Current or modern politics in the United States

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

This is ridiculous!

I guess Broomberg doesn't believe in Free Enterprise!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...vo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

Well, at least I understand him ....


.... ...

look at the streets.

.... here it is in the discussion too, that fast food companies should reduce sugar and fat in their meals too. In a two liter bottle of Coke are 80 cubes of sugar or ~200g!
A warning on convenience food ain't enforced - unfortunately - so far.

At my place a pizza order - appending on the sum - goes with a bottle of red wine.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

However, the Republicans seem more willing to send their soldiers to far away lands to fight.

Didn't the US get into WW1 and WW2 and the Korean War and the Vietnam War under Democratic Presidents?!?!?!

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Didn't the US get into WW1 and WW2 and the Korean War and the Vietnam War under Democratic Presidents?!?!?!

Not all wars are voluntary; but voluntary wars are usually wars fought for profit. The Vietnam War was a good example of policy drift; the entanglement escalated because the military thought (wrongly) that they could turn the war to their advantage; and the JFK and especially the LBJ administrations lacked the focus and strength to appreciate the peril. The Korean War was actually a success in that it prevented a strategic shift in the Far East which would have imperilled Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. America had her own agenda in both WW1 and WW2, and in WW2 particularly she gained economically and in prestige; but in WW2 she was attacked. It isn't always a case of "follow the money"; but that's a valid approach whenever the reasons for a war aren't obvious.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

but in WW2 she was attacked. It isn't always a case of "follow the money".

Absolutely !

But wasn't FDR doing his best to get the US involved long before Pearl Harbour [ hence Lend Lease et al] - and was restrained only by the Isolationists at home.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Absolutely !

But wasn't FDR doing his best to get the US involved long before Pearl Harbour [ hence Lend Lease et al] - and was restrained only by the Isolationists at home.

What better way of capitalizing on the profits to be made from war than by making everyone's weapons while safely sitting it out. The United States got dragged into WW II not only because Japan attacked, but Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US after the fact otherwise we probably would have just focused on curb-stomping the Japanese.

In other words I believe FDRs conscience led him to support the allies, but I do not think he was actively trying to get the US into a major war. The only thing that could have induced the US into war as overwhelmingly as it did was something like the Pearl Harbor attack which- conspiracy theorists aside-the US did not anticipate as the response of a sober nation state nor was it an attack manufactured by the FRD administration. (After all...why sacrifice the one tool you would need to prosecute a war in the pacific in order to have just cause for declaring war in the first place?)

[savage560]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Republicans are people too, you know.

Of course,but they think of themselves as elitists ,quasi royalists,who pander to the rich.Face it most of their legislation currenly favors the top 2-4 % of earners.Abortion,issues, & other issues pertaining to personal rights ,their record for the most part, is absysmal,for the majority of them.They are most all in concordance with more millitary spending,& against the presidents step toward NHC.

The GOP is for spending trillions for the "protection" of other countries,start wars under false pretense,as we have currently found out several members of the wreckless & disasterous GWB administration has admitted.Then ,after this debt they have created,they refused to pay for it & dump it & the most disasterous economic calamity in modern US history, on the hands of a new ADIMISTRATION.Then their "rigged" HR refuses to increase taxes on the elite few,who are currently paying the lowest taxes in decades, one cent,again under a rediculous reasoning that if the rich have capital abound,it magically filters its way down to the 96% of the masses!

The latest figures of the Presidential election has revealed that the "people", you refer to have lost the presidential election by about 5mil. votes.The "real" people of this country have spoken,loud & clear!

[9876543210]

wildtig2013,

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

This is ridiculous!

I guess Broomberg doesn't believe in Free Enterprise!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...vo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

I partially agree with you and partially agree with Bloomberg. It does seem ridiculous that we need to come up with such a law. Its the epitome of the nanny state. `But have you seen some of the people around you? And the size of some of the kids in our schools? We've been trying to educate the public about this for quite a while and the problem only seems to have gotten worse.

I don't know. I look around and wonder how much this is going to cost us in health costs in the years to come. Maybe Bloomberg's law isn't so bad.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Didn't the US get into WW1 and WW2 and the Korean War and the Vietnam War under Democratic Presidents?!?!?!

Yes,you're going to compare,WWI & WWII with the corporate wars of the 2 Bushies!I was around at the time,listening to campaign talk of Goldwater,you think he was different on VN?How about Tricky, you really think he'd run a different course if he was elected than JFK,who signed an order to leave SVN in '63? Goldwater wanted more involvement in VN & frequently talked of war with the Soviets,& Chinese!In Korea you don't think the Republicons did'nt support it?

The point of qwerty ,I think is, from the Ronnie Raygun years, then escalating under the American Royal Family on,yes the GOP has a quick trigger finger on sending hundreds of thousands of US troops to fight wars for purely profit.Clinton too had a part in the very questionable, sending of troops & bombing nations under dubious reasoning,but not to the extent of the Bushies.The US allways bears the brunt ,in modern times,& spends its people trillions in being the policeman of the world,without pay to the people it "protects".This is a formula for economic disaster.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Republicans are people too, you know.

Republicans may be "people" but they are no longer "human". Anyone that places a higher value on a weapon over a young child isn't "human", they're something else. Anyone that places a higher value on the health of a corporation or a huge bank over the value of the workers that actually make things isn't "human", they're just greedy. And deserve all those things that greedy "people" deserve.

Republicans may be "people" but they certainly aren't "human". Heard that anywhere else, in different context, before?

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,



Republicans may be "people" but they are no longer "human". Anyone that places a higher value on a weapon over a young child isn't "human", they're something else. Anyone that places a higher value on the health of a corporation or a huge bank over the value of the workers that actually make things isn't "human", they're just greedy. And deserve all those things that greedy "people" deserve.

Republicans may be "people" but they certainly aren't "human". Heard that anywhere else, in different context, before?

Easy there buddy. I'll kick a conservative as quick as the next person if their talking ignorant or hateful shit, but lumping ALL of them together in the same blanket cult is doing a disservice to the individuality of man. Taken to its final conclusion it sub-humanizes a whole group of people for the crimes of a very few.

As much as it pains me to admit this there are whole VAST numbers of conservatives who really do lead productive and tolerant lives and whose greatest crime is embracing an ideology that may (for now) be out of wack with the mainstream. I would dare say that just because someone believes in tradition and national heritage does NOT mean they place little or no value on the lives of their fellow citizens or that the many should be economically enslaved to the few. I would call such people instead reactionary weirdos, and the far left is just as likely to breed them as the far right.

C'mon...lets all be brothers. Go find yourself a conservative and give him a hug. They probably need it the way some of ideological spokesmen keep making them look like idiots.