Log in

I forgot my password

Our latest tweets
Free Webmaster ToolsSubmit Express

The Serious Side

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by fava on Fri Dec 02 2016, 14:10

Ladybug, 
Islam is not centralized or hierarchical, like for ex. Catholicism.  They believe each individual adherent can communicate with God (clergy, a mosque, doctrine, etc. are not a necessity).  So not sure what you intend by "Islamic leadership."  It may be akin to asking Baptists or Lutherans to disavow the actions of Catholics or vice versa. Or asking the pope to publicly disavow Mormons who believe in polygamy. They all believe in Christ, no?  

Also not sure what sources you consider credible.  British muslims have paid for ads in the paper disavowing ISIS and their actions.  Isn't that a direct disavowal with no media interpretation at all?

fava
More than a little bit enthusiastic about Clooney

Posts : 1095
Join date : 2011-02-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Fri Dec 02 2016, 17:12

fava wrote:Ladybug, 
Islam is not centralized or hierarchical, like for ex. Catholicism.  They believe each individual adherent can communicate with God (clergy, a mosque, doctrine, etc. are not a necessity).  So not sure what you intend by "Islamic leadership."  It may be akin to asking Baptists or Lutherans to disavow the actions of Catholics or vice versa. Or asking the pope to publicly disavow Mormons who believe in polygamy. They all believe in Christ, no?  

Also not sure what sources you consider credible.  British muslims have paid for ads in the paper disavowing ISIS and their actions.  Isn't that a direct disavowal with no media interpretation at all?
Fava - Thanks for the information.  I have very little knowledge on how the Islamic faith is structured.  Fingersandtoes did send me a couple of links that gave me a little better understanding. 


If I understand your statement correctly, the Islamic State (IS) is a group that aligns itself under the Islamic faith.  Comparing that to Christians, I would liken it to a group that would call themselves the Christian State.  That would not put them in a specific Bible Based denomination (i.e., Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of God and Christ...). And Bible Based denominations would have no allegiance to disavow them.


Fava the truth is:  we are confronted with those of the Islamic faith who operate under the perspective they are the righteous sent by god to avenge what they perceive to be unholy, unrighteous, unjust and those who operate under the perspective they have the Biblical right, Biblical grace, Biblical flexibility, to lie, deceive, mislead, misguide, violate laws of the land, impose violence to execute moral judgment. 


Religious groups and individuals who operate under these perspectives are the evil among us.  If we do nothing to challenge these perspectives we will find ourselves in global chaos like none other.  The truth is there are individuals who believe these perspectives are within our constitutional guidelines of religious freedom.  Legislation is one avenue we can take that will confront these “schools of thought” directly.


Another area is the use of our military in conflicts in the Middle East needs to be clearly defined with a designated end.  Is U.S. Oil/Corporate business profiting from our military’s involvement in the Middle East?  If so what recourse do we have as citizens (both military and non-military)?  Another area of concern is ISIS cells within the relocation of Syrian refugees globally; it is EXTREMELY NAIVE to think ISIS/IS cells are not mixed in to that process.


We have to do more than call them names they don’t like.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by fava on Fri Dec 02 2016, 19:00

ladybugcngc wrote:
fava wrote:Ladybug, 
Islam is not centralized or hierarchical, like for ex. Catholicism.  They believe each individual adherent can communicate with God (clergy, a mosque, doctrine, etc. are not a necessity).  So not sure what you intend by "Islamic leadership."  It may be akin to asking Baptists or Lutherans to disavow the actions of Catholics or vice versa. Or asking the pope to publicly disavow Mormons who believe in polygamy. They all believe in Christ, no?  

Also not sure what sources you consider credible.  British muslims have paid for ads in the paper disavowing ISIS and their actions.  Isn't that a direct disavowal with no media interpretation at all?
Fava - Thanks for the information.  I have very little knowledge on how the Islamic faith is structured.  Fingersandtoes did send me a couple of links that gave me a little better understanding. 


If I understand your statement correctly, the Islamic State (IS) is a group that aligns itself under the Islamic faith.  Comparing that to Christians, I would liken it to a group that would call themselves the Christian State.  That would not put them in a specific Bible Based denomination (i.e., Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of God and Christ...). And Bible Based denominations would have no allegiance to disavow them.


Fava the truth is:  we are confronted with those of the Islamic faith who operate under the perspective they are the righteous sent by god to avenge what they perceive to be unholy, unrighteous, unjust and those who operate under the perspective they have the Biblical right, Biblical grace, Biblical flexibility, to lie, deceive, mislead, misguide, violate laws of the land, impose violence to execute moral judgment. 


