General Politics Thread

[Sub-stance1]

And boom, there it is just like i said:

McCain Says He’s Opposing Hagel Because Hagel Was Mean To Bush


McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

Mccain has turned into a bitter old man. He just can't get over 2008.

[Morganator]

And boom, there it is just like i said:



Mccain has turned into a bitter old man. He just can't get over 2008.

I don't think it's about being butt hurt about 2008 so much as it is about, "you don't do and say exactly what, shut up, sit down and vote for our policies, you get censured". You either do what the party wants and vote along party lines, or you get sidelined and voted out. The proof is in his own words.

[Sub-stance1]

I don't think it's about being butt hurt about 2008 so much as it is about, "you don't do and say exactly what we want, shut up, sit down and vote for our policies, you get censured". You either do what the party wants and vote along party lines, or you get sidelined and voted out. The proof is in his own words.

That's exactly why I aid it was more personal than anything else. He went against the party and now they are attempting to punish him for it. Sad sight. And I do think Mccain is still a little hurt over 2008.

[weskurtz81]

Maybe for McCain it is that's part of the reason, but I don't think he speaks for all the Senators in Congress, here's an article in the W. Post.

2. The beefs with Hagel are legit. Several operatives rejected the notion that the Hagel blockade is largely about politics. (Worth noting: ALL fights in Congress are at least 50 percent about politics and often far more than that.) “A number of senators have serious concerns with his lack of experience leading such a massive bureaucracy, in addition to his position on Iran and Israel,” said one GOP strategist. “And in some ways, this is part of a broader debate and effort to draw attention to the administration’s policies in the Middle East. The longer this nomination is drawn out, the more attention is given to those issues.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g-chuck-hagel/

Here's more:

At least three Republican senators – John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Richard Burr – said that they simply want more time and intend to vote for cloture – a parliamentary procedure that ends a filibuster by limiting debate to 30 hours that requires a supermajority of 60 votes – when the Senate returns from recess the week of Feb. 25. “I will oppose cloture because debate should continue and when we get back – unless there is a bombshell – I’ll vote for cloture and move on to his nomination,” Graham said on the floor of the Senate on Thursday.

The key in Graham’s statement is the “bombshell.” Republicans still hoping to kill Hagel’s nomination will surely spend the next week combing over his past speeches looking for just that. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, has been demanding that Hagel disclose more information about the speeches he’s given since leaving office in 2009. One potential hurdle seemed to emerge early Thursday in reports that Hagel at one time called the State Department “an adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office” in a 2007 speech at Rutgers University. Jewish groups immediately called on Hagel to explain himself.

But the biggest challenge to Hagel’s confirmation has had little to do with his fitness for the job but with McCain and Graham’s demand that the White House provide more documents on the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack. The duo said earlier Thursday that they would filibuster Hagel until the White House produced those documents. After the Administration responded, the senators said they were mollified. “”I think it was an adequate response, yes,” McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We are working on and having negotiations now trying to smooth this thing out and get it done.”

Benghazi has been an ongoing sore spot between the White House and Republicans. Graham, McCain and Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, are also delaying the confirmation of John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency until the White House answers their questions about who changed U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points on the Sunday shows five days after the attack. Rice, working off talking points, said the attack, which turned out to be the work of al Qaeda-like terrorists, was simply a protest gone awry. Republicans furiously accused the Administration of trying to cover upits failure to adequately fight the war on terror and to protect American lives.

Like I said, maybe there's a Senator in there that's being spiteful, that can't be completely avoided, but they've clearly stated what they want and that they will vote for cloture after they get back.

So, not really sure what the big deal is, they will vote, he will get confirmed.... just not today.

[Sub-stance1]

Maybe for McCain it is that's part of the reason, but I don't think he speaks for all the Senators in Congress, here's an article in the W. Post.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g-chuck-hagel/

Here's more:



Like I said, maybe there's a Senator in there that's being spiteful, that can't be completely avoided, but they've clearly stated what they want and that they will vote for cloture after they get back.

So, not really sure what the big deal is, they will vote, he will get confirmed.... just not today.

“A number of senators have serious concerns with his lack of experience leading such a massive bureaucracy,

.... That coming from the party who nominated Palin for VP.

