Niciodata nu e prea tarziu pentru pace.

Bla bla... we are under attack... bla bla... war on terra...
Repeti retorica neoconilor, baiete...

De exemplu poti sa tai tax cuts pentru corporatii. Poti sa cresti excise taxes (taxe pe tigari, alcool, etc). Poti sa cresti custom duties. Poti sa pui un federal sales tax (care este 0% in momentul de fata).

Dar cel mai important e ca poti sa nu pui noi taxe - pur si simplu reduci agresiv cheltuielile.

Parerea mea e ca nu trebuie neaparat sa inchizi IRS-ul

Vrea sa desfinteze IRS - sa nu mai ia impozite oamenilor.

Stai tu linistit, nu-l sustine nimeni pe Ron Paul pentru ca e nebun/interesant.

Temerea mea este intemeiata pe situatia mondiala existenta la ora actuala, SUA nu-si pot permite conservatorismul la aceasta ora. Lumea se pregateste de multipolarism or americanii trebuie sa fie macar in pluton daca nu in fruntea lui.

Spune-le asta evanghelicilor din SUA...
Asa-numiti si "The Strong Quarter"

Evangelical Christians in the United States were prominently active in political movements which are now popularly considered to be important social advancements, such as Women's Rights and Suffrage, and Abolitionism. Evangelical influence was also evident in past movements which are now unpopular, such as prohibition[4] and illegal immigration[citation needed]. But Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision rendered in 1973 preventing states from making laws that prohibit abortion, is the most prominent landmark of a new era of conservative evangelical political action, unprecedented in its intensity and coordination.

In the U.S. the Religious Right is especially influential in the Republican Party. George W. Bush, elected president of the U.S. in 2000, is a self-identified born-again Christian who received strong support from evangelical voters. The Bush Administration is guided by the President's values which do not necessarily reflect core evangelical beliefs. Often, criticism of controversial conservative political stances frequently falls on the U.S. evangelical movement as a whole.[citation needed]

The mass-appeal of the Christian right in the so-called red states, and its success in rallying resistance to certain social agendas, is sometimes alleged as an attempt to impose theocracy[citation needed] on an otherwise unwilling[citation needed] and secular society, although most evangelicals deny this. There are indications that the belief is widespread among conservative evangelicals in the USA that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in American public life according its importance in American life and history. Accordingly, those evangelicals often strenuously oppose the expression of other faiths in schools or in the course of civic functions. For example, when Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress in 2000, the September 21 edition of the online publication operated by the Family Research Council, Culture Facts, raised objection:

While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage. The USA's founders expected that Christianity--and no other religion--would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.

However, the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic." Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well. In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals. Many evangelicals have little practical interest in politics.

According to recent reports in the New York Times, many evangelicals have tired of Republican politics and seek to expand their movement's social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.[6] Christian Right activist Terry Fox, who stepped down from his pastorate when his congregation told him to stop dwelling on right-wing issues in his sermons, told the Times:

“I don’t mind telling you that I paid a price for the political stands I took,” Fox said. “The pendulum in the Christian world has swung back to the moderate point of view. The real battle now is among evangelicals.”

Cica 25% din populatia SUA este evanghelica.
Si aproape toti voteaza cu ultra-conservatorii (daca li se da sansa), cand e vorba de alegeri. De ce crezi ca Mike Huckabee are atat de mult suport, mai ales in midwest si aprope de midwest?
Raport formal nu stau sa caut acum... mai ales ca lucrurile aste sunt foarte bine cunoscute...

25 % evanghelisti, nu este de ajuns pentru un presedinte evanghelist care a condus SUA timp de 8 ani. Altceva trebuie sa fie la baza acestei "minimonarhii" Bush.

Si America exista nu avea grija, din 1945 aveau bomba atomica, nu mai era posibil sa fie invadata conventional. Si chiar daca era nu rezistau mult invadatorii

Poti sa nu intervii. Pentru ca neinterventionismul nu implica ca nu esti capabil sa te aperi. Nu implica ca nu intrii in razboaie. Inseamna doar ca nu creezi razboaie si conflicte. Inseamna ca nu decizi soarta unor state suverane asa, pentru ca stii tu mai bine ce e bine pentru altii sau pentru ca ai tu niste interese strategice sau economice acolo.

