ok Republicans, myself included

[JLEW1818]

is this a fair statement for me to say?

"A huge reason why the health care bill passed, is because Geroge W. Bush messed things up so bad, and gave away the seats in the house and senate to the dems?"

don't be bias. is that statement somewhat legit?

[SoonerBorn68]

Wow, a new angle to "blame Bush". :rolleyes:

[SoonerBorn68]

Don't fall into the trap. This is Obama's baby now.

[SoonerProphet]

so wait, when W passed medicare part d with shaddy back room deals and a razor margin...that was legit. now when the current goon in chief does the same thing it is break out the don't tread on me flags.

give me a phuckin' break. either you think the gov't is to large and intrusive or you don't.

[JLEW1818]

I'm far far far right

but it seems the "majority" of America thought Bush did horrible.

i want a yes or no to my question please!! no in between. :D

[JLEW1818]

Don't fall into the trap. This is Obama's baby now.

I know this is Obama's stuff.

but is a big reason why Obama and his socialist crew could pass this bill b/c of W and his failures?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm far far far right

but it seems the "majority" of America thought Bush did horrible.

i want a yes or no to my question please!! no in between. :DGood luck getting that from SoonerProphet......he usually let's the stick in his *** do the talking

[JLEW1818]

so wait, when W passed medicare part d with shaddy back room deals and a razor margin...that was legit. now when the current goon in chief does the same thing it is break out the don't tread on me flags.

give me a phuckin' break. either you think the gov't is to large and intrusive or you don't.

:D

I'm bascially saying Bush and Obama both suck as being president, economical wise

[SoonerProphet]

:D

I'm bascially saying Bush and Obama both suck as being president, economical wise

you are not going to get an argument from me there. seems as of late though that when dems are in office you at least know you are going to get a dry fist.

[SoonerProphet]

Good luck getting that from SoonerProphet......he usually let's the stick in his *** do the talking

i've told you before son, ain't interested, so quit hittin' on me fag.

[Chuck Bao]

I am not Republican and I would not say that. Don't get me wrong, I think the GW Bush administration will go down in history as being disastrous. He and the Democrat Congress sat around as US jobs were being exported overseas and Americans were making credit card payments by further leveraging off of their over-inflated house prices. Following that, there was no choice but in enact health care reform to take care of the ever increasing number of uninsured Americans. Adding in the problem of illegal immigrants, the health care system was just about to be overwhelmed anyway.

[JLEW1818]

so will we now have a bunch of insured unemployed citizens? or does it not work like that?

not being sarcastic either

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bush did substantial social spending that was leftist behavior. (He was certainly not consistently conservative) Some congressional repubs went along with him. The MSM did their normal job, and voila, democrats got voted in, some of them pretending to be fiscally conservative. Had Bush not done the social spending, you could make a case that republicans in congress would have been more conservative, and would have retained control. The whole deal of McCain getting the R. nomination in '08 is another story, IMO.

[Chuck Bao]

so will we now have a bunch of insured unemployed citizens? or does it not work like that?

not being sarcastic either

Hopefully. Although the numbers of newly unemployed seem to be slowing, I still do not believe that the overall job market will improve much over the next several years. Having health insurance is at least one less stress to the temporarily unemployed and not so taxing on our system with costs being passed on to those with insurance. Okay, it will still be passed on but at least now you kinda know what to expect.

[landrun]

Yes. Bush sucked. The Republicans could have enacted a conservative agenda while in control but really became mini-democrats. Libs hate them. Conservatives were discussed by them. So they lost a lot of seats for raising the national debt etc...

So 'yes'. This is accurate.
Had the Repubs been conservative as they pretended to be, this would have never happened.

Of course, if the Dems weren't far left nuts now and were moderate (as they pretend to be) this wouldn't have happened either.

[Collier11]

I'm far far far right

but it seems the "majority" of America thought Bush did horrible.

i want a yes or no to my question please!! no in between. :D

Ive looked at many different websites that rank all time presidential performance and while he certainly wasnt at the top of any of the lists, he was more towards the middle-high 30s rank. It is so new for all of us that people like to throw out different statements but within the realm of history, he isnt as bad as many say

I think he did some good things but he will never get credit because of the level of screw ups he had

[JLEW1818]

I would have liked to see how Bush did if 9/11 never happened..... hell I know we all wish 9/11 never happened.


