Assad from power, despite Assad's numerous atrocities against civilian populations ...

Splintered Syria: Pro-Assad Christians in rebel firing line

(LRC) - Christians are being systematically targeted for genocide in Syria according to Vatican and other sources with contacts on the ground among the besieged Christian community. According to reports by the Vatican's Fides News Agency collected by the Centre for the Study of Interventionism, the US-backed Free Syrian Army rebels and ever more radical spin-off factions are sacking Christian churches, shooting Christians dead in the street, broadcasting ultimatums that all Christians must be cleansed from the rebel-held villages, and even shooting priests.

French Bishop Philip Tournyol Clos, a Greek-Catholic Melkite Archimandrite, traveled through Syria and, according to the Holy See's press agency, reported back that Western press was spreading disinformation about the real nature of the uprising in Syria and thereby prolonging and deepening the conflict. Reported Bishop Clos:

In Homs, "opposition forces have occupied two areas, Diwan Al Bustan and Hamidieh, where there are all the churches and bishoprics. The picture for us is utter desolation: the church of Mar Elian is half destroyed and that of Our Lady of Peace is still occupied by the rebels. Christian homes are severely damaged due to the fighting and completely emptied of their inhabitants, who fled without taking anything. The area of Hamidieh is still shelter to armed groups independent of each other, heavily armed and bankrolled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. All Christians (138,000) have fled to Damascus and Lebanon, while others took refuge in the surrounding countryside. A priest was killed and another was wounded by three bullets."

Mother Agnes Miriam of the Cross, Mother Superior of the Monastery of St. James at Qara in the Diocese of Homs, was interviewed (MP3) on Irish Radio this week where she confirmed that the opposition rebels in Syria were terrorizing Syria's Christian community.

Asked whether it was the Free Syrian Army that was telling Christians to get out, Mother Agnes Miriam answered "Yes...it was commander on the ground Abdel Salam Harba who decided that there was to be no more negotiations with Christians." She said that Christians are being targeted because they are refusing to back the rebels and instead prefer to keep out of either side of the conflict. She said that the rebels are specifically targeting government troops in Christian areas and are taking Christians as human shields.

.....read full story here

The United States federal government, seated in Washington D.C., is backing Syrian rebels who are systematically executing (murdering) Christians in the streets, in their homes, and in their churches. They are killing priests and nuns, women and children, and all funded with American tax dollars. What have we heard from the mainstream news media in the United States on this issue? Silence...

Of course, the U.S is politically involved for more reasons than trying to help out Syria since the nation has often been a key point of control/commerce in differing ways for decades....and destabilizing things opens up the door for a lot of trouble. More shared here/at the following for reference:

Syrian Conflict a Proxy War, Driven by Internal Struggle

Jeffwhosoever said:
Got anything to back up your soft peddled allegation of income tax manipulation by Romney, or are you just floating this?

Nothing soft peddled about it, seeing where the man has already noted he wasn't concerned about the poor and seeing how logic plays out with the ways taxes are used. Giving in charity donations isn't the same as saying one's concerned about the poor as a whole...and it was already noted earlier where Romney often did things that harmed the poor via his buisnesess./corporatism. Already shared such earlier as did many others, so not really concerned with going back to get anything when it's already assumed without qualification that Romeny's the answer to helping the U.S and can do no "wrong."

So what is wrong with Romney giving money to the church of his faith?

No one said anything was wrong with that. What was said was that it's exaggeration to claim that it has anything to do with showing a record of being concerned for the poor as a whole or that he has never had policies harming the poor in other parts of the U.S

What faith based organizational programs are you talking about that Romney wants to cut? How would he do that

Didn't say Romeny wanted faith-based organizations cut. What was said was that the funding to government programs includes faith based organizations and cutting off aid to them is the focus.

As said best elsewhere:

Ryan has said local charities and churches should provide for needy communities instead of the federal government. But there is a flaw this plan: churches and faith-based charities, which offer roughly $50 billion worth of services a year to the poor and needy, often depend on government funds to operate. Catholic Charities, for example, is one of the largest charities in America, and gets over half of its operating budget from federal funds.