Hm, cu o bomba atomica nu ar fi oprit o invazie... ei puteau sa faca o bomba la cateva saptamani... Asta in conditiile in care deja infrangeau pe nemti. Ia gandeste-te cum era lumea daca America nu intervenea si Hitler cucerea Anglia, avea si Africa...Stalin si chinezii Asia... urmau sa inceapa revolutiile in America de Sud. Americanii ar fi fost cam la stramtoare, mai ales ca si nemtii isi faceau bomba.

Stai linistit, nemtii, rusii si japonezii erau departe de "bomba atomica".

Sub sloganul "spreading democracy", SUA a instaurat sau sustinut multi dictatori. Exemple de tari de mentionat: Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Pakistan...

Daca nu pierdeau razboiul nemtii aveau bomba odata cu americanii. Dar le-au fost bombardate fabricile de apa grea si le-au fost scufundate transporturile de apa grea. Aduceau deja uraniu in tara. Mare parte din tehnologia de dupa razboi americana si ruseasca de la nemti a fost luata.
Americanii nici nu ar fi facut bomba daca nu erau in razboi. Cauza bombei a fost razboiul, nu erau in razboi, nu faceau bomba. Convinge tu publicul si congresul sa iti dea bani de proiectul Manhattan cand nu esti in razboi si in pericol iminent.

Si chiar daca aveau sa zicem, bombe atomice si ceilalti nu, in clipa in care erau nevoiti sa le foloseasca pe propriul teritoriu, ca sa se apere, erau deja pierduti. Chiar daca goneau invadatorul, teritoriul ramanea arid si radioactiv.

Una peste alta, America nu ar fi rezistat impotriva nemtilor, japonezilor si a rusilor. Nici economic si nici militar.

n opinia mea daca nemtii dupa atacarea Poloniei s-ar fi concentrat numai asupra URSS poate ar fi reusit sa intoarca cursul istoriei, din fericire nu s-a intamplat asa si istoria si-a urmat cursul firesc. Istoria e frumoasa dar trebuie studiata.

Eu cred ca SUA si-ar fi asumat acest risc.

De altfel cei mai mari atomisti ai timpului au emigrat in SUA, legal sau ilegal.

Nemtii nu invingeau URSS. Nu aveau cum. Incercam aici sa iti arat ca neimplicarea americii in europa in ww2 ar fi insemnat infrangerea ei mai tarziu. Germania ar fi avut Africa, toata europe. Rusii ramneau linistiti la ei in Asia. Oricat s-ar fi straduit, un razboi ulterior i-ar fi macinat pe Americani incet dar sigur.

Corect. Insa repet, nu insemna nimic bomba atomica in 45. Arsenalul nuclear a capatat amploare ani mai tarziu. La acea vreme, razboaiele se castigau inca in mod conventional.

Nemtii nu invingeau URSS. Nu aveau cum. Incercam aici sa iti arat ca neimplicarea americii in europa in ww2 ar fi insemnat infrangerea ei mai tarziu. Germania ar fi avut Africa, toata europe. Rusii ramneau linistiti la ei in Asia. Oricat s-ar fi straduit, un razboi ulterior i-ar fi macinat pe Americani incet dar sigur.

Sa revenim la alegerile americane din 2008. Posturile ABC, CBS, and NBC promoveaza in draci candidatii liberali democrati !

Desigur in afara de explicatiile din acest video, va spun eu de la mine ca recesiunea a fost planificata.

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

Stric orzu pe gaste. Explica-mi Blakut de unde ai ideile astea ciudate, auzi Elvis l-a impuscat pe Kennedy

Explica-mi Blakut de unde ai ideile astea ciudate, auzi Elvis l-a impuscat pe Kennedy

Madama Clinton si-a pus poalele in cap iar Obama si-a dat pantalonii jos si trage-i paruiala in direct la tv !! tongue.gif Si asta-i de abia inceputul.

@march: Daca Hillary e leftista, eu ma impusc!

@march: Daca Hillary e leftista, eu ma impusc!