(and no I'm not saying Bush sucked just b/c of 9/11)

[Harry Beanbag]

so wait, when W passed medicare part d with shaddy back room deals and a razor margin...that was legit. now when the current goon in chief does the same thing it is break out the don't tread on me flags.

give me a phuckin' break. either you think the gov't is to large and intrusive or you don't.

Speaking of Gadsden flags. ;)

I have to admit that my political views have evolved over the last decade. I am no longer a Republican and for damn sure am not a Democrat. My goal is to be consistently anti-government now.

[sooner59]

Harry, are you one of these guys?

http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.gif

Sorry, I ain't calling anybody out or commenting on the issue. I just thought the picture was funny and I wanted to put on here somewhere. :D

[Harry Beanbag]

Harry, are you one of these guys?

http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.gif

Sorry, I ain't calling anybody out or commenting on the issue. I just thought the picture was funny and I wanted to put on here somewhere. :D


Somewhere in between, although I do own a pair of Doc Martens black steel toe boots. :)

[Stitch Face]

I wear Docs with my Brooks Bros suit and use a circle with an X in it to cross out government

[OUMallen]

is this a fair statement for me to say?

"A huge reason why the health care bill passed, is because Geroge W. Bush messed things up so bad, and gave away the seats in the house and senate to the dems?"

don't be bias. is that statement somewhat legit?

I think it would be hard for anyone to deny the Left had momentum due to the public perception of W by the end of his term.

[OhU1]

Without the fiasco of W we would not have Obama period. Perhaps we would have another Democrat but not someone as far left as Obama. Bush was a terrible president - economically and otherwise. Bush and his neo-con supporters caused so much divisiveness that the public got pushed much further left than I thought was possible. Looks like the dims are now doing a good job of pushing people back to the right.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Power swings back and forth all the time, when one party get's complete control, as the Dems have now, they push their natural philosophy and the public be damned. The Dem's are solely responsible for this and will pay a huge price for thumbing their nose at America. Power will shift once again. The only problem is the other side don't have a clue either and have become quasi socialists as well.

[Big Red Ron]

Yes, Bush and Republicans in Congress acted like Democrats and they are to blame.

[OUMallen]

Without the fiasco of W we would not have Obama period. Perhaps we would have another Democrat but not someone as far left as Obama. Bush was a terrible president - economically and otherwise. Bush and his neo-con supporters caused so much divisiveness that the public got pushed much further left than I thought was possible. Looks like the dims are now doing a good job of pushing people back to the right.

Hillary is pretty far left too and she was his only real competition.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yes, Bush and Republicans in Congress acted like Democrats and they are to blame.As are the many democrats who campaigned as conservatives, but wound up being just...democrats, after getting elected.

[OklahomaTuba]

so wait, when W passed medicare part d with shaddy back room deals and a razor margin...that was legit. now when the current goon in chief does the same thing it is break out the don't tread on me flags.Trying to compare medicare part D with the Obamacare disaster is laughable at best.

Its like comparing the unemployment rate and deficit spending between W and Obama. There really isn't a comparison actually.

[OUMallen]

Trying to compare medicare part D with the Obamacare disaster is laughable at best.

Its like comparing the unemployment rate and deficit spending between W and Obama. There really isn't a comparison actually.

Unemployment was moving largely independent of who was in office.

Deficit spending, though, you've got a point. Although just because Obama REALLY sucks at that, doesn't mean W didn't also suck.

[Big Red Ron]

As are the many democrats who campaigned as conservatives, but wound up being just...democrats, after getting elected.
True but the blam lays at the feet of Bush. The buck stops with him.

[OklahomaRed]

They both are so deep inside the beltway's established power structure that it doesn't matter. Bush gave it all away to Wall Street. Obama is giving it all away to the Unions. Neither of them could care less a bout the middle class, whom both of them are (were) willing to suck dry. They are doing nothing but "dancing with them that brung them."

Until every day, hard working people figure out that they all suck and make all of them start living by the same lawas the adopt, then we're just going to keep getting more of the same.

The way you make them pass laws is that you force them to retire after 10 years max, and then they do not get any lifetime benefits from their position, but they have to return to mainstream America and live under the same healthplan, the same tax system, and the same retirement plan that all the rest of us do.