[Morganator]

To be honest, the concerns regarding Israel are not only unfounded but a piss poor reason to stack up as part of the reason to block his nomination. Israel is NOT an ally we should be consorting with, for any reason. They aren't our true friends in the least and their actions over the years have proven as much.

[weskurtz81]

Morg,

Why are they not strategic allies of the US? Just curious what your thoughts are.

[weskurtz81]

Awfully quiet in here!!!

Interesting, so as we briefly discussed in the past, Mayor Bloomberg has banned restaurants from selling soda in anything large than a 16 ounce container. Ok, so the nanny state knows best right?! People can't control themselves so let's make the best decisions for them!

No more 2 liter bottles with pizza delivery, no soft drink pitcher at a kids party, no pitcher of soda at the bowling ally, no more large mixers at night clubs!

Clearly Fuhrer Bloomberg knows better than you do about how you should live your life!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-sodas-pizza/

[DayWalker]

meh- don't really care. shouldn't be drinking that shit anyways. (cites obesity/diabetes studies and growth)

frankly... some people absolutely cannot take care of their own health lol

[Ixion]

meh- don't really care. shouldn't be drinking that shit anyways. (cites obesity/diabetes studies and growth)

frankly... some people absolutely cannot take care of their own health lol

So let them be unhealthy. That's their choice.

[Vulgotha]

Morg,

Why are they not strategic allies of the US? Just curious what your thoughts are.

Because they are definitely more of a pain in the ass than they are a help? I mean, I get why we consort with the Saudi's- they're the 2nd largest oil exporter. They have some weight to throw around. I still hate everything they stand for and think associating with them is a very stupid, short sighted, move.

Israel, though, is nothing but belligerent and paranoid. Not that the arabs are any better (lol anything but!), but its a mess that I don't see why we should get involved in. I mean literally there is zero point into going to war with Iran, except that the Saudi and Israel lobby really really want it to happen.

Because the victors (them) become the premiere powers in the middle east. And they'd rather wage that war on the US's dime and make it out to be a 'war against terrorism and nuclear weapons' than a simple power grab.

The Saudis and Israeli's are nothing more than terrorists and myopic thugs respectively.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOiOMzchcQk


They're a democracy, sure. They're surrounded by people who hate them for ethnic and religions reasons- I get that. And I understand the pressure to back a democracy we helped found.. But the Israeli's are very cynical about our relationship. They love to play at American's heart strings to help them with their "noble crusades of self defense" and its not so hard to play the "We're God's people, Christians. Help Israel!" and flaunt zionism. They're bad news for America, just like Saudi Arabia.

The Israeli's are also not above aggressive false flag operations and flat out extortion to get what they want.

Let them handle their own problems.

Mako\FAB defense is pretty awesome, though.

[DayWalker]

So let them be unhealthy. That's their choice.

drives up healthcare costs for everyone else.

I can still get as much or as little junk food as I want. I'm not too worried about those with no self control. Chances are if they have to jump through a couple hoops they will pass on the sweets


ugh... so much work to get my soda... I'll just have water = win

[Ixion]

They should do to soda what they did to cigarettes. Use commercials to make it seem disgusting, unhip, etc.

[MATRIX 2]

They should do to soda what they did to cigarettes. Use commercials to make it seem disgusting, unhip, etc.

Yeah, because the alternative they will push instead (artificially sweetened drinks) is so much better.


/s.

[Ixion]

Yeah, because the alternative they will push instead (artificially sweetened drinks) is so much better.


/s.

I stay away from both. I only use stevia to sweeten my coffee, and that's about it.

[DayWalker]

just about everything is fine in moderation.

my diet and exercise routine have changed a lot over the last 14 months. (it had to my youthful metabolism shut down)
Now I am a lot more conscious of what I eat and what others are eating. Its actually quite shocking how naive I was and most people remain.

Paleo diet+ crossfit FTW!

[Valefor]

Because they are definitely more of a pain in the ass than they are a help? I mean, I get why we consort with the Saudi's- they're the 2nd largest oil exporter. They have some weight to throw around. I still hate everything they stand for and think associating with them is a very stupid, short sighted, move.

Israel, though, is nothing but belligerent and paranoid. Not that the arabs are any better (lol anything but!), but its a mess that I don't see why we should get involved in. I mean literally there is zero point into going to war with Iran, except that the Saudi and Israel lobby really really want it to happen.

