Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

    Democrats have never had a lot of sympathy for our troops. They have pushed the line that they support the troops but not the war or some such nonsense for quite some time but now, when it comes to a decision between the troops and illegal aliens, guess who wins.


    Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions
    Amendment would close loophole that allows tax refunds for illegal aliens

    Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked a Republican attempt to restore military pensions cut in last months budget deal, denying a vote that would save up to $20 billion by closing a loophole that allows tax refunds to go to illegal aliens.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) called an effort by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) to repeal the military retiree cuts fiddling while Rome burns.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) filled the amendment tree on Thursday, ending debate and blocking any Republican amendments to a bill to extend unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.

    Among them was Ayottes measure, which would repeal cuts to military pensions by ending a loophole in the tax code that allows illegal immigrants to receive the Additional Child Tax Credit. Her attempt to get a vote failed 42-54, with only one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), voting with Republicans.
    Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions | Washington Free Beacon

  • #2
    Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Democrats have never had a lot of sympathy for our troops. They have pushed the line that they support the troops but not the war or some such nonsense for quite some time but now, when it comes to a decision between the troops and illegal aliens, guess who wins.


    Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions
    Amendment would close loophole that allows tax refunds for illegal aliens



    Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions | Washington Free Beacon
    Of course, you aren't going to find this news covered by the Biased Lame Stream Media. But it is telling where you will find this news story.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      Democrats have never had a lot of sympathy for our troops. They have pushed the line that they support the troops but not the war or some such nonsense for quite some time but now, when it comes to a decision between the troops and illegal aliens, guess who wins.


      Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions
      Amendment would close loophole that allows tax refunds for illegal aliens



      Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions | Washington Free Beacon
      :

      Question: Why did the republicans choose to tie the military pensions in with something they probably knew the dems would not agree to? Looks to me like typical partisan politics here, which means no one up there is serious, or really care much for anything.

      Now if these repubs already knew what the dems would do with this amendment, that tells me the repubs were not serious about restoring military benefits and are just playing around in the dirt, drawing little obscene images with a stick.

      Wasn't this just a deal where the dems wanted to extend jobless benefits, and then other things were added to this, to form a tree of amendments? And when the repubs tried to sneak this one in, it was turned down? Isn't this what is really going on here? If so, I don't see what the fuss is over from the right side folks here. Y'all tried to take away something to finance pensions, knowing full well what the dems would do? And then you try to turn this back around on the dems? Or am I not understanding what went on in DC? Straighten me out, if you have the facts to do it.

      Seems to me this was just a republican ploy to throw some rocks in the gears, once again. Am I wrong?

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        :

        Question: Why did the republicans choose to tie the military pensions in with something they probably knew the dems would not agree to? Looks to me like typical partisan politics here, which means no one up there is serious, or really care much for anything.

        Now if these repubs already knew what the dems would do with this amendment, that tells me the repubs were not serious about restoring military benefits and are just playing around in the dirt, drawing little obscene images with a stick.

        Wasn't this just a deal where the dems wanted to extend jobless benefits, and then other things were added to this, to form a tree of amendments? And when the repubs tried to sneak this one in, it was turned down? Isn't this what is really going on here? If so, I don't see what the fuss is over from the right side folks here. Y'all tried to take away something to finance pensions, knowing full well what the dems would do? And then you try to turn this back around on the dems? Or am I not understanding what went on in DC? Straighten me out, if you have the facts to do it.

        Seems to me this was just a republican ploy to throw some rocks in the gears, once again. Am I wrong?
        Yeah, but why the hell are illegal aliens getting tax refunds? They don't have legitimate social security cards for christ's sake! They are not legal citizens. What the hell? From my view, they don't and shouldn't qualify for tax refunds.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          :

          Question: Why did the republicans choose to tie the military pensions in with something they probably knew the dems would not agree to? Looks to me like typical partisan politics here, which means no one up there is serious, or really care much for anything.

