It seems like projecting consistency in support for human rights would be a better prospect. Of course, that would require withdrawing our support for Israel.
This is so much nonsense. Here is the Bush Budget proposal for 2009 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22990613/...s-congress-trillion-budget-plan/#.Uyxzg4HnbIU It is 3.1 Trillion - Exactly as I stated. This Budget was not signed into law until Obama but it makes zero difference as this was what was spent. Are you suggesting that the US Government spent zero money from October until when Obama set foot in office 5 months later ? This is not how it works and you know it. (or at least you should) Based on 3.1 Trillion in spending there would have been a 400 Billion dollar deficit. That figure is what normal operation of the Government was to cost at that time. Do you understand this ? It is freaken idiocy to suggest that significant cuts to this number can be made 4 months after the fact. You make those cuts over 8 years of running the Government. Obama was not responsible for the rate of Govt spending prior to him coming into office and that is what you are suggesting and frankly it is abject silliness. He did spend some money after he got into office in excess of what was already budgeted but this was relatively small. 600 million of the deficit was because revenue dropped from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1. Another 250 Billion was from TARP and 400 Billion was already baked into the cake. Its simple addition: 600 + 250 + 400 = 1.25 Trillion. The very most you can pin on Obama is 150 Billion. Obama was not responsible for the revenue shortfall of 600 Billion. He did not cause the stock market crash. We can debate who or what caused the crash but it was not Obama. TARP - 250 Billion was an emergency measure put through on a bi partisan basis while Bush was in office. We can debate on who or what caused the crash that required this to happen but it was not Obama 400 Billion deficit baked into the cake. It costs money to run a government and 3.1 Trillion was the estimate for 2009 (Bush's Budget) This Budget year starts in October 2008 and if no budget is signed things keep running through continuing resolutions. That the rate of Govt spending for the year was 3.1 Trillion can not be changed by Obama when that spending year started in October 2008 and he steps into office in Feb 2009. If you do think this can be changed please tell me how. What was Obama to do ? Tell every department in the US - Give the money back that you got from continuing resolutions and I am going to redistribute it. While I am doing this no one gets a paycheque. Really ... how does this work. In summary 850 Billion of the Deficit for 2009 can not be pinned on Obama. He did not cause the crash. The 400 Billion deficit that was already baked in the cake ? You can try but you have to live in fantasyland to pin this on Obama. You can say that "The Dem Congress spent this" but the amount spent was the same number that Bush proposed. The reason this number is there is because that is was the rate of Gov't spending for 2009. The fact of the matter is that until 2007 Bush held both the Presidency and Republicans held Congress. What this got us was a massive increase in spending and a stock market crash. By the time the Democrats claimed Congress in 2007 the damage was already done so quit blaming them for GOP garbage like if the GOP happened to control congress spending would have been any different. Regardless ... none of this was Obama's fault.
I perhaps chose bad wording. What I meant was that the State is to make no laws on the basis of religion. I could give hoot about xmas trees and stuff as these have zero to do with making a law. It is hilarious that some view a xmas tree as a Christian symbol to begin with never mind think that putting one up somehow effects operation of the Government. Now if we are talking prayer meetings at the white house... this is akin to coercion. Like if I do not want to pray I am going to say so to the President.
Perhaps not treason as by some messed up argument Obama could claim it was in US strategic interest. No ... I would go for impeachment on the basis of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Funding Extremist Islam of any kind .. are you kidding me ? Al Qaeda was involved but it really does not matter. Extremist Islam is Extremist Islam. I had a friend of mine who went back to Syria after leaving as a young man and living in the US for 25 years. He went about a year before the major nastiness started. He was over with his wife who is Serbian (neither are religious). I asked him what was happening politically. He said the people do not like Assad but they hate the rebels more. Assad was not well liked but the Rebels are whole different world of messed up. He said the Christians were really worried (history has proven him right as the Christians were the some of the first people the rebels went after .. cutting off their heads and so forth) Supporting the Rebels gave them hope that they did not have previously. Once the flame was lit the fire of Jihad started to burn and I attracted foreign Islamic Extremists from many other parts of the world. One thing about Syria that most do not realize was that it was a Secular State. (Not a Theocracy). For this reason it is hated by Extremist Islam whose mission is that all Islamic countries have theocracy. This is why the link claimed between Bin Ladin and Saddam was such a Joke. Iraq was also a Secular state and for this reason Saddam was the blood enemy of Bin Ladin. Secular states were the Infidel ... same as the US but worse because these are Muslim nations. So we started covertly funding these nutters. The idea initially was probably to just deal with a small group and hope that they assassinated Assad or something. Who knows how it got started but all of a sudden we are sending major amounts of arms and money. The Saudi's were in on it too of course (this is where Wahhabism and Bin Ladin and most of the 911 crew were from ) They of course claimed Assad was doing terrible things (some of which he was probably doing - to those who he thought were enemies - but that's how things are done in the middle east everywhere and everyone knows it) but the real reason was that they do not like secularism in an Islamic nation. All of a sudden the rebels are legitimate ... arms, money, and support starts flowing in from the US and Islamic nations who have no problems with the belief system of the rebels. Next thing you know we have over 100,000 people dead and one of the biggest humanitarian crisis's of the decade. We do not have the power to tell Russia what to do but we did have the power to not support Islamic Extremism. Sure it would be nice to see Assad replaced but the means do not justify the ends. Not that we should be meddling in these things to begin with.
I'm not "suggesting," I'm stating as unconditional fact that those who control the government can spend as much or as little as they want. That's the law. A budget is no more than a plan or projection. Budgets can be, and are, routinely revised, both in government and business. If budget changes had required Congressional approval, Pelosi and Reid would have been happy to comply. Do a Google search - the federal budget is revised every year, more than once. Once Obama and the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress, there was no way anyone could challenge them. They could do anything they wanted with the budget and anything else. So, for the third time, Obama was not "handed" a deficit. Saying so is no more than White House spin, which you've chosen to believe. The legal and political facts are as I've said.
Are you retarded ? Even if Obama was responsible for the 400 Billion dollar deficit (and I strongly disagree) he was not responsible for the 600 Billion dollar revenue shortfall nor 250 Billion on TARP. What is your problem ?
It's a Jersey thing. [video]http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e09-its-a-jersey-thing[/video] Moi
Question: Would YOU rather be Jewish in an Arab country or an Arab in the Jewish State of Israel. Yup! Regardless of what may be included I hope you do answer the question. A Jewish person in an Arab nation or An Arab in the Jewish State of Israel. Thank you Imagine how many "settlements" would not exist had Arabia made peace with Israel in 1948, or 1967, etc. Maintaining a State of War has its' costs. Second Question: Would you rather take a chance standing on your soap box in Tel Aviv and denouncing the Israeli government, or doing the same in any Arab capitol denouncing the government of that Arab nation. Yup ! Some anti Israeli blathering seems to go on here ad nauseum and void of conscience. Yup ! Moi No They hanged Louis Riel How's that for Human Rights?
Yes, they have a free ride for so long. They keep their "Iron Dome" on American taxpayer budget and keep us hostage. Our politicians compete with each other guaranteeing Israel's protection.
Isn't it wonderful the way everything confirms the dogmas of the left, and if it doesn't, the Faithful can just say so anyway? The left has all the characteristics of a religion. To see some of them go on about imaginary "facts" here is like eavesdropping on medieval theologians.
I would thing convictions of the right and their ideology is very religious: anti evolution, anti birth control, worshiping money (all TV preachers flatter to the rich). Left have no dogma, very diverse, many are atheistic and not as greedy.
I too doubt that, rather, their neighbors would have, out of necessity given the lack of lesser options, been destroyed and the US would have a few less places to buy oil from.
That's kind of like asking if you'd rather be shot in the face or the genitals. Israel does have better civil rights for minorities than many Islamic countries, but rights for Palestinians are handled considerably differently than for just being Arab in general. Underneath all of the religious and cultural conflict, the heart of the matter is economic. Palestinians are, on average, considerably poorer than the average Israeli citizen. A lack of opportunities makes them vulnerable to radicalization, and the settlement policies of Israel don't help things.
I doubt that. Israel has a considerably more powerful military than its neighbors. They also have nukes, which is why attacking them is a bad idea. American support surely does allow them to act bolder than they normally would, but they don't truly depend on American support for survival.
