WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

politcs and government, or Politics and religion

racered

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
486
Reaction score
206
Or is it all the same to you?
I would like to throw down on some stuff if religious speak was tolerated.
 

djunkie

Broke mo fo
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
32,821
Reaction score
4,275
Speak it. First off though, are you Mormon? :D
 

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
Any topic that provokes raging hatred is on topic here.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
I gotta say that the single greatest issue I have with politics is how it has somehow attached itself to religion in most aspects...

There is a separation of church and State for a reason. Too bad our party lines are easily divided into religious lines as well.

Is it so much to ask for a fiscally responsible government with a flat tax for everyone (no loopholes, no write-offs, no marriage benefits) that doesn't care who I fuck or who gets an abortion?
 

djunkie

Broke mo fo
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
32,821
Reaction score
4,275
I gotta say that the single greatest issue I have with politics is how it has somehow attached itself to religion in most aspects...

There is a separation of church and State for a reason. Too bad our party lines are easily divided into religious lines as well.

Is it so much to ask for a fiscally responsible government with a flat tax for everyone (no loopholes, no write-offs, no marriage benefits) that doesn't care who I fuck or who gets an abortion?

I agree. Except for the write-offs thing. I need that shit. :D
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
It bothers me a great deal that religious stereotypes are applied
due to ones political beliefs.
I am in no way a religious person, and my mistrust of organized religion is
Well documented. Yet I and others who feel the same are labeled right wing religios loons.
On the flip side my dem FIL is a very religious person....go figure.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
I gotta say that the single greatest issue I have with politics is how it has somehow attached itself to religion in most aspects...

There is a separation of church and State for a reason. Too bad our party lines are easily divided into religious lines as well.

Is it so much to ask for a fiscally responsible government with a flat tax for everyone (no loopholes, no write-offs, no marriage benefits) that doesn't care who I fuck or who gets an abortion?

WTF, hooked?

I have to agree with the post, although I don't appreciate homos frolicking in front of my kids. Can they have a land of their own? Dikes can stay as long as they're smoking!
 

racered

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
486
Reaction score
206
My creation theory in short:
Life ;
(a) We all "came from" the same place. We all "end up" in the same place.
(b)was created by improbable chaos
(c)has infinite possibilities including an "end"
(d)seems like a gift from a superior

Politics,too often seems more about disliking one group of people,and liking another that you identify with.
Governing seems to be about groups of people exerting control over others,often at a profit
Religion at its worst is a marriage of both,and at its best is people believing there is a higher and lower existence.
 

6Trophies

Banned
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
587
Reaction score
1
So if you believe in religion are you a:

* Right winger
* Radical
* Crazy
* Wrong
* Un-American
* Etc.

Or are people's personal beliefs acceptable and respected for the good they do (for most people)?
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
So if you believe in religion are you a:

* Right winger
* Radical
* Crazy
* Wrong
* Un-American
* Etc.

Or are people's personal beliefs acceptable and respected for the good they do (for most people)?

The first part... Mostly. But add "Delusional" and "Sheeple"
 

Faceaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
776
I gotta say that the single greatest issue I have with politics is how it has somehow attached itself to religion in most aspects...

There is a separation of church and State for a reason. Too bad our party lines are easily divided into religious lines as well.

Is it so much to ask for a fiscally responsible government with a flat tax for everyone (no loopholes, no write-offs, no marriage benefits) that doesn't care who I fuck or who gets an abortion?

Right on the money!

I agree. Except for the write-offs thing. I need that shit. :D

People instantly crying for special attention, then someone else, someone else, etc. Pretty soon you with your tax write-offs are still getting the short end of the stick. I'd wager if it went to a flat tax & got rid of all the associated bureaucracy, the amount of taxes you pay would actually go down, even without the write-offs.
 

Faceaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
776
IMO, the right introduces religion more than it should.

The one statement in politics of the past 10 years that probably irks me most is Bush Jr. saying God told him to free the people of Iraq & to go to war. That one inclusion of Church into State, added approx. 5 Trillion to our National Debt. IMO Religion has no place in politics.
 

The Doctor

Land Sales GURU
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
47
IMO, the right introduces religion more than it should.

The one statement in politics of the past 10 years that probably irks me most is Bush Jr. saying God told him to free the people of Iraq & to go to war. That one inclusion of Church into State, added approx. 5 Trillion to our National Debt. IMO Religion has no place in politics.

If you are interested in the truth, that message was only for the president himself and he declared no war whatsoever until congress acted.

"The Iraq Resolution" was a decision made by congress where it easily passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133 on October 10, 2002 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23 on October 11, 2002 the following day. It's passage was the authorization to engage Iraq, not Bush as you indicated.
Most of our presidents admitted to praying as Bush did. Washington frequently admitted to seeking the Lord's help but you are probably worried about the financial cost there as well rather than the victory achieved?

What irks me the most is that you can completely overlook the debt added by your Kenyan hero which produced absolutely nothing but more problems while pointing your finger at others.

