One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 288 next>>
Jun 26, 2017 10:02:13   #
Steve700 wrote:
I'm sorry you spent so much time on that long-winded response going over so many of my statements. I only read the first one where you dispute and criticize my calling the Obama administration corrupt and untrustworthy in the information they put out.

I wasn't expecting you to read much of it Steve... I mean seriously, delusional notions like yours don't survive in the minds of people who read and understand solid arguments from opposing views. So I already know you don't read them. When I respond to people like you, it's really just practice. I enjoy it.

Steve700 wrote:

Do I need to explain and give examples of how train deceiver and pathological liar Obama and his administration are the most Deceitful, Dishonest, Untrustworthy, Corrupt, Constitution Deifying, Communistic, Pro Islamic, Anti-American administration in the history of America. Well I'm not going to bother 'cuz your just.....

Yeah, save your lies for the idiots that don't know any better. ;)
 
Jun 26, 2017 09:42:47   #
Ve'hoe wrote:
Steveo,,,, kicked your ass on this one,,, but then everyone does.....

Uh-huh...
I would invite you to actually make that argument, but I know better than to think you do anything but clap and boo. Maybe you can find someone among your friends who actually finished High School to have a try?
Jun 25, 2017 14:54:43   #
Morgan wrote:
If you're familiar with this type of mind set where one follows a man devoid of a moral compass and shows loyalty of their party over country, please explain to it to me, these people minds that are so pliable to who they are following while viewing higher education as the vilification. I don't understand it, but to me it mimics what happened to people who blindly followed Hitler.


It is actually very similar to what happened when people followed Hitler, or Mussolini or Stalin for that matter.

You present a very good question Morgan. I don't think it's so much that their minds are pliable (that would indicate a capacity to learn and adapt). I think it's their lack of mental pliability that so often obstructs their understanding of the world around them and the consequences of what they support. The real catalyst here, I think, is prejudice. Usually, people don't learn about politics until AFTER their prejudices have already been set either by their parents or by their peers, or sometimes a bad experience. When they see politics unfolding, they first choose the side according to their prejudice. And for any side there is going to be a number of people clever enough to make rhetorical excuses for any political move they want to defend. So for the followers, it's a simple matter of subscribing to those excuses, not because they make sense, but because it supports the side they are loyal to, or even more the point it blames the side they are not loyal to.

Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini all rose out of desperate times by appealing to preexisting bigotry agitated by depressed conditions. Trump is essentially doing the same thing. America has been in decline for about 40 years now and people are starting to feel the squeeze. As people so often do when things get bad, they look for blame but rational explanations don't appeal to the uneducated the way amplified bigotry does. There is no doubt that Trump caters to bigotry using sweeping generalizations and such, eliminating the need to explain anything to the point where a clear mind would actually see any value. I can't remember who said this but some writer suggested that fascism is based on broad symbolism rather than a rational assessment of details.

There was an interesting interview on the radio last week with the author of a new book about our divided nation (can't remember the name of the writer or the title of the book) but in his research he discovered that one of the most revealing patterns about Trump supporters is that an overwhelming majority of them have never left their hometowns (aside from vacations and military service). The author was suggesting that it's this lack of interacting with adjacent cultures leads to a myopic mindset.

I think this fits into what I'm saying about taking sides culturally, which can happen in early childhood, before even learning about politics, which requires at least a high school education. (You may have noticed the most persistent bigots on this site tend to write as if they never got past 3rd grade).
Jun 25, 2017 13:15:07   #
Ve'hoe wrote:
Like most of the crap you post,, it isnt up to you how it comes accross or how stupid it is,,,
what is funny is how smart you think you are, yet cannot demonstrate it......

Is that all you have? No proof of anything you've said? Just more insults? OK, well that's boring. zzzz
Jun 25, 2017 12:53:16   #
After the Rodney King accident, the Riverside Police hired my Tae Kwon Do teacher, a 6-degree black belt from Korea who served in the U.S. Army, to teach the officers methods in benevolent control. I actually attended a few of the workshops myself and was amazed at how these cops didn't know ANY basic techniques such as pressure points and holds. The trend today is to militarize the cops, which aside from special units is a bad idea, especially given the high volume of video coverage leaked into the media of police officers loosing control. The most important thing for a police department is to gain the trust of their community. BLM is trying to work toward that end, but suggesting better training and for me personally, I think they should be paid more.

