PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: Let Iran go Nuclear



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/12/2011, 03:21 PM
I DO like they guy, esp. on economic matters. I just wish he wasn't as he is on Natl Defense:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043?s=al&promo_code=CD2C-1

SicEmBaylor
8/12/2011, 03:25 PM
He's a traditional conservative on national defense, and he's absolutely right about Iran.

GKeeper316
8/12/2011, 03:28 PM
he does have a point...

america cannot afford it's current imperialistic approach to foreign policy anymore. we couldn't afford it before, but we were all too caught up in post 9/11 hysteria to know better.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/12/2011, 03:36 PM
He'll get my vote over Obear!

soonercruiser
8/12/2011, 03:53 PM
While I do agree with Paul on many issues; his placing his head in the sand like the liberals.......the isolationist approach is plain stupid and dangerous!

Yes, we need to reassess where we have our military, close overseas bases, and start making heads roll on all the waste in Defense. (will we do the same on SS and Medicare?)
But, to pretend that Iran probably will not be the nuclear spark that blows up the Middle East, if not the world is lunacy!

So, the Islamic extremists (like our home grown extremists) tell you they want to kill you, or do mayhew.
(Ignore them; they are just looking for attention)
Then, they tell you how they are going to do it, and what they need to accomplish it. (like nuclear weapons)
(We just ignore it, justify it, or say it will be many years until anything will happen)
Then, they finally gain the weapons or ability to carry out their threats!
(And again, we say it's none of our business, or it's too late.)
Then, we act suprised when they actually carry out their threats?????
:rolleyes:

Why do the do-gooder peacenicks always have to be proven wrong with blood????!!!!!
Germany, Hitler, USSR, the Mullahs....:mad:

It called history! Learn from it!
And, don't repeat the mistakes.

Peace through Strength! Even the Founders understood this!

bigfatjerk
8/12/2011, 04:12 PM
There's a difference between isolationism and noninterventionalism. Ron Paul is far from an isolationist. In fact he's the opposite of an isolationist. Our current policy is basically if we don't like someone we put sanctions on them to limit free trade. That's closer to isolationism.

I would rather us take a less militaristic approach around the world and not be the world's police.

TUSooner
8/12/2011, 04:27 PM
{the usual frothing}
It called history! Learn from it!
And, don't repeat the mistakes.

Peace through Strength! Even the Founders understood this!

Peace Through WAR, you mean? Like the last how many years in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Your history a tad narrow.

The Founders also understood the benefits of keeping our noses out of other peoples' business, and they didn't even like standing armies.

We need to learn not just from appeasement (which makes a handy straw man) but from pointless interventionism. And we might do well to recall Afghanistan's history as an ungovernable briarpatch that eats foreign armies. Anyway, I don't think we can stop Iran from going nuclear without flat-out war, which would end who-knows-where. On the other hand, a nuclear Iran would have to face the sobering reality of MAD like the rest of us.

87sooner
8/12/2011, 05:10 PM
this is why ron has no chance of winning the nomination...
i don't think he's a loon....but he sounds liken one when he says iran should be allowed to have a nuke...

i really would like to see someone like rp have a shot...
all the other bums have had a shot and we know where that got us...
but ANYONE that goes against the establishment/ruling class in this country will lose...
the press/money donors will see to that..

SicEmBaylor
8/12/2011, 05:32 PM
This is not a difficult thing to understand. There are certain facts here which can not be ignored.

Our nation is a massive global superpower that extends its reach culturally, militarily, and economically across the entire globe. We have overseas territories, military bases, and holdings that stretch around the world and which cost us trillions of dollars to maintain.

Our Constitution was not designed for this kind of global hyper-Empire. It just wasn't. Our Republic was supposed to be a small continental power that emphasized small, limited, and efficient government while maximizing liberty and minimizing foreign entanglements.

Conservatism, traditionally, was about preserving these basic truths. Over time, our central government began to consolidate and expand its power and as a nation we began extending our international reach and increasing our global power. At some point, preserving that global power became more important than preserving our founding values and as such it then became a "conservative" principle to maintain that global power to the detriment of who we are supposed to be as a nation.

People can call Ron Paul whatever they want, but Ron Paul stands with basic traditional American principles therefore I stand with Ron Paul.

87sooner
8/12/2011, 05:37 PM
People can call Ron Paul whatever they want, but Ron Paul stands with basic traditional American principles therefore I stand with Ron Paul.

he can stand for whatever he wants...
but when he says **** like "iran should be allowed to have a nuke"....he sounds like a loon..

cccasooner2
8/12/2011, 06:05 PM
When it comes to Nukes, a little bit of competition is a good thing. :rolleyes:

MR2-Sooner86
8/12/2011, 08:25 PM
Alright, so what do we do? Since Iran shouldn't have nukes, should be invade them? What's the answer, really?

What Ron Paul talks about is us getting involved with countries and it coming back to get us in "Blowback."

Speaking of Iran, who helped overthrow their democratically elected government in the 1950's?
Who gave aid to Iraq in the 1980's during their war with Iran?
Who was selling weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages?
Who helped support the Taliban to help fight the Reds?

Yeah, none of those caused problems for us later down the road for a short term gain.

Want to know why I'm not too worried about Iran going nuclear? The Israelis will slow them down, stop them, or if all else fails launch their own nukes at them if Iran throws a few at them.

Besides, if we're worried about terrorist getting them, why aren't we worried about Pakistan who already has nukes and could be playing for the other team?

soonercruiser
8/12/2011, 09:20 PM
Peace Through WAR, you mean? Like the last how many years in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Your history a tad narrow.

The Founders also understood the benefits of keeping our noses out of other peoples' business, and they didn't even like standing armies.

We need to learn not just from appeasement (which makes a handy straw man) but from pointless interventionism. And we might do well to recall Afghanistan's history as an ungovernable briarpatch that eats foreign armies. Anyway, I don't think we can stop Iran from going nuclear without flat-out war, which would end who-knows-where. On the other hand, a nuclear Iran would have to face the sobering reality of MAD like the rest of us.

Obviously, you are present the opposing "straw man".
If Iran get nukess; there will be a devastating war in the ME!
On this one, you can believe the Iranians.

bigfatjerk
8/12/2011, 09:28 PM
Alright, so what do we do? Since Iran shouldn't have nukes, should be invade them? What's the answer, really?

What Ron Paul talks about is us getting involved with countries and it coming back to get us in "Blowback."

Speaking of Iran, who helped overthrow their democratically elected government in the 1950's?
Who gave aid to Iraq in the 1980's during their war with Iran?
Who was selling weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages?
Who helped support the Taliban to help fight the Reds?

Yeah, none of those caused problems for us later down the road for a short term gain.

Want to know why I'm not too worried about Iran going nuclear? The Israelis will slow them down, stop them, or if all else fails launch their own nukes at them if Iran throws a few at them.

Besides, if we're worried about terrorist getting them, why aren't we worried about Pakistan who already has nukes and could be playing for the other team?

This is all exactly right, I seriously doubt that Iran is capable of getting Nukes anyway.

bigfatjerk
8/12/2011, 09:33 PM
I would also like to argue our national defense is extremely weak right now. We have trouble defending other countries borders against low tech terrorists while we let drug lords dominate our own border. What type of national defense is that?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 12:30 AM
he can stand for whatever he wants...
but when he says **** like "iran should be allowed to have a nuke"....he sounds like a loon..Yeah, he does, but he sounds so good on economics. If he gets the nomination, I won't be too eskeert to vote for him.

SanJoaquinSooner
8/13/2011, 12:58 AM
He also attacked his rivals – “all these free-traders” – for wanting to continue the embargo on Cuba.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 01:11 AM
He also attacked his rivals – “all these free-traders” – for wanting to continue the embargo on Cuba.Dude has some blems, but he's no America-hating socialist like one US president I know of.

SanJoaquinSooner
8/13/2011, 01:53 AM
His Cuba view is not a blemish, however. It's the right call.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 01:59 AM
His Cuba view is not a blemish, however. It's the right call.sssszzzzzZZZZZ(Yawn)of course, Cuba can use some of our Gulf oil, since we can't. Why didn't Barack think of that?

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 02:01 AM
His Cuba view is not a blemish, however. It's the right call.