Yet the Romney/Ryan ticket appears undeterred by this reality. In fact, if Romney followed through on Ryan’s proposed budget and cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $169 billion, every single church in America would have to come up with an additional $50,000 simply to feed those in need. For many cash-strapped churches, this is an impossible task.

What’s more, the Romney/Ryan budget would likely overburden soup kitchens and food programs by cutting welfare, food stamps and agriculture subsidies by two trillion dollars over the next ten years. These cuts would leave millions of Americans – especially those most in need of assistance – without the means to feed and clothe themselves, and already-overburdened faith-based charities unable to provide for them.

So if congregations and charities can’t provide the care required and Ryan’s government refuses to help, who exactly is the “strong” tasked with stepping in for the “weak”? Ryan isn’t saying.

Ryan and other conservative commentators like Gov. Mike Huckabee talk a lot about how they believe faith is under attack in America. But if Ryan truly believes a society is best judged by “how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves,” then perhaps he should take a second look at how his own policy proposals negatively affect those doing the hard work of caring for the poor — churches and faith-based charities.

The charity functions for many mainline churches are like small boutique shops in a mall. They aren’t meant to be the main support for the indigent. It is more of a hobby and if they were then required to be a main support system many of these hobbyist helpers will stop helping.

So when the religious charity model collapses upon itself then what?

People will be hurt or worse could die.

The conservative model is if you cut the money it will force people to get off the dole but many people need help through no fault of their own so they can’t just “get a job” especially if the poverty is structural (there are just no jobs). A city will have many options but the largest segment of poor is outside the cities which also then has fewer resources outside the government.

Forcing all of the social safety net on the churches doesn’t wish away the poor as Paul Ryan and those like him believe. And if he does get his plan put into action you can bet the money cut in the budget will not go to the people who could actually use it to survive

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

David Brider said:
Having some of form of universal and/or single payer healthcare doesn't make a country's government socialist - for example, the NHS may have started under a Labour government (i.e. UK left wing), but a.) not all that is left-wing is socialist, and b.) it's survived through a variety of governments of all political stripes because nobody would be fool enough to abolish it entirely (Cameron's plans may see it altered beyond recognition, but that's likely to damage him at the voting booths come 2015).

And the horror stories you hear are at worst the exception rather than the norm (and at best likely the result of either fabrication or exaggeration). Are there waits? Yes, of course. Are they as bad as people make out? No, not in my experience. Indeed, simply to see a GP is the simplest thing imaginable - ring up the surgery and you can likely be booked in for an emergency appointment the next day. Anything more urgent can be seen to at the local A&E (for which, depending on how busy it is, there may be a wait of up to a few hours).

A couple of anecdotes. A few years ago, I was watching Michael Moore's film Sicko. One of the examples he presents is of a man who had lost the tops of two of his fingers (in, IIRC, an industrial accident). Because of the costs involved (in the thousands of dollars) he could only afford to have one finger replaced. At around the same time, my nephew had an accident in his parents' garden, in which he sliced the top of one of his fingers off. They took him down to A&E, and it was sewn back on. No cost.

Second anecdote. NHS prescription charges are not desperately expensive - at the moment, £7:65. That's for whatever amount of pills the GP prescribes for you, of whatever nature. Say, a 28-day course of antibiotics. £7:65. That's (checks) $12:43 at the current exchange rate.

But here's the thing - a large amount of people are exempt from paying for their prescriptions at all. This group includes people who: are 60 or over; are under 16; are 16 - 18 and in full-time education; are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have a valid maternity exemption certificate; have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical exemption certificate; have a continuing physical disability that prevents them from going out without help from another person and have a valid MedEx; hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription is for their accepted disability; are an NHS inpatient.

I'm in that group, as it happens - I'm diabetic, so the pills I take for my diabetes, as well as my other medication (for depression) I can get from the chemists without paying a penny over the counter.

I like to think, though, that even if I weren't, I'd still thank God that we have such a great system in this country. I mean, you say you hear horror stories, but that's nothing to the horror stories we hear over here about people in America being unable to afford - or at least having to pay for - healthcare that seems to us to be standard, basic, something that should be available for everyone freely or cheaply.
.