Steve700 wrote:

And the crap that you say about Trump is absolute brain dead bullshit.

The stuff I say about Trump is pretty damned accurate. You just don't like hearing it.

[quote=Steve700]
But if you listen to the Communist News Network (CNN) and MSNBC whose 24/7 agenda is to slander and bring Trump down by any means necessary, you're never going to hear of any of the good that he has accomplished, because they're just not going to tell you, just like they protected Obama and never raised hell about all the things he was doing against conservatives and then stonewalling investigations and helping the jihadist like [b]illegally[b] releasing the 5 biggest big shot, is top echelon terrorist commanders at Gitmo to get back a deserter-defector that we should have wanted back for no other reason other than to court-martial him (which still hasn't happened) can you see that this country is that an internal coup of corrupt communist and Muslims that are so deeply embedded in the establishment that Trump has put himself in grave danger to try to root out because there are so many people in our government that knows if he is successful they will be going to prison.
[/quote]
That was a VERY long sentence. I guess it's more of a rant. A long baseless, childish, idiotic rant. Starting off by calling CNN the Communist News Network... So juvenile. And I don't watch CNN anyway... while people like you gawk at an endless procession of repeated 60 second bytes on whatever TV channels dish out what you want to hear, I actually read newspapers. The coverage is more extensive the editorials are deeper.

Steve700 wrote:

You and your Leftism are sick. We are in a slow communist revolution of hate and about to lose our country and you're too lame brain to even see it.

I hope you do loose your country. I honestly do. You're country is not the same as mine and it never has been. My country is progressive and cares about people. You're country is racist, uptight and only cares about ideology. You talk about decency... How dare you even utter that word. You are one of the most indecent and offensive people on this site.

Don't bother responding.
Jun 25, 2017 12:51:38   #
Steve700 wrote:
I think you should know that you are making a mistake by putting any trust in anti-right wing statistics put out by the Obama administration.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would make such baseless accusations. I suppose I should just ask you for the truth because you're the only one that really knows, right? LOL

Steve700 wrote:

Also it should be obvious that any foundation calling itself the 'NEW' America is an untrustworthy, heavily and incorrectly & biasedly slanted Marxist organization putting out Disinformation (and you can take that to the bank). You need to come to the side of those who hold Truth, Honesty and Integrity has their prime values.

So I guess that makes right-wing think tanks like the Project for a New American Century Marxists... "obviously"
BTW, the fact that you have no clue which words to capitalize doesn't do much to give me the impression that you have the slightest ability to tell the difference between truth and bullshit.

Steve700 wrote:

What are you talking about trying to shove unproven Baseless Blabber..... Because you can't have no spiritual discernment

"can't have no..."? Oh, sorry when someone talks redneck to me it's kind of distracting. You were saying...

Steve700 wrote:

to see the reality of the truth of what's going on and the evil on your side doesn't mean it's unproven crap.

You don't even know what my side is. Pointing out the fallacies of your arguments doesn't necessarily indicate what "side" I am on.

Steve700 wrote:

Most of what I say are obvious Jews

How exactly does that make any sense?

Steve700 wrote:

Most of what I say are obvious Jews that you can't deny such as the such as my

just... if you proof-read... did you learn that in school at all?
OK... I'll try again...

Steve700 wrote:

Most of what I say are obvious Jews that you can't deny such as the such as my last two articles on the left wanting to destroy America and the Democratic Party being the party of HATE.

I'm sure those "articles" were top notch op-eds filled with revelations, but you see, I have never registered Democrat myself so it's hard to be insulted if that's what you're going for. otherwise I don't know why you have to go through such efforts (you post reams of this stuff) to make people think the Democrats are "the party of hate". Steve, people have been calling the GOP the Party of Hate for a long time. it seems everynow and then some Republican get's all uptight about it and goes nuts trying to convince every one that it's the Democrats who are the haters.