Because the victors (them) become the premiere powers in the middle east. And they'd rather wage that war on the US's dime and make it out to be a 'war against terrorism and nuclear weapons' than a simple power grab.

The Saudis and Israeli's are nothing more than terrorists and myopic thugs respectively.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOiOMzchcQk


They're a democracy, sure. They're surrounded by people who hate them for ethnic and religions reasons- I get that. And I understand the pressure to back a democracy we helped found.. But the Israeli's are very cynical about our relationship. They love to play at American's heart strings to help them with their "noble crusades of self defense" and its not so hard to play the "We're God's people, Christians. Help Israel!" and flaunt zionism. They're bad news for America, just like Saudi Arabia.

The Israeli's are also not above aggressive false flag operations and flat out extortion to get what they want.

Let them handle their own problems.

Mako\FAB defense is pretty awesome, though.

I don't think it's that simple regarding Israel/Iran. An attack on Iran would be costly and would provide an excuse to unite and rally even more people to jihad against the West. But is avoiding this situation the better option? If diplomacy fails, and Iran obtains nuclear weaponry we're also in the shit because, if the reports are true, it funds terrorists groups such as Hezbollah who would have little issue with using such weaponry against Israel and possibly the West.

Is it wise to risk such an attack? Wouldn't this also act as a rallying cry for jihadists? And if this happens, where would the retaliation be directed to, given that terrorists operate in groups across borders? Either of these situations would leave us vulnerable. This is where the Israelis, even with their Zionist ideology, are strategically important.

The right course of action isn't clear, and deciding which way to go on this matter will be like navigating a maze in a shitstorm.

P.S. This is without even taking into consideration the possible Iranian assistance to North Korea on the nuclear front.

[Vulgotha]

I don't think it's that simple regarding Israel/Iran. An attack on Iran would be costly and would provide an excuse to unite and rally even more people to jihad against the West. But is avoiding this situation the better option? If diplomacy fails, and Iran obtains nuclear weaponry we're also in the shit because, if the reports are true, it funds terrorists groups such as Hezbollah who would have little issue with using such weaponry against Israel and possibly the West.

Is it wise to risk such an attack? Wouldn't this also act as a rallying cry for jihadists? And if this happens, where would the retaliation be directed to, given that terrorists operate in groups across borders? Either of these situations would leave us vulnerable. This is where the Israelis, even with their Zionist ideology, are strategically important.

The right course of action isn't clear, and deciding which way to go on this matter will be like navigating a maze in a shitstorm.

P.S. This is without even taking into consideration the possible Iranian assistance to North Korea on the nuclear front.

1. Israel would steamroll Iran, with or without our help. Iran's defeat would be total.

2. You do realize that Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi monarchy, funds and abets terrorists right? Bin Laden was a wahabi. We are not at war with "jihadists" (which means to 'struggle', in Islam it has a different definition than what we think it does) we're at 'war' with wahabis and salafists. How do you think Pakistan came into possession of Bin Laden and put him in a compound not 2 miles away from a military base?

He was handed over to them by Saudi Arabia. They were protecting their own. So not going to war with Iran on the basis of fear that they will supply and arm terrorists- c'mon man. That makes no sense. Pakistan is more of a 'bad guy' than Iran is (as I just illustrated) and they HAVE nukes.

I'd be more worried of the Russians selling to somebody than I would Iran or Pakistan. But trafficking in nuclear materials is exceptionally difficult to do, let alone develop and deploy them in weaponized form.

And North Korea is an ass pimple. They're not ever going to amount to anything.

Maybe we should stop for a second and consider why these people are mad at us to the point of engaging in violence and insurgency in the first place? I'm not saying "The west are the bad guys, hurr hurr I'm contrarian" I'm just trying to be objective here. The west has screwed up pretty hard in the past and decisions which we thought were beneficial came back to bite us in the long run.

After the collapse of the Iron Curtain we saw the fruits of our labor quickly turn sour once the common enemy was defeated.

For this reason I miss the Russians. They were a power we could wrap our heads around and understand. A nation with a core ideology, with satellite states on a map. A government.

We're fighting people across borders who have no true government ties outside of discreet funding. And we continue to screw this up because we understand neither insurrectionist warfare nor the people we are fighting against. We don't fully grasp the who and why of it all and we clearly don't have the 'how' down to defeat them.