Thanks for sharing as you did, as it does give much to think on

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61440360 said:
As said before, getting involved in a country where the full dynamics of group interaction are not well understood...and in the process, harming others. One of the under-examined subplots of the ongoing violence in Syria has been the response by and toward Syrian Christians. Christians comprise around 10 percent of the Syrian population and have generally been left alone under President Assad's secular regime. For that reason, the Russian Orthodox Church has opposed efforts to intervene and expel Assad from power, despite Assad's numerous atrocities against civilian populations ...

Nothing soft peddled about it, seeing where the man has already noted he wasn't concerned about the poor and seeing how logic plays out with the ways taxes are used. Giving in charity donations isn't the same as saying one's concerned about the poor as a whole...and it was already noted earlier where Romney often did things that harmed the poor via his buisnesess./corporatism. Already shared such earlier as did many others, so not really concerned with going back to get anything when it's already assumed without qualification that Romeny's the answer to helping the U.S and can do no "wrong."
No one said anything was wrong with that. What was said was that it's exaggeration to claim that it has anything to do with showing a record of being concerned for the poor as a whole or that he has never had policies harming the poor in other parts of the U.S Didn't say Romeny wanted faith-based organizations cut. What was said was that the funding to government programs includes faith based organizations and cutting off aid to them is the focus.

The situation in Syria, if your account is accurate, doesn't sound good. If your account is accurate, you have to wonder, why UN peacekeepers haven't already been deployed. I would think that would be the best solution, and if not, then NATO or other US allies in the region should join us in a coalition force to stop it.

On the Paul Ryan speech in the video clip you have above, first point is that he is running for VP, not President, and we all know VPs don't have a lot of influence in normal day to day operations. Second point is that Paul is right - the growth in spending to sustain huge increases in food stamps, welfare, etc. cannot be sustained. I'm not sure he has the right solutions, but perhaps he does, but I've not heard a credible alternative other than keep spending like Obama at $1.25T/year. Whatever Obama has been doing isn't working. I just finished reading that unemployment is up or not improved in almost every battleground state.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
The situation in Syria, if your account is accurate, doesn't sound good. If your account is accurate, you have to wonder, why UN peacekeepers haven't already been deployed. I would think that would be the best solution, and if not, then NATO or other US allies in the region should join us in a coalition force to stop it.

The UN has had it before where it withdrew support from other nations in crisis, The Rhwanda genocide is one infamous example of that. Not surprised to see where UN Peacekeepers haven't been deployed since many have been wondering which side is really the one needing to have help and how giving help would lead to a world of other problems.

On the Paul Ryan speech in the video clip you have above, first point is that he is running for VP, not President, and we all know VPs don't have a lot of influence in normal day to day operations.

Wouldn't be an issue really since the reality is that VPs represent the President who chose them to run alongside them and support...with many views of VPs being advocated by the President throughout history (as well as being considered as being set in place should the president die or be removed for any number of reasons).

Second point is that Paul is right - the growth in spending to sustain huge increases in food stamps, welfare, etc. cannot be sustained. I'm not sure he has the right solutions, but perhaps he does, but I've not heard a credible alternative other than keep spending like Obama at $1.25T/year. Whatever Obama has been doing isn't working. I just finished reading that unemployment is up or not improved in almost every battleground state.

I think where many have noted issues is that spending is going to happen regardless---and needs to happen. What must be considered is what spending is done on and how to work smart rather than work hard. The issue is at the center of the debates over social security currently and the many ways others are desiring to reform it at some point so that it can be sustainable....and as has happened before, many a president has said that they'd change the system in light of what a current one did and yet they either did more of the same or did policies that made more problems. Both Romeny and Obama already have plans that are virutallly identical on multiple points and it's a very tricky issue.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

What role should the USA play in Syria, in your opinion?

I do hope Ryan has some impact on Romney, but we'll just have to see. However, the boss is the boss. We do need to figure a way out of this mess, not sweep it under a rug and leave the tough part for the next guy (kick the can down the road, as they say).