The reason why most Americans tend to see the Republicans as the Party of Hate is because for about the last 50 years or so, it's been the Republicans that have demanded unequal treatment and offered only distain for the those on the shorter end. For about the same time at least, they have also been the party most supportive and/or forgiving toward known hate groups. So it makes sense.

Your rhetorical list of "examples" is a small stand of trees in a very, very big forest my freind.

Anyway, the Republicans seem to be the ones that want to exclude blacks, immigrants, Muslims and gays and offer them no quarter. I don't really see that in progressive politics. tion. I think this is all pretty obvious to everyone that doesn't have his head firmly planted in his asses. As for people like you... I've seen your posts seething with hatred. You hate Muslims with a passion, I don't know if you think you're hiding it, but just to let you know... you're really not.

So, it's hard to take your accusation seriously. Your throwing rocks in a glass house.

Steve700 wrote:

You can deny nothing of what is and those articles and here is some more obvious truth that demonstrates the left is evil that you can't deny:
When have you ever seen a mob of Conservatives riot, loot, destroy cars and windows and burn?

Look, this might be over your head but there is a conflict between economic classes that has very little to do with politics or ideology. The 1% are squeezing the 99% and as this happens the poorest of the people get pushed out and their civilized options for recourse are typically shut down. These are human beings, doing what human beings do when they are victimized by unfair systems and fighting to survive. They riot and loot. Most of them don't vote or even care about politics or ideology. So, they're not conservatives or liberals, they're poor disadvantaged humans.

But between the two political sides, it's almost always the left that extends them an open hand while on the right the preference is to kick them while they are down. So you're doing the same thing I caught you doing earlier when suggesting that Muslims are leftists. You are transferring the political identity of the left to any other group the left shows any sympathy for. That's like calling a cancer patient a doctor because a doctor is trying to help him. Pretty stupid right?

Steve700 wrote:

When have you ever seen a mob of Conservative youth on a college campus become so violent that a liberal speaker had to be shut down?

No, but I have never seen a mob of liberal youth doing that either. But I have seen the stunts pulled by the likes of Ann Coulter who says she wanted to speak at Berkeley and refused to schedule for a time when Berkeley said they can provide the appropriate security; instead making a big deal out of how Berkeley "refused" to let her speak. She's smart enough to know what's she's doing. She never even wanted to speak, she just wanted to play that game and agitate the conservatives. I'm sure it worked on you.

Steve700 wrote:

When have you ever heard of a Conservative comedian simulate the beheading of a Democrat President?

Conservatives don't have comedians. Probably because they're too uptight to laugh at anything.

Steve700 wrote:

When have you ever heard of Conservative musicians call for the assassination of a sitting Democrat President?

Ted Nuggent (if you can actually call him a musician... I mean he's always sucked)

Steve700 wrote:

When did Conservatives ever put on a play in a NYC park depicting the assassination of a sitting President?

When did liberals every produce a block buster movie depicting the assasination of a sitting president? (Kingsmen: The Secret Service - 2014)
Oh and the play wasn't about Trump, just so you know... it was a play written hundreds of years ago by a guy named Shakespeare. It's just the part of Caesar

Steve700 wrote:

When has a Conservative ever taken a shot at a Democrat President? All assassinations and attempted assassinations were committed by Democrats against Republican Presidents except for Kennedy. That was a Deep State murder to get to LBJa war monger.

If you're going to consider the entire history of the U.S. presidency then the whole "Democrat" thing looses all relevance. Since you're asking if I've seen or heard of "conservatives" that have done any of these things, I'll assume you are talking about a deeper culture, rather than a political party, the later being far more transient. That being said... Lincoln, a liberal by 19th century standards was shot by a conservative.

Steve700 wrote:

When have Conservatives ever disputed the results of a Presidential election?

When have the Democrats ever given the people reason to dispute the results?