NatDebt-Under-Obama-CBSNews.png
 

Faceaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
776
:blah::blah::blah::blah:

I feel sorry for you that you're so blinded by party. It was Bush, Rumsfield & Cheney wanting to go to war. They used Rice & Powell as puppets to gain national & international approval to do so. Everything from manipulating intelligence to completely disgregarding the militaries analysis of cost - they pulled every string to get us into that war.

Victory achieved.... LOL, at what cost.
 
Last edited:

djunkie

Broke mo fo
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
32,821
Reaction score
4,275
:blah::blah::blah::blah:

I feel sorry for you that you're so blinded by party. It was Bush, Rumsfield & Cheney wanting to go to war. They used Rice & Powell as puppets to gain national & international approval to do so. Everything from manipulating intelligence to trying to completely disgregarding the militaries analysis of cost - they pulled every string to get us into that war.

Victory achieved.... LOL, at what cost.

Mitt will fix it all. Don't worry. :D


Sent from my iPad using Tap That Ass
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
Everything from manipulating intelligence to completely disgregarding the militaries analysis of cost

In all fairness, the sites were there, and Powell tipped his hand trying to get UN approval.

Not gonna get into it, but that shit is in Syria now.
 

WTRR

Not On The Boat
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
338
In all fairness, the sites were there, and Powell tipped his hand trying to get UN approval.

Not gonna get into it, but that shit is in Syria now.

And that is why we are negotiating with the "Freedom Fighters" in Syria before we give them assistance. We want to be in control of the chemical weapons "IF" they take the country and overthrow Assad.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
And that is why we are negotiating with the "Freedom Fighters" in Syria before we give them assistance. We want to be in control of the chemical weapons "IF" they take the country and overthrow Assad.

Pretty much. The people running the very, VERY cellular program are long dead though.
 

Faceaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
776
In all fairness, the sites were there, and Powell tipped his hand trying to get UN approval.

Not gonna get into it, but that shit is in Syria now.

I respect your opinion more than most on the board, especially on issues like these. But, on this we would not agree. I think Powell is a straight shooter & believe he's not making up the events before or after his presentation. He was given a list of things to bring up at the UN Conference - provided by Tenant / Rumsfield / Cheney, spent a week at the CIA prior to the meeting trying to verify any of them. In the end, the one item he brought up was the only one with a source. A bad source known for lying & has since recanted his statements. Powell has said Tenant made several personal calls for apologize for the information. He's also still pursuing answers for the bad intelligence. Powell was used as a puppet & refers to that moment as the lowest part of his life. There is a ton more evidence to back this.

IMO if all that was bogus, they would still be claiming they are searching for the weapons, Also, if given so many talking points to pursuade the UN, why would he bring up the one good one that would have Hussein sending them to Syria. This is a whole tangent, but I'm pretty certain we would not agree.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
I respect your opinion more than most on the board, especially on issues like these. But, on this we would not agree. I think Powell is a straight shooter & believe he's not making up the events before or after his presentation. He was given a list of things to bring up at the UN Conference - provided by Tenant / Rumsfield / Cheney, spent a week at the CIA prior to the meeting trying to verify any of them. In the end, the one item he brought up was the only one with a source. A bad source known for lying & has since recanted his statements. Powell has said Tenant made several personal calls for apologize for the information. He's also still pursuing answers for the bad intelligence. Powell was used as a puppet & refers to that moment as the lowest part of his life. There is a ton more evidence to back this.

IMO if all that was bogus, they would still be claiming they are searching for the weapons, Also, if given so many talking points to pursuade the UN, why would he bring up the one good one that would have Hussein sending them to Syria. This is a whole tangent, but I'm pretty certain we would not agree.

I personally know guys (Non-SEALs... intel bubbas...) who watched the imagery as the RV's were packed up and drove across the border in the days following the UN briefing. Fact. From multiple sources.
 

Faceaz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
776
It's a different topic. But, that's one of the reasons I respect your opinion, I know you have insight. But, why weren't any of them used as sources? They were there for intel, why did the US rely on a known fabricator? If they were non-military, did they actually have access to see what was in them? At that point the US was obviously watching them closely, it was their primary arguement for going in, did they just up and vanish? If it went into Syria, the US I'm sure still has surveillance over that area? Too many if's for me. IMO Powell comes across as a honest person & has the highest level of security access. He did his job, which at the time was to support the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield agenda - like allot of American's did.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
It's a different topic. But, that's one of the reasons I respect your opinion, I know you have insight. But, why weren't any of them used as sources? They were there for intel, why did the US rely on a known fabricator? If they were non-military, did they actually have access to see what was in them? At that point the US was obviously watching them closely, it was their primary arguement for going in, did they just up and vanish? If it went into Syria, the US I'm sure still has surveillance over that area? Too many if's for me. IMO Powell comes across as a honest person & has the highest level of security access. He did his job, which at the time was to support the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield agenda - like allot of American's did.