Work smart, not hard. I've heard that for 30 years, and while it is good advice, it is often really saying "let someone else do the heavy lifting/hard work".

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
What role should the USA play in Syria, in your opinion?

Personally, although I do think forms of aid should be given, there needs to be identification of who those groups are and resources given thru charities in the form of food/water and drinks to others who are truly being harmed

Sanctions against the nation as it concerns commerce and buisness make a difference....and I'm glad that others have sought to do so during this Presidential term (and election year ). [FONT=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]Washington has imposed asset freezes against more than 100 members of the Syrian government and barred U.S. firms from doing business with them, and slapped sanctions against the Syrian state oil firm Sytrol last month (more here). [/FONT]Almost all governments control the export of goods for different reasons, depending on the nature and destinations of the proposed exports. The export of strategic goods and technologies are controlled for various reasons including:

concerns about a country's internal repression of its citizens, regional instability and other human rights violations
concerns about the development of weapons of mass destruction
foreign policy and international treaty commitments, such as the imposition of European Union or United Nations trade sanctions or arms embargoes
concerns for the national and collective security of the UK and its allies

Trade restrictions (which include an arms embargo) are in force on Syria...and should continue so long as violence occurs toward any group in violation of human rights. If there's going to be a change, it must be done with the stance made plain that the U.S isn't going to support change involving destruction of lives while also doing buisness. It's about forcing others to play fair...

The biggest thing I think the U.S needs to do is to get out of the nation and stop giving aid to rebels who have shown no concern for the lives of others when it comes to violating human rights...and I also think that so long as there's discrimination against certain groups who are not against Assad, the U.S needs to cease giving aid to them since it messes up the issue further. The long term ramifications of giving aid to the rebels also gives more issues that can be damaging as well. In example, the U.S. as the closest ally of Israel is directly blamed by many Arabs for Israel's actions. Thus it's open to attacks by proxy. Libya itself is not in close proximity to Israel and is thus not directly effected by the Palestine struggle. Further there is not a huge history of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. On the other hand, Syria is the complete opposite since it's close to Israel, acutely aware of the Palestine struggle and thus open to more fundamentalist actions and rhetoric. To destabilize an already somewhat stable neutral friendly regime goes only so far if you don't consider "We replace it with a what?"...and when considering the ways that the Syrian rebels themselves are already harming innocent people, something needs to give.

The US trained and armed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and that is the modal in which we now judge arming Arabs in certain nations. Thus Syria being close to Israel and with a large potential fundamentalist Islamic population IS A BIG deal when it comes to giving any form of US heavy weapons or direct military involvement since it is essentially aiding people who have harmed others as well. Seeing the history of the U.S in supplying Israel against their enemies (as said elsewhere in NY Times (..and in light of how President Barack Obama signed legislation to bolster U.S. military cooperation with Israel and highlighted release of $70 million for the Jewish state's missile defense...and he consistently spoken out against the enemies of Israel when it comes to harrassing them (more here and here), even though he's also for advocating peaceful resolutions (As it concerns his views on Palestine, Arabs and Israel..here here and here), it's no surprise to see the ways that the U.S is not quick to give aid to Syria. I respect what President Obama is seeking to do with having non-violent intervention rather than jumping head on into a civil war without addressing a host of other factors....although I do see the validity in others pointing out where some of the same groups aid is being given to are exactly the same as others who did the U.S harm. For more:

Reality Check: One on One with President Obama, Why Is The U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria?

Ben Swann interviews President Obama (NDAA, Kill List, Syria,

The Salafi Jihadists, who harmed Christians not getting involved in the revolts, are playing a HUGE role in Syria and it simply ends the possibility of garnering public support for military intervention in light of many questionable dynamics. Numerous videos show massive numbers of Salafi Jihadists executing war crime after war crime and taking to the streets ...and many radical Fundamentalist groups in Syria have been given free reign and have the potential to do A LOT OF damage if empowered

Of course, İpek Yezdani, writing in the Turkish Hürriyet Daily News concedes, that Syrian rebels are too fragmented and unruly to really do anything lasting in terms of true revolution. Her article is subtitled, "The opposition militants battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are a fragmented rabble that refuses to follow orders, according to activists." As she said:

There are more than 30 different rebel groups, including the most prominent rebel group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), fighting in Syria, according to officials from the most prominent Syrian opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC).

The Jihadists, Islamists, pro-al-Qaida and secular groups that are not under the control of the FSA and which are fighting in different areas of Syria against the Syrian regime forces prove how fragmented and disorganized the Syrian rebel groups were in Syria.

She reports that an SNC member said mainly Chechens, Libyans and a few Afghans were fighting on the fronts in Syria. Most of them fight in Syria to be martyrs, ( here )..and to see the full range of groups involved:

The-Different-Islamic-Jihadist-Groups-That-Make-Up-The-Syria-Rebels.png

Gxg (G²) · Sep 23, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
I do hope Ryan has some impact on Romney, but we'll just have to see. However, the boss is the boss.

Judging from what Romney has already advocated, they're essentially the same in their views--and as said before, Ryan does what's in line with Romeny for the most part. Including his views on the poor. As said before, seeing the people he already uses as advisors (including people from companies advocating corporatism that've harmed others and often disconnected from the poor or others in differing camps, including Planned Parenthood, when it comes to abortion under certain cases), I'd say that it's rather easy to see how Romney is just as much an issue as what many find to be present in the current president..especially in light of how he has already said he's "not concerned about the very poor," citing the social safety net in place for that segment of the populace and adding that he's focused on the middle class. As the very poor are a big deal and the net's broken at points, that's HUGE. And that's something I take seriously. He has already been called out multiple times on commentary/policies he has supported that do not really favor black communities---and I'm not surprised as to why in light of his faith. Black Republicans, regardless of what Romney says, are right (IMHO) to note that Romney's lack of interest in the black community is shameful....just as much as with President Obama's actions.

We do need to figure a way out of this mess, not sweep it under a rug and leave the tough part for the next guy (kick the can down the road, as they say).

I think people need to realize that much of the mess was never going to go away in 4 yrs alone and looking to one man to fix an issue that was decades (if not longer) in the making would be to keep oneself from being able to deal with the mess. So many people have a "FIX IT NOW!!!" mentality and then blame people for not getting it fixed quick enough and yet they don't take into account where the people are apart of that issue....especially as it concerns the consumeristic culture we live in and how much debt has been attributed to just that.

Work smart, not hard. I've heard that for 30 years, and while it is good advice, it is often really saying "let someone else do the heavy lifting/hard work"

In the times we live in, everyone is going to have to do heavy lifting/hard work.....but in doing so with wisdom, one will be working smart rather than hard (i.e. making things way more difficult than they need to be). For other economies that have thrived alongside groups, I have to often keep this in mind.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61441646 said:
Personally, although I do think forms of aid should be given, there needs to be identification of who those groups are and resources given thru charities in the form of food/water and drinks to others who are truly being harmed

Sanctions against the nation as it concerns commerce and buisness make a difference....and I'm glad that others have sought to do so during this Presidential election. [FONT=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]Washington has imposed asset freezes against more than 100 members of the Syrian government and barred U.S. firms from doing business with them, and slapped sanctions against the Syrian state oil firm Sytrol last month (more here). [/FONT]Almost all governments control the export of goods for different reasons, depending on the nature and destinations of the proposed exports. The export of strategic goods and technologies are controlled for various reasons including:

concerns about a country's internal repression of its citizens, regional instability and other human rights violations

concerns about the development of weapons of mass destruction

foreign policy and international treaty commitments, such as the imposition of European Union or United Nations trade sanctions or arms embargoes

concerns for the national and collective security of the UK and its allies

Trade restrictions (which include an arms embargo) are in force on Syria...and should continue so long as violence occurs toward any group in violation of human rights. If there's going to be a change, it must be done with the stance made plain that the U.S isn't going to support change involving destruction of lives while also doing buisness. It's about forcing others to play fair...

