pounder35 wrote:
For the record PNagy are you:
A: For allowing the destruction of Israel.
B: Dropping all support for Israel but continuing to arm their enemies.
C: Working towards the establishing of a Palestinian state along side of Israel.
If "C" and the violence continues should we provide foreign aid to both so they can purchase an equal number of weapons or just give them an equal number of high tech weapons as well as Egypt and whoever ends up controlling Syria? Why not keep packing powder into all the barrels until it all explodes and nothing is left?
For the record PNagy are you: br br A: For allowi... (
show quote)
Nothing is always black or white, right or left and good or bad. He made a valid point and your response did not even come close to addressing it.
Sorry that was 10 "BILLION" with an additional 9"Billion" from private investers. According to the U.N., this projects cost will exceed 300 billion. Just read the article, and here's the link.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-announces-multi-billion-dollar-plan-bring-electricity-africapounder35 wrote:
The White House says Obamas electricity initiative, dubbed Power Africa, symbolizes the type of cross-continent ventures the president seeks. Backed by $7 billion in U.S. investment, the power program will focus on expanding access to electricity in six African countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Tanzania.
Be sure their citizens are given Absentee Voting forms so they can help elect another Dim-ocrat in the next Presidential election.
Right. But universal electricity access to sub-Saharan Africa is not the goal of the present White House initiative.
I have to agree of course. The nearly 20 billion being commited would in no way sufice. As you've read, as I have, the number of 300 billion was from A U.N. agency. Now let me ask, who do you think usualy gets the tab for U.N. funding? This is nothing more than sticking a toe in the door jam to keep the door from shutting.
ocbeyer wrote:
Right. But universal electricity access to sub-Saharan Africa is not the goal of the present White House initiative.
Hal81
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
ole sarg wrote:
No
But since you brought it up you are a racist! Redneck really don't care.
I personally don't like bigots or racists.
I hope you associate with people of like minds.
Tell me where do you buy your sheet and hood?
There you go again ole sarge playing the race card when ever someone takes your beloved obummer and shines a light on the way he is spending money we just dont have. Phildelpha just anounced they are closeing 22 schools. How apout spending some of that money that we dont have right here in the USA. Those poor black fokes are the ones that voted for that boob in the white house and now hes turning on them. How can anybody in their right mind not see what this boob is doing to this country.
Hal81
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
PNagy wrote:
At least a sort of African REA is an altruistic cause. We give close to twice that much every year to Israel for the purpose of murdering Palestinians and stealing their land.
PNagy the Jew hater. What a bigot. Maby its that hitler mustash that sets you off. Israel is the best friend we have in the middle east.
Hal81 wrote:
PNagy the Jew hater. What a bigot. Maby its that hitler mustash that sets you off. Israel is the best friend we have in the middle east.
I thought these photos looked a lot alike.
Maybe there is more to them.
Interesting photos
PNagy wrote:
Reagan had more reason to be aRepublican than to appease Nancy. He always understood the authoritarian point of view more than that of the ordinary man. Even as president of the Screen Actor's Guild he cooperated with the McCarthy purges, instead of shielding actors from the witch hunts. By the time he won the presidency Reagan had no traces of Democratic spirit flowing through his veins. He was a quintessentially big government, big spending Republican, who spewed anti-government rhetoric, even as he pushed the government to record breaking spending sprees, while reducing taxes on the plutocracy, showering billions on big corporations, deregulating everything he could, excusing corporate rape of the environment, and busting unions for them. democrats then and now, while actually supporting much of the above, have not told the victims that the oppression was actually good for them.
Reagan had more reason to be aRepublican than to a... (
show quote)
It is interesting that you claim to know more about Reagans motivation that he did. In his biography he says in plain English that he changed parties simply to win Nancy. As far as his tenure with the screen actors guild; that has noting to do with anything.
As a President, Reagan was a big spender and deregulated a number of things. He was against big government and for private enterprise. You may disagree but we have been living with a true big government, big spending, private enterprise hating administration for the past four years. Where has it gotten us?
As far as your contention that he supported the "corporate rape of the environment", that is just nonsense. Supporting the ability of private business to grow, prosper and provide jobs for the people of this country is hardly a support of "rape of the environment." A single President, no matter what his party, does not have the power to radically change the environment within his term. He allowed more drilling on Federal land than any other President but where is the damage? If what he did had caused any long term damage to the environment we would have heard about it over and over again, but we haven't. He tried to dismantle the EPA. You would first have to assume the EPA is a good thing to find a problem with that. Many people find the EPA worthy of being dismantled.
Historically the Democratic party has been the conservative party and the Republicans the liberals. At some point after the Reagan era they switched goals. Reagan was a true Democrat in every sense.
ocbeyer wrote:
them eat cake". Huh.
BTW, cake, to Marie Antoinette, was not a confection. It is the hardened grease and soot found at the bottom of wood burning stoves. She was even nastier than most people think.
Sounds a lot like people on this site huh.
You should read all the facts before you make dumb racist comments. Obama is not giving any money to anyone. "Obama phones" as some people call them was a program started during the bush years.But a lot of what's said on here is not true and people just buy into it. Yea the hell with the rest of the world or anyone else who is poor huh? Hell they aren't any worth helping because they love getting free two or three hundred dollar welfare check right a month. Why work when you can live in squalor for free.if you're poor at least you get a free phone right,who needs food, or clothes or health care. Yes that's the christian way.
Actually, as long as they keep electric lines off the Serengeti, I'm all for it. We have a responsibility to help bring 3rd World countries into modern times. Electricity will not only be used for households, but to power machinery and agricultural tools.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.