Religious groups and individuals who operate under these perspectives are the evil among us.  If we do nothing to challenge these perspectives we will find ourselves in global chaos like none other.  The truth is there are individuals who believe these perspectives are within our constitutional guidelines of religious freedom.  Legislation is one avenue we can take that will confront these “schools of thought” directly.


Another area is the use of our military in conflicts in the Middle East needs to be clearly defined with a designated end.  Is U.S. Oil/Corporate business profiting from our military’s involvement in the Middle East?  If so what recourse do we have as citizens (both military and non-military)?  Another area of concern is ISIS cells within the relocation of Syrian refugees globally; it is EXTREMELY NAIVE to think ISIS/IS cells are not mixed in to that process.


We have to do more than call them names they don’t like.
You lost me in your fourth paragraph.....
I would say of course US oil and corporate business profit from military involvement in the middle east.  Military/government contracts are a huge business. Oil companies find a way to profit from most every situation.   And now our president-elect owns stock in several of those oil companies.

fava
More than a little bit enthusiastic about Clooney

Posts : 1095
Join date : 2011-02-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Fri Dec 02 2016, 20:34

As did Dick Cheney apparently when Bush decided to invade Iraq as priority rather than Afghanistan where Bin Laden was holed up. 

Never did quite understand the conflict of interests laws - and now, surprise, surprise, it appears to be happening again.......!

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/804154265728155648

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Fri Dec 02 2016, 20:52

It's always been my understanding that conflict of interest laws were supposed to keep politicians from putting their personal interests above those of their constituents - to keep them from making policy decisions based on their personal interests rather than the best interests of the country.

For instance, if a legislator is invested in an arms manufacturing company that sells to dubious clients who could put those arms in the hands of militaristic groups we don't support, who might be a threat to our safety -would that legislator promote the arms sales in order to make a profit or would they do what would be best for the country? (Pretty extreme and obvious example, I know, but its been a long day. Shocked)

Donald Trump has already pressured the president of Argentina to facilitate a business deal he has there - and he got what he wanted! I can see him using the Presidency to further his business interests through foreign policy pressures.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by fava on Fri Dec 02 2016, 20:59

Even if the President acts entirely above board, such conflicts can give other nations/companies the idea that they can curry favor.  For example, the permits in Argentina could be granted even without mentioning it because in many cultures/countries that is accepted practice to influence decision makers.  So the president does not even have to actively seek favors or consider his own interests to create the impression that he has been bought.  That is one of the reasons these conflicts are so insidious, even if Trump and his family are entirely honorable (which is not how they have behaved in the past--if you believe that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior).

fava
More than a little bit enthusiastic about Clooney

Posts : 1095
Join date : 2011-02-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Fri Dec 02 2016, 21:15

Well, this is what is supposed to stop him

http://time.com/4579979/emoluments-clause-constitution-donald-trump/

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Fri Dec 02 2016, 22:12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38187641

Why is Trump trying to stop this when he said the election was rigged!!?

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by oldweston on Fri Dec 02 2016, 22:20

party animal - not! wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38187641

Why is Trump trying to stop this when he said the election was rigged!!?
Because there is not a true word that has ever come out of that man's mouth? Or the mouths of his "fellow travelers".  Being fond of words I propose abandoning the rather odd use of the word "surrogate" for the purpose of identifying his speaking puppets and the adoption of the phrase "fellow travelers" - which would make them crazy if any of them knew what it meant Very Happy

oldweston
Getting serious about George

Posts : 71
Join date : 2015-01-02
Location : Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by annemarie on Fri Dec 02 2016, 22:47

He knew it was rigged in his favor that's why he kept screaming about rigging. Throw suspicion off him and his group.
That is one theory.

The other is he does not want to lose and even if he won with rigging it is fine with him, the rigging is only bad if he lost.

annemarie
Truly, madly, deeply Clooney

Posts : 4481
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 02:10

fava wrote:You lost me in your fourth paragraph.....
I would say of course US oil and corporate business profit from military involvement in the middle east.  Military/government contracts are a huge business. Oil companies find a way to profit from most every situation.   And now our president-elect owns stock in several of those oil companies.
(Note:  I think this was the paragraph you were referring to.)  


I'm sorry Fava it's not written very well.  My position:  United States military presence in and of itself in the Middle East needs to be made clear (i.e., why are we there?) and the end goal defined.  Example:  We were told by the Bush Administration the invasion of Iraq was do to threat of weapons of mass destruction.  NONE were found.
 