The reason why it was the nadir of his life is that he knew, from a military intelligence perspective, that we were giving away our best intel in the hopes of catalyzing world opinion. It of course didn't, the folks that knew that we were onto them vanished, and the cellular nature of the operations meant that offing the principals at each site meant offing the existence of the program.

Imagine a set of sites, all managed by one guy. All of those sites get whacked, one guy knows about it.

That one guy was more than likely "Chemical Ali" that was killed pretty early in the engagement.

It was very secret, for obvious reasons. The program's remaining evidence died with Ali.

Call that part speculation. The existence of the sites was clear... and I do know guys that essentially beelined for the sites to find any residue, of which they found none.

Technically, they could have been cooking meth there I guess... but there were chemical labs with cooling towers and reservoirs, all of which departed within days of the UN security council briefing.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
7,479
Reaction score
2,086
In all fairness, the sites were there, and Powell tipped his hand trying to get UN approval.

Not gonna get into it, but that shit is in Syria now.

You got to be kidding me....in all fairness, Bush couldn't it prove it with his lies and deception. All bush had, was some wack job theory, and a gut instinct. Bushes gut instinct, and a lack of accounting, ran up 11 trillion dollars in debt before he left office, and another 5 trillion in overshoot, to repair the damage. Now we all have to repay our national debt, as a cost of going to war, and spending money we really didn't have (housing bubble). For some reason, Romney thinks it will go away when he's elected.
 

The Doctor

Land Sales GURU
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
47
Yet another uninformed liberal who wants more of Obama. Blaming Bush at this stage in the game is as effective as blaming Jimmy Carter. :blah:
Again, I'll remind you that "The Iraq Resolution" was a decision made by congress where it easily passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133 on October 10, 2002 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23 on October 11, 2002 the following day. It's passage was the authorization to engage Iraq, not Bush as you indicated.

As far as the debt, you can read that for yourself.


NatDebt-Under-Obama-CBSNews.png
 

The Doctor

Land Sales GURU
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
47
. . . For some reason, Romney thinks it will go away when he's elected.

Please show us all where he made that statement, CD.
Your hero took over a mess with a promise to fix it but he made it worse, yet you want to give him another term to continue what the chart clearly shows above, and you think Bush is the problem? How sad.:blah::blah:
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
I'm curious what would have become of Iraq if we hadn't led an invasion. How would Sadaam have been treated by the "Brotherhood" now taking over nations?

Sadaam and his sons were basically running a clearinghouse and asylum for terror. The sons were more evil than the father in close to gaining full control. Sadaam openly used chem weapons on the Kurds in trhe north of his nation showing he did have WMD's, though not nuclear, still WMD's. He showed with his invasion of Kuwait and his long war/tenisons with Iran, he was an unstable dangerous factor in the middle east.

The intention of ridding Iraq of a dissident was right, the length and poorly managed war was a large mistake. Plenty of blame to go around and certainly wasn't all Bush and his WH. O's still got us there and in
Afghan, where we should have exited long ago, but yet we hear silence from the protestors of the Bush era including media.....:rolleyes:
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
7,479
Reaction score
2,086
Yet another uninformed liberal who wants more of Obama. Blaming Bush at this stage in the game is as effective as blaming Jimmy Carter. :blah:
Again, I'll remind you that "The Iraq Resolution" was a decision made by congress where it easily passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133 on October 10, 2002 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23 on October 11, 2002 the following day. It's passage was the authorization to engage Iraq, not Bush as you indicated.

As far as the debt, you can read that for yourself.


NatDebt-Under-Obama-CBSNews.png

We had no national debt before bush 2 took office. When he left, we had 11 trillion. That did not include all the residual effect of the housing bubble and interest on on that debt.

Only a well informed liberal Republician like myself knows only increasing taxes across the board with pay this debt off.

The republician party leaders think if we cut all of our programs, and cut taxes, it will go away. I personally like having a fire and police department, hospitals, roads, national forests, etc... Romney has no plan that will actually work. He's just another big mouth bush, trying to lay down the family legacy.:bash:
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
I don't know you...but Jeezus, do you just make this shit up?


2 Tapatalk 1 Cup

He lives in his own lil' fantasy world is what I've come to see from his posts over the years....:rolleyes:

Take note of his middle parargraph of: "Only a well informed liberal Republician like myself knows only increasing taxes across the board with pay this debt off." The kind that supports Obama from a position of denial is more like it.

:rotflmao::rotflmao:
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,308
Reaction score
45,375
We had no national debt before bush 2 took office. When he left, we had 11 trillion. That did not include all the residual effect of the housing bubble and interest on on that debt.

Only a well informed liberal Republician like myself knows only increasing taxes across the board with pay this debt off.

The republician party leaders think if we cut all of our programs, and cut taxes, it will go away. I personally like having a fire and police department, hospitals, roads, national forests, etc... Romney has no plan that will actually work. He's just another big mouth bush, trying to lay down the family legacy.:bash:
Actually we had between 5.5 and 6 trillion in debt when Clinton Left and Bush Jr took seat.
 
Top