Steve700 wrote:

Sore loser Democrats disputed the last two Republican winsin 2000 when Gore tried to steal the election

Gore won the popular vote without question... point being simple... Most Americans wanted Gore. But of course the president isn't elected by popular vote but by the electoral vote which was so close in 2000 that a mandatory recount was triggered in Florida and the Florida Supreme Court ordered a number of counties to to be recounted. The Democrats wanted this recount to be sure all votes were in fact counted. The Republicans were afraid that counting all the votes would give Gore the lead and appealed to the Supreme Court which decided 5-4 in favor the Republicans and the count was stopped. ...and you think Gore stole the election? Yeah, right. LOL

Steve700 wrote:

and in 2016 when Democrats came up with at least a dozen excuses for Hillary's loss except the real reason that she was the worst candidate in memory.

I really don't see the Democrats coming up with any excuses at all. Most of them have accepted the results and are moving on. Some of them, like myself, have expressed an opposition to the Electoral College, because it really is bullshit. But at the same time we acknowledge that it *IS* indeed the rules and Trump did indeed win according to those rules. That doesn't mean we can't suggest removing it for future elections.

As for Hilary, she actually did win the popular vote and no it's not because of illegal immigrants, it's because like with Gore, most Americans preferred Hilary. But when you have to win the electoral vote you have to play a slightly different game and Trump was better at that game.

Steve700 wrote:

To say the jihadist are on the right is an absurdity. That's like saying Satanism is on the right. How come the right doesn't defend and partner up with them, but the left does because they have so much in common like a tendency towards violence and hatred of Christians and Western civilization.

LOL... your are one confused bitterbean.

"Left" and "Right" are relative Steve. Have you ever stood opposite someone and referred to "HIS right" which would be your left? It's the same thing when applied to politics and culture. It's possible for left and right to appear to be on the same side, given a perspective. On a basic, universal level there is only one distinguishing factor that divides the left and the right... the acceptance of "others". The left is inclusive, open to all. The right is exclusive, preferring to but up barriers to keep the "others" out.

So, it's the very nature of the left is to partner up with anyone. So before we get into endless drivel about how horrible it is to partner with Muslims let me make something very clear. I don't see the problem with it. As far as I am concerned they are humans. Some of them might have ill-intentions just like some Christian do, but I prefer to wait until they prove it. That my friend is called the courage to live in a free society. If you're so scared of Muslims before they even do anything then you don't belong in a free society, it's as simple as that.

As for hating Christians, let me first state that many on the left ARE Christians (as if you haven't been told a million times). Secondly, the left is THE side that champions freedom of religion, which means anyone can practice any religion they want. People like you are hell-bent on taking that freedom away and pushing YOUR religion on everyone and it's that kind of "Christians Only" bullshit that makes *some* people hate Christianity.

Oh, and the left is an inherrent part of Western Civilization too you brainless twit. The terrorist that speak out against Western Civilization are actually religious conservatives that have serious issues with the liberal order that U.S. foreign policy has been pushing on them. They have the same complaints as you do. All this freedom for gays and secularists to go around promoting loose ideas that clearly violate the rules of their uptight religions.

So, yes... the Islamic militants that oppose Western Civilization (which they see as liberal) are on the absolutely on the right.

Steve700 wrote:

And you talk about hatred coming from the right which is total BS because you, like all liberals want to call our principles prejudices.

No, not all of them... but some of them are. If you're going to be prejudiced enough to persecute an entire religion, people are going to notice. They will point out the truth and because you don't like people pointing out the truth about your prejudice, you lash out by calling THEM the haters. LOL...

Steve700 wrote:

It is the liberals that are obsessed with race and color. We could care less, it is decency and ideology we care about. We have nothing against black people. However we don't like angry hateful malcontent criminally minded racist Niggers ----- and I'm sure you don't like them either if you have a brain in your head. Look at the picture on the bottom that tells you where the hate exists.

