UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you know who you remind me of?
this guy. actually...you make this guy look tame.
[video=youtube;Jbc064Uwax4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4[/video]
Stoner's views on Barack Obama as President
- Thread starter CSI Stickyicky
- Start date
this guy. actually...you make this guy look tame.
[video=youtube;Jbc064Uwax4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4[/video]
CSI Stickyicky
Well-Known Member
That dude is cracking my shit up!!!
Big P
Well-Known Member
lol u love that guy, you know how many videos i can paste up here of granola cunching vegan liberals who think socialism and communism is the coolest
you know what stalin and lenon used to call those poeple "useful idiots"
thats what many people are, im not saying you are buck, somthing tells me you would swing for the good guys if the shit truley hit the fan
In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support.
“Lenin put it another way, often saying that capitalist dupes "will
sell us the rope with which to hang them." He called them "the useful
idiots."”
you know what stalin and lenon used to call those poeple "useful idiots"
thats what many people are, im not saying you are buck, somthing tells me you would swing for the good guys if the shit truley hit the fan
In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support.
“Lenin put it another way, often saying that capitalist dupes "will
sell us the rope with which to hang them." He called them "the useful
idiots."”
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Framing a bill designed to prevent a tax increase as a giveaway is dishonest.he must be impressing you since he is miffing me (only slightly).
i was not a huge fan of the tax cut/unemployment bill, i happen to think history sets a good precedent on unemployment and it should not need to be tacked onto a non-stimulus giveaway to millionaires that was meant to expire.
that said, i don't really give two half shits about all of that.
i am impressed at how he laid the groundwork for dadt repeal. yes, hayduke, it was technically the congress that acted. but do you think they would have wrangled 60 votes without the build up that obama created?
as far as leaving slick willie at the podium, i think he had some type of holiday party to get to and the wife was waiting. daily show did a funny little bit about it.
Deciding to not to seize more of someone's income does not constitute any giveaway I ever heard of.
It is impossible to give away that which you do not possess in the first place.
Giveaway seems a term more appropriate to extending the unemployment benefits, especially considering the funds required to extend said extensions must be borrowed.
And I can refute the ' they paid into unemployment insurance' argument right now. It is true, but those benefits previously expired and were set to expire again. Hence the need for yet another extension.
As far as the press conference is concerned; the blatant image was of a henpecked husband.
The subtext was even more interesting; he turned the show over to a Clinton and just walked away.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I want to make clear that I am not calling Buck dishonest.
That characterization is reserved for the previously referenced talking point alone.
That characterization is reserved for the previously referenced talking point alone.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
I am sure there was a reason...I heard a while back it was a huge issue for Arabic and Farsi translators...they know they are valuable...and for some reason, gay...and they spoke out and got booted.
Undoubtedly the repeal is for the need of boots...with some...flair?
Big P
Well-Known Member
ya freaky i just read this story about pashtuns over there and they are not even allowed to see women and they have sex with boys instead and they all are gay from generations of being suppressed from women
check this out
Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)
Home > Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces
Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces
Comments (84)
A document released by WikiLeaks described efforts by high-ranking Afghan officials to quash reports of police officers and other Afghans arrested for "purchasing a service from a child." The leaked diplomatic cable quoted former Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar's concern that publicity about the arrests, which involved the hiring of "dancing boys," would "endanger lives."
The author of the diplomatic cable fretted that the case would be "blown out of proportion, an outcome that would not be good for either the U.S. or Afghanistan."
The vast gulf between U.S. and Afghan attitudes about homosexuality and pedophilia has generated concern among U.S. advisers in Afghanistan since the American presence there began to expand.
In late 2009, U.S. and British forces ordered a study of Pashtun male sexuality. They were worried that homosexuality and pedophilia among Afghan security forces and tribes could create cultural misunderstanding with allied troops, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The study, requested by 2nd Marine Expeditionary Battalion along with British forces in Lashkar Gah, was conducted by members of one of the Defense Department's Human Terrain Teams stationed in Afghanistan. The report was authored by team member Anna Maria Cardinalli, who said the goal was to learn how to advise "U.S. and British service members who report encounters with men displaying apparently homosexual tendencies. These service members are frequently confused [by] this behavior."
The report described unease by U.S. Marines and British soldiers who felt they were being propositioned, or who were outraged by apparent acts of pedophilia by Afghan soldiers and police. It documented one case in which 12 of 20 Pashtun interpreters working with one U.S. Army unit had contracted gonorrhea from homosexual encounters.
Troops interviewed by The Examiner say they are frequently forced to deal with a radically different attitude toward sex with male youths by Afghan security forces.
"I know Marines and soldiers who have refused to work with Afghan military or police," said one U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's not about homosexuality as much as it is about the young boys. Some of them like to show pictures on their cell phone -- that should be illegal. Some of the Afghans have their own young boys they use for sexual purposes and we can't do anything about it."
Cardinalli told The Examiner by e-mail that she is writing a book about widespread acceptance of male homosexuality among Pashtuns, a culture where far fewer opportunities for premarital heterosexual encounters exist.