Outside of military contracts, is our military being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business (i.e., private business ownership) to obtain oil resources?  If our military is being used by private business ownership to gain oil resources, what recourse do we have as citizens (both military and non military) to reap the benefits of the resources and/or profits gained.
 
Donald Trump joins the long list of elected officials that have connections to U. S. Oil/Corporate business.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Fingersandtoes on Sat Dec 03 2016, 04:13

ladybugcngc wrote:
fava wrote:You lost me in your fourth paragraph.....
I would say of course US oil and corporate business profit from military involvement in the middle east.  Military/government contracts are a huge business. Oil companies find a way to profit from most every situation.   And now our president-elect owns stock in several of those oil companies.
(Note:  I think this was the paragraph you were referring to.)  


I'm sorry Fava it's not written very well.  My position:  United States military presence in and of itself in the Middle East needs to be made clear (i.e., why are we there?) and the end goal defined.  Example:  We were told by the Bush Administration the invasion of Iraq was do to threat of weapons of mass destruction.  NONE were found.
 
Outside of military contracts, is our military being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business (i.e., private business ownership) to obtain oil resources?  If our military is being used by private business ownership to gain oil resources, what recourse do we have as citizens (both military and non military) to reap the benefits of the resources and/or profits gained.
 
Donald Trump joins the long list of elected officials that have connections to U. S. Oil/Corporate business.

I'm sorry, I am not getting your point here. 

You concluded, that the attack to Iraq was made by bogus claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying, that the US used their military to attack Iraq to gain ownership to oil in Iraq? But your follow up question is not to call this an illegal act, crime, vile etc. You actually question, how US citizens can profit from these gains? 

Did I misinterpreted what you wrote, or did you really mean that?

Fingersandtoes
Clooney Addict

Posts : 177
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 06:57

Fingersandtoes wrote:
I'm sorry, I am not getting your point here. 

You concluded, that the attack to Iraq was made by bogus claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying, that the US used their military to attack Iraq to gain ownership to oil in Iraq? But your follow up question is not to call this an illegal act, crime, vile etc. You actually question, how US citizens can profit from these gains? 

Did I misinterpreted what you wrote, or did you really mean that?
Fingersandtoes - You concluded, that the attack to Iraq was made by bogus claims,

Ladybug – First I stated my position: United States military presence in and of itself in the Middle East needs to be made clear (i.e., why are we there?) and the end goal defined.

Then I gave an historical example: We were told by the Bush Administration the invasion of Iraq was do (the) to threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Then I gave the result of my example: NONE were found. 

I have not claimed anything was bogus, I simply stated a historical account.


Fingersandtoes - Are you saying, that the US used their military to attack Iraq to gain ownership to oil in Iraq?

Ladybug - I’m asking the question:  is our military being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business (i.e., private business ownership) to obtain oil resources?
 
Fingersandtoes - But your follow up question is not to call this an illegal act, crime, vile etc. You actually question, how US citizens can profit from these gains? 
 
Ladybug – Did you read my original statement?  When have I NOT talked about illegal, criminal, and vile acts of those who would do something like this.  My thought here was to go after them monetarily for the burden place on our country.  From the loss of life in military combat to the draining of our nation’s financial resources.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Fingersandtoes on Sat Dec 03 2016, 07:38

^

The private owned oil businesses just simply can't use the US army to go to another country, attack it, by their own accord. It's all on the US government. And if the US government uses the US army to attack another country, of course the financial loss and loss of US army soldiers' lives are a going to be a burden the US has to bare.  Who else would have to drain their resources? Iraq? 

I'm really at loss with this thought process, tbh.

Fingersandtoes
Clooney Addict

Posts : 177
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 07:53

Fingersandtoes wrote:^

The private owned oil businesses just simply can't use the US army to go to another country, attack it, by their own accord. It's all on the US government. And if the US government uses the US army to attack another country, of course the financial loss and loss of US army soldiers' lives are a going to be a burden the US has to bare.  Who else would have to drain their resources? Iraq? 

I'm really at loss with this thought process, tbh.
My first statement:   United States military presence in and of itself in the Middle East needs to be made clear (i.e., why are we there?) and the end goal defined.


My second question:   is our military being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business (i.e., private business ownership) to obtain oil resources?


Third: If the military is being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business to obtain oil resources can they be held accountable?
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Fingersandtoes on Sat Dec 03 2016, 08:04

^

I agree with the first point. Actually I'd like to expand it to all the locations US military is present at.

As for the second question, private businesses can't use the US military, all their actions are agreed upon by the US government.

Ladybug, who do you think should cover the losses (army soldiers' lives and financial) when the US army attacks another country?

