General Politics Thread

[Morganator]

Meh, the electorate is pretty fickle, they tend to forget about things fairly quickly.

Beyond that, there could be any number of reasons why they are doing it. It could be because most of their base actually supports it now and have nothing to do with Obama winning, who knows.

The electorate is bought and paid for... by both parties. It's made of traitors who won't vote unless there's something in it for them. The electorate needs to be dissolved.

[weskurtz81]

Yeah sure to what? Are you saying the base doesn't support immigration reform??

[TwentyThree]

Yeah sure to what? Are you saying the base doesn't support immigration reform??

I believe the majority of the party still doesn't support it, I feel that those who are in support of it are holding their nose while doing so. McCain has come out and stated many times that the party is losing the Hispanic vote while pushing for a reform. There is no question that those behind the support are mainly doing it for the votes.

[weskurtz81]

I believe the majority of the party still doesn't support it, I feel that those who are in support of it are holding their nose while doing so. McCain has come out and stated many times that the party is losing the Hispanic vote while pushing for a reform. There is no question that those behind the support are mainly doing it for the votes.

I'm not talking about the politicians (who apparently now support it), I am talking about the voters. Remember, the politicians are supposed to represent the voters.

[TwentyThree]

I'm not talking about the politicians (who apparently now support it), I am talking about the voters. Remember, the politicians are supposed to represent the voters.

Yes, and the party has represented a constituent who've strongly oppose a reform for immigrants for the last few decades. If their voters supported a reform the party wouldnt of been so against it in the primary's last election year.

[weskurtz81]

Yes, and the party has represented a constituent who've strongly oppose a reform for immigrants for the last few decades. If their voters supported a reform the party wouldnt of been so against it in the primary's last election year.

Do you think it's possible that the constituents opinions have been slowly changing from being against immigration reform (mainly because it always includes some level of amnesty) to now having the majority in favor of immigration reform?

[TwentyThree]

Do you think it's possible that the constituents opinions have been slowly changing from being against immigration reform (mainly because it always includes some level of amnesty) to now having the majority in favor of immigration reform?

I believe a percentage of the constituents have evolve their opinion on the issue, but are not the majority in the party mainly because whatever reform is passed it will include a level of amnesty for those who are here undocumented. I just hope they take the right measures to ensure this won't be an issue every 20 years.

[DayWalker]

all you have to do is look at the GOP primary.

look at the red meat tossed out to the base regarding immigration... they didn't all change their minds in 6 months.

[weskurtz81]

all you have to do is look at the GOP primary.

look at the red meat tossed out to the base regarding immigration... they didn't all change their minds in 6 months.

Based on what I've been reading, the majority of registered voters in BOTH major parties are now supporting immigration reform.

[Morganator]

Any reforms regarding immigration need to be done at the immigration offices in and of themselves, not in the courts, not in congress and most certainly, not by those in charge of the establishment. The laws in place are adequate enough and only need to be enforced rather than rewritten. What we need though is incentives to encourage lawful immigration and discourage unlawful immigration. There are a myriad of ways to do this and the aforementioned is one avenue we could take. Also, hitting employers who hire illegal immigrants is definitely a must.

[DayWalker]

Based on what I've been reading, the majority of registered voters in BOTH major parties are now supporting immigration reform.

I hope so. it's long overdue.
I don't know why its been so difficult...

if it were up to me... I'd move a couple military training facilities up/down to the borders... train the troops and as part of their training they patrol the borders. they finish their training they move out/on to wherever... the next batch of trainees come in... repeat...

border "more secure"

[weskurtz81]

I hope so. it's long overdue.
I don't know why its been so difficult...

To be honest, I think there have been a few sticking points that each side has been hung up one and unable to get over. But as time has gone on, and the situation has gotten exceedingly worse, they have started to come around and realize we just need to figure something out and get it done.

Ultimately, people are slow to change, but over time it happens.

if it were up to me... I'd move a couple military training facilities up/down to the borders... train the troops and as part of their training they patrol the borders. they finish their training they move out/on to wherever... the next batch of trainees come in... repeat...

border "more secure"

I would support that!

[DayWalker]

DayWalker 2024!!!! (after Hill-dawg)


My first act would be to take away the guns of ONLY Matrix and Morg.

[Morganator]

DayWalker 2024!!!! (after Hill-dawg)

My first act would be to take away the guns of ONLY Matrix and Morg.

Why are you coming for my manhood?

Ya Hoebag.

[Sub-stance1]

I hope so. it's long overdue.
I don't know why its been so difficult...

if it were up to me... I'd move a couple military training facilities up/down to the borders... train the troops and as part of their training they patrol the borders. they finish their training they move out/on to wherever... the next batch of trainees come in... repeat...

border "more secure"

This is actually not that bad of an idea. We have people already trained to do certain border jobs already. The agents we have are stretched too thin. I had a friend who got out of the army and and became a border agent and he quit after a year because the way they do things. He said that the way they operate would get people killed.

[Chickenooble]

if it were up to me... I'd move a couple military training facilities up/down to the borders... train the troops and as part of their training they patrol the borders. they finish their training they move out/on to wherever... the next batch of trainees come in... repeat...

Each soldier already has several months of basic training (which is filled to the brim with training), and then they have a few more weeks to months of specialized training for the job they're going to perform on a daily basis. I don't understand how having our enlistees patrol a border is very effective. No one would ever train someone to perform a job that isn't part of their job, right? It seems like a waste the soldiers' time and the tax payers dollars.

