If you are a king for only one day, the changes you made will be useless and will be revert back the next day. Unless you start killing those corrupt politicians, businessman and military officials and change the constitution/laws favorable to the people.
I agree with you,but i don't think you can kill all the corrupt american people in one day...unless you put them all in one place and bomb them..... |
|
|
|
|
Yard work. Also stuff like washing the car, or any other work around the house. When I think about the fact that I'm exercising, it makes the work more fun, and I'm more motivated to work hard.
|
|
|
|
|
If you could make any three changes in America what would they be? I assume most will want to change laws or government, but anything is fair game. You're king for a day, what are your three changes and why would they improve America?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you own a firearm?
A key misunderstanding between gun-control advocates & the rest of us: Americans are OK with guns. We don't like violence or guns in the hands of mad men & criminals, but we are OK with guns.
|
|
|
|
I guess we've arrive at the stage of the conversation where after leftists declare they "care about the children" coming here in droves with no provision for them now or in the future, they engage in a mob beat down of those who actually have charitable involvement with those same kids.
Meanwhile, their petulant messiah who cause the problem gets yet another pass on his blowing smoke up their ass by blaming this on the Repubs for not passing a bill which would do nothing to fix the situation.
lol. Sorry, I was quite happy to discuss the issue on the basis of what we as a society should do with these kids and how we should address the immigration issues we face. |
|
|
|
|
Lawyers should never ask a Georgia grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know me?' She responded, 'Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you'll never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you.'
The lawyer was stunned. Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?'
She again replied, 'Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone, and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him.'.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said,
'If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you both to the electric chair.
|
|
|
|
I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy.
Since both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are very political, I guess you have no objection to poking a little fun at them. As far as racial undertones are concerned, liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that the Obamas are black and therefore beyond criticism. I also stated that I was equally uncomfortable with jokes that in any way attacked a person's race, ethnicity, gender, religion or age. And in that respect I have a couple of issues with this joke as it relates to gender. First it places the First Lady of the US and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on the same level as a couple of hogs. And more disturbing it insinuates that Barack Obama actually "owns" the two individuals and as such can trade them for farm animals. OK, I admit it. As I said earlier, I lack a sense of humour. Or at the least, I lack a totally developed one. |
|
|
|
If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive. Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now. |
|
|
|
Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him. exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life? The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq. I agree with the rest of your post, but I had to say that this part epitomizes...sometimes shit just works out. And in this case, it would be difficult to see how it could have worked out better. The aftermath, maybe. But the series of events were pretty smooth. |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again? See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest. Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did. Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'." What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon? None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again. You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation. Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!! http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/Yemen was a rather poor example for you to choose. AQAP in Yemen right now is hurting pretty badly due to the Spring / summer offensive that we helped the Yemeni army launch against them. The largest current threat to stability in Yemen at the moment, and where the heaviest fighting is, isn't AQAP at all, but with the northern Houthi insurgency. |
|
|
|
Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.
Just as importantly the British parliament voted against it as well which cost us the multilateral support we were depending on for the operations in Syria. |
|
|
|
As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.
That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).
I think the US is being smart with a tactic of limited engagement. Having some support staff on the ground can help the ISF where it is the weakest: intelligence and logistics. Since the Sunnis hate the Maliki government the ISF has been fighting blind in the northwest and has had to resort to mass bombing campaigns which has only pissed the Sunni civilians off even more. Anymore involvement from the US and it would strongly play into the rather sophisticated PR machine of the ISIS and likely delay the internal decay of their alliance network. |
|
|
|
Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action
Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line. |
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq). This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them. Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude. So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously? Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008. The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else. In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs. The situation doesn't appear all that difficult to be honest. Well, to be fair, I'm not over there having to put up with the fighting, so it seems even easier. What I was asking is what am I not seeing. I can see the connection between ISIS and Saudi Arabia, between Saudi Arabia and the US, al-Nusra and Qatar, Qatar and the US, Malicki and Iran and the US, and so can anyone else. Turkey supporting the breakaway of Kurdistan is confusing and I have no idea where that came from, and I'm not clearly seeing where Israel's hand is, although I can see where they could get an advantage. More than anything else, I was wondering if Dylith or anyone else had a reasoned perspective on why the mess hasn't been ended with either US insistence, or Shia kicking the shit out of maybe 6-10 thousand Sunnis. Bear in mind that Russia let the Malicki regime and everyone else in the area as well as the US know that the invasion was going to happen 2 weeks in advance at least. To me, something isn't being seen in the light of day. A discussion on Obama's administration could only have a point if there was some insight on his long range goal, and I seriously doubt that will happen here. |
|
|
|
|
OK, let us become serious for a moment, I actually do have a sense of humour, as cynical as it might be on occasional. But what I do not have time for is any so-called humour that includes attacks of individuals on a personal basis. Although we have some added latitude with regard to politicians and other public figures - particularly relating to SNL type satire - I draw a firm line in the sand with regard to the families of those figures, most particularly the minor children and spouses that are not directly involved in political policy. And in that regard, the role of the First Lady of the US has become increasingly political over the years. Consequently the issues relating to the FL do become a bit murky. But what I do have a problem with are jokes that are offensive with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, religion. Although I will confess that it is often times debatable if a joke actually crosses the line in one of these areas. And no, I cannot provide simple clear cut definition of what is offensive. It is a bit like the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of Pornography -- "I don't know how to define it, I just recognize it when I see it". So, is the joke in question offensive or not? Actually, I find it offensive primarily for a couple of reasons. First the choice of the animals used in the punch line of the joke, secondly, and most particularly, the history that is associated with the attacks that have been directed at this president and first lady, attacks that all too often carry with them racial undercurrents - or even are outwardly racist in nature. To deny the existence of these racial issues is naïve at best -- dishonest and disingenuous at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Good answer KWH, we all should post this link everytime a newbie post a topic wanting a loan, everywone shold just post the link and not waste time with newbies
|
|
|
|
|
Its very easy to steal ID info, if they only require ID to get a loan then its going to be very easy to scam on that site. Many ways to steal Identity, shhesshhh maybe I should sell ID lol, JK
|
|
|
|
|
Well its Karma, you do bad things surely what goes around comes around, he probably ill from stress. Mentally sick, Uptown could be facing aa nightmare right now.
|
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...
Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.
My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.
I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.
Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.
Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it? You can believe that since Obama made, in my opinion also, a serious mistake by the Syrian red line, but the truth is that if he chooses, he can make everyone understand he is totally serious without having to raise a finger. The error was embarrassing, but unimportant if he chooses to flex. US will can be imposed pretty easily if the desire is there. That issue is fairly unimportant to the discussion I hoped to have. |
|
|
|
|
Conservative humor is all some variation on I Love Lucy. Lucille Ball was a genius comedian, but the show was misogynistic as fuck. Unfortunately it covered the entire range of r-w "humor".
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