Fingersandtoes
Clooney Addict

Posts : 177
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Sevens on Sat Dec 03 2016, 10:18

Trump's Tweets about him receiving a congratulatory call from Taiwan president and that the US is selling billions of military equipment have set a nuclear bomb on Chinese social media...most of us do feel offended and angry, but it's interesting to see lots of Chinese Trump fans are defending him as if we could just drop Taiwan and watch them become independent. What a bunch of traitors!
Even before he takes the office, he dares to break the US stance regarding Taiwan since 1979. And his behavior really makes a war to recapture Taiwan a likely option in the next four years.
avatar
Sevens
Achieving total Clooney-dom

Posts : 2815
Join date : 2014-02-26
Location : Xi'an, China

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Sat Dec 03 2016, 13:59

Back to Iraq, from where Daesh reportly started.........

Many in Europe believed, and still do, that Bush invaded Iraq because of their oil, not because of possible nuclear bomb capabilities. All the evidence then and now confirms that they did not.

However what was interesting was that when the oil pipelines needed to be restarted, the contracts went to Haliburton, whose chairman at the time was Dick Cheney................

Many US and allied lives were lost then, and a very lengthy report by Chilcot, has recently (and far too late some would say) been published, and Tony Blair has not come out it well to say the least........


Meanwhile, Turkey is on whose side?

https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/804672716796297216/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 14:28

Fingersandtoes wrote:Ladybug, who do you think should cover the losses (army soldiers' lives and financial) when the US army attacks another country?
U. S. Government.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by fava on Sat Dec 03 2016, 14:39

ladybugcngc wrote:
fava wrote:You lost me in your fourth paragraph.....
I would say of course US oil and corporate business profit from military involvement in the middle east.  Military/government contracts are a huge business. Oil companies find a way to profit from most every situation.   And now our president-elect owns stock in several of those oil companies.
(Note:  I think this was the paragraph you were referring to.)  


I'm sorry Fava it's not written very well.  My position:  United States military presence in and of itself in the Middle East needs to be made clear (i.e., why are we there?) and the end goal defined.  Example:  We were told by the Bush Administration the invasion of Iraq was do to threat of weapons of mass destruction.  NONE were found.
 
Outside of military contracts, is our military being use by U.S. Oil/Corporate business (i.e., private business ownership) to obtain oil resources?  If our military is being used by private business ownership to gain oil resources, what recourse do we have as citizens (both military and non military) to reap the benefits of the resources and/or profits gained.
 
Donald Trump joins the long list of elected officials that have connections to U. S. Oil/Corporate business.
No, it was the paragraph before that that I did not follow.

fava
More than a little bit enthusiastic about Clooney

Posts : 1095
Join date : 2011-02-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Sat Dec 03 2016, 14:46

Ladybug and Fingersandtoes - Economics fuels history. Since time began people have acted to improve their own position of power and economic status.  Every country acts in its own self interest and the US is no different.

 The government won't come right out and say it, but foreign policy is definitely influenced by economic interests and the people who represent them. Foreign policy - of every nation - is usually based, at least in part, on how that nation will benefit economically. To think otherwise is naive. To think it will ever change is, IMO, wishful thinking. In general, the people who run our countries are people who are invested in the financial sector of the economy. The system works for them the way it is.

As for who pays for military action? We all do through increased taxes and medical costs and a million other ways. Everyone BUT the old men in government who send young men off to die. Check out the anti-war movement in the 1960s. The Viet Nam war is a perfect example of what happens when economics rule foreign policy.

Sevens - Why would one phone call to Trump (who is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing) cause a war? He's not even president yet! Bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

PAN - Did they say when this was discovered?
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Sat Dec 03 2016, 14:55

Will come back to you on that, Lizzy. You mean the rumoured Haliburton link don't you?

Meanwhile it appears there was the potential start of  Trump building negotiations in Taipei a couple of weeks ago apparently. Coincidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-preceded-by-hotel-development-inquiry

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 15:09

party animal - not! wrote:Back to Iraq, from where Daesh reportly started.........

Many in Europe believed, and still do, that Bush invaded Iraq because of their oil, not because of possible nuclear bomb capabilities. All the evidence then and now confirms that they did not.

However what was interesting was that when the oil pipelines needed to be restarted, the contracts went to Haliburton, whose chairman at the time was Dick Cheney................

Many US and allied lives were lost then, and a very lengthy report by Chilcot, has recently (and far too late some would say) been published, and Tony Blair has not come out it well to say the least........