Is social elitism that is killing us. The only ones winning are the political insiders and the super rich. They are pushing for a one world economy and so far everything is on track and pretty much on time. It will only be a matter of time before Americans are on the same social-economic playing field as say France, Brazil, and China. Once they get us to that point, then they can start working on more plans and objectives to maximize their economic and power position on the world stage.

Either quit voting for incumbants and kick them all out and get some elected officials in there that are going to take away all the perks and level the playing field for all the special interests groups don't get their take, and then we might start turning this country around.

Ask yourself this? Do you truly believe that your children will have it better than you? We are getting set to pass on to our kids a lower level of social economy for the first time ever since the country was founded.

Great job to all the special interest (including AARP) for making sure you got yours and our children, and our children's children get stuck holding the bill.

[SoonerProphet]

Trying to compare medicare part D with the Obamacare disaster is laughable at best.

Its like comparing the unemployment rate and deficit spending between W and Obama. There really isn't a comparison actually.

:rolleyes: whatever hotrod, you keep tellin' yourself there is no difference betwixt the two.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

True but the blame lays at the feet of Bush. The buck stops with him.Bush screwed up by being too liberal. The American people screwed up even worse, by electing democrats who, surprise surprise, turned out to be corrupt commies.(who woulda thunk it?haha)

[sooner ngintunr]

Trying to compare medicare part D with the Obamacare disaster is laughable at best.

Its like comparing the unemployment rate and deficit spending between W and Obama. There really isn't a comparison actually.

It is laughable, medicare part D wasn't even funded.:rolleyes: ;)

I'll compare them. They are both huge piles of ****.

[SoonerProphet]

http://www.amconmag.com/tactv/2010/03/22/bipartisan-blame-for-obamacare/

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://www.amconmag.com/tactv/2010/03/22/bipartisan-blame-for-obamacare/You keep think'n that "Hotrod". All this admin has done has made the majority of this country vote straight repub this November.

[Chuck Bao]

I am having fun just thinking about the teeth gnashing and spleen spitting bile when the Republicans finally figure out that health care reform issue is going to backfire against them in November.

[delhalew]

I am having fun just thinking about the teeth gnashing and spleen spitting bile when the Republicans finally figure out that health care reform issue is going to backfire against them in November.

That's really what you think? Don't get me wrong, its possible. I quit underestimating peoples desire for what they think is free **** a long time ago.

On the other hand, I feel like you underestimate what is brewing in this country. People are educating themselves instead of relying on the nightly news. Independents will not be easily duped again.

[sooner ngintunr]

Independents will not be easily duped again.

Independents didn't vote for 0bama.

The real question is, are Repubs stupid enough to nominate Palin again? If so, fuhgetaboutit

[delhalew]

Independents didn't vote for 0bama.

The real question is, are Repubs stupid enough to nominate Palin again? If so, fuhgetaboutit

If independents did not vote for Brack, he would not have had the numbers to win. Notice the states that swing from red to blue every election. Those are your independents.

[delhalew]

People Republicans should not nominate:
Palin
Romney
McCain
Gingrich
Gilliani
I could probably think of more...basically anybody they will want is a bad choice.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

People Republicans should not nominate:
Palin
Romney
McCain
Gingrich
Gilliani
I could probably think of more...basically anybody they will want is a bad choice.McCain is slimy, but better than any full-blown lib(translation: democrat) The others, MUCH better than any democrat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If independents did not vote for Brack, he would not have had the numbers to win. Notice the states that swing from red to blue every election. Those are your independents. A lot of conservatives sat home, too, since McCain was the repub nominee.

[Big Red Ron]

Romney is a very intelligent businessman and bright conservative mind.

Ron Paul has a screw loose.

[Big Red Ron]

A lot of conservatives sat home, too, since McCain was the repub nominee.indeed, the numbers bear out that if conservatives would have held thier noses and voted for McCain, Obama would have lost.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Romney is a very intelligent businessman and bright conservative mind.

Ron Paul has a screw loose.Paul, with his isolationist philosophy, is a doomed loser.

[Scott D]

Paul, with his isolationist philosophy, is a doomed loser.

I knew it! You're really Ron Paul!

[SoonerProphet]

Romney is a very intelligent businessman and bright conservative mind.

Ron Paul has a screw loose.

what is the difference between obamacare and romneycare? i've heard discussion they are similiar, but have not looked to deep into it.