It's not that liberals are obsessed with race and color, it's that liberals are the ones constantly defending people of different colors against the racism on the right, so yeah... they bring it up... I guess you see that as an obsession. You say you don't have anything against black people... what a fucking liar you are. You think I've never had a conversation with you before? This is how your dumbass shit works... You SAY you only have a problem with criminally minded, racist "niggers". But then you make the automatic assumption that if someone is black he *IS* criminally minded. That alleviates the guilt of your racism by blaming the victims of your racism on their own character which you have already prejudged.

Steve700 wrote:

You are really sick to be speaking of defense for Black Lives Matter. That is an anti-police Hate group standing up for niggers that hate the police and get themselves killed because they become combative with the police who are doing their duty in dealing with them. Even the police who are put on trial are always found by the jury to be innocent.

All the more reason for BLM to make fair-minded people aware of the fact that some cops are racist assholes. Yes, I'm a very proud supporter of BLM. They are not anti-police, they are anti-bad-police. The reason why so many cops are found innocent by jury is that in many jurisdictions, cops get special legal protections, for instance a review board, that a normal citizen wouldn't get. In some states police officers are shielded from criminal prosecution in deadly force cases unless it can be shown they acted with malice and a lack of good faith.

Even with a dash cam, it's not always easy to tell if the officer had a choice or not. But I just watched the dashcam coverage of the Castile incident. And you can't see the victim because he was inside the car. But I also saw the cop fire off about 5 rounds at point-blank range. That is a clear sign the cop lost control of his fear and yet it's not possible to prove he acted in malice. BLM puts a lot of emphasis on working with law enforcement to suggest better training.
 
Jun 24, 2017 15:50:10   #
Ve'hoe wrote:
You havent yet,, you are too busy, exposing yourself for the ass you are.......

Oh, I'm soo convinced... LOL...
Eh, whatever makes you feel better.
Jun 24, 2017 15:24:32   #
Mr Bombastic wrote:
In your dreams, Spanky. I was missing two lettets. This is because I started typing before my browser fully loaded the page. I'm sure you done the same thing at least once

I've done it lots of times, but I always check my post before I hit SEND... That's just second nature for anyone who checks the quality of what he produces. I guess that's not you.
Jun 24, 2017 15:08:59   #
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>>

He probably supports the Gas Tax Rip Off in Cali...

Yes, I do. For me, the few extra dollars is worth the cleaner air, which is what that "rip-off" is used for, additional processing for cleaner burning fuel.

Sicilianthing wrote:

He might like Sanctuary cities too

Yes, I do. Sanctuary cities are flipping Trump and his federal government the bird and I LOVE it!

Sicilianthing wrote:

He might be a Federalist and so he's not anti Federalist like us which means the Independent and lefty issues may have gotten to him long ago.

I'm not so sure you actually understand the difference... federalist means you defend the existence of the federal government. Anti-federalists means you don't. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if you want the federal government to be smaller, the point is you still want it to exist. That makes you a federalist. Now, I've called myself an anti-federalist and if you look over my arguments you will see nothing to the contrary. In fact my tangent on California leaving the Union only confirms my anti-federalist leaning.

Favoring independent or liberal perspectives is another issue with no bearing on how federal or anti-federal a person is. I just happen to believe that most progressive ideas like democracy and socialism work better in smaller units and that's a driving force behind my anti-federalism. These systems can work much better in a unit of 39.1 million (population of California) than they could in a unit of 350 million (population of 39.1 million). So for me, the path to a more socially responsible system is to abandon the "federation" and all those leechy red states clinging to our ankles for the money we give them while at the same time biting us for being too generous with our own people. (rolling my eyes)


Sicilianthing wrote:

I can go on and on but I have to carefully answer his next reply to me without getting arrested, Ha !

It's a complicated one - most won't entertain.

Yeah, I caught that when you mentioned it before... It seems you want to impress people with this idea that you have something really big and scary going on. All I know is that you are either doing something illegal or you are pretending too. Look, this site is anonymous, the only links they have is your e-mail, which I assume is itself an anonymous account (it's easy enough to do) and whatever information you reveal in your posts. It's also possible to trace-route the IP traffic to your ISP, which you can also foil by using Tor or some other kind of VPN.