Meanwhile, Turkey is on whose side?

https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/804672716796297216/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
PAN - Like Trump.  Why was Haliburton and Dick Cheney's position at Halibuton not widely reported as a conflict of interest by main stream news agents?

Fingersandtoes/Lizzy - Can we as citizens go after our elected officials and/or Cheney/Haliburton for conflict of interest?

PAN - Whose side is any group really on.  Eventually China, United States - Oil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, are going to jockey for the number one spot.  If we don't do something, our military will be used as pawns in this fight.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Sat Dec 03 2016, 15:15

Here's one article

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war

Take a look online

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 15:27

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug and Fingersandtoes - Economics fuels history. Since time began people have acted to improve their own position of power and economic status.  Every country acts in its own self interest and the US is no different.

 The government won't come right out and say it, but foreign policy is definitely influenced by economic interests and the people who represent them. Foreign policy - of every nation - is usually based, at least in part, on how that nation will benefit economically. To think otherwise is naive. To think it will ever change is, IMO, wishful thinking. In general, the people who run our countries are people who are invested in the financial sector of the economy. The system works for them the way it is.

As for who pays for military action? We all do through increased taxes and medical costs and a million other ways. Everyone BUT the old men in government who send young men off to die. Check out the anti-war movement in the 1960s. The Viet Nam war is a perfect example of what happens when economics rule foreign policy.

Sevens - Why would one phone call to Trump (who is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing) cause a war? He's not even president yet! Bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

PAN - Did they say when this was discovered?
I can't thank you enough for explaining this so eloquently.  

Lizzy -  Foreign policy - of every nation - is usually based, at least in part, on how that nation will benefit economically.


Ladybug - Not only is our Nation not benefiting economically from this foreign policy, U.S. Oil/Corporate Business have systematically imposed economic oppression upon our Nation.  The cost of everyday living i.e., food, rents, utilities,... have increased 50, 100, to 200 percent over the last 8 years.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Sat Dec 03 2016, 15:41

party animal - not! wrote:Will come back to you on that, Lizzy. You mean the rumoured Haliburton link don't you?

Meanwhile it appears there was the potential start of  Trump building negotiations in Taipei a couple of weeks ago apparently. Coincidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-preceded-by-hotel-development-inquiry
PAN - Sorry I wasn't more clear. Actually, I meant the Al Qaeda link.

Ladybug - 1. You can hold our politicians morally responsible for their actions, but you can't make them financially responsible since they're the ones who make the rules that they benefit from.
                 2. As much as I am disturbed by the rampant economic inequality we see in the world today, there are many, many reasons for the rise in the cost of living besides the greed of multi-national companies. I'm not being sarcastic when I suggest you go on line or pick up an economics textbook and read about the causes of inflation.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sat Dec 03 2016, 19:14

LizzyNY wrote:
party animal - not! wrote:Will come back to you on that, Lizzy. You mean the rumoured Haliburton link don't you?

Meanwhile it appears there was the potential start of  Trump building negotiations in Taipei a couple of weeks ago apparently. Coincidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-preceded-by-hotel-development-inquiry
PAN - Sorry I wasn't more clear. Actually, I meant the Al Qaeda link.

Ladybug - 1. You can hold our politicians morally responsible for their actions, but you can't make them financially responsible since they're the ones who make the rules that they benefit from.
                 2. As much as I am disturbed by the rampant economic inequality we see in the world today, there are many, many reasons for the rise in the cost of living besides the greed of multi-national companies. I'm not being sarcastic when I suggest you go on line or pick up an economics textbook and read about the causes of inflation.
Lizzy - 1.  Chaney/Haliburton can' be held accountable for breaking conflict of interest laws?

2. I majored in Economics.  I'm NOT talking about the rate of inflation.  I'm talking about "ACTUAL COSTS".  The increase in "actual cost" over the last 8 years is deliberately, intentionally, systematically imposed by U.S. Oil/Corporate ownership;  with little to no oversight by our elected officials.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Sat Dec 03 2016, 20:49

Ladybug - No, Cheney and Haliburton cannot be held accountable for breaking conflict of interest laws.

If you majored in economics, you should know better.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by oldweston on Sat Dec 03 2016, 21:27

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug and Fingersandtoes - Economics fuels history. Since time began people have acted to improve their own position of power and economic status.  Every country acts in its own self interest and the US is no different.

 The government won't come right out and say it, but foreign policy is definitely influenced by economic interests and the people who represent them. Foreign policy - of every nation - is usually based, at least in part, on how that nation will benefit economically. To think otherwise is naive. To think it will ever change is, IMO, wishful thinking. In general, the people who run our countries are people who are invested in the financial sector of the economy. The system works for them the way it is.