Agreed.

Does it matter to any of you that these United States were never meant to be world cops?

Does it matter to any of you that we simply can not afford to continue to be the world's cops?

Does it matter to any of you that our inconsistent application of American "ideals" abroad simply breeds resentment, jealousy, and violence?

Does it matter to any of you that our heavy-handed diplomatic approach creates the very problems that we have to continually "police"?

My God some of you need to wake up and get a damned clue. It's frankly none of our business to tell Iran's government or its people how best to provide for their own national security regardless of how bat-**** crazy they may be. If Iran attacks us (which certainly would not be easy for them to do) then by all means let's turn them into a parking lot. If one blade of grass on American soil is disturbed because of a purposeful Iranian attack then I'm all for killing every man, woman, and child in that god forsaken POS place they call a nation. But until that day comes, we have no business meddling in their affairs any more than they have in meddling with ours.

Ultimately, it isn't about national security. The Iranians are crazy, but they're not THAT crazy. We have thousands of nuclear weapons with the power to destroy every living creature bigger than an amoeba many many times over. They aren't going to attack us directly. No, what this is really about is oil and securing our "strategic" interests (i.e. oil). It's about money. Money pure and simple.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 02:05 AM
And as for mid-east instability...

All of that instability is a result in, you guess it, these United States meddling in a region that we didn't understand. I admire the Jewish people a great deal for what they've accomplished, but we should never ever have been involved with carving out a place for them right smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world.

So, if Iran wants to nuke Iran then that's Israel's problem and not ours. I'm more than sure that Israel is more than capable of taking care itself even if we cut off all military aid (which we should have done a long time ago).

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 02:28 AM
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156660&highlight=revolt

OU_Sooners75
8/13/2011, 03:20 AM
he can stand for whatever he wants...
but when he says **** like "iran should be allowed to have a nuke"....he sounds like a loon..

So the united states, Russia, china, Pakistan, India, isreal, England, etc can all have nuclear weapons, but some country like Iran can't just because we don't agree with their governing body and philosophy?

Who are we to say which countries can and cannot have their own weapons supply?

I know it is frightening for a country like Iran to have such weapons, but we are not the worlds rule makers!

OU_Sooners75
8/13/2011, 03:25 AM
Obviously, you are present the opposing "straw man".
If Iran get nukess; there will be a devastating war in the ME!
On this one, you can believe the Iranians.

Then let it be done! Isreal would wipe their asses with the Iranian military.

It is t our responsibility nor our problem! The only reason we are interested in it is because if oil... No other reason.

Okla-homey
8/13/2011, 05:16 AM
heh.


This is not a difficult thing to understand. There are certain facts here which can not be ignored.

Our nation is a massive global superpower that extends its reach culturally, militarily, and economically across the entire globe. We have overseas territories, military bases, and holdings that stretch around the world and which cost us trillions of dollars to maintain.

Which makes our way of life possible. See below.


Our Constitution was not designed for this kind of global hyper-Empire. It just wasn't. Our Republic was supposed to be a small continental power that emphasized small, limited, and efficient government while maximizing liberty and minimizing foreign entanglements.

The Founders did not envision the contemporary reality that we rely heavily on goods and materials imported from all over the world. From cocoa to cobalt. Not to mention petroleum. Thus, our economy requires we remain engaged beyond our borders.

Conservatism, traditionally, was about preserving these basic truths. Over time, our central government began to consolidate and expand its power and as a nation we began extending our international reach and increasing our global power. At some point, preserving that global power became more important than preserving our founding values and as such it then became a "conservative" principle to maintain that global power to the detriment of who we are supposed to be as a nation.

Rome declined when it stopped expanding. As have all other great nations.


People can call Ron Paul whatever they want, but Ron Paul stands with basic traditional American principles therefore I stand with Ron Paul.

Fine. I call Ron Paul a tin-foil hat wearing flake.

bigfatjerk
8/13/2011, 07:37 AM
The Founders did not envision the contemporary reality that we rely heavily on goods and materials imported from all over the world. From cocoa to cobalt. Not to mention petroleum. Thus, our economy requires we remain engaged beyond our borders.


There's some truth here but I think a large part of not having our own goods and manufacturing is regulations placed on by local and federal governments.

But still we souldn't be treating even the governments that try and hurt us as bad as we do.

Jefferson: It should be our endeavor to cultivate the peace and friendship of every nation, even of which has injured us most, when we shall have carried our point against here. Our interest will be to throw open the doors of commerce and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may choose to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs.
Also from Jefferson:
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

Limiting trade with anyone, even those that have harmed us makes no sense. But were we go wrong is getting involved in alliances and eventually wars

diverdog
8/13/2011, 08:18 AM
Then let it be done! Isreal would wipe their asses with the Iranian military.

It is t our responsibility nor our problem! The only reason we are interested in it is because if oil... No other reason.

Israel cannot defeat Iran because they cannot occupy them.

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:29 AM
Alright, so what do we do? Since Iran shouldn't have nukes, should be invade them? What's the answer, really?



you should read the news occasionally...
"someone" is killing the nuke scientiests in iran...
"they" are also attacking the nuke sites with computer viruses





Besides, if we're worried about terrorist getting them, why aren't we worried about Pakistan who already has nukes and could be playing for the other team?

we're not worried about pakistan?
who told you that?

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:35 AM
Yeah, he does, but he sounds so good on economics. If he gets the nomination, I won't be too eskeert to vote for him.

if paul gets the nomination....i might actually vote in 2012...not that it will make a difference...he won't need my vote in this state;)

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:40 AM
So the united states, Russia, china, Pakistan, India, isreal, England, etc can all have nuclear weapons, but some country like Iran can't just because we don't agree with their governing body and philosophy?


they "can have" nukes because we couldn't stop them...



Who are we to say which countries can and cannot have their own weapons supply?

so you don't mind leaving your very existence to chance?




I know it is frightening for a country like Iran to have such weapons, but we are not the worlds rule makers!

you're right....not anymore...
now you'll get to see what the world is like with the chinese/russians in charge....
you're not gonna like it...but i don't expect you to complain...
because....like you said...we don't make the rules...

TIMB0B
8/13/2011, 09:36 AM
they "can have" nukes because we couldn't stop them...



so you don't mind leaving your very existence to chance?




you're right....not anymore...
now you'll get to see what the world is like with the chinese/russians in charge....
you're not gonna like it...but i don't expect you to complain...
because....like you said...we don't make the rules...

h3PWHTV0WIE

TIMB0B
8/13/2011, 09:39 AM
WaizGj0Awv0

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 11:09 AM
So the united states, Russia, china, Pakistan, India, isreal, England, etc can all have nuclear weapons, but some country like Iran can't just because we don't agree with their governing body and philosophy?

Who are we to say which countries can and cannot have their own weapons supply?

I know it is frightening for a country like Iran to have such weapons, but we are not the worlds rule makers!

Someone has to be.

TIMB0B
8/13/2011, 11:34 AM
Someone has to be.

You one of those world government fans?

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 11:37 AM
You one of those world government fans?

Are you suggesting that rules not be enforced? This ought to be a laugher brought to you by your divine silliness.

FaninAma
8/13/2011, 12:19 PM
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non- interventionist. There is a big difference. And he is exactly right about Iran. The Shah's secret police, Savak, were non-human. They were at least as bad as Sadaam Hussein's Baathist party thugs.

Besides, the question is moot. We are broke. We cannot go around any longer acting as the world's police force although I compare our role in the world more to a mafia enforcer meaning other country's get their knee caps broken if they don't pay their protection money( I.e. Agree to support the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world by providing us with cheap credit, cheap oil and cheap manufactured goods.)

The individuals serving in our military are amazing people but the Machivellian leaders pulling the strings are not interested in anything but insuring corporation profits.

TIMB0B
8/13/2011, 12:21 PM
Are you suggesting that rules not be enforced? This ought to be a laugher brought to you by your divine silliness.
What rules are you speaking of? Dozens of countries have nukes. I guess they didn't get the memo. What about us? I guess we should get rid of all our nukes, or is it do as we say, not as we do?

FaninAma
8/13/2011, 12:22 PM
BTW which country that was determined to get nukes have we stopped? North Korea? Pakistan? India? Israel?

