Thread: Is this Americas future?

I can understand our allies glee that Obama will be less heavy handed than Bush (I don't necessarily agree with this view). However, Obama really needs to challenge our allies to step up and help lead. There are times when you have to say "ok, enough talk" and take action. I generally feel that the Europeans talk and talk and talk and then do nothing, and then talk some more in the hope that a problem will go away. Sometimes, things to get down to black and white. There are times when you have to get your hands dirty and our allies tend to sit back and let us do it because they know we will. I'm hoping that they will now stand forth and really help come up with some meaningful solutions.

Jordan

What do you think would happen if we gave the guy more than a week before we started tearing him to shreds? He hasnt even settled in properly ffs! Give the guy a chance before you

Originally Posted by leadduck

Waterboarding and other such unpleasantries do not take place in US prisons.

Really....?

Originally Posted by jnich67

I generally feel that the Europeans talk and talk and talk and then do nothing, and then talk some more in the hope that a problem will go away.

If you look at our history, you'll notice that we've been at war with ourselves for over a 1000 years, culminating in 2 world wars.
We now have an unprecedented 64 years of peace, only because we decided after WWII that talking was the only long term survival strategy.

Originally Posted by jnich67

Sometimes, things to get down to black and white. There are times when you have to get your hands dirty and our allies tend to sit back and let us do it because they know we will. I'm hoping that they will now stand forth and really help come up with some meaningful solutions.

Jordan

Black and white as in Iraq?
The US went into Iraq alone because we didn't want any part of it, seeing as there was no proof to start it.
Sure, Saddam gave the UN the finger. So we put sanctions in place and talked, and he still gave us the finger. But he was contained. Whatever it was he was doing, he was doing it inside his borders, he had no WMD, and he was not involved with Al qaeda.

In afghanistan the Us had massive European support and goodwill. And Europe is still involved in Afghanistan with the UN troops that are now keeping the peace there.
If the US wants Europe to take action, it has to come with proof, not with unsubstantiated claims and the question to start a war that will destabilize the entire region.

Non violent conflict is orders of magnitude better than violent conflict.
You won the cold war on talking and spending, not with fighting.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I probably shouldn't reply, but come on...

Bruno this is why you dont comment on threads like this. See what happens?

Originally Posted by kilowattkid

"For example, detroit car industry will not recover until the big 3 finally start making decent cars. There is nothing Obama, or any other president can do about it. The only thing he can do is steer the US economy as a whole, with tax plans, incentives and channeling foreign trade."

The big 3 makes a decent car. They just don't make it at a good profit. Some blame management, some blame the union, some blame the labor force. I blame them all.

• management -
  
  • excess spending on bonuses and other perks rather than direct towards product
  • cutting costs related to product and not production
  • bowing down to union demands
  
  
• unions-
  
  • using money collected for political capital and not for product capitol
  • influence politics to shift market rules instead of comply and control work practices
  • use influence and money to sway politicians to inhibit growth of free market principles to non union programs
  
  
• labor force-
  
  • manipulate union rules to limit amount of production during work period (contract says at least 50 parts, that's all their getting)
  • maintenance personel dictating when work is performed to get the advantage of overtime pay.
  • grievances for frivolous things as moving material out of the way to perform you work, when that job is only to be performed by "X" department. You wait until they move it then do your work.
  
  

And the list can go on and on. As of today, the Ledbetter act was approved in the Senate requiring union only labor on PLA state funded jobs (construction work). Keep in mind that the union holds 12 to 15% of the workforce in this industry but are dictating policy with this new administration. Non-union companies tend to put their profits toward company growth, union companies rely on the union to help them grow by polital influence on business practices.

As for Guantanamo, we'd be happy to send them to Belgium for proper due process. Something tells me you don't want them either though. Gitmo prisoners were not "abducted" off the street for no reason. The German referenced was not targeted by a secret American task force infiltrating Germany without the knowledge of the German government and brought to Gitmo. One would think that evidence was presented and approved by both governments before said apprehension. It is my belief that Guantanamo is not filled with choir boys caught tasting the sacred wine.

And if your going to tell the American people that it is closing, you better give us a clear cut plan as to what is going to happen to the captives (yes captives, if they had on uniforms and fought per the Geneva conventions I would call them prisoners and they would be treated as such), not tell me that you have a task force looking into it.

All I see right now are knee jerk reactions to appease a public that wants results immediately. Give the dog a meaty bone to keep it busy while you finish dinner, if you will. When it comes to the military issues ofour country, this administration is giving quick actions with no teeth to appease the voter base, while giving them (admin) time to actually evaluate the situation more thoroughly. I paraphrase but "close Gitmo amd all other CIA facilities while looking at other options including other out of country areas as well as domestic to detain" No teeth! It seems to me they want to close the bad "GITMO" and move them to a new place, maybe with unicorns and Skittles for everyone.

There is also another small issue of $835 billiion on top of the $700 billion to "stimulate" the economy. More money on top of more money. Who is to pay for this? Let the market work itself out. The government can't buy out our problems, When they buy our problems, they are still our problems but now for a longer time period. LET THE MARKET WORK!!!!!!

You make $60,000 a year and bought a $250,000 house. Now you can't make the payment? Get out of it and see me in 7 years (rent in the meantime) and let's try and get you in a $100,000 home. Don't let your mouth write a check that your A$$ can't cash!

The new administration is still in it's infancy, and still has many obstacles of the previous to overcome. I just know that the previous administration gave no quarter if you decided to come and harm us. They also expected us to be the independents to provide for ourselves.

Individual provides = shelter, food, clothing, heat, individual transportation, medical provisions, individual security (think 2nd amendment)

Government provides= national security, infrastructure of public utlities and platform to govern ones self through elections.