To me, the core issue is Islam. It isn't "just" a religion, it's a way of life and it even has its own economic system and culture. This is clear as day to me. We don't understand it, and unfortunately it may well be that it is simply incompatible with western ideology and secularism.

I have hopes that this will change though, in time. The problem is immigrants from these nations are out breeding us and clinging to their culture. It proliferates... Often because of the very liberties and freedoms western societies enjoy. Easy to take advantage of.

So what is the 'final solution'? I don't know. Don't allow the west to become theocracies and try to educate the masses\inter breed with them.

But that's part of the problem. Many Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia I know for sure, allow muslim men to marry (and informally screw) our women but the reverse is not true.

Invasive.

[MATRIX 2]

I stay away from both. I only use stevia to sweeten my coffee, and that's about it.

Look into agave nectar.

just about everything is fine in moderation.

my diet and exercise routine have changed a lot over the last 14 months. (it had to my youthful metabolism shut down)
Now I am a lot more conscious of what I eat and what others are eating. Its actually quite shocking how naive I was and most people remain.

Paleo diet+ crossfit FTW!

Even just drinking 1 can of soda a day can increase your chance of diabetes by ~40%.

I know plenty of people have at least 1 can a day (typically in the morning as a coffee/tea substitute).

Don't even get me started on the idiots that think the diet soda's are better for you.

[DayWalker]

Look into agave nectar.



Even just drinking 1 can of soda a day can increase your chance of diabetes by ~40%.

I know plenty of people have at least 1 can a day (typically in the morning as a coffee/tea substitute).

Don't even get me started on the idiots that think the diet soda's are better for you.

well... moderation is subjective I suppose.

people just don't have self control or the knowledge....

[weskurtz81]

meh- don't really care. shouldn't be drinking that shit anyways. (cites obesity/diabetes studies and growth)

frankly... some people absolutely cannot take care of their own health lol

So, tell me this, why should it stop there? Ban 40's, ban pitchers of beer, ban mixed drinks, ban large bags of chips, seriously man, it can go on and on. All of these things that are sold in larger quantities than are "healthy" to consume in one sitting should be banned in those quantities? The only way you fix health issues is through education, not regulation.

I know you don't care because people shouldn't drink that much soda, and I agree that soda is VERY unhealthy, but they are reaching too far with regulations such as these.

[Morganator]

Morg,

Why are they not strategic allies of the US? Just curious what your thoughts are.

I said nothing about strategics though their policies against their neighbors are in direct contravention of what makes them supposed "strategic allies". Israel is a belligerent minor power at best. The only reason they can even tango with any of their neighbors at all is because we're their sugar daddy, one which they themselves resent just as much as their enemies do. Do you think that if Israel was never given advanced weaponry, foreign aid to the tune of hundreds of billions and America's bigger brother guarantee that they would ever have been engaged in the wars they've been in? They wouldn't even exist today had it not been for the major powers confiscating land from countries that didn't deserve it and giving it to those that didn't even fight for themselves in the first place.

Israel may be an ally but it's not one I want and not a nation I would consort with. At most, they are a viable trading partner.

[Valefor]

1. Israel would steamroll Iran, with or without our help. Iran's defeat would be total.

And that is better for the West, and this is only possible because of US support in the form of weapons technology. This highlights Israel's strategic importance. Although I am not even sure it would be a steamroll now - they have the superior military in the region for sure, but how that would play out in the context of the Arab Spring, I don't know. They would not only have Iran to deal with; Hamas would no doubt continue to fire at will into Israeli territory and Egypt, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, would be putting on pressure as well. Then there are other toppled governments, due to the 'democratic revolution', who now have access to weaponry who may see it as an attack on Islam. It's a mess, there's no other way to describe it.

2. You do realize that Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi monarchy, funds and abets terrorists right? Bin Laden was a wahabi. We are not at war with "jihadists" (which means to 'struggle', in Islam it has a different definition than what we think it does) we're at 'war' with wahabis and salafists. How do you think Pakistan came into possession of Bin Laden and put him in a compound not 2 miles away from a military base?

He was handed over to them by Saudi Arabia. They were protecting their own. So not going to war with Iran on the basis of fear that they will supply and arm terrorists- c'mon man. That makes no sense. Pakistan is more of a 'bad guy' than Iran is (as I just illustrated) and they HAVE nukes.