If none of this makes sense to you, then you are either already being tracked or you what you are doing isn't really worth the time and effort it would take the government to find out.
Jun 24, 2017 14:22:36   #
Morgan wrote:
I believe in population's you meant million verses billion, other than that all very good points.

Yeah, I did mean millions. :)
Jun 24, 2017 14:21:18   #
Morgan wrote:
Unfortunately they think they have figured it out and it's all American's not on the right, Russians are their friend who only want peace and Trump is their Patriotic Hero, and it's hard to convince them otherwise.

Unfortunately, many of them grow up with teachers and parents putting more emphasis on loyalty and faith than on critical thinking. Where you and I might discuss the logical aspects of a situation, they are more inclined to simply take sides so it's no longer a discussion of problems and solutions but a matter of "us" vs "them".

Even critical thinking, as a subject of study, is classified by most universities under liberal arts which is on the "wrong side" of their ideological divide.
When Rick Perry, was governor of Texas, he actually pushed for the elimination of liberal arts in Texas schools, using Texas A&M as a pilot. This is one of the defining aspects of the right... the refusal to teach their children the kind of critical thinking that may actually allow them to see the folly of their loyalty.
 
Jun 24, 2017 14:01:53   #
S. Maturin wrote:
No, yu back up your outlandish claims by using half-truths and deflection.

They are only outlandish to you because it's not what you want to hear... You got some weird hangup where you refuse to accept the truth about California's strength as an economic force. I did quite a bit of research citing 4 separate sources. What have you provided, beside your childish rants? Nothing.

S. Maturin wrote:

If, for instance, you think all of CA's tax money goes to the US military and not, for instance to the HUGE entitlement/welfare programs, you are in for a shock.

Dude... states don't fund federal programs as separate streams. States give lump sums to the federal government and how that money is distributed is up to Washington not the states. It's a big pot into which California dumps the largest pile of cash. If California provides 12% of the federal revenue (which is what that $405 billion works out to) then they are effectively paying for 12% of the military and 12% of the federal welfare programs.)

S. Maturin wrote:

But, if it was truth you were after, your financial info would have come from the US Government offices releases and not from Wiki.

Oh, I see... Now it's the ol' discredit the sources trick. Well, I also used the American Enterprise Institute and the SIPRI Military Expenditures Database and if you bothered to look you would notice that the Wikipedia articles I referenced in this argument are actually passing data from the government sources. I like Wikipedia because of the way it formats the data and the fact that they list their sources.

But I see, you're just grasping at this point. Why don't you read up a little and come back when you have something intelligent to say?

Anyhow, you are more into agenda and WA statements than pursuit of truth, so-- fuggitabboudit.[/quote]
Not sure what a WA statement is, but all I really said is that I would like to see California leave the union. You were the one throwing rocks at the idea. What's the matter? Afraid it might actually happen? Are you in one of those 36 states that take more from the federal government than they put in, making them dependent on California funding? Or are you just one of those morons that like to preserve the illusion that California is a mess for being progressive?

Yeah, maybe it's time to let this one go... Obviously, you can't hold up to my argument and you're probably running out of ways to make "na-uh" look good.
Jun 24, 2017 13:05:27   #
S. Maturin wrote:
1/3 of the US Military?! I would like to see some numbers about some claims you have made.

OK, so maybe 1/3 was an exaggeration. Although, I have to say it's not even close to your exaggerations so far, so par for the course. But I did have a point and maybe the exaggeration was a distraction.

So let me make the point without the exaggeration...

Fact: in 2015 California provided $405 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The next largest contribution was from Texas at only $279 billion... This is the money that funds the U.S. military BTW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

If that isn't enough, California also provides the largest number of enlistees to the U.S. military... In 2013 California provided 18,987 enlisted personnel. The next highest number is 16,078 from Texas.
http://www.aei.org/publication/us-military-enlistment-rates-by-state-a-texas-sized-difference/

So the point is, California is the biggest provider to the U.S. military both in terms of personnel and funding. Not to mention a LOT of military technology comes from California. So it's a bit idiotic to suggest that California would loose all that military might. If anything California would take the largest share of it and the remaining U.S. would see a significant loss.