As for who pays for military action? We all do through increased taxes and medical costs and a million other ways. Everyone BUT the old men in government who send young men off to die. Check out the anti-war movement in the 1960s. The Viet Nam war is a perfect example of what happens when economics rule foreign policy.

Sevens - Why would one phone call to Trump (who is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing) cause a war? He's not even president yet! Bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

PAN - Did they say when this was discovered?
Lizzy - I am pretty sure that President or President Elect this was on the high end of stupid. He has zero knowledge or understanding of diplomatic issues - and appears not to care. When you are the President of the United States (or any other world power) random tweets (and actions) can easily cause serious diplomatic issues - this is both dangerous and profoundly stupid. The Chinese have every right to be angry. I have some faith however that the Chinese government is under no illusions with respect to who they are dealing with and there is some measure of safety in that. Trumps remarks following the death of Castro fell  into the same category. 5 year olds are better behaved. He makes me very very nervous.

oldweston
Getting serious about George

Posts : 71
Join date : 2015-01-02
Location : Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Fingersandtoes on Sat Dec 03 2016, 22:23

Someone should take his twitter away. He can cause serious conflict with his tweets.  Some leader of another country doesn't kiss his ass, and he will tweet insults and demsnd apologies 2 AM.

Fingersandtoes
Clooney Addict

Posts : 177
Join date : 2016-02-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by annemarie on Sat Dec 03 2016, 23:04

He is just an idiot there are things as President you don't say he has no idea when to shut his mouth. He seems to use
twitter to avoid talking to the press and having to explain himself. Some reporters were talking about the fact he hasn't called one press conference since the election.

annemarie
Truly, madly, deeply Clooney

Posts : 4481
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Sat Dec 03 2016, 23:47

Such irony........

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-obama-economic-success-232120

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Sun Dec 04 2016, 00:13

Oldweston wrote:
Lizzy - I am pretty sure that President or President Elect this was on the high end of stupid. He has zero knowledge or understanding of diplomatic issues - and appears not to care. When you are the President of the United States (or any other world power) random tweets (and actions) can easily cause serious diplomatic issues - this is both dangerous and profoundly stupid. The Chinese have every right to be angry. I have some faith however that the Chinese government is under no illusions with respect to who they are dealing with and there is some measure of safety in that. Trumps remarks following the death of Castro fell  into the same category. 5 year olds are better behaved. He makes me very very nervous.
Oldweston - He makes us all nervous. I have to believe that the leaders of the rest of the world can see him for what he is, just as we can, and will deal with him accordingly. There's a new tv show called "Designated Survivor". It has me wondering if there really is such a thing in our government and, if so, what are the odds it could really happen? Probably zero, but it is a reassuring fantasy if you're fed up with things the way they are now.

Fingersandtoes - Not only take his Twitter away. They'd have to glue his mouth shut and tie his hands behind his back!

Ladybug - No, inflation isn't the only cause of rising prices, but it is a contributing factor - as are location, availability of goods and services, employment rates and wages and a multitude of other factors. I don't know where you live, but I know that although things have gotten more expensive here they haven't increased anywhere near as much as you claim.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by annemarie on Sun Dec 04 2016, 00:47

One of the many problems with him is  he wants to demand other countries do what he  wants. That is not going to work. diplomacy is needed when dealing with other countries and he does not know how to do this.

annemarie
Truly, madly, deeply Clooney

Posts : 4481
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Sun Dec 04 2016, 06:33

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - No, Cheney and Haliburton cannot be held accountable for breaking conflict of interest laws.

If you majored in economics, you should know better.
Because this involved private business and a violation of established laws I thought maybe some action could be taken.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Sun Dec 04 2016, 13:15

Ladybug - That ship sailed when Bush left office. If Cheney is no longer in government there is no longer a conflict of interest. The time to have charged him was when he was part of the Bush administration.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Sevens on Mon Dec 05 2016, 02:33

LOOK AT Trump's latest two tweets regarding South China Sea, devaluing currency and taxing products! He is basically humiliating our country publicly...I'll be disappointed if our government once again respond softly and blame others more than Trump himself.


Last edited by Sevens on Mon Dec 05 2016, 03:24; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Sevens
Achieving total Clooney-dom

Posts : 2815
Join date : 2014-02-26
Location : Xi'an, China

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Sevens on Mon Dec 05 2016, 02:46

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug and Fingersandtoes - Economics fuels history. Since time began people have acted to improve their own position of power and economic status.  Every country acts in its own self interest and the US is no different.