I'd be more worried of the Russians selling to somebody than I would Iran or Pakistan. But trafficking in nuclear materials is exceptionally difficult to do, let alone develop and deploy them in weaponized form.

I know the word 'jihad' can be attributed also to more friendly ideals like inner peace, and we're not at war with all jihadists, but we (and other Muslims) are at war with people who would consider their 'resistance' as jihad. Let's not ignore the other ways in which the term is used just for the sake of political correctness, it hinders the questioning of ideas.

I am not disputing the problems with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I am just pointing out that Iran should not be brushed off so easily - no situations are as simple as you made out in your last post. Each country has to be approached uniquely, and the Iranian leadership is the one that has made its thoughts on the matter of Zionism very clear - it wants to remove Zionism from the pages of history (or whatever the correct translation was). And whilst Zionism isn't a very good idea, if it comes to it, the use of nuclear weapons against Israel is likely to be a worse idea.

And North Korea is an ass pimple. They're not ever going to amount to anything.

I don't think the situation with North Korea should be brushed off easily either. Their leaders are crazy and desperate - a dangerous combination. We have to consider the wider implications that the spread of nuclear arms to these states would bring to world stability. Thinking about it when we see mushroom clouds above cities - even if not our own - is too late. Even if it didn't come to that, a North / South Korean war could easily escalate, and the confusion it could bring could be beneficial to terrorist activities.

Maybe we should stop for a second and consider why these people are mad at us to the point of engaging in violence and insurgency in the first place? I'm not saying "The west are the bad guys, hurr hurr I'm contrarian" I'm just trying to be objective here. The west has screwed up pretty hard in the past and decisions which we thought were beneficial came back to bite us in the long run.

After the collapse of the Iron Curtain we saw the fruits of our labor quickly turn sour once the common enemy was defeated.

For this reason I miss the Russians. They were a power we could wrap our heads around and understand. A nation with a core ideology, with satellite states on a map. A government.

We're fighting people across borders who have no true government ties outside of discreet funding. And we continue to screw this up because we understand neither insurrectionist warfare nor the people we are fighting against. We don't fully grasp the who and why of it all and we clearly don't have the 'how' down to defeat them.

Of course but finding a rational explanation from ones who think irrationally is quite the task. The West has screwed up in many ways, especially with Iran, so I don't think anyone is blameless. I'm not sure how this cycle is to be broken though.

To me, the core issue is Islam. It isn't "just" a religion, it's a way of life and it even has its own economic system and culture. This is clear as day to me. We don't understand it, and unfortunately it may well be that it is simply incompatible with western ideology and secularism.

I have hopes that this will change though, in time. The problem is immigrants from these nations are out breeding us and clinging to their culture. It proliferates... Often because of the very liberties and freedoms western societies enjoy. Easy to take advantage of.

So what is the 'final solution'? I don't know. Don't allow the west to become theocracies and try to educate the masses\inter breed with them.

But that's part of the problem. Many Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia I know for sure, allow muslim men to marry (and informally screw) our women but the reverse is not true.

Invasive.

Aren't most religions a lifestyle? Islam certainly offers a unique problem. It has not been through the Renaissance and the Reformation like Christianity has for example, so it hasn't caught up to modern ethics and secularism. When people make jokes about Jesus, some Christians ignore it, laugh it off, or voice their opposition in a civilised manner. When people have made jokes about Muhammad, there have been riots in the street and people have been murdered. This intolerance can't be tolerated, and it certainly is incompatible with Western ideals.

I don't know how this is resolved. Education, as you say, would be integral to any plan, and decent Muslims speaking out in numbers against extremists would be invaluable. It would also be beneficial for the West to stop trying to cater to everyone's feelings by having a rule of law that applies to everyone equally, as it should do. We shouldn't have a situation where we have Sharia and Jewish committees that deal with problems according to their own culture, and we shouldn't have situations where religious believers are not held to the same standard as other believers / non believers when it comes to policies - this encourages segregation. We all need to live, work, and abide by the same rules together.

[Sub-stance1]

lol...at Hannity. A registered Conservative.

[DayWalker]

@ Megan Kelly (however you spell her name) trying to defend Hannity this morning.

that woman is too hot to be so stupid.