GKeeper316
8/13/2011, 12:32 PM
BTW which country that was determined to get nukes have we stopped? North Korea? Pakistan? India? Israel?

to date, cuba has no nukes. good job america!

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 01:22 PM
What rules are you speaking of? Dozens of countries have nukes. I guess they didn't get the memo. What about us? I guess we should get rid of all our nukes, or is it do as we say, not as we do?

The rules of decency which are found in places like your home (or maybe not), your neighborhood, the streets you drive on, the stores you shop in, the schools you atttended, the airlines you fly on, the sports you participate in or view as a spectator, the community you live in, the state in which you reside, the country you are a citizen of, "the world you exist in" are but a few.

Do you feel you have a right to be in possession of a cigarette lighter? Say yes. If your neighbor was a known arsonist would you want him/her to be in the possession of the same items as yourself? Say no or your credibility becomes even more incredibily nonexistent.

So if one nation possesses something then it should be one for all? Could you be any more absurd and hapless? Please refrain from trying and let those who have perspective to do such.

FaninAma
8/13/2011, 01:32 PM
to date, cuba has no nukes. good job america!

Although they do have a biological warfare research center and they are trade partners with North Korea so unless we have an embargo on Cuba and search every plane and ship that disembarks in Cuba you do not know exactly what Cuba has.

And Iran possesses no WMDs but that doesn't keep the US from using them as the new boogeyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

And like I said, the point is moot. We cannot afford to be interventionists any longer.

pphilfran
8/13/2011, 01:42 PM
Although they do have a biological warfare research center and they are trade partners with North Korea so unless we have an embargo on Cuba and search every plane and ship that disembarks in Cuba you do not know exactly what Cuba has.

And Iran possesses no WMDs but that doesn't keep the US from using them as the new boogeyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

And like I said, the point is moot. We cannot afford to be interventionists any longer.

You should post more often...

FaninAma
8/13/2011, 01:43 PM
The rules of decency which are found in places like your home (or maybe not), your neighborhood, the streets you drive on, the stores you shop in, the schools you atttended, the airlines you fly on, the sports you participate in or view as a spectator, the community you live in, the state in which you reside, the country you are a citizen of, "the world you exist in" are but a few.

Do you feel you have a right to be in possession of a cigarette lighter? Say yes. If your neighbor was a known arsonist would you want him/her to be in the possession of the same items as yourself? Say no or your credibility becomes even more incredibily nonexistent.

So if one nation possesses something then it should be one for all? Could you be any more absurd and hapless? Please refrain from trying and let those who have perspective to do such.

Are you advocating for being the world's policeman? Maybe I am misreading your post.

If your position is that we have the moral right to police the world and our neighborhoods please tell us how you would prevent the undesirable action of your arsonist neighbor getting a cigarette lighter that you present in your example.

MR2-Sooner86
8/13/2011, 02:03 PM
For all those saying, "We need to get involved with the world and be the police" I have one question for you.

Can you name three, just three, solid reasons why the 50,000 men and women killed and billions spent in Vietnam made it worth it?

As for the WMD argument, how come we weren't able to stop North Korea? Why aren't we doing more there? They have nuclear weapons and could probably fire a small one with their artillery into the heart of Seoul. Not to mention, that would put thousands of our troops directly into harms way.

TIMB0B
8/13/2011, 02:22 PM
The rules of decency which are found in places like your home (or maybe not), your neighborhood, the streets you drive on, the stores you shop in, the schools you atttended, the airlines you fly on, the sports you participate in or view as a spectator, the community you live in, the state in which you reside, the country you are a citizen of, "the world you exist in" are but a few.

Do you feel you have a right to be in possession of a cigarette lighter? Say yes. If your neighbor was a known arsonist would you want him/her to be in the possession of the same items as yourself? Say no or your credibility becomes even more incredibily nonexistent.

So if one nation possesses something then it should be one for all? Could you be any more absurd and hapless? Please refrain from trying and let those who have perspective to do such.
Horrible example. The fact of the matter is, criminals will commit crimes, arsonists will start fires however they can. You take away their lighters, they'll steal one or use something else. You can't prevent it. You can only arrest and prosecute. The same with Iran. Until they actually commit an act of aggression toward us, they are not guilty of anything. Leave them alone.

There's only one rule necessary in this world. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

SanJoaquinSooner
8/13/2011, 02:27 PM
Israel might be a bit different than other countries. We helped create it. I believe there is an obligation to defend Israel against its enemies.

soonercruiser
8/13/2011, 03:13 PM
Ok, so I see the drift of the last 10 or so posts.
How about thinking about this?

All the great blessings and wealth that GOD has given this great nation - was it given to the United States of America to just sit on, and put in our own pockets?

Who is to decide?
Who is the "Good Samartin"?

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 03:22 PM
Ok, so I see the drift of the last 10 or so posts.
How about thinking about this?

All the great blessings and wealth that GOD has given this great nation - was it given to the United States of America to just sit on, and put in our own pockets?

Who is to decide?
Who is the "Good Samartin"?

God does not play favorites. God had nothing to do with it. The genius, motivation, and ingenuity of the American people is what got us to where we are today. However, greed played the biggest part in getting us to where we are today. The constant desire for more and more and more is what changed us from a small humble Republic to a global Empire.

There's nothing wrong with, as individuals, working hard to get as much as your labor and intelligence can get you. But when we do that, collectively as a nation, we have to compromise our values and that's where we went wrong.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 05:26 PM
Where we went wrong is in allowing our federal govt. to get involved into all the social engineering and unauthorized expenditures that have become entrenched. The public sector of the economy, and dependency by far too many people on the government for their finances are what's gotten us into the vaery dangerous predicament we now face.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 05:29 PM
Where we went wrong is in allowing our federal govt. to get involved into all the social engineering and unauthorized expenditures that have become entrenched.
And which party started that..hmmmm????? Hmmmmm??????? Let's learn our history here and be honest.


The public sector of the economy, and dependency by far too many people on the government for their finances are what's gotten us into the vaery dangerous predicament we now face.

The GOP is just as responsible for this as the Democrats. You certainly can not blame one over the other.

ONE of these parties absolutely positively must die. We'll never be a multiple party country -- the two party system is way too entrenched. But one of the current parties absolutely MUST die and be replaced by a party that is truly pro-liberty and pro-limited government.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 05:42 PM
heh.

First, I hate the way that you quote posts. "Bolding" makes it difficult to reply to each of your responses because I have to add the tags and then copy/paste. It's highly inconvenient. Anyway...


The Founders did not envision the contemporary reality that we rely heavily on goods and materials imported from all over the world. From cocoa to cobalt. Not to mention petroleum. Thus, our economy requires we remain engaged beyond our borders.

Who said I said we shouldn't trade internationally? Nobody said that -- that is insane. Not a single Founder that I'm aware of even contemplated such an absurdity. However, there is a difference between trading overseas and maintaining a global empire protecting that commerce at any and all costs. I have no problem whatsoever trading overseas with anyone and everyone regardless of how big a despot they are. Therein lies the problem with our foreign policy. We want to only do business with squeaky-clean good guys which is as immature an idea as you'll ever find. The world doesn't work that way, but we insist on trying to make it that way by this absurd idea of spreading democracy and American values. The idea being that if our trading partners share our values then we can feel good about doing business with them.


Rome declined when it stopped expanding. As have all other great nations.

Rome declined because it over-reached. But that is really neither here nor there, because who the f'k said that these United States were supposed to be like Rome? Who said that we should and ought to be a controlling force on a truly global scale? Rome would have done well to maintain a small-noble Republic on the Iberian peninsula; Rome died when the Republic died just as these United States died when the Republic died. Both were replaced by Empires that could not be maintained indefinitely. Rome fell and so shall we.


Fine. I call Ron Paul a tin-foil hat wearing flake.
That's your prerogative.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 05:44 PM
And which party started that..hmmmm????? Hmmmmm??????? Let's learn our history here and be honest.



The GOP is just as responsible for this as the Democrats. You certainly can not blame one over the other.