[Big Red Ron]

what is the difference between obamacare and romneycare? i've heard discussion they are similiar, but have not looked to deep into it.
I'm the same as you, not educated on the differences yet.

[sooner ngintunr]

If independents did not vote for Brack, he would not have had the numbers to win. Notice the states that swing from red to blue every election. Those are your independents.

Yeah, all of those "independent" Black and college voters. ;)

His base came out, McCains didn't.

I just can't fathom what kind of person would vote for W (presumably twice) and then turn around and vote for Brack. That makes no sense to me.:confused:

I lean left slightly and I don't buy what The Prez is selling for a second. I voted for McCain and I still think that he would have been a better choice.

[sooner ngintunr]

Paul, with his isolationist philosophy, is a doomed loser.

Bush, with his interventionist philosophy, is a doomed loser.;)

[Collier11]

Not saying my preference but I think a real possibility is the guy from New Orleans

[Mazeppa]

I am not Republican and I would not say that. Don't get me wrong, I think the GW Bush administration will go down in history as being disastrous. He and the Democrat Congress sat around as US jobs were being exported overseas and Americans were making credit card payments by further leveraging off of their over-inflated house prices. Following that, there was no choice but in enact health care reform to take care of the ever increasing number of uninsured Americans. Adding in the problem of illegal immigrants, the health care system was just about to be overwhelmed anyway.

If you think this thing the dems just passed was really about healthcare, you need to do some research.

[Collier11]

and Chuck thinks Obama is creating jobs and giving a sh*t about you and I, lol

[Mazeppa]

and Chuck thinks Obama is creating jobs and giving a sh*t about you and I, lol

He is creating jobs, but they are government jobs.

[Collier11]

UE going up, up and away

[delhalew]

Paul, with his isolationist philosophy, is a doomed loser.

There you go again. Paul is not an isolationist and is the only real conservative on the board.

[delhalew]

what is the difference between obamacare and romneycare? i've heard discussion they are similiar, but have not looked to deep into it.

One is at the state level and the other is illegal.

[delhalew]

It is too soon in his career, but Chris Christie is gutting the bloated Jersey system and forcing hard decisions to be made from the gov office.

Although, he still would have more experience than Brack.

[delhalew]

Non-intervention is not isolationism.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

The Original Foreign Policy

December 18, 2006

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
George Washington


Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

[delhalew]

Another piece on "isolationism".
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=23

So-Called Isolationists Are the True Internationalists
By Doug Bandow
Among supporters of the American empire, there is no more vicious insult to toss than "isolationist." Advocate making U.S. security and prosperity Washington's priority, and you will be attacked for "isolationism." Never mind that restraining U.S. intervention around the world would be the best way to promote peace at home and abroad.

The United States began its life as a minor player in a warlike imperial system. Conflict was constant, causing Thomas Paine to argue for independence as a means of staying out of Britain's wars. He wrote in Common Sense: "any submissions to, or dependence on Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions."

The Founders took the same stance. They wanted a strong nation able to defend itself, to preserve Americans' hard-won independence. But they did not expect the United States to meddle in other nations' affairs. As George Washington famously argued, America's policy should be to "Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." Obviously, war might still be forced upon the new country, but George Washington would have the U.S. government reduce the likelihood of conflict by avoiding "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Temporary cooperation, as with France against Britain, might be necessary, but it should be directed at advancing America's interests. Said Washington in his Farewell Address: "nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded." After all, he asked, why "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

If George Washington were alive today, he would be attacked for being an isolationist.

Yet the foreign and economic policies which he and his colleagues supported were matters of common sense. Defend America if it is attacked, but do not join other nations' wars. Encourage private commerce with all peoples. Establish friendly political relations with countries, whether they be constitutional monarchies, autocratic empires, or revolutionary republics. Allow American citizens to travel and trade freely.

This was not isolationism, but the best sort of internationalism. Peace and prosperity were America's international guideposts. The preservation of America's constitutional system of ordered liberty was the government's most important duty. Americans circled the globe, but to explore and trade, not to meddle and invade.

In time U.S. foreign policy changed, but until the Spanish-American War few Americans believed in overseas intervention. World War I represented the ultimate repudiation of George Washington's vision, but the vast majority of Americans came to regret their nation's entry into the European slaughter so irrelevant to their own interests. They came to realize that any idealism embodied in the so-called "war for democracy" had been twisted to advance the political interests of the old European imperial powers.