 The government won't come right out and say it, but foreign policy is definitely influenced by economic interests and the people who represent them. Foreign policy - of every nation - is usually based, at least in part, on how that nation will benefit economically. To think otherwise is naive. To think it will ever change is, IMO, wishful thinking. In general, the people who run our countries are people who are invested in the financial sector of the economy. The system works for them the way it is.

As for who pays for military action? We all do through increased taxes and medical costs and a million other ways. Everyone BUT the old men in government who send young men off to die. Check out the anti-war movement in the 1960s. The Viet Nam war is a perfect example of what happens when economics rule foreign policy.

Sevens - Why would one phone call to Trump (who is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing) cause a war? He's not even president yet! Bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

PAN - Did they say when this was discovered?
Lizzy, because the US government has constantly acknowledged the ONE CHINA policy for more than three decades and Taiwan should never be considered as a dependent country or region officially. In stead, Taiwan stays as a part of China. Don't you think it's a diplomatic accident to call "the president of NY"?
And our Constitution has made it clear that we could eventually recapture Taiwan by force, which means nuclear bombs included. But Trump just admitted that America is selling billions of military equipment to Taiwan, it's apparent that Taiwan can't win the war without the help from your country.
avatar
Sevens
Achieving total Clooney-dom

Posts : 2815
Join date : 2014-02-26
Location : Xi'an, China

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Mon Dec 05 2016, 12:41

Sevens wrote:
LizzyNY wrote:Sevens - Why would one phone call to Trump (who is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing) cause a war? He's not even president yet! Bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

Lizzy, because the US government has constantly acknowledged the ONE CHINA policy for more than three decades and Taiwan should never be considered as a dependent country or region officially. In stead, Taiwan stays as a part of China. Don't you think it's a diplomatic accident to call "the president of NY"?
And our Constitution has made it clear that we could eventually recapture Taiwan by force, which means nuclear bombs included. But Trump just admitted that America is selling billions of military equipment to Taiwan, it's apparent that Taiwan can't win the war without the help from your country.
"The president of NY"? I don't know what you're referring to. Did someone call him that? They should know better. I don't think there's a place he's hated more than in New York!

As far as his statements about how our foreign policy will change - in relation to all countries, not just China - you need to take a step back and realize that this man has a big mouth and a very small brain. His powers to actually make changes are limited by law and by Congress, but I don't think he's realized that yet. The last thing this country wants is another war - especially a nuclear war! - (Shame on you for suggesting it is an option. It would mean the end of the world!) As far as arms sales to Taiwan are concerned, I don't know how accurate Trump's statements are. I do know, however, that all the major powers are involved in selling arms to other countries all over the world. No excuses, but if the US didn't sell Taiwan arms someone else probably would - if they aren't already.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by carolhathaway on Mon Dec 05 2016, 13:39

Well,
the problem is - at least in my opinion - that Trump can't continue to tell lies as he did during the election campaign. BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO BECOME THE NEXT POTUS!!! (Still unbelievable).
And this means you can't say anymore: "Don't listen to what he says, he's just a dump no-brainer." He has to realize that politics doesn't work like his campaign (at least I hope so), and he can't tweed or say what his little brain (or other parts of his body) tells him BECAUSE IT HAS CONSEQUENCES!!! SO WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE SHUT DOWN HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT???

Sorry for shouting...

carolhathaway
Clooney maximus fantasticus

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2015-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by annemarie on Mon Dec 05 2016, 15:06

Sorry but he will continue to tell lies he knows no other way, he recently said he won the popular vote and the electoral vote by a land slide. 
I'm with Lizzy shut down his twitter tie his hands and glue his mouth shut.

annemarie
Truly, madly, deeply Clooney

Posts : 4481
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Donnamarie on Mon Dec 05 2016, 22:34

This man isn't even President yet and he's already causing havoc in the international community.  China and Pakistan may just be the beginning.  Trump is definitely going to be a disrupter President.  His cabinet will have their work cut out for them trying to keep him in check.  Unless Giuliani becomes Secretary of State.  Then all hell may break lose.  