ONE of these parties absolutely positively must die. We'll never be a multiple party country -- the two party system is way too entrenched. But one of the current parties absolutely MUST die and be replaced by a party that is truly pro-liberty and pro-limited government.What a crock of crap. You REALLY ARE about as useful as a Lib! Sad, Sicem, that you don't see the truth, yet are so passionate about your beliefs.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 05:48 PM
What a crock of crap. You REALLY ARE about as useful as a Lib! Sad, Sicem, that you don't see the truth, yet are so passionate about your beliefs.

Let me get this straight...

I'm as "useless" as a lib, because I don't get down on my knees for a particular party? So, in order for one to be a "good" conservative one has to follow a particular political party? Now that is a crock of crap.

And what "truth" do I not see? I think if anyone here is blind to the truth it is you, sir, and not I.

soonerhubs
8/13/2011, 06:48 PM
Brainless ones for Bachman! Join now! ;)

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 07:11 PM
Are you advocating for being the world's policeman? Maybe I am misreading your post.

If your position is that we have the moral right to police the world and our neighborhoods please tell us how you would prevent the undesirable action of your arsonist neighbor getting a cigarette lighter that you present in your example.

Someone has to take the role and it doesn't necessarily have to be the responsibility of one nation, be it the U.S. or not. And trying to prevent rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons is a bit different than precluding the irresponsible from attaining a lighter. Most nations don't have the technological knowhow to create nuclear weapons thus it is the greedy/irresponsible which allows this to occur.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 07:31 PM
Someone has to take the role and it doesn't necessarily have to be the responsibility of one nation, be it the U.S. or not.
Why? And why should it be us?


And trying to prevent rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons is a bit different than precluding the irresponsible from attaining a lighter.
Why do you consider it a "rogue" nation? N. Korea may reasonably be called a rogue nation, but Iran has fairly normal relations with virtually everyone in the world except for us and Israel. And hell, most of Europe still does business with Iran even in areas where they are "legally" barred from doing so. Calling Iran a "rogue" nation and marginalizing them contributes more to what we perceive as a threat than conducting normal relations with them.

Let's try normalizing our diplomatic relations with them and stop favoring Israel to the detriment of our mid-east policy. We're the most powerful nation on Earth -- Iran is not that big a threat. Nobody is that big a threat except Russia and China.


Most nations don't have the technological knowhow to create nuclear weapons thus it is the greedy/irresponsible which allows this to occur.

Wait...what? I think everyone pretty well knows how to build a nuke. The problem isn't knowing how to make one -- the problem is procuring the resources it takes and having the capital to invest in a project of that magnitude.

FaninAma
8/13/2011, 07:52 PM
Someone has to take the role and it doesn't necessarily have to be the responsibility of one nation, be it the U.S. or not. And trying to prevent rogue nations from getting nuclear weapons is a bit different than precluding the irresponsible from attaining a lighter. Most nations don't have the technological knowhow to create nuclear weapons thus it is the greedy/irresponsible which allows this to occur.

Rogue nations like North Korea?

I will make a bet with you. I bet you whatever amount of money that both Iraq and Afghanistan have anti-American regimes in control within 3 years of our military leaving both countries.

And oh, read the following Wikipedia citation and tell me exactly who the rogue countries are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddeq

GKeeper316
8/13/2011, 07:56 PM
american freedom is inherently reactionist.

preventionist ideals are contrary to liberty.

iran can have as many nukes as they want. until such time as they cost american lives, they aren't our concern.

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 07:59 PM
Why? And why should it be us?


Why do you consider it a "rogue" nation? N. Korea may reasonably be called a rogue nation, but Iran has fairly normal relations with virtually everyone in the world except for us and Israel. And hell, most of Europe still does business with Iran even in areas where they are "legally" barred from doing so. Calling Iran a "rogue" nation and marginalizing them contributes more to what we perceive as a threat than conducting normal relations with them.

Let's try normalizing our diplomatic relations with them and stop favoring Israel to the detriment of our mid-east policy. We're the most powerful nation on Earth -- Iran is not that big a threat. Nobody is that big a threat except Russia and China.


Wait...what? I think everyone pretty well knows how to build a nuke. The problem isn't knowing how to make one -- the problem is procuring the resources it takes and having the capital to invest in a project of that magnitude.

Haven't we had this same identical discussion ad infinitum? Enough is enough. You like repetition, I suggest you watch Groundhog Day.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:08 PM
Haven't we had this same identical discussion ad infinitum? Enough is enough. You like repetition, I suggest you watch Groundhog Day.

Who are you?

I don't think I've ever spoken to you before.

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 08:10 PM
Who are you?

I don't think I've ever spoken to you before.

Good one! What are you?

AlboSooner
8/13/2011, 08:18 PM
a nuclear iran is a headache only for isreal not for us.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:20 PM
Good one! What are you?

No, I'm serious...I don't know who you are.

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:26 PM
a nuclear iran is a headache only for isreal not for us.

i disagree...
anyone with a nuke...hellbent on using it offensively...is a headache for us and the whole world...

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:37 PM
i disagree...
anyone with a nuke...hellbent on using it offensively...is a headache for us and the whole world...

Let's assume for a moment that Iran was, in fact, "hellbent" on using it against us. What delivery system are they going to use? Do they have anything capable of reaching the continental United States?

I'm not too worried. I really do not believe that the first thing Iran is going to do with a Nuke is attack us with it since it would certainly be the very last thing they ever did.

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 08:40 PM
a nuclear iran is a headache only for isreal not for us.

So Saudi Arabia is not threatened by a nuclear Iran? How about Iraq? And since radioactive fallout cannot be "just contained within the confines of Israel" the Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians and Saudi Arabians would not be at risk? Is this another one of your foolish contentions?

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 08:42 PM
Let's assume for a moment that Iran was, in fact, "hellbent" on using it against us. What delivery system are they going to use? Do they have anything capable of reaching the continental United States?

I'm not too worried. I really do not believe that the first thing Iran is going to do with a Nuke is attack us with it since it would certainly be the very last thing they ever did.



Is it not possible to smuggle it in? And by doing so wouldn't it mask or make it difficult in ascertaining who was at fault?

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:45 PM
Let's assume for a moment that Iran was, in fact, "hellbent" on using it against us. What delivery system are they going to use? Do they have anything capable of reaching the continental United States?

I'm not too worried. I really do not believe that the first thing Iran is going to do with a Nuke is attack us with it since it would certainly be the very last thing they ever did.

i didn't say iran was hellbent on using it against us.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:47 PM
i didn't say iran was hellbent on using it against us.

Then if you don't think they are then, again, I have to ask what the point is? Why should we be concerned?

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:51 PM
Is it not possible to smuggle it in? And by doing so wouldn't it mask or make it difficult in ascertaining who was at fault?

Sure it's possible, but we're pretty damned good at determining where and how any nuclear device was manufactured. Why would Iran run the risk? What, ultimately, is in it for them? Iran is not a pure terrorist state like the Taliban was in Afghanistan. Sure they support terrorist organizations, but building a nuke for a terrorist organization and then handing it over to them to be detonated within the continental US is a pretty risky *** business.

But as horrific as a nuclear device going off on our soil would be, we could absorb that kind of damage. However, it would be the absolute end of them.

Now attacking Israel is another matter entirely.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 08:53 PM
So Saudi Arabia is not threatened by a nuclear Iran?
Why is this our problem?

How about Iraq?
This is only a problem for us so long as we have troops there. Remove the troops and we remove the problem.

And since radioactive fallout cannot be "just contained within the confines of Israel" the Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians and Saudi Arabians would not be at risk?
Why is this our problem?

Is this another one of your foolish contentions?
It's a completely rational contention. Coldly rational perhaps but rational nonetheless.

87sooner
8/13/2011, 08:59 PM
Then if you don't think they are then, again, I have to ask what the point is? Why should we be concerned?

i'm concerned for the 7 million innocent people of isreal...
you're not?
you're not concerned for ANYONE outside the US?

we are the first country to respond to natural disasters around the globe...
the russians don't care...nor do the chinese...and the oil rich islamic countries sure as hell don't care...
most people in the US have a concern for people...
it's what sets us apart from the rest of the world...

sheepdogs
8/13/2011, 09:05 PM
Why is this our problem?

This is only a problem for us so long as we have troops there. Remove the troops and we remove the problem.

Why is this our problem?

It's a completely rational contention. Coldly rational perhaps but rational nonetheless.