"To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid Western discomfort is to risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture which can potentially effect the success" of the U.S. effort there, Cardinalli wrote in the report.
An American military official who works closely with Afghan security forces called the discomfort among U.S. and British troops "the elephant in the closet that no one's talking about, but needs to."
The study makes a number of observations about the extreme segregation of women in Pashtun culture.
It discusses the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribes and the long-standing traditions in which boys are appreciated for their physical beauty and apprenticed to older men to learn a trade at an early age.
"Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships," the study states.
For a male to have sex with a boy is considered a "foible," the report said. By contrast, having sex with an "ineligible woman" would set up "issues of revenge and honor killings."
Years of living under that cultural construct have greatly altered sexual attitudes, the study said. "One of the country's favorite sayings is 'women are for children, boys are for pleasure," the report noted.
The study said the prevailing sexual attitudes in some parts of Afghanistan are creating a cycle damaging to boys and young men.
"There is frequently the risk that Pashtun boys will face a set of experiences that mold their beliefs regarding sexuality as adults in ways that are ultimately damaging, both to themselves and to Afghan society," the report concludes. "It appears that this set of experiences becomes cyclical, affecting generations, and that this cycle that has existed long enough to affect the underpinnings of Afghan culture itself."
Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at [email protected].
check this out
Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)
Home > Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces
Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces
Comments (84)
A document released by WikiLeaks described efforts by high-ranking Afghan officials to quash reports of police officers and other Afghans arrested for "purchasing a service from a child." The leaked diplomatic cable quoted former Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar's concern that publicity about the arrests, which involved the hiring of "dancing boys," would "endanger lives."
The author of the diplomatic cable fretted that the case would be "blown out of proportion, an outcome that would not be good for either the U.S. or Afghanistan."
The vast gulf between U.S. and Afghan attitudes about homosexuality and pedophilia has generated concern among U.S. advisers in Afghanistan since the American presence there began to expand.
In late 2009, U.S. and British forces ordered a study of Pashtun male sexuality. They were worried that homosexuality and pedophilia among Afghan security forces and tribes could create cultural misunderstanding with allied troops, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The study, requested by 2nd Marine Expeditionary Battalion along with British forces in Lashkar Gah, was conducted by members of one of the Defense Department's Human Terrain Teams stationed in Afghanistan. The report was authored by team member Anna Maria Cardinalli, who said the goal was to learn how to advise "U.S. and British service members who report encounters with men displaying apparently homosexual tendencies. These service members are frequently confused [by] this behavior."
The report described unease by U.S. Marines and British soldiers who felt they were being propositioned, or who were outraged by apparent acts of pedophilia by Afghan soldiers and police. It documented one case in which 12 of 20 Pashtun interpreters working with one U.S. Army unit had contracted gonorrhea from homosexual encounters.
Troops interviewed by The Examiner say they are frequently forced to deal with a radically different attitude toward sex with male youths by Afghan security forces.
"I know Marines and soldiers who have refused to work with Afghan military or police," said one U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's not about homosexuality as much as it is about the young boys. Some of them like to show pictures on their cell phone -- that should be illegal. Some of the Afghans have their own young boys they use for sexual purposes and we can't do anything about it."
Cardinalli told The Examiner by e-mail that she is writing a book about widespread acceptance of male homosexuality among Pashtuns, a culture where far fewer opportunities for premarital heterosexual encounters exist.
"To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid Western discomfort is to risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture which can potentially effect the success" of the U.S. effort there, Cardinalli wrote in the report.
An American military official who works closely with Afghan security forces called the discomfort among U.S. and British troops "the elephant in the closet that no one's talking about, but needs to."
The study makes a number of observations about the extreme segregation of women in Pashtun culture.
It discusses the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribes and the long-standing traditions in which boys are appreciated for their physical beauty and apprenticed to older men to learn a trade at an early age.
"Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships," the study states.
For a male to have sex with a boy is considered a "foible," the report said. By contrast, having sex with an "ineligible woman" would set up "issues of revenge and honor killings."
Years of living under that cultural construct have greatly altered sexual attitudes, the study said. "One of the country's favorite sayings is 'women are for children, boys are for pleasure," the report noted.
The study said the prevailing sexual attitudes in some parts of Afghanistan are creating a cycle damaging to boys and young men.
"There is frequently the risk that Pashtun boys will face a set of experiences that mold their beliefs regarding sexuality as adults in ways that are ultimately damaging, both to themselves and to Afghan society," the report concludes. "It appears that this set of experiences becomes cyclical, affecting generations, and that this cycle that has existed long enough to affect the underpinnings of Afghan culture itself."
Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at [email protected].