For understandable reasons, then, as World War II loomed the vast majority of Americans wanted to stay out. For that they were smeared as, of course, isolationists. One could debate the merits of U.S. involvement -- Nazi Germany posed a very different threat than did Wilhelmine Germany, whose ambitions never reached across the Atlantic -- but the arguments of opponents were as legitimate as those of interventionists. Nevertheless, President Franklin Roosevelt and his acolytes preferred to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than acknowledge their intention to bring America into the conflict.

The advent of the Cold War reduced the scope of debate over foreign policy in the U.S., since few people saw an alternative to the "containment" of communism. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the most obvious justification for promiscuous intervention abroad disappeared. There was no longer much threat to America's allies, let alone America.

In response, some conservatives forthrightly urged the U.S. to avoid foreign wars, reduce foreign bases, and scale back force structure and military outlays. They were immediately attacked as isolationists. Indeed, the Clinton administration trashed anyone who criticized one or another of its wasteful and foolish initiatives as an isolationist.

You didn't think the U.S. military should arrest warlords in Somalia? You were an isolationist. You didn't believe the U.S. should invade Haiti to restore the violent demagogue Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power? You were an isolationist. You didn't think the U.S. should attempt to sort out which ethnic group got to secede from which territory dominated by which ethnic group in the Balkans? You were an isolationist. You didn't think Washington should dismember Serbia and make Kosovo independent? You were an isolationist.

The Clinton administration even attacked critics of foreign aid for being isolationists. Never mind that tens of billions of dollars in government-to-government payments have been wasted and stolen year in and year out. Did you point out that poor countries didn't need "foreign aid" to develop when they adopted good economic policies, reduced corruption, created a positive business environment, welcomed foreign investment, and allowed free trade? You were an isolationist.

Since Republicans were the primary targets of the isolationist smear, the election of George W. Bush -- who ran for president advocating a more "humble" foreign policy -- should have ended resort to this tactic, at least by the executive branch. Instead, President Bush, just like his predecessor, used the insult against his critics.

While running for president candidate Bush publicly worried about "isolationist sentiment in our country," arguing that the U.S. "must not retreat within our borders" and "must lead the world to peace." As public support slipped away for his mistaken and unnecessary war in Iraq, he announced in his 2006 State of the Union speech: "Our enemies and our friends can be certain the United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. America rejects the false comfort of isolationism." Last year he told an audience that "I'm troubled by isolationism."

President Bush said he was troubled by isolationism even as the U.S. government was fighting two wars, defending rich allies around the globe, maintaining some 800 military installations abroad, and subsidizing most any country that put out its hand for federal alms. At the same time, U.S. citizens were traveling around the world, trading with foreign peoples, and producing the movies, music, and television programs which dominated global culture. One wonders: how many wars, alliances, and bases do you have to support not to be considered to be an isolationist? Because Barack Obama opposed the disastrous Iraq adventure, some conservatives tried to pin the isolationist label on him. But it will be only a matter of time before he returns fire in the same way. He already has complained that "Today it's become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations." The logical next step will be to blame anyone opposed to wasting American taxpayers' money abroad as being "isolationist." And as people campaign to speed the withdrawal from Iraq, block military escalation in Afghanistan, and oppose whatever new interventions President Obama is likely to propose -- Darfur? Somalia? Haiti again? Who knows where else? -- he and his officials are likely to denounce them as isolationists.

The battle today is not between internationalists and isolationists. Today's self-identified internationalists are not internationalists at all, but believe in imposing Washington's agenda on the rest of the world. They believe internationalism means intervention and war, political meddling, government bribes in the name of aid, and state capitalism and mercantilism In contrast, those commonly accused of being isolationists are the true internationalists. They believe in respecting the interests of others around the world. They do not believe that initiating death and destruction is the best way to help other nations or peoples. For these supposed "isolationists," internationalism represents peaceful cooperation, free trade, cultural exchange, travel and tourism, private investment, and charitable assistance. In fact, the highest form of internationalism is private action -- voluntary cooperation and exchange -- rather than government intervention.

Americans should be involved in the world. But they should reclaim America's tradition of nonintervention. Peace and prosperity should be Washington's goal. Promoting them represents genuine internationalism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

One is at the state level and the other is illegal.heh

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...and, his personality is pretty forgetable...not gonna happen.