The "complete" statement of thought suggested that "only Israel" was at risk and I called mularkey, which you seemed to have agreed with.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 09:07 PM
i'm concerned for the 7 million innocent people of isreal...
you're not?
you're not concerned for ANYONE outside the US?
Sure I am. I didn't say I didn't care. But, I didn't take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. American soil and American citizens should be the only concern of our national policy makers.


we are the first country to respond to natural disasters around the globe...
Why? What the f'k have they done for us? Did they help anyone in Oklahoma when a tornado comes through? American tax dollars should go toward helping Americans and not toward rebuilding shanty-town shacks in Bumf'k, Indonesia.


the russians don't care...
Let's take a cue from their playbook.


nor do the chinese...
Let's take a cue from their playbook.


and the oil rich islamic countries sure as hell don't care...
Let's take a cue from their playbook.


most people in the US have a concern for people...
it's what sets us apart from the rest of the world...
EXACTLY! And most Americans should! In fact, if they do, there are thousands of private charities who go around the world and help out in all of those horrible disaster type situations you mentioned.

The difference is, our Constitution did not authorize our Federal government to be the world's Red Cross. Let the Red Cross do that. Furthermore, our national policy makers took an oath to protect the American people...not the people of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Belgium (especially Belgium).

Tulsa_Fireman
8/13/2011, 10:16 PM
Sure it's possible, but we're pretty damned good at determining where and how any nuclear device was manufactured. Why would Iran run the risk? What, ultimately, is in it for them? Iran is not a pure terrorist state like the Taliban was in Afghanistan. Sure they support terrorist organizations, but building a nuke for a terrorist organization and then handing it over to them to be detonated within the continental US is a pretty risky *** business.

But as horrific as a nuclear device going off on our soil would be, we could absorb that kind of damage. However, it would be the absolute end of them.

Now attacking Israel is another matter entirely.

This is pretty nearsighted, Sic'em. C'mon.

Our national economy got rattled to the teeth when a batch of jackasses flew a couple of planes into a couple of buildings. You legitimately think if a similar batch of jackasses detonated a nuclear device within the borders of the United States, we could just "absorb that kind of damage"?

It's a God damned nuclear device, man. And with the plausible deniability of placing that sort of weapon in the hands of a third party, why NOT park one in Miami? DC? New York City? Point being, you're not going to just "abosorb" that sort of damage. We'd feel the shockwaves of such an event in every facet of life just like we feel the shockwaves of 9-11 to this day.

SicEmBaylor
8/13/2011, 10:35 PM
This is pretty nearsighted, Sic'em. C'mon.

Our national economy got rattled to the teeth when a batch of jackasses flew a couple of planes into a couple of buildings. You legitimately think if a similar batch of jackasses detonated a nuclear device within the borders of the United States, we could just "absorb that kind of damage"?

It's a God damned nuclear device, man. And with the plausible deniability of placing that sort of weapon in the hands of a third party, why NOT park one in Miami? DC? New York City? Point being, you're not going to just "abosorb" that sort of damage. We'd feel the shockwaves of such an event in every facet of life just like we feel the shockwaves of 9-11 to this day.

I agree with everything you just said, but it wouldn't destroy us. It would, however, certainly destroy Iran. And plausible deniability wouldn't be enough. I don't know how well the Iranians could cover their tracks that US investigators wouldn't trace it back to them. I don't see Iran risking their utter and total existence for that.

However, I will agree that Iran having a nuclear bomb is not exactly a warm and fuzzy thought. There's just not much we can do about it (or should). Do we invade? Well, I think most reasonable people woudl say no. Do we sanction them? Well we've certainly tried that.

Honestly, what exactly do we do? Do we conduct some kind of precision air strike on their nuclear facilities? Can we be sure we get them all before we conduct an act of war against a sovereign nation because if we don't or they already have a bomb....And then are we going to attack any nation that tries to acquire nuclear weapons without our permission? What about North Korea? By what measure are the North Koreans more or less likely to use a nuclear device against the United States that would or would not justify military action to prevent them from gaining one? It's one thing to attack Iran which is relatively easy; it's quite another to attack N. Korea which is most certainly not very easy.

The problem is that it's easy to say Lunatic Country X should not acquire weapons, but it's much more difficult to come up with an effective policy of preventing them from doing so that does not foster resentment because of the unequal application of that policy OR that doesn't get us involved in another major war with that nation. We can't go to war with everyone regardless of how badly the military-industrial complex may want us to.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/13/2011, 10:48 PM
But a Charlie Wilson-esque approach is off the table somehow?

Somebody's planting those computer virii. Somebody's knocking off Iranian nuclear scientists. Even if it's the Mossad's brand of clandestine and not the CIA's, I will kiss your skinny, white butt if Langley isn't elbow deep in the effort. And if successful or delayed long enough for counter efforts to be prepared, while not "non-interventionist" in nature, is that not acceptable?

I'll take cloak and dagger all day over bombs and bullets. ESPECIALLY if cloak and dagger is working.

soonercruiser
8/13/2011, 11:14 PM
Ok, so I see the drift of the last 10 or so posts.
How about thinking about this?

All the great blessings and wealth that GOD has given this great nation - was it given to the United States of America to just sit on, and put in our own pockets?

Who is to decide?
Who is the "Good Samartin"?


Ok, so you guys made it all the way back to the Iran nukes controversy pretty quick, but have jumped over my basic question.

Who should be the Good Samartin?
If I am doing really well, have plently in MY pocket...and for the future.....
why the he11 should I serve my country?
Why the heck should I give a crap if YOU are down on your luck need help?
It's all about ourselves...is what some of you are saying?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/13/2011, 11:29 PM
What a crock of crap. You REALLY ARE about as useful as a Lib! Sad, Sicem, that you don't see the truth, yet are so passionate about your beliefs.OK, an apology for stating I thought the entire quote from Sicem was wrong. What I was referring to is the statement that both parties are equally at fault for the mess we are in. That is clearly not the case, and throughout my life, there have been SO MANY republican politicians who have stood for the Constitution, and market economics(capitalism), while very few, practically none in the D party have. It's even D party platform to have social spending.

Here's what he said that irks me since so many people keep saying it, mostly on the Left, but also some ideological purists on the Right, I guess, such as Sicem. Anyway to believe that nonsense really is counterproductive to improving things, IMHO:

Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
"The GOP is just as responsible for this as the Democrats. You certainly can not blame one over the other."

This I absolutely agree with:
"ONE of these parties absolutely positively must die. We'll never be a multiple party country -- the two party system is way too entrenched. But one of the current parties absolutely MUST die and be replaced by a party that is truly pro-liberty and pro-limited government."

bigfatjerk
8/14/2011, 07:38 AM
However, I will agree that Iran having a nuclear bomb is not exactly a warm and fuzzy thought. There's just not much we can do about it (or should). Do we invade? Well, I think most reasonable people woudl say no. Do we sanction them? Well we've certainly tried that.
Was it really a warm and fuzzy thought that Russia had a nuke in the 50s-80s?

diverdog
8/14/2011, 08:14 AM
OK, an apology for stating I thought the entire quote from Sicem was wrong. What I was referring to is the statement that both parties are equally at fault for the mess we are in. That is clearly not the case, and throughout my life, there have been SO MANY republican politicians who have stood for the Constitution, and market economics(capitalism), while very few, practically none in the D party have. It's even D party platform to have social spending.

Here's what he said that irks me since so many people keep saying it, mostly on the Left, but also some ideological purists on the Right, I guess, such as Sicem. Anyway to believe that nonsense really is counterproductive to improving things, IMHO:

Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
"The GOP is just as responsible for this as the Democrats. You certainly can not blame one over the other."

This I absolutely agree with:
"ONE of these parties absolutely positively must die. We'll never be a multiple party country -- the two party system is way too entrenched. But one of the current parties absolutely MUST die and be replaced by a party that is truly pro-liberty and pro-limited government."

Good lord you have drinking the cool aid.

And just to clue you in there is no such thing as free market capitalism.

diverdog
8/14/2011, 08:20 AM
i'm concerned for the 7 million innocent people of isreal...
you're not?
you're not concerned for ANYONE outside the US?

we are the first country to respond to natural disasters around the globe...
the russians don't care...nor do the chinese...and the oil rich islamic countries sure as hell don't care...
most people in the US have a concern for people...
it's what sets us apart from the rest of the world...

87:

I have said this many times. Israel with cease to exists in the future. The demographics are against the Jews because the Arabs are out breeding them two to one. At some point they will have the political power and Israel will change.

Secondly, what no one is talking about in this thread is that Iran has a lot of internal problems. Namely a lot of young Iranians who hate the mullahs. The old hard line Islamist are old and will start to die off. I think in the next twenty years Iran will have normalized relationships with the west if not sooner. We should be doing everything we can to undermine the Iranian government while supporting the pro democracy movement inside of Iran.

The Middle East and Central Asia is changing and I think that they will be less radical in the future as their woman become more educated and empowered. Between now and then there will be a lot of pain and I fear civil war. Only time will tell if I am write.

soonercruiser
8/14/2011, 09:08 PM
87:

I have said this many times. Israel with cease to exists in the future. The demographics are against the Jews because the Arabs are out breeding them two to one. At some point they will have the political power and Israel will change.

Secondly, what no one is talking about in this thread is that Iran has a lot of internal problems. Namely a lot of young Iranians who hate the mullahs. The old hard line Islamist are old and will start to die off. I think in the next twenty years Iran will have normalized relationships with the west if not sooner. We should be doing everything we can to undermine the Iranian government while supporting the pro democracy movement inside of Iran.

The Middle East and Central Asia is changing and I think that they will be less radical in the future as their woman become more educated and empowered. Between now and then there will be a lot of pain and I fear civil war. Only time will tell if I am write.

Agree with a lot of what you said, DD.
But, depending on whom comes to power, women may not be getting educated and empowered.
(That would be a best case scenerio)

87sooner
8/14/2011, 09:18 PM
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4108559,00.html

87sooner
8/14/2011, 09:20 PM
87:

I have said this many times. Israel with cease to exists in the future. The demographics are against the Jews because the Arabs are out breeding them two to one. At some point they will have the political power and Israel will change.

Secondly, what no one is talking about in this thread is that Iran has a lot of internal problems. Namely a lot of young Iranians who hate the mullahs. The old hard line Islamist are old and will start to die off. I think in the next twenty years Iran will have normalized relationships with the west if not sooner. We should be doing everything we can to undermine the Iranian government while supporting the pro democracy movement inside of Iran.

The Middle East and Central Asia is changing and I think that they will be less radical in the future as their woman become more educated and empowered. Between now and then there will be a lot of pain and I fear civil war. Only time will tell if I am write.

so you think the israelis are just going to let the arabs out-breed them and then just give up? say "oh well...we had a good run...it's your country now"?

highly unlikely...

i agree with your assessment of iran...
i think the majority would throw out the islamic rulers in a second if they could...
unfortunately the govt/military is just too strong...

AlboSooner
8/14/2011, 09:27 PM
So Saudi Arabia is not threatened by a nuclear Iran? How about Iraq? And since radioactive fallout cannot be "just contained within the confines of Israel" the Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians and Saudi Arabians would not be at risk? Is this another one of your foolish contentions?

Another one? Heh.

Let those countries fend for themselves. It is not a correct assumption to assume that Iran wants to use nukes against anybody when we only hear one side of the story. As an ancient civilization I'm sure the Persians know better than to start setting off nuclear weapons. I would prefer they didn't have one, but I would not use US resources to fight them.

Nukes mainly do one thing: it guarantees that no foreign troops will set foot in your country. I think thats what Iran wants. Israel has close to 500 nuclear war heads. They will never be invaded. Time to take the swimming wings off.

AlboSooner
8/14/2011, 09:30 PM
i disagree...
anyone with a nuke...hellbent on using it offensively...is a headache for us and the whole world...

I don't know that Iran is determined to use nuclear weapons. They would be destroyed in minutes. They know that.

diverdog
8/14/2011, 10:50 PM
so you think the israelis are just going to let the arabs out-breed them and then just give up? say "oh well...we had a good run...it's your country now"?

highly unlikely...

i agree with your assessment of iran...
i think the majority would throw out the islamic rulers in a second if they could...
unfortunately the govt/military is just too strong...

I don't think they will have a choice. They are a democracy and change will come through the ballot box.

Tulsa_Fireman
8/14/2011, 10:52 PM
Nukes mainly do one thing: it guarantees that no foreign troops will set foot in your country. I think thats what Iran wants. Israel has close to 500 nuclear war heads. They will never be invaded. Time to take the swimming wings off.

Hezbollah would strongly disagree with this statement.

It's hard for Israel to justify dropping nuclear weapons on territory they've settled, even if it's filled with frothing at the mouth anti-semitic arabs. And as they launch Iranian rockets ever closer to Tel Aviv, they only act to prove the point that other than a delivery across the Middle East, Israel's nuclear capability is a ever shrinking deterrent.

Third parties are the answer. They can execute foreign policy and regardless of connections found to state entities, true comeuppance fails because the third party responsible is ethereal at best, backed by shrugged shoulders and disavowed ties.

SweetheartSooner
8/15/2011, 09:21 AM
he does have a point...

america cannot afford it's current imperialistic approach to foreign policy anymore. we couldn't afford it before, but we were all too caught up in post 9/11 hysteria to know better.

^^^^^^^
THIS!

SicEmBaylor
8/16/2011, 02:50 AM
OK, an apology for stating I thought the entire quote from Sicem was wrong. What I was referring to is the statement that both parties are equally at fault for the mess we are in. That is clearly not the case, and throughout my life, there have been SO MANY republican politicians who have stood for the Constitution, and market economics(capitalism), while very few, practically none in the D party have. It's even D party platform to have social spending.

Here's what he said that irks me since so many people keep saying it, mostly on the Left, but also some ideological purists on the Right, I guess, such as Sicem. Anyway to believe that nonsense really is counterproductive to improving things, IMHO:

Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
"The GOP is just as responsible for this as the Democrats. You certainly can not blame one over the other."

You're absolutely right that over the decades there have been many many good Republicans who haven't compromised their principles as they fought for limited-government and individual liberty. The problem is, none of these folks within the GOP rose to positions of power...especially the Presidency. Every Republican since Eisenhower has great expanded the power and scope of the Federal government (especially Nixon and W.Bush). Since you're absolutely convinced that the Republican party isn't equally culpable, let's go through a list of the top Republicans and you tell me which ones were successful in reducing the size of Government and expanding individual liberty:

Presidents:
-W. Bush
-Bush Sr.
-Reagan
-Ford
-Nixon
-Eisenhower

Senate Majority/Minority leaders:
-McConnell
-Bill Frist
-Bob Dole

Speakers of the House:
-Boehner
-Hastert
-Gingrich

I see 1 1/2 people on that list who made a real effort to reduce the size of government. Everyone else on that list is as responsible for the growth of government as their Democratic counterparts.


This I absolutely agree with:
"ONE of these parties absolutely positively must die. We'll never be a multiple party country -- the two party system is way too entrenched. But one of the current parties absolutely MUST die and be replaced by a party that is truly pro-liberty and pro-limited government."

However, I bet we disagree on which party needs to die.

badger
8/16/2011, 07:49 AM
I liked the video you posted of the Daily Show on your facebook page, btw. You should definitely post it here :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/16/2011, 03:39 PM
... you're absolutely convinced that the Republican party isn't equally culpable, let's go through a list of the top Republicans and you tell me which ones were successful in reducing the size of Government and expanding individual liberty:


However, I bet we disagree on which party needs to die.Carter decimated the military. Reagan got it built back, and(SURPRISE, haha) got blamed for growing the govt. He also got taxes lowered. Who WANTED to expand social spending, and acted on it? W did. I blame the takeover of congress by the dems on W's actions. Gingrich was largely responsible for the Contract with America, and enacted losts of positive reform, which kept Der Schlickmeister from going socialist to the degree Owebama has done.

Give us some Democrat positive accomplishments.

Okla-homey
8/16/2011, 04:15 PM
see below.


First, I hate the way that you quote posts. "Bolding" makes it difficult to reply to each of your responses because I have to add the tags and then copy/paste. It's highly inconvenient. Anyway...



Who said I said we shouldn't trade internationally? Nobody said that -- that is insane. Not a single Founder that I'm aware of even contemplated such an absurdity. However, there is a difference between trading overseas and maintaining a global empire protecting that commerce at any and all costs. I have no problem whatsoever trading overseas with anyone and everyone regardless of how big a despot they are. Therein lies the problem with our foreign policy. We want to only do business with squeaky-clean good guys which is as immature an idea as you'll ever find. The world doesn't work that way, but we insist on trying to make it that way by this absurd idea of spreading democracy and American values. The idea being that if our trading partners share our values then we can feel good about doing business with them.

Look Frosty, the US was formed, first and foremost, as a common market. The ability to make dollars is why the 13 disparate colonies banded together. They were also motivated by the fact you need an army and navy to make the world safe for your international commercial ventures. Your boy Thos. Jefferson, when he wasn't diddling one of his slave wenches, understood that. That's why he sent the infant USN to the Med. to put the kibosh on N. African piracy and extortion. Unless the sea and air lanes are safe, our way of life stops dead. No gas, no coffee, no cotton, no aluminum, no copper, no zinc, no consumer electronic gadgetry. It's the height of Ron Paul lunacy to think we can recoil from all "foriegn entanglements" in 2011. Not to "make the world safe for demiocracy," but to the make the world safe for business. We cannot tolerate a nke-armed Iran because they are crazy enough to start nuking shiite. And that will cause blow-back in and around the Arabian oil-patch

TIMB0B
8/16/2011, 04:19 PM
I blame the takeover of congress by the dems on W's actions.

Not an excuse. Prez has power to veto.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/16/2011, 04:53 PM
Not an excuse. Prez has power to veto.What did you think I said, there?

BU BEAR
8/16/2011, 05:56 PM
What is interesting to me is the observation that Russia and/or China might well become the regional hegemon in the near future; and thus, the "rule setters" for that part of the world. After that happens, the posters who view U.S. power projection as immoral or imperialistic will get a chance to view an alternate system of political morality. They may revisit their present assessment of the United States with regret when they see how China and Russia force their wills, project their power, and protect their interests.

I am certain that America is the most moral world power in all of history. Directly after WWII, we were unchallenged military and economically; and we were the only country with nuclear weapons. We could have taken over the entire world, but did not. We could still occupy--to brutal effect, if we so chose--a great deal more area than we currently occupy. But, we don't. We also occupied Europe to keep it from falling into Soviet slavery and rebuilt our enemies whom we conquered. No other nation has ever done that. We do not enslave conquered nations; we build them up so that they are better off than before we conquered them.

We are a great nation, and for the most part, a moral people. If you think the world will be better off with American power in decline and Russian or Chinese power filling the void, then you might want to re-think your analysis.

87sooner
8/16/2011, 06:01 PM
What is interesting to me is the observation that Russia and/or China might well become the regional hegemon in the near future; and thus, the "rule setters" for that part of the world. After that happens, the posters who view U.S. power projection as immoral or imperialistic will get a chance to view an alternate system of political morality. They may revisit their present assessment of the United States with regret when they see how China and Russia force their wills, project their power, and protect their interests.

I am certain that America is the most moral world power in all of history. Directly after WWII, we were unchallenged military and economically; and we were the only country with nuclear weapons. We could have taken over the entire world, but did not. We could still occupy--to brutal effect, if we so chose--a great deal more area than we currently occupy. But, we don't. We also occupied Europe to keep it from falling into Soviet slavery and rebuilt our enemies whom we conquered. No other nation has ever done that. We do not enslave conquered nations; we build them up so that they are better off than before we conquered them.

We are a great nation, and for the most part, a moral people. If you think the world will be better off with American power in decline and Russian or Chinese power filling the void, then you might want to re-think your analysis.


great post

3rdgensooner
8/16/2011, 06:08 PM
I liked the video you posted of the Daily Show on your facebook page, btw. You should definitely post it here :Dhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

SicEmBaylor
8/17/2011, 02:11 AM
I blame the takeover of congress by the dems on W's actions.
Holy Jimmy H. Christo, I want tickets to whatever fantasy land you live in. Seriously, can I buy them online? Sometimes you say things so astoundingly wrong that it literally blows my mind, and I have a hard time even responding. It's like standing outside with someone on a clear day and having them argue that the sky is green. I mean how do you argue with someone like that?

Rush...where to start with you? Let's start here: Bush's social agenda was passed well before the Democrats took power. The Democrats had absolutely N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with NCLB, the faith based initiative, medicare prescription drug coverage, encouraging lenders to give housing loans to low-income/high risk applicants, etc. etc. etc. All of that happened with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

I know that in your world you want so desperately for the Republicans to be these knights in shining white armor that stand up to the evil dark knights of the Democratic party, but the world does not work in terms that ridiculously simplistic. American politics is highly complex and you can't intelligently put the kinds of labels on different groups that you do and be anything close to factually correct.

I am truly begging you. BEGGING you to grow up, stop drinking the kool-aid, stop listening to talk radio, and start analyzing and evaluating things for yourself. You've got to man...you've got to stop making ridiculous *** statements like blaming Bush's social agenda on the Democratic takeover of Congress. Is your memory that short or does your fanatic devotion to partisan politics not allow for the truth to trump ideology?



Gingrich was largely responsible for the Contract with America, and enacted losts of positive reform, which kept Der Schlickmeister from going socialist to the degree Owebama has done.

It's highly doubtful Clinton would have anyway. And, actually, 90% of the CWA was passed into law and it was Clinton that signed that 90% into law.


Give us some Democrat positive accomplishments.[
Why? There have been a few, but I'm certainly no defender of the Democratic party. This isn't a Zero-sum game, Rush. It's not a situation where you're either on one side or the other. I think very very little of the Democratic Party but that's beside the point. You made the claim that there have been many Republicans who have fought for limited-government/individual liberty, and I pointed out that, yes, there have been but that none of them come to power. I then asked you to name exactly which former Republican Presidents, Speakers of the House, or majority leaders successfully reduced the size of government.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2011, 02:23 AM
What is interesting to me is the observation that Russia and/or China might well become the regional hegemon in the near future; and thus, the "rule setters" for that part of the world. After that happens, the posters who view U.S. power projection as immoral or imperialistic will get a chance to view an alternate system of political morality. They may revisit their present assessment of the United States with regret when they see how China and Russia force their wills, project their power, and protect their interests.

I am certain that America is the most moral world power in all of history. Directly after WWII, we were unchallenged military and economically; and we were the only country with nuclear weapons. We could have taken over the entire world, but did not. We could still occupy--to brutal effect, if we so chose--a great deal more area than we currently occupy. But, we don't. We also occupied Europe to keep it from falling into Soviet slavery and rebuilt our enemies whom we conquered. No other nation has ever done that. We do not enslave conquered nations; we build them up so that they are better off than before we conquered them.

We are a great nation, and for the most part, a moral people. If you think the world will be better off with American power in decline and Russian or Chinese power filling the void, then you might want to re-think your analysis.Of course. There are lots of people who have inexplicably been convinced otherwise, including the president.

TIMB0B
8/17/2011, 06:47 AM
What did you think I said, there?

I interpreted it as "Bush's big government actions were because he had a dem congress i.e. he compromised."

bigfatjerk
8/17/2011, 09:10 AM
Holy Jimmy H. Christo, I want tickets to whatever fantasy land you live in. Seriously, can I buy them online? Sometimes you say things so astoundingly wrong that it literally blows my mind, and I have a hard time even responding. It's like standing outside with someone on a clear day and having them argue that the sky is green. I mean how do you argue with someone like that?

Rush...where to start with you? Let's start here: Bush's social agenda was passed well before the Democrats took power. The Democrats had absolutely N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with NCLB, the faith based initiative, medicare prescription drug coverage, encouraging lenders to give housing loans to low-income/high risk applicants, etc. etc. etc. All of that happened with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

I know that in your world you want so desperately for the Republicans to be these knights in shining white armor that stand up to the evil dark knights of the Democratic party, but the world does not work in terms that ridiculously simplistic. American politics is highly complex and you can't intelligently put the kinds of labels on different groups that you do and be anything close to factually correct.