          Now if these repubs already knew what the dems would do with this amendment, that tells me the repubs were not serious about restoring military benefits and are just playing around in the dirt, drawing little obscene images with a stick.

          Wasn't this just a deal where the dems wanted to extend jobless benefits, and then other things were added to this, to form a tree of amendments? And when the repubs tried to sneak this one in, it was turned down? Isn't this what is really going on here? If so, I don't see what the fuss is over from the right side folks here. Y'all tried to take away something to finance pensions, knowing full well what the dems would do? And then you try to turn this back around on the dems? Or am I not understanding what went on in DC? Straighten me out, if you have the facts to do it.

          Seems to me this was just a republican ploy to throw some rocks in the gears, once again. Am I wrong?
          They tied it to the dropping of tax refunds to illegals to pay for it. It was a revenue exchange. Keep pensions for veterans or cut subsidies for illegals was the choice. We see where the Democrats came down.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
            Yeah, but why the hell are illegal aliens getting tax refunds? They don't have legitimate social security cards for christ's sake! They are not legal citizens. What the hell? From my view, they don't and shouldn't qualify for tax refunds.
            I know they are getting them, and personally it gripes my old ass. I was just pointing out what was going one with this deal is all. I am against them getting refunds, EIC, because they are not American citizens. I just found the way the repubs went about this a bit petty, as they knew what the chances were.

            I wish any amendment, law introduced was not loaded up with other things. That isn't the best way to address a problem. That they do it, speaks volumes, to me. These men up there are not serious at all. Except when it comes to keeping their seat of power. Then they get really serious. That is why I am voting against all encumbents next time around. Too much self interest, too much interest in partisanship which leaves the American people up the creek without a paddle.

            DC is a circus, but not a good circus.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

              Another bullshit idea: Democrats don't support the troops.

              This nonsense got started during the Iraq war adn the right-wing media was handed the talking point that if you didn;t support the war, you somehow didn't "Support Our Troops", thus all the bumper stickers, ribbons etc: it's propaganda designed to entrap people into supporting the war. The OP of course is just a screaming example of how that propaganda works.

              There is of course no mention of the fact that, like Viet Nam, it was the motive and method which turns thinking Americans off, becasue all that kind of market expansion motivation does is: ruin our standing in the world as a leader, drive a wedge into our political system and produce dead Americans. Now, who could be for that?

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                Another bullshit idea: Democrats don't support the troops.

                This nonsense got started during the Iraq war adn the right-wing media was handed the talking point that if you didn;t support the war, you somehow didn't "Support Our Troops", thus all the bumper stickers, ribbons etc: it's propaganda designed to entrap people into supporting the war. The OP of course is just a screaming example of how that propaganda works.

                There is of course no mention of the fact that, like Viet Nam, it was the motive and method which turns thinking Americans off, becasue all that kind of market expansion motivation does is: ruin our standing in the world as a leader, drive a wedge into our political system and produce dead Americans. Now, who could be for that?
                Those that make money from the killing? They love money, even blood money. We exploit the poor for more money in profits, and we drum up these never ending wars for more money. Money, the root of evil. I think that is a very astute observation of this thing worshipped so much by so many.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                  Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                  Another bullshit idea: Democrats don't support the troops.
                  Really. Perhaps you've not read the latest news (yes, I know the Biased Lame Stream Media don't / won't highlight this)

                  Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions | Washington Free Beacon

                  So the Democrats could easily have shown that they really do support the troops by restoring the military pension cuts they negotiated into the most recent budget deal. But NO! Can't have those tax refund checked to illegal aliens cut off (WTF? Since when would / should illegal aliens be entitled to tax refunds? - More likely free tax payer money!)

                  So where is the conclusion wrong that Democrats don't support the troops?

                  Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                  This nonsense got started during the Iraq war adn the right-wing media was handed the talking point that if you didn;t support the war, you somehow didn't "Support Our Troops", thus all the bumper stickers, ribbons etc: it's propaganda designed to entrap people into supporting the war. The OP of course is just a screaming example of how that propaganda works.

                  There is of course no mention of the fact that, like Viet Nam, it was the motive and method which turns thinking Americans off, becasue all that kind of market expansion motivation does is: ruin our standing in the world as a leader, drive a wedge into our political system and produce dead Americans. Now, who could be for that?
                  Deflection and redirection. We are talking about the latest Senate vote where the Democrats voted down a bill that would have restored their previous cuts to military pensions. Thing of it is, it's indefensible, and is in no way, shape or form a demonstration of 'supporting the troops'.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    Those that make money from the killing? They love money, even blood money. We exploit the poor for more money in profits, and we drum up these never ending wars for more money. Money, the root of evil. I think that is a very astute observation of this thing worshipped so much by so many.
                    It's the feudalist's way. When the government and corps set up in foreign countries and the local federalies place troops around said settlemetns to protect them: that's feudalism. Of course this is a concept lost on the right-wing because they're too stupid to understand their own history and Manifest Destiny: feudalism brought right to this country exactly the same way it was brought into Scotland and then Ireland. Replace the word Indian with Gaelic and you see what I mean. Now relpace the word Gaelic with Indian; same thing.

                    Manifest Destiny = King James Bible . . .

                    It never changes as long as there are stupid and gullible people to carry it out under the guise of for King, for Country!!

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      Really. Perhaps you've not read the latest news (yes, I know the Biased Lame Stream Media don't / won't highlight this)

                      Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Military Pensions | Washington Free Beacon

                      So the Democrats could easily have shown that they really do support the troops by restoring the military pension cuts they negotiated into the most recent budget deal. But NO! Can't have those tax refund checked to illegal aliens cut off (WTF? Since when would / should illegal aliens be entitled to tax refunds? - More likely free tax payer money!)

                      So where is the conclusion wrong that Democrats don't support the troops?



                      Deflection and redirection. We are talking about the latest Senate vote where the Democrats voted down a bill that would have restored their previous cuts to military pensions. Thing of it is, it's indefensible, and is in no way, shape or form a demonstration of 'supporting the troops'.
                      I stated where the concept arose. So, you mean that when Republicans cut unemployment benefits, public employee rights and pensions, welfare programs and refuse to separate military wages from the rest of the over indulged military budget, that they are not supporting the American people.

                      I mean; right?

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                        Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                        I stated where the concept arose. So, you mean that when Republicans cut unemployment benefits, public employee rights and pensions, welfare programs and refuse to separate military wages from the rest of the over indulged military budget, that they are not supporting the American people.

                        I mean; right?
                        Republicans did not cut unemployment benefits, they simply refused to extend them forever. Public employee pensions have not been cut to my knowledge and welfare programs are not employment benefits that I know of. In this case, Military pension costs are a fixed amount based on employment by the government. Those costs were cut by Democrats to save money. The Republicans proposed restoring those benefits in exchange for cutting benefits to illegal aliens. The Democrats picked the illegal aliens over the troops. End of story.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                          Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                          It's the feudalist's way. When the government and corps set up in foreign countries and the local federalies place troops around said settlemetns to protect them: that's feudalism. Of course this is a concept lost on the right-wing because they're too stupid to understand their own history and Manifest Destiny: feudalism brought right to this country exactly the same way it was brought into Scotland and then Ireland. Replace the word Indian with Gaelic and you see what I mean. Now relpace the word Gaelic with Indian; same thing.

                          Manifest Destiny = King James Bible . . .

                          It never changes as long as there are stupid and gullible people to carry it out under the guise of for King, for Country!!
                          I never thought about it in those terms, but yeah, it rings true.

                          You know, if one could only read and ponder the entire history of civilized man, one sees a reoccurring theme. That theme is, HOW to create great wealth for yourself, by using those that do the labor that creates your personal wealth. For much of our history, the way to create such great hoarded wealth is by the exploitation of the other person. The key to this paradigm is to pay as little as possible, so that your worker live on, to work another day, for you, but even this has been cast to the side in our great greed. These days, many employers don't and won't even pay enough for their worker to survive. And that perhaps is the difference here, between the past and the present. Of course our social safety nets allow for employers to pay less than it takes to actually survive. Which mean, me and you are subsidizing these businesses. We make up the difference in wages, so that these people can live to work another day. Given this fact, the republican intent to gut social safety nets, if they can, is a very evil thing. That business who will not pay a living wage, that exploits the poor, match very well with the conservative mindset, don't they? They seem to have a great affinity, don't they.


                          Like you, I am always amazed at how conservatives can read history and are incapable of picking up on what I see as a common theme. They seem to be content with allowing this to continue on, for as long as man lives upon this earth. I cannot understand it, really. And since I cannot understand why they believe as they do, the first thing that pops into consciousness is that they really are elitists, in mindset, although they are not of that crowd themselves. But the elites, who have used this ancient ploy of creating only wealth for themselves by using others, have apparently conditioned these republicans to believe as they do. The absurdity of this is quite overwhelming, to me.

                          As I said in another post, it is said that the cream rises to the top of raw milk. But that isn't what we are seeing, the cream rising to the top. Instead we are witnessing the rise of pond scum to the top of the pond. The cream of the top, of the elites was always pond scum, but as they always do, in twisting things, like redefining what "entitled" means, they also call pond scum, cream. And then hope that others don't see the scum. But in the tasting, comes the truth. I don't expect the cons to taste it though, as they probably know that the cream is pond scum. And don't care, what it is, because it is essential to their ideology.


                          It has always appeared to me that any man who bases his values and beliefs on a brain created ideology, can never be honest with himself. It requires a great self deception to be an ideologue. The same goes for the ideology of the far left, so I am not picking sides here. I speak out against cons because this is basically a conservative forum. If I am gonna insult, I like insulting the greatest number, and there are not very many liberals here. More bang for the buck.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                            Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                            I stated where the concept arose. So, you mean that when Republicans cut unemployment benefits, public employee rights and pensions, welfare programs and refuse to separate military wages from the rest of the over indulged military budget, that they are not supporting the American people.

                            I mean; right?
                            "Republicans cut unemployment benefits"
                            My understanding is that Republicans wanted to make a deal to extend unemployment benefits, but that the costs had to be offset with spending cuts to other programs. The Democrats, as usual, didn't want to cut any spending. So your statement is not factually accurate. In fact, it was the Democrats that bargained in the military pension cuts, so there goes your assertion that Democrats support the troops.

                            "public employee rights"
                            I'm perfectly fine with public sector employee unions having the deal that Carter put into place. FDR already recognized that public sector unions really don't have much justification to exist in the first place.

                            "public employee pensions"
                            Private sector unions have had to change their defined benefit pension plans into defined contribution pension plans for the same reason that private sector businesses have had to. Those that haven't are going bankrupt for any number of reasons. It's high time that the public sector unions need to embrace the realities of the fiscal situation.

                            "welfare programs'
                            The existing structure of the welfare programs are going to consume the federal budget unless some fiscally responsible actions are taken. Democrats refuse to deal with this reality like adults, as they'd not want to cut any spending at all, as is their track record, and would rather hike punitive and damaging taxes on everyone.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Democrats Say They Support The Troops - Maybe Not So Much

                              Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                              It's the feudalist's way. When the government and corps set up in foreign countries and the local federalies place troops around said settlemetns to protect them: that's feudalism. Of course this is a concept lost on the right-wing because they're too stupid to understand their own history and Manifest Destiny: feudalism brought right to this country exactly the same way it was brought into Scotland and then Ireland. Replace the word Indian with Gaelic and you see what I mean. Now relpace the word Gaelic with Indian; same thing.

                              Manifest Destiny = King James Bible . . .

                              It never changes as long as there are stupid and gullible people to carry it out under the guise of for King, for Country!!
                              How many troops do we have in China, India, Viet Nam protecting said settlements? Just another distraction from the fact that Democrats claim to support the little guy but really just support themselves at the expense of the little guy.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X