The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

you must be thinking of another party. the libertarian party is total free trade and open boarders.

 

Look up Ron Paul policy. Things have changed.

[Balta1701]

The recent groups want everything closed. No immigration, no trade, no foreign anything.

Wikipedia

Immigration can be a controversial issue among libertarians. Most libertarians consider that governments should not have any authority on deciding who can migrate where. However, they also consider that individuals have the right to forbid people to trespass through their private property, and that ultimately, all land should be private property.

[mr_genius]

Look up Ron Paul policy. Things have changed.

 

http://www.lp.org/

 

you can read their party platform

[lostfan]

Paul isn't an actual libertarian, but his views definitely are. He's an isolationist though, one of the people that feels free trade is an infringement on soverignty.

[mr_genius]

Paul isn't an actual libertarian, but his views definitely are. He's an isolationist though, one of the people that feels free trade is an infringement on soverignty.

 

Ron Paul is a Laissez-faire capitalist. No regulation, no tarrifs, total free trade. He compalins about NAFTA because it's not free trade enough. Too many rules. And he thinks drug dealers will sneak in on the trucks from Mexico. You can read alllll about it.

 

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/002978.html

 

The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.

 

Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.

 

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Oh s*** I had Paul mixed up in my head with somebody else. He still wants America to be in the state it was in around 1880 or so from what I can tell. No regulation on business at all, absolute minimum of foreign involvement, no external intelligence services, etc.

[bmags]

Well, I know I wanted to talk about Ron Paul again.

 

Dobbs show had just gotten completely off the wall. Spending months on the birth certificate issue, his battle against illegals, it had nothing to do with anything except him being pissed off about brown people.

[bmags]

I´m very encouraged that Obama rejected all the options for afghanistan last night. I realize there will be bloodshed and women will be in terrible shape, but I really don´t think there´s anything we can do. That country is run by a drug kingpin, and that´s our best option? An afghan woman just met with the president to tell him that women´s rights are still being trampled on now. I don´t think he´ll have the balls to say we are withdrawing. BUt I don´t think a huge troop increase is going to happen.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

I´m very encouraged that Obama rejected all the options for afghanistan last night. I realize there will be bloodshed and women will be in terrible shape, but I really don´t think there´s anything we can do. That country is run by a drug kingpin, and that´s our best option? An afghan woman just met with the president to tell him that women´s rights are still being trampled on now. I don´t think he´ll have the balls to say we are withdrawing. BUt I don´t think a huge troop increase is going to happen.

 

It probably means adding 30,000 troops instead of 40,000. It doesn't mean we're leaving anytime soon.

[bmags]

It probably means adding 30,000 troops instead of 40,000. It doesn't mean we're leaving anytime soon.

 

but the 30,000 troops plan was already the option on the table.

[NorthSideSox72]

It probably means adding 30,000 troops instead of 40,000. It doesn't mean we're leaving anytime soon.

More specifically, I get the impression it isn't about troop LEVELS, its about usage and strategy. The "surge" in Iraq worked not because there were more troops, but because of a big shift in strategy. I think Obama is looking for that right set of good ideas to implement and get a similar result. Of course, that was a different scenario with some coincidental political changes in Iraq, but the military change was indeed part of the reason why violence went down so much.

 

I don't particularly care if its 30k or 40k, that's not important here, really.

 

Also, related, we need to get more of our guys our of Iraq faster, if we are going to do this right. Sending troops to Afghanistan means, for many of them, a 3rd or even 4th tour in the region, and that has to wear them down a bit. That concerns me.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Exactly, this "rejection" rumor doesn't mean we're pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon. It also doesn't mean that we are pouring tons of troops in either. It's nice to see such a deliberative process with this - I get the sense that they are really trying to find a strategy that both works on the ground and for our soldiers out in the fight.

[lostfan]

The military's change was far more comprehensive than the surge, that's something the Bill Kristol types still fail to understand. Also there is really no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Rex Kickass]

Catholic Church in D.C. - Allow gay marriage - no more care for the homeless.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009042801406

 

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

 

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

 

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

 

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

 

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

 

I can't decide who is worse at this point. The Catholic Church or the Mormons. The Catholics are threatening to discontinue charities to help underprivileged people in D.C. because it means that they can't fire or discriminate against gay people. The Mormons on the other hand are supporting anti discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City, because it specifically keeps them exempt - meaning they're against discrimination, as long as they still get to practice it.

[Balta1701]

More specifically, I get the impression it isn't about troop LEVELS, its about usage and strategy. The "surge" in Iraq worked not because there were more troops, but because of a big shift in strategy. I think Obama is looking for that right set of good ideas to implement and get a similar result. Of course, that was a different scenario with some coincidental political changes in Iraq, but the military change was indeed part of the reason why violence went down so much.

 

I don't particularly care if its 30k or 40k, that's not important here, really.

 

Also, related, we need to get more of our guys our of Iraq faster, if we are going to do this right. Sending troops to Afghanistan means, for many of them, a 3rd or even 4th tour in the region, and that has to wear them down a bit. That concerns me.

What his "Rejection" means is that he's not yet satisfied that he's been presented a comprehensive plan, and thus he's not going to put more blood and treasure on the line just yet. Which is an impressive move, if its true that the entire defense side was just basically saying "More troops" unanimously.

 

I'm not sure where i saw this but I believe I read a key thing he wants is some sort of workable structure for the debacle that is the Karzai government, such that we're not just backing up a corrupt dictator with more troops. I can't complain about that line of thinking.

[bmags]

Exactly, this "rejection" rumor doesn't mean we're pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon. It also doesn't mean that we are pouring tons of troops in either. It's nice to see such a deliberative process with this - I get the sense that they are really trying to find a strategy that both works on the ground and for our soldiers out in the fight.

 

I didn´t say that it meant we were pulling out, I said we SHOULD. BUT I think it does mean we are not going with a huge McChrystal surge, I think we realize it will just give Karzai some comfortable years before we retreat and he has his head chopped off. Or he chops off others.

[bmags]

What his "Rejection" means is that he's not yet satisfied that he's been presented a comprehensive plan, and thus he's not going to put more blood and treasure on the line just yet. Which is an impressive move, if its true that the entire defense side was just basically saying "More troops" unanimously.

 

I'm not sure where i saw this but I believe I read a key thing he wants is some sort of workable structure for the debacle that is the Karzai government, such that we're not just backing up a corrupt dictator with more troops. I can't complain about that line of thinking.

 

This is what I was getting at.

 

Karzai needs to make some major reforms as a sign of solidarity, like, stop profiting from the poppy trade.

[NorthSideSox72]

The military's change was far more comprehensive than the surge, that's something the Bill Kristol types still fail to understand. Also there is really no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq.

You said in two sentences what took me three grafs. Nicely done.

 

[Balta1701]

This is what I was getting at.

 

Karzai needs to make some major reforms as a sign of solidarity, like, stop profiting from the poppy trade.

Supposedly one of Petraeus's famous lines about Iraq is "Tell me how this ends". I think this is Obama saying the same thing.

[Balta1701]

WANTAGE, NJ—Acting on anonymous tips from within the Hispanic-American community, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials on Wednesday deported Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, who for the last 48 years had been living illegally in the United States under the name Lou Dobbs.

 

...

Evidence collected by investigators indicates that Dominguez/Dobbs, who has long claimed Texas heritage, was actually born in the Mexican state of Puebla to parents of Colombian descent, neither of whom were U.S. citizens. In the summer of his 16th year, he and 14 of his brothers and sisters paid smugglers to let them ride atop packages of cocaine in the cargo hold of a fishing boat bound for Texas under cover of night.

 

In addition to holding multiple jobs without ever obtaining a guest-worker permit or H-1B visa, "Dobbs" is reported to have collected welfare every month for nearly five decades. He appeared in good health when apprehended, having used Medicaid to obtain numerous health care services over the years, but immigration officials fear he still may have exposed the American population to the many infectious diseases illegal immigrants tend to carry, including both malaria and leprosy.

Link

[mr_genius]

Link

 

That f***er. All this time, and no one even knew. Makes total sense...now.

[HuskyCaucasian]

$20 says Dobbs ends up at Fox News. Book it.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[BigSqwert]

After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits.

[kapkomet]

After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits.

Shocker.

 

What does that mean? Time to raise taxes.

[HuskyCaucasian]

HUH! Didn't See This One Coming:

RNC Health Plan Covers Abortions For Employees

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortions for its employees, an option Republicans strongly oppose in health overhaul legislation that Democrats are trying to push through Congress.

 

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele learned of the policy's abortion coverage Thursday through a news report and immediately instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

 

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

 

Gitcho said the policy has been in effect since 1991.