I don't think anyone can keep him off Twitter.  This is his way to bypass the media and communicate directly with his supporters.  He is such a immature _____.  Pick your own expletive!
avatar
Donnamarie
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4015
Join date : 2014-08-26
Location : Washington, DC

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by party animal - not! on Mon Dec 05 2016, 23:13

Oh, the irony of the SNL tweeting sketch which Trump tweeted a complaint about!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI3g_laToxE

party animal - not!
Casamigos with Mr Clooney

Posts : 8209
Join date : 2012-02-16

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Sevens on Mon Dec 05 2016, 23:52

Lizzy, I was trying to compare that case with Trump's Twitter "the president of Taiwan "-an unprecedented, dangerous title used by the future leader of the most powerful country. He is contradicting the White House's statement apparently...Don't know if he would help Taiwan to start a war with the mainland after  takeing the office.
As far as I know, when the US Navy put their aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait, a regional war almost broke out, at least by this side of the pond, we were all prepared. Troops and missiles were deployed. Luckily your army forces withdrawed eventually.
avatar
Sevens
Achieving total Clooney-dom

Posts : 2815
Join date : 2014-02-26
Location : Xi'an, China

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by carolhathaway on Tue Dec 06 2016, 06:30

Sevens,
that's the problem: Trump ignores these issues because he doesn't care about them (i.g. because he doesn't think about the effects this may have) or because he simply has no clue about them. But there's something called diplomacy which has worked for thousands of years. I've already read comments about that saying: "It's great that somebody says what he thinks, isn't that refreshing?" No, it's not. Because THEY HAVE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES!!!

Let's just think about what happened if we all said and wrote what we really think, for just one day. It may be refreshing, but at the end of the day friendships and relations would be ruined, political coalitions would be ended, and countries wouldn't be friends anymore. This could end in wars, so yes, Lizzy said it well: Tie his hands and glue his mouth!

carolhathaway
Clooney maximus fantasticus

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2015-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by fava on Tue Dec 06 2016, 13:59

carolhathaway wrote:Sevens,
that's the problem: Trump ignores these issues because he doesn't care about them (i.g. because he doesn't think about the effects this may have) or because he simply has no clue about them. But there's something called diplomacy which has worked for thousands of years. I've already read comments about that saying: "It's great that somebody says what he thinks, isn't that refreshing?" No, it's not. Because THEY HAVE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES!!!

Let's just think about what happened if we all said and wrote what we really think, for just one day. It may be refreshing, but at the end of the day friendships and relations would be ruined, political coalitions would be ended, and countries wouldn't be friends anymore. This could end in wars, so yes, Lizzy said it well: Tie his hands and glue his mouth!
Apparently he did have a clue, because according the major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, WaPo) the call was set up well in advance and facilitated by Bob Dole!

fava
More than a little bit enthusiastic about Clooney

Posts : 1095
Join date : 2011-02-24

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Tue Dec 06 2016, 15:05

It looks like the push is still on to get the Republican Party Electorate to vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-one-man-hail-mary-152440975.html
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Tue Dec 06 2016, 15:50

Ladybug - I don't think Mr. Brezenoff is asking the electors to vote for Hillary. I think he's asking them not to vote for Trump. He wants them to vote their conscience and vote for whoever they think would make a good president - as long as it isn't Trump! Help him out. Go to Change.org and add your name to the petition.
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by ladybugcngc on Tue Dec 06 2016, 16:34

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - I don't think Mr. Brezenoff is asking the electors to vote for Hillary. I think he's asking them not to vote for Trump. He wants them to vote their conscience and vote for whoever they think would make a good president - as long as it isn't Trump! Help him out. Go to Change.org and add your name to the petition.
Lizzy - Let me see it I understand you correctly.  Mr. Brezenoff wants the Republican Party to make a "conscience" decision to NOT vote for Trump.  Who do you suggest Mr. Brezenoff wants the Republican Party to vote for?

I don't have a problem with the Trump win.  Those who voted for Trump had their reasons.  For the Republican party to NOT vote the way of the people they represent would be vile beyond description.  They only thing more vile would be if President Elect Trump is murdered.  Remember Hinkley was released from prison.
avatar
ladybugcngc
Clooney-phile

Posts : 741
Join date : 2016-05-26

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by LizzyNY on Tue Dec 06 2016, 17:15

Ladybug  - Mr. Brezenoff believes Donald Trump is unfit to be President. He is asking any electors who feel the same to vote their conscience and vote for whomever they think would be a better President. One Texas elector just announced he will not vote for Trump, but is not sure who will get his vote - maybe John Kasich.

Just because you have no problem with a Trump win doesn't mean that others agree with you. If electors have serious problems with Trump as President they are morally bound to either vote their conscience or refuse to vote at all. To give their vote to someone they feel would be dangerous to our country is what would be really "vile beyond description".

(Could you please dial back the hysteria? To change one's vote might be disturbing but it is hardly as "vile beyond description" as a President whose intent is to trample all over the Constitution to aggrandize himself.)
avatar
LizzyNY
Clooney Purist

Posts : 4052
Join date : 2013-08-28
Location : NY, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Serious Side

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum