USA Politics

Yes, I don't really see a problem with that. Again, with the US military, the Republicans in general (but many powerful Dems) treat the military like a sacred cow - much as many Dems treat Medicare and Social Security. Maybe they should just hire you and me to do it, bearfan, I bet between us we could figure it out.
 
Yes, congress is responsible for quite a bit, but so is the president. Isn't it him who can sign or veto a law? He can also come up with laws for congress to vote on, right? So, it's a combination of both congress and the president.

About spending cuts. What we really need to do is stop helping other countries and just focus on this country. I don't know of any other countries in the entire world that help the rest of the world in the manner that we do. I say screw the rest of the world for the most part and just worry about this country.
 
The president can veto laws, yes. He can sign laws. Congress, of course, can override his veto, but that rarely happens. The President can certainly write laws, just like you and I, but he cannot give them to Congress. He has to get a member of Congress to submit them for him - usually not hard, but he does not have direct authority over Congress. That's a very important difference. Congress submits, shapes, and passes laws - the President can simply approve them or not.

Travis, how much do you think the USA spends on foreign aid? Like, what percentage of the US budget do you think is sent to other countries?
 
Exactly, the president can approve laws so isn't he ultimately responsible?

I have no idea how much is spent on that. Either way, we need to worry about this country and not the rest of the world.
 
$49.5 billion in fy 2011. Or 1.4% of the US budget. A third of which is spent on military aid for allied nations in the middle of rebuilding, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign aid isn't a bad thing, anyway. It's important for diplomacy - the US should probably spend more there.
 
Well, that's not too bad then.

LC, I'm curious. Is there anything you don't like about Obama and congress? You seem to go against everything I put on here and try to put a positive spin on all of it.
 
Sure.

1. I hate the drone program and Obama's hidden assassination agenda. I think it's the height of arrogance and viciousness to drop drones on people, especially American citizens.

2. I think Obama should have tossed the people responsible for Bush's torture agenda into jail.

3. He's really a centre-leftish sort of president, and I'm a pretty far-left sorta guy. Obamacare didn't end up with a public option that I felt would have been the superior option. As it is, Obamacare is better now than what the USA had, but it's not close to where it should be for a modern first-world country.

4. A lot of his choices for cabinet are pretty "old guard"ish, especially in his second term. I can't say I enjoy that he is selecting people who I really feel already got a chance and fucked it up.

Congress? My biggest problem there is that nobody in Congress knows how to get the fuck along.
 
Well, the Bush presidency asserted the right to torture suspected terrorists - the usual term for it was "enhanced interrogation". The usual method was waterboarding, where drowning is simulated by washing a person's face with water while they're upside down and restrained. Many people on both sides, including John McCain, spoke out against that as torture, while many Bush people insisted it wasn't. I think it was.

Torture is against both US and international law, but the people who ran the program are still out there, free. Hell, the new CIA director under Obama was one of them.
 
za·kat

/zəˈkät/
Noun
Obligatory payment made annually under Islamic law on certain kinds of property and used for charitable and religious purposes.

Why is this bad?
 
I wouldn't go so far as to call that 'truth'. I've read it twice and it appears to say a lot by saying nothing.
 
You know, there is extremism in every religion. Christianity included. Yes, there are Muslim terrorists but really a lot of them aren't like that. Zakat to them is a donation to charity, not a conquest for terrorism. That's what Obama is supporting, because he supports freedom of religion under the Constitution. As he should being the POTUS. The video dumb, offensive, and a flat out lie. And just look at the comments; the guy who uploaded it is a nutcase.
 
Well, we don't really know how many Muslims are terrorists. Never know who you can trust. I know this. I don't really trust our president and am very open to the possibility of all the conspiracy theory stuff about him.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
but the truth about it is in the above link.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Whoever made that video has no fucking clue about how Islam works. First off, I have no idea how Obama intends to execute this, but where zakat goes to depends on who pays and who collects it. If zakat is collected in a Muslim community that does not support terrorism, well tough shit, it ain't going to any terrorists. What do these people think, that it goes to some global pool administered by some sort of Islamic church? Islam doesn't work that way. There is no global organisation, each Muslim community is an independent, autonomous entity, that determines all by itself whom it has ties to and not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top