[delhalew]

...and, his personality is pretty forgetable...not gonna happen.

Because what we really need is a handsome devil with a gleem in eye, and an urge to take his place in the cult of personality.
:pop:

[delhalew]

I would vote for Paul on his desire to abolish the FED alone. From there it only gets better.

[sooner ngintunr]

fox news said Paul was a nut so it must be true.

[delhalew]

You have to be a big gov republican to get the seal of approval. For the first time in our lifetimes, people are willing to listen to a "nut" like Paul.
Also his son, Rand Paul, is likely to win in the Senate seat from Kentucky.

[Scott D]

his kid can't be much worse than a guy who is only famous for being a pitcher. ;)

[delhalew]

his kid can't be much worse than a guy who is only famous for being a pitcher. ;)

Lol.

[Big Red Ron]

fox news said Paul was a nut so it must be true.I've met the guy, trust me he's a nut.

[Scott D]

I've met the guy, trust me he's a nut.

But have you met Rush Limbaugh is my Clone?

[Big Red Ron]

But have you met Rush Limbaugh is my Clone?
No and I'm not sure I want too. He might eat me.

[Big Red Ron]

Another piece on "isolationism".
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=23

So-Called Isolationists Are the True Internationalists
By Doug Bandow
Among supporters of the American empire, there is no more vicious insult to toss than "isolationist." Advocate making U.S. security and prosperity Washington's priority, and you will be attacked for "isolationism." Never mind that restraining U.S. intervention around the world would be the best way to promote peace at home and abroad.

The United States began its life as a minor player in a warlike imperial system. Conflict was constant, causing Thomas Paine to argue for independence as a means of staying out of Britain's wars. He wrote in Common Sense: "any submissions to, or dependence on Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions."

The Founders took the same stance. They wanted a strong nation able to defend itself, to preserve Americans' hard-won independence. But they did not expect the United States to meddle in other nations' affairs. As George Washington famously argued, America's policy should be to "Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." Obviously, war might still be forced upon the new country, but George Washington would have the U.S. government reduce the likelihood of conflict by avoiding "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Temporary cooperation, as with France against Britain, might be necessary, but it should be directed at advancing America's interests. Said Washington in his Farewell Address: "nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded." After all, he asked, why "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

If George Washington were alive today, he would be attacked for being an isolationist.

Yet the foreign and economic policies which he and his colleagues supported were matters of common sense. Defend America if it is attacked, but do not join other nations' wars. Encourage private commerce with all peoples. Establish friendly political relations with countries, whether they be constitutional monarchies, autocratic empires, or revolutionary republics. Allow American citizens to travel and trade freely.

This was not isolationism, but the best sort of internationalism. Peace and prosperity were America's international guideposts. The preservation of America's constitutional system of ordered liberty was the government's most important duty. Americans circled the globe, but to explore and trade, not to meddle and invade.

In time U.S. foreign policy changed, but until the Spanish-American War few Americans believed in overseas intervention. World War I represented the ultimate repudiation of George Washington's vision, but the vast majority of Americans came to regret their nation's entry into the European slaughter so irrelevant to their own interests. They came to realize that any idealism embodied in the so-called "war for democracy" had been twisted to advance the political interests of the old European imperial powers.

For understandable reasons, then, as World War II loomed the vast majority of Americans wanted to stay out. For that they were smeared as, of course, isolationists. One could debate the merits of U.S. involvement -- Nazi Germany posed a very different threat than did Wilhelmine Germany, whose ambitions never reached across the Atlantic -- but the arguments of opponents were as legitimate as those of interventionists. Nevertheless, President Franklin Roosevelt and his acolytes preferred to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than acknowledge their intention to bring America into the conflict.

The advent of the Cold War reduced the scope of debate over foreign policy in the U.S., since few people saw an alternative to the "containment" of communism. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the most obvious justification for promiscuous intervention abroad disappeared. There was no longer much threat to America's allies, let alone America.

In response, some conservatives forthrightly urged the U.S. to avoid foreign wars, reduce foreign bases, and scale back force structure and military outlays. They were immediately attacked as isolationists. Indeed, the Clinton administration trashed anyone who criticized one or another of its wasteful and foolish initiatives as an isolationist.