S. Maturin wrote:

There is no way in hell CA could exist for any length of time- months, maybe?- without the military of the USA. It would never be able to raise and support a military capable of even fending off a Mexican move let alone a determined invasion from a real military power.

Get real... You seem to have this delusion where you think the only reason why we aren't being invaded on all sides is because of the size of our military. That's just retarded. I don't see anyone attacking Canada, do you? And yet Canada only has a population of 36.5 billion where California as a population of 39.1 billion. Canada only has a GDP of 1.79 trillion where California has a GDP of 2.31 trillion. So California can easily afford more military than Canada.

Something else to consider... The U.S. military is way overblown with a budget that surpasses the next eight military budgets in the world combined, including Russia and China.

SIPRI Military Expenditure Database: (in $ billions)

US... 611.2
China... 215.7
Russia... 69.2
Saudi Arabia .. 63.7
India... 55.9
France... 55.7
UK... 48.3
Japan... 46.1
Germany... 41.1

If California stopped funding the federal government, we would save $405 billion and could well afford to spend more on defense than ANY of our allies are currently spending and it's worth pointing out that any of these countries are more than capable of defending themselves. The reason why we spend so much more isn't because defense requires it but because the investors in our military-industrial complex want dividends. It's not a matter of defense, it's a matter of business.

So your assertion that California wouldn't last more than a month is an exaggeration to say the least.

Something else to consider...

Four of the six ports that connect the U.S. Interstate system to the Pacific Rim are in California. Almost all Chinese exports go to California, 40% of ALL imports to the U.S. come through the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. If you understood how liberalism changed the world, you would know that fighting over land resources is largely a thing of the past and that in this 21st century so far, open markets and fluid transactions are the prize. Countries like Mexico and China have more to gain by trading with California than taking it over. One of the few things Bush said that made any sense is that developed democracies don't fight wars against each other. He was basically pointing out the new reality of a global market system.

So, you got your head in the sand if you still think California depends on the U.S. military to avoid invasion.

As for the economy; How about some state numbers as to income and expenditures? I think SanFran could sink the rest of CA economically.
[/quote]
Says the guy with out any numbers...

So in 2016, California spent $514.2 billion (more than any other state, which is all people like you want to hear.) But California also had more income than any other state and in that same year the Gross State Product for California was $2,602.7 billion. In fact, California actually ranks #7 in terms of economic growth rate (2.4%) compared to a state like Texas which has a current growth rate of only 0.9%
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2016bF0G

Anything else?

S. Maturin wrote:

I do believe you are a dreamer and quite self-disillusioned in much of what you profess.

I think you're the dreamer... It's pretty clear that I can back up my statements where you don't even make the attempt.
Jun 23, 2017 19:03:11   #
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>

This is always par for the course in going to war StraightUp.
the lines have to be defined and we're well on the way to doing this.

From what I can tell, the lines being defined by the various mobs of angry Americans, especially those calling themselves "patriots" are entirely delirious. Maybe you can show me some examples that I haven't seen yet?

Sicilianthing wrote:

My fear is that in the next year or within the next year we are going to cross the PNR with this process.
When that happens (and you'll know it) we're in serious trouble.


I'm not what "PNR" is a reference to. But if you're talking about an armed rebellion against the government, this is what *I* think will most likely happen... For the sake of argument I'll refer to your groups (paramilitary or whatever) as "patriots".

The government will identify these "patriots" as terrorists and will isolate them economically ('freezing accounts, revoking licenses, etc...) and culturally (using the media to portray the rebels as terrorists - so yes, we will know about it, but probably not the way you are thinking).

There are two things to be aware of going into this. First is the extent to which the government has already prepared for the type of action I think your are suggesting. Since 9/11 the government has been developing systems to track and obstruct what they call terrorists.