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
fabuloussss flair!Undoubtedly the repeal is for the need of boots...with some...flair?
i also heard a good bunch of the translators they needed just happened to swing that way. not sure that was the only reason, as i'd like to have more faith in my government doing the very thing they set out to do: treat all americans equally. but yes, i reserve my judgment as well.
i'm just glad it happened for one reason or the other.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, fair enough. it was *technically* dishonest.
it is not, per se, a 'giveaway' to let someone keep more of their own money.
but the amount some will receive, on the national credit card in a time where fiscal responsibility is needed no less, is astounding.
many of them DO NOT EVEN WANT IT. or will give it all away anyway.
yes, government scoops a little off the top, but so do the charities that would have received the free money anyway. often, private charities take more in administrative/bureaucratic costs than government.
so in the sense that many are receiving money that they would not miss, do not want, or would give away....it is IN SOME SENSE a giveaway.
not to mention the fact that the extension of a tax credit that was MEANT TO EXPIRE is not projected to create any job growth or economic stimulus.
not to mention that it adds billions to our debt for the zero benefit it creates.
well, maybe not ZERO benefit.
some millionaires will surely benefit from the upgrade to first class on their flight to tahiti.
good thing the repubs held hostage civil rights for gay americans, health benefits to 9/11 first responders, and a minimum social safety net to those who need it most.
what a bunch of fucking heroes. it's like they ran into a burning, collapsing tower to save those millionaires from flying coach.
huzzah for the republicans!
chillwills
Well-Known Member
I dont get the people who voted for McCain???? He never would have called off the DEA dogs from medical marijuana like Obama did.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
Exactly!
I believe they added Palin to ensure that Barry would be elected.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The only reason the tax cuts were set to expire was because Democrats would not have supported a tax cut without them in the first place. The deadline was the brainchild of Tom Daschle.
Spending is the problem. Revenue is not. The government collects plenty of tax revenue to support government. Tax revenues are finite. Eventually you reach a point where you simply can't raise tax rates any more.
To put it practically, a family spends well over it's means. To keep the same level of spending both Mom and Dad would have to take two full-time jobs. Or the family could decide to stop spending so much damn money. Which makes more sense?
It is no different for the federal government. Deficit spending is unsustainable and must be stopped. Preventing a tax increase is not spending.
For the family austerity means beans & rice, and macaroni & cheese for a while. It means cutting the cable television. It means no more texting. Every budget can stand a trim when times get tough. The severity of the trimming depends on the level of the crisis.
I won't go over the benefits of tax cuts with you again. You know my position and I know yours. Instead I will say this, I think we can all agree that raising taxes when the economy is in a funk is a monumentally bad idea.
The heroes of 911 were coppers and firefighters, right? Both of those occupations have generous benefit packages, including health insurance and disability insurance. So why do they need this bill?
Could it be that this is a backdoor scheme to subsidize benefits for the New York City government employees? By making the federal government responsible, the New York City government is off the hook.
Again, it is dishonest to say we are denying heroes anything. They were provided for before the bill.
Just as it is dishonest to call someone making $250,000 a year a millionaire.
Again, not you; dishonest are the Donk talking points I see and hear over and over.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Okay.So either quit the foreign deficit spending on imperialism...or let the rich eat Mac & cheese for once...I have no sympathy for them.
I agree that the military spending on behalf of foreigners is out of control. Slash it.
While were at it let's also slash aid to Africa for aids treatment and weenie washing lessons; and aid to every other third world shithole.
I have little sympathy for the 47% on the bottom half of the economic ladder who pay no federal income taxes.
Perhaps they should start chipping in as well.
TheDemocrat
Active Member
A federal sales tax.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it is not dishonest to call this a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, as 1,000,000+ > $250,000. a little lazy, sure. but honest enough.
it is a little dishonest to say we are 'putting this on the national credit card' like i do. you are correct, letting someone keep more of their own money is not spending. but it is also a little dishonest to say we are simply 'preventing a tax increase', because what we are doing is simply 'delaying a planned lapse to pre-tax cut levels'. and just as if a family were to lose a planned source of revenue and has to buy stuff on the credit card, the country has lost a planned source of revenue and will now have to put certain items on the national credit card.
as for the 9/1 responders, i think doc said it best. i am not sure how many of them were 'provided for' already, but they were misled about the safety of the air around ground zero by no less than the epa. and when they go to seek care for some exotic illness caused by such conditions, who do you think the insurance company will believe, john the firefighter, or the ep fucking a?
and i'm not so sure letting the tax cuts expire for the top earners would have been so monumentally disastrous. these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and two-hundred-fifty-thousand-aires are projected to generate almost ZERO job growth, reducing unemployment by 0.00% - 0.1% over the next two years.
we used to tax 9 out of every 10 dollars for the top earners and had a booming economy. not so sure what the big stink is about moving back to 39.6% from 35%.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I agree.
As long as it's the Fair Tax.
Which means the 16th Amendment goes bye-bye.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
TheDemocrat
Active Member
Those bush era tax cuts have not created any jobs yet.
TheDemocrat
Active Member
The only way a federal tax would work would be if that was the only tax. But, what about local taxes? Would you still have property tax? I paid $452 the other day to renew my dealer tags.