The United States of America gives not only to its citizens but to the world as a whole in any time of need, but yet we are continually beaten down verbally for any action we take. I for one am tired of my hard work and tax dollars going to those who don't appreciate our contribution to society, abroad and from within. And our dumbing down of our country from within is completely frustrating to me.

I am a free man in this country and wish not to be in any other country in this world nor do I feel the need to explain to others why I feel this way. I am also sick and tired of working my A$$ off every day, paying the way for others so that they can Bi#%$ and complain about MY country.

I would much rather talk about razors, But some of you continue to talk politics. I know we have had other discussions on free speech, but I feel this is no different tham sitting in your local barbershop and listening to what some old codger is saying in the corner.

I'm still waiting on a shave, so I'll be over here in the corner. Where's the coffee?

"All men are created equal. After creation, it's up to you to rise up or fall down"

Kilowattkid

You're right about the Unions influencing elections.. The union takes the money and also spends it on campaigning for those who they think will help them. Who might those seeking office be? Democrats. Dad worked for the union, every election season he gets mailings from the Union telling him who to vote for and it is never a Republican.

Originally Posted by leadduck

"If somebody comes into your home on your soil with the intent to do harm to you or yours, do you do everything in the realm of possibilities to protect your family or do you worry about the law????"

I like this arguement. So, if you thought your next door neighbor was in cahoots with bad guys, but then found out he wasn't, but then thought he was collecting weapons to use against you, would you be justified in invading his house and butchering his family? And then when you found out he didn't have any weapons, would you be aquitted of all charges by raising the defense, "Well gee, we're better off without him"? Not so simple after all, I guess.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not really.

I would do everything I can to protect my family. I don't have guns, but I would not ponder the legality of hitting someone in the back of the head with a boken and kicking them off the stairs before doing so.

I don't think anyone would.

But that is not really the situation we are talking about.
That would be me, breaking into other people's homes and beating them up if I have just an idea that he might be a threat, or if he has the same name as someone who is trying to harm me, or if he is a very good friend of someone who might.

Someone actually attacking the US, or conspiring to do so, is a terrorist. He should be dealt with.
But only if he has actually done something wrong. And that is what the court of law is for.
Just 'disappearing' the suspects without a trial... that is what the KGB used to do in the cold war. They were the bad guys.

If someone is guilty, then it should be no problem at all to give him a fair trial. Because guilt can only be established by court of law. And if there is enough evidence, he will be dealt with.
And if there is no evidence... then he shouldn't be in prison.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

In that scenario, the Gitmo response would be to take the intruder, tie him up and lock him in the basement for an unspecified period of time with no real intent on ever calling the police....

Originally Posted by icedog

Actually what we have been doing is more like going to a neighbor's house and taking his cousin who was accused (by parties unknown) of saying something nasty about us behind our backs and locking him indefinitely in a dog kennel on anther block because we are afraid that one day he may decide to come to our house and throw a rock through our window.

I like they way that not one of you simply answered the question...
Bruno at least you answered it with that, yes, you would at least protect your family first, then worry of the concequences...

In my eyes anyone that is not totally and absolutely ready to protect themselves, their family , and their country, deserves anything that comes to them.....
When an ideology says point blank, either submit, or die there is only one choice there is no gray....

Now lets take it a step farther, and discuss torture.....

Is it wrong to use torture????
Is it wrong to use torture to save a life????

I would be the first to say that torture just for the sake of inflicting pain is wrong, BUT torture to save a life ?????

Now before you answer out of a false sense of morality, you know where I will take this if you just say No... I will get personal with it, so really think about the answer, how far are you willing to go to save a life????

Originally Posted by icedog

I'm sorry to go off topic but I can't figure out what you guys are referring to. What means "rep points"?

(obviously if I have no idea what it is I probably have no use for it but I am curious)

Icedog, I'm pretty much in the dark about that too, but I think rep (reputation) points are those little green squares under your avatar, and they gradually get bumped up as people thank you for your posts. There's doubtless more to it than that, but that's the little I've figured out.

~Rich

And going back to the original question, I very much doubt that Republicans in the House and Senate will "roll over." Personally, I only wish Democrats had been less willing to roll over for the past eight years. So far President Obama has shown much more willingness to meet with and listen to the opposition party than his predecessor did.

Sorry to make this so brief--I don't like to "hit and run" on a topic like this. But the household responsibilities have been calling me for a while now. More later perhaps ...

~Rich

Originally Posted by kilowattkid

Repubicans lost the election because they put a RINO in the race. And I didn't see it as a landslide victory, so I wouldn't say it was a butt kicking.
I have listened to the new administrations ideas on policy, and I don't like them. For instance the employye fairness act supported by Obama as stated by him. No more secret ballots for a union vote? Come on! That is an open invitation for bullying for votes. And they have already passed the Ledbetter act. These go against my beliefs in business practices, so I can clearly say thus far I do not like his policies.

Gee, I love that term, "RINO." That's what they used to call me. Seems I wasn't orthodox enough. Then, when they started consigning me to eternal damnation, I left the party altogether. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) wasn't kidding when he said, "We're going to turn ourselves into a party of barefoot hillbillies who go to revival meetings."

You should learn a bit more about the union ballot. The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." It gives workers in individual companies the choice, depending upon what gives them the greatest level of comfort with the process. The current secret ballot process has been rife with management abuse. Under that system, 25% of companies illegally fire union workers, over 50% threaten to close the plant (also illegal), and about a third bribe or coerce employees to vote no. The incident of these abuses under card ballots is significantly lower.

I think we all know that there have been abuses by unions in all sorts of ways, but they pale in comparison to the activities of management.

j