The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism... Act) In fact provides a foundation for destroying any of the civil rights laws that have been established over the years to protect us from an overbearing government, thereby clearing the way for a host of surveillance, security and prison systems designed to control anything that threatens the government, despite the safeguards against this by the Constitution.

If you have any doubts about this I suggest reading section 505 of that 700-page law. The important thing to realize is that the entire law is void of any definition for the term "terrorism". As it stands the POTUS, has the supreme right to call ANYONE a terrorist even a U.S. citizen.

The second thing to consider is the way the media sways the opinions of most Americans in such a way that we become divided. Here it's not so much the government but the ruling class that influences the media directly and in very sophisticated ways, including feeds into a wide range of channels that various factions tune into. We are already in a sort of beta-testing period where police brutality is exposed and the media's ability to influence the reaction of the people is being tested with what I think are alarming results.

From Bundy to Black Lives Matter, Americans confronted or victimized by the government are demonized by the media with tremendous effect. These practices can succeed in isolating "patriots" from the rest of the population who will not see the rebellion as a true fight for the people, but as a crime wave by people who deserve to be imprisoned.

Divide and conquer.

So... Be prepared to be classified as a terrorist. Be prepared to loose all your money that isn't stuffed under a mattress. Be prepared for the media to paint an ugly picture of your cause and be prepared for the American people to turn their backs on you.

In closing I just want to make sure you understand that I'm not trying to belittle your cause or your effectiveness but I *am* saying that the patriots I know, tend to overestimate their own abilities and underestimate the power of the government and the ruling class that controls it.

I think at this point, thanks to the ineffectiveness of a dumb-ass president, there is still a chance for the people to regain some control of the government through a democratic process. This alternative won't be as exciting as mustering up for battle but it has a far better chance of securing a better future for our children. There is a lot of action on this front right now, especially since Trump won the election and if you noticed, Muslim extremists have been mustering up for years and look where it's getting them... endless war and suffering.

Do you have children Sicilian?
Jun 23, 2017 16:17:45   #
[quote=S. Maturin]Some states like CA can stand on their own. I think many other states would need to combine. I might be a little selfish in this scenario in that I'm thinking primarily of my state... California, the 6th largest economy in the world.

6th largest.. how 'large' would that be without federal assistance, I wonder?

Probably larger, since California actually puts more INTO the federal system than it gets out. This is something conservatives tend to overlook in their rush to demonize CA as a "socialist" state that depends on federal subsidies. Very popular joke... only people don't realize how much of a joke it really is.

Only 14 out the 50 states in the union are classified as "donor states" (providing more money to the federal government than they get back) and California is on top of that list. So not only would California come out ahead if the federal system was eliminated, many of the red states (which are typically poorer) would loose the federal subsidies THEY depend on because California would no longer be providing that money.

[quote=S. Maturin]
The point at which I would accept a federal government is the point where the Electoral College is removed so that every citizen has an equal share of democratic power (as tiny as it would be) AND that the federal government no longer forces the people to spend half their tax money on a military for carrying out the imperialism of the 1%.

[i] I understand the appeal of individuality in personal lives as well as local and state governments, but I cannot help feel that time has long passed and to wish for division into nation states - no matter how appealing- is just too utopian. [/quote]
I don't see why... I realize that American culture tends to breed conformity which impedes the ability to think outside the box and departing from the federal system is WAY outside the box of "acceptable thinking", but other than that I can see no logical reason to assume that secession is "too utopian".


S. Maturin wrote:

Have you ever considered how vulnerable a target CA would appear to, say, China or N. Korea without the military might of the USA protecting it?[/i]


Have you considered that about a third of the U.S. military is provided by California? If California leaves, the military "might" of the US (which hasn't actually won a war in 70 years) would seriously be depleted.

Besides, California already has a good economic relationship with China that has nothing to do with Washington. In fact our governor just got back from negotiations with China... the most highlighted aspect of which is California's commitment to curb carbon emissions, in spite of Trumps withdrawal from the Paris Accord. I seriously doubt China is going to attack a major economy like California anymore than they would attack Germany, France or Japan.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 288 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.