Personally, to secure the southern border, I wouldn't relocate training centers, but instead, I would build a series of outposts along the border, at 5-20mi intervals, depending on the terrain. Each outpost would have the following:

* Observation tower, similar to an air-traffic control tower (but not as tall), with surveillance equipment that has a FOV of 220 degrees, facing Mexico. IR, Thermal and Motion detection capabilities would be standard.
* A 20'x20' holding cell for illegals
* Electricity, plumbing and water
* A kitchenette
* A lounge
* A bathroom with shower
* A small bedroom with two beds

Each outpost would house several members of the states' National Guard at all times.

The idea is each outpost would be a detection and detention system. If there is detection of activity along the southern border, the guardsmen would be alerted, and they can investigate matters more closely. Depending on the spacing, they could get to any intrusion location within ten minutes, detain the invaders, and expedite a departure. If one area is a hot-spot for border crossings then they can deploy mobile detection units or patrol that location. (This could also be effective against human trafiking and drug running...)

I think it would be an effective way to establish a presence and enforce the laws that we already have. Once we have an effective system in place to secure the border, then we can talk about reformation of the immigration process.

[MATRIX 2]

lol....That's ridiculous. I don't ever think he "promised" to unite the country. But then again, politicians say a lot of things.. If we aren't united it's not only because of him. It's deeper than that. But i think Obama's party is more united than the GOP. They are in total disarray. I think Obama learned how difficult it is working with congress.



Why don't we wait and see what happens first. There is no need to have the "chicken little" syndrome on this thing yet. I'm a proud gun owner and when it's all said and done people will be ok. I'm more concerned about why they're doing it and most gun owners agree with what is being proposed.

I'm not worried about it and you shouldn't either.


Yea, I know when it expired. I know they tried to renew it several times too and have failed. I think most people know why. It's all about gun politics.




I still stand by what I said. I don't have anything against the NRA but they have done very little when it comes to gun violence. I know they need a better media presence too. Stop letting all the loonies talk to the media about gun ownership. They don't come across so well.



I love women. Got nothing against that. It won't be the first time they tried this. Trust me it won't affect much of anything. Just because you open up jobs doesn't mean they will want them. I think some people misunderstand the whole thing. It won't have any affect on mission capabilities.

Text/video:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082803216.html

I know he'll be able to help me turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people.

The democrats are more united because they control the whitehouse. That was not the case during most of the Bush II years.



There is nothing to see. The legislation is out there for all to see. The intent of the legislators who proposed the legislation is clear.

They do not care about finding and solving the true cause of our homicides/mass shootings. They continue to push their antigun legislation even though it has been proven time and time again that it does not work. They do it to pursue their unstated goal, the true purpose of their legislation.

You can blindly accept all that has been proposed. You will still have the 2nd amendment, but it will be significantly watered down only to the most rudimentary firearms. Nullifying the advancements in firearms technology. Take away the weapons that most threaten the agenda of the government.

You want to know who you are dealing with:





Remember do as she says, not as she does:




Keep on believe the bunk polls, but any sane gun owner would would not support the proposed legislation which was already crafted waiting to be unleashed at the opportune moment. (which is a very small window of time, this explains why they are scrambling to ram such legislation down out throats)



The federal AWB failed to be reauthorized because it didn't do a damn thing to curb crime/make us safer. Why would any bother to enact failed legislation into law again when the evidence showing its effectiveness is numerous and clear?


Do you know who the largest proponent of gun saftey classes/training is in the usa? The NRA. I don't see how the NRA is going to stop criminals from being criminals and committing criminal acts, that after all is the main source of gun violence in the USA. The government must step up its game to properly enforce the existing laws and further investigate people who are denied by the NICS.



I don't see the point in opening up certain combat "jobs" to women in the military when the percentage that could pass all the tests/training and effectively do those jobs after completion of said tests/training is do low.

Hell I'd bet not even 1% (~2000) of all active duty women in the military (around 200k) would even cut it in those jobs.

And I don't know of any other military where women do these kinds of "jobs" either.

Either the leadership will realize the mistake of doing this after several years and much money wasted, or eventually the standards will be watered down/relaxed to get the number of women in these fields to an "acceptable" level.

Hell there are even female soldiers that agree that this should not be done:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/2...emale-veteran/

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry

DayWalker 2024!!!! (after Hill-dawg)


My first act would be to take away the guns of ONLY Matrix and Morg.

Good job. As one of the 2 people you intend to "disarm", I don't even own any firearms.

[Vulgotha]

I find it so outrageous that Feinstein has a CCW. Along with that clown schumer from New York.

[Morganator]

I find it so outrageous that Feinstein has a CCW. Along with that clown schumer from California.

The irony is delicious, isn't it?

[Vulgotha]

Whoops, I meant to say New York.

[Sub-stance1]

Fox News parts ways with Dick Morris

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...021353516.html

Fox is cleaning house....lol This is the guy who used to work for Clinton and guaranteed a huge Romney victory. He even guaranteed that Clinton would vote for Romney...

[weskurtz81]

[Sub-stance1]

Apparently you do care enough to spend time posting a youtube video saying you don't....lol Can't blame you though. Morris is a tool anyway. Fox is going liberal....lol

[DayWalker]

Fox News parts ways with Dick Morris

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...021353516.html

Fox is cleaning house....lol This is the guy who used to work for Clinton and guaranteed a huge Romney victory. He even guaranteed that Clinton would vote for Romney...

probably had something to do with this:
PPP: Trust in Fox News hits record low
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...277.html?hp=r5

Fox News has hit a record low of trustworthiness, according to a new survey.

Public Policy Polling, deemed the most accurate polling firm for the 2012 elections, finds that only 41 percent of Americans trust Fox News while 46 percent do not -- down from a 49-37 percent ranking in 2010. The news comes one week after the network hit a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic for primetime.

they're dying off :

[weskurtz81]

Apparently you do care enough to spend time posting a youtube video saying you don't....lol Can't blame you though. Morris is a tool anyway. Fox is going liberal....lol

Replying =/= caring.