You didn't think the U.S. military should arrest warlords in Somalia? You were an isolationist. You didn't believe the U.S. should invade Haiti to restore the violent demagogue Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power? You were an isolationist. You didn't think the U.S. should attempt to sort out which ethnic group got to secede from which territory dominated by which ethnic group in the Balkans? You were an isolationist. You didn't think Washington should dismember Serbia and make Kosovo independent? You were an isolationist.

The Clinton administration even attacked critics of foreign aid for being isolationists. Never mind that tens of billions of dollars in government-to-government payments have been wasted and stolen year in and year out. Did you point out that poor countries didn't need "foreign aid" to develop when they adopted good economic policies, reduced corruption, created a positive business environment, welcomed foreign investment, and allowed free trade? You were an isolationist.

Since Republicans were the primary targets of the isolationist smear, the election of George W. Bush -- who ran for president advocating a more "humble" foreign policy -- should have ended resort to this tactic, at least by the executive branch. Instead, President Bush, just like his predecessor, used the insult against his critics.

While running for president candidate Bush publicly worried about "isolationist sentiment in our country," arguing that the U.S. "must not retreat within our borders" and "must lead the world to peace." As public support slipped away for his mistaken and unnecessary war in Iraq, he announced in his 2006 State of the Union speech: "Our enemies and our friends can be certain the United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. America rejects the false comfort of isolationism." Last year he told an audience that "I'm troubled by isolationism."

President Bush said he was troubled by isolationism even as the U.S. government was fighting two wars, defending rich allies around the globe, maintaining some 800 military installations abroad, and subsidizing most any country that put out its hand for federal alms. At the same time, U.S. citizens were traveling around the world, trading with foreign peoples, and producing the movies, music, and television programs which dominated global culture. One wonders: how many wars, alliances, and bases do you have to support not to be considered to be an isolationist? Because Barack Obama opposed the disastrous Iraq adventure, some conservatives tried to pin the isolationist label on him. But it will be only a matter of time before he returns fire in the same way. He already has complained that "Today it's become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations." The logical next step will be to blame anyone opposed to wasting American taxpayers' money abroad as being "isolationist." And as people campaign to speed the withdrawal from Iraq, block military escalation in Afghanistan, and oppose whatever new interventions President Obama is likely to propose -- Darfur? Somalia? Haiti again? Who knows where else? -- he and his officials are likely to denounce them as isolationists.

The battle today is not between internationalists and isolationists. Today's self-identified internationalists are not internationalists at all, but believe in imposing Washington's agenda on the rest of the world. They believe internationalism means intervention and war, political meddling, government bribes in the name of aid, and state capitalism and mercantilism In contrast, those commonly accused of being isolationists are the true internationalists. They believe in respecting the interests of others around the world. They do not believe that initiating death and destruction is the best way to help other nations or peoples. For these supposed "isolationists," internationalism represents peaceful cooperation, free trade, cultural exchange, travel and tourism, private investment, and charitable assistance. In fact, the highest form of internationalism is private action -- voluntary cooperation and exchange -- rather than government intervention.

Americans should be involved in the world. But they should reclaim America's tradition of nonintervention. Peace and prosperity should be Washington's goal. Promoting them represents genuine internationalism.Spare us. Ron Paul has as much of a chance to win as my d*ck.

[Scott D]

No and I'm not sure I want too. He might eat me.

I think you're safe, he only eats people that Rush tells him to ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would vote for Paul on his desire to abolish the FED alone. From there it only gets better.Pauls' tires are bald(he gets no traction).No argument about his being a good conservative. He just doesn't seem electable.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No and I'm not sure I want too. He might eat me.You might ask board libs Yermom, and Frozen Sooner. They will tell you I'm one scary mofo.

[delhalew]

Spare us. Ron Paul has as much of a chance to win as my d*ck.

Does your d#ick have a better personality. If your package is willing to revert our union back to fiscal solvency and restore our Constitution, for the republic, I will go stump for Big Red Ron's phallus.:eek:
:D

[delhalew]

Spare us. Ron Paul has as much of a chance to win as my d*ck.

I would rather not spare you from exposure to knowledge. That article is not about Ron Paul. It is about the myth of isolationism.:)

[JLEW1818]

how often do you think Obama has sex?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

how often do you think Obama has sex?He's screwing America 100% of his waking hours! haha

[JLEW1818]

:D