The biggest thing I think the U.S needs to do is to get out of the nation and stop giving aid to rebels who have shown no concern for the lives of others when it comes to violating human rights...and I also think that so long as there's discrimination against certain groups who are not against Assad, the U.S needs to cease giving aid to them since it messes up the issue further. The long term ramifications of giving aid to the rebels also gives more issues that can be damaging as well. In example, the U.S. as the closest ally of Israel is directly blamed by many Arabs for Israel's actions. Thus it's open to attacks by proxy. Libya itself is not in close proximity to Israel and is thus not directly effected by the Palestine struggle. Further there is not a huge history of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. On the other hand, Syria is the complete opposite since it's close to Israel, acutely aware of the Palestine struggle and thus open to more fundamentalist actions and rhetoric. To destabilize an already somewhat stable neutral friendly regime goes only so far if you don't consider "We replace it with a what?"...and when considering the ways that the Syrian rebels themselves are already harming innocent people, something needs to give.

The US trained and armed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and that is the modal in which we now judge arming Arabs in certain nations. Thus Syria being close to Israel and with a large potential fundamentalist Islamic population IS A BIG deal when it comes to giving any form of US heavy weapons or direct military involvement since it is essentially aiding people who have harmed others as well. The Salafi Jihadists, who harmed Christians not getting involved in the revolts, are playing a HUGE role in Syria and it simply ends the possibility of garnering public support for military intervention. Numerous videos show massive numbers of Salafi Jihadists executing war crime after war crime and taking to the streets ...and many radical Fundamentalist groups in Syria have been given free reign and have the potential to do A LOT OF damage if empowered

Of course, İpek Yezdani, writing in the Turkish Hürriyet Daily News concedes, that Syrian rebels are too fragmented and unruly to really do anything lasting in terms of true revolution. Her article is subtitled, "The opposition militants battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are a fragmented rabble that refuses to follow orders, according to activists." As she said:

There are more than 30 different rebel groups, including the most prominent rebel group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), fighting in Syria, according to officials from the most prominent Syrian opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC).

The Jihadists, Islamists, pro-al-Qaida and secular groups that are not under the control of the FSA and which are fighting in different areas of Syria against the Syrian regime forces prove how
fragmented and disorganized the Syrian rebel groups were in Syria.

She reports that an SNC member said mainly Chechens, Libyans and a few Afghans were fighting on the fronts in Syria. Most of them fight in Syria to be martyrs, ( here )..and to see the full range of groups involved:

Very informative. Thank you.

This is probably worth a thread in International politics. You don't happen to be a Professor? You are certainly very thorough in your posts!

Genersis · Sep 23, 2012

*Sigh*
This thread is depressing...

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);61441671 said:
Judging from what Romney has already advocated, they're essentially the same in their views--and as said before, Ryan does what's in line with Romeny for the most part. Including his views on the poor.
I think people need to realize that much of the mess was never going to go away in 4 yrs alone and looking to one man to fix an issue that was decades (if not longer) in the making would be to keep oneself from being able to deal with the mess. So many people have a "FIX IT NOW!!!" mentality and then blame people for not getting it fixed quick enough and yet they don't take into account where the people are apart of that issue....especially as it concerns the consumeristic culture we live in and how much debt has been attributed to just that.
In the times we live in, everyone is going to have to do heavy lifting/hard work.....but in doing so with wisdom, one will be working smart rather than hard (i.e. making things way more difficult than they need to be). For other economies that have thrived alongside groups, I have to often keep this in mind.

I agree with you on this taking years to fix, and we all want it fixed now because the recovery isn't really a recovery (yes GDP is positive, but unemployment isn't moving). I also agree with you on everyone working hard together. I hope that happens, but we need someone in charge to lead, and I'm not seeing that from Obama. All I see is the blame game. And, I go back to the point I've made before - Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress, and Clinton worked with a Republican Congress, and both (despite Bill's lying & impeachment) did more good than bad for the US economy, so I don't buy the argument "I can't work with Republicans".

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 23, 2012

Genersis said:
*Sigh*
This thread is depressing...

They why are you here? However, the thing that makes the USA great is our ability to debate each other. We even learn in the process! I certainly have learned from this thread.

United Socialist States of America - USSA

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

E pluribus unum

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Person of Disinterest

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Similar threads