I am truly begging you. BEGGING you to grow up, stop drinking the kool-aid, stop listening to talk radio, and start analyzing and evaluating things for yourself. You've got to man...you've got to stop making ridiculous *** statements like blaming Bush's social agenda on the Democratic takeover of Congress. Is your memory that short or does your fanatic devotion to partisan politics not allow for the truth to trump ideology?




It's highly doubtful Clinton would have anyway. And, actually, 90% of the CWA was passed into law and it was Clinton that signed that 90% into law.

[
Why? There have been a few, but I'm certainly no defender of the Democratic party. This isn't a Zero-sum game, Rush. It's not a situation where you're either on one side or the other. I think very very little of the Democratic Party but that's beside the point. You made the claim that there have been many Republicans who have fought for limited-government/individual liberty, and I pointed out that, yes, there have been but that none of them come to power. I then asked you to name exactly which former Republican Presidents, Speakers of the House, or majority leaders successfully reduced the size of government.

This pretty well sums it up. Before the democrats took over Bush had a very poor record of being a small government guy. Even though that's basically what he ran on in 2000.

BU BEAR
8/17/2011, 09:28 AM
Of course. There are lots of people who have inexplicably been convinced otherwise, including the president.

The President's feelings about America, American power, and how American power should be projected are no shock. His father was a radical, his stepfather was a radical, and his mother was a radical. Not one of the parental influences in his life viewed America positively. Skepticism, and even rejection, of the narrative that says America has been a force for good in the world was his mother's milk growing up.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2011, 12:38 PM
I interpreted it as "Bush's big government actions were because he had a dem congress i.e. he compromised."I didn't think it read that way, or I would have changed the wording. (Poor Sicem almost went over the cliff thinking what you did)

Bush was easily influenced by socil engineering thinking, and got enough backing from some misguided R's in congress to get it through. No doubt some democrats were influential with W, on some of his social programs. I don't remember those programs being introduce by any R's in congress, although he did get support from enough R's to get them passed. My point was that W was the culprit for doing RINO things, and that coupled with an effective enough assault against the R's by the MSM, resulted in the D's taking over congress in '06, and the Transformation got into high gear.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2011, 12:43 PM
Holy Jimmy H. Christo, I want tickets to whatever fantasy land you live in. Seriously, can I buy them online? Sometimes you say things so astoundingly wrong that it literally blows my mind, and I have a hard time even responding. It's like standing outside with someone on a clear day and having them argue that the sky is green. I mean how do you argue with someone like that?

Rush...where to start with you? Let's start here: Bush's social agenda was passed well before the Democrats took power. The Democrats had absolutely N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with NCLB, the faith based initiative, medicare prescription drug coverage, encouraging lenders to give housing loans to low-income/high risk applicants, etc. etc. etc. All of that happened with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

I know that in your world you want so desperately for the Republicans to be these knights in shining white armor that stand up to the evil dark knights of the Democratic party, but the world does not work in terms that ridiculously simplistic. American politics is highly complex and you can't intelligently put the kinds of labels on different groups that you do and be anything close to factually correct.

I am truly begging you. BEGGING you to grow up, stop drinking the kool-aid, stop listening to talk radio, and start analyzing and evaluating things for yourself. You've got to man...you've got to stop making ridiculous *** statements like blaming Bush's social agenda on the Democratic takeover of Congress. Is your memory that short or does your fanatic devotion to partisan politics not allow for the truth to trump ideology?




It's highly doubtful Clinton would have anyway. And, actually, 90% of the CWA was passed into law and it was Clinton that signed that 90% into law.

[
Why? There have been a few, but I'm certainly no defender of the Democratic party. This isn't a Zero-sum game, Rush. It's not a situation where you're either on one side or the other. I think very very little of the Democratic Party but that's beside the point. You made the claim that there have been many Republicans who have fought for limited-government/individual liberty, and I pointed out that, yes, there have been but that none of them come to power. I then asked you to name exactly which former Republican Presidents, Speakers of the House, or majority leaders successfully reduced the size of government.Sorry you misread, or I didn't clearly state my opinion. Put you through a lot of "stupid and/or crazy" card playing.

MR2-Sooner86
8/17/2011, 01:16 PM
Unless the sea and air lanes are safe, our way of life stops dead. No gas, no coffee, no cotton, no aluminum, no copper, no zinc, no consumer electronic gadgetry.

Sorry Homey, I hate to disagree with you but our foreign policy the past 60 years was mainly to fight the Reds from spreading. I don't remember seeing many military operations starting because "they fired on our cargo ships."

I know all of those CIA backed coups sure weren't about it.


It's the height of Ron Paul lunacy to think we can recoil from all "foriegn entanglements" in 2011. Not to "make the world safe for demiocracy," but to the make the world safe for business.

How?

We pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. What's the worst that can happen? Afghanistan falls to the Taliban again. Iraq is overthrown and a Islamic theocracy, like the Muslim Brotherhood, takes it's place that could be worse than what Saddam was.

Our mission in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden, we got him. Maybe we should've done our homework a little more than go rushing into Iraq guns blazing. In fact, we could've used the resources we used in Iraq in Afghanistan and got Bin Laden much sooner and be out of this whole mess.


We cannot tolerate a nuke-armed Iran because they are crazy enough to start nuking shiite. And that will cause blow-back in and around the Arabian oil-patch

What is Iran really going to do? They have a very large population of young people who don't want to die and enjoy Western culture even if it is "evil" to the conservative elders. The government election protest last year showed us that. I don't think their population is as crazy as their leaders and I think if the leaders go starting conflicts they won't have allot of public support.

Who are they going to attack? Israel? They'll be turned into a radioactive hole when it's all said and done and allot of their population doesn't want to be a radioactive hole. Israel is perfectly capable of dealing with Iran or any other threat in the area.

Even if Iran started to get rather crazy, I'm sure Saudi Arabia would step aside and let Israel handle it as Israel will be the first to do anything as they're afraid if Iran snaps, they'll be the first in the crosshairs.

Besides, if we're so worried about Iran, why isn't more being done with North Korea? They already have nuclear weapons and rockets that can really mess with shipping and economic trade as South Korea, Japan, and the other Four Asian Tigers are within range.


Also, nobody has answer the question I asked a couple pages back.

What did our foreign policy of military action in Vietnam get us that was worth the billion of dollars and over 50,000 American lives?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2011, 01:58 PM
If Paul gets the nomination from the R's, betcha Homey will vote for him, as will I. Whatever negatives from any nuttiness he has are far surpassed by those of our Anti-American POTUS.

soonercruiser
8/17/2011, 02:16 PM
SicEm,
You really believe this????
You are the one who is denying reality.



Rush...where to start with you? Let's start here: Bush's social agenda was passed well before the Democrats took power. The Democrats had absolutely N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with NCLB, the faith based initiative, medicare prescription drug coverage, encouraging lenders to give housing loans to low-income/high risk applicants, etc. etc. etc. All of that happened with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

There have been threads on here discussing the housing loan situation....going back to early 1990's and Bill Clinton. Blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush is in your head!

bigfatjerk
8/17/2011, 02:42 PM
The republicans tried to stop it a little bit but not nearly enough as it kept going on for nearly 20 years.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/17/2011, 02:56 PM
The republicans tried to stop it a little bit but not nearly enough as it kept going on for nearly 20 years.True Dat! It's a bitch having the media against you all the time. Takes a VERY special(cough, Reagan,Palin) person to stand up against brutal frontal assaults by the MSM, that are constant and chronic.

TIMB0B
8/17/2011, 06:11 PM
This is what Ron Paul touched on in the debate schooling Santorum.

VKoLG9VoAaU

SicEmBaylor
8/17/2011, 06:29 PM
SicEm,
You really believe this????
You are the one who is denying reality.



There have been threads on here discussing the housing loan situation....going back to early 1990's and Bill Clinton. Blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush is in your head!

Nonsense. Clinton was at fault well, but the difference here is that Clinton was a Democrat. You expect Democrats to act like Democrats. I don't fault a Democrat for being a Democrat regardless of how vehemently I disagree with them.

I do blame a Republican for acting like a Democrat. More civil liberties were lost under Bush than Clinton. More money was spent under Bush than Clinton. The economy was better managed under Clinton than Bush. AND the size of government grew less under Clinton than under Bush.

Sure Clinton is to blame for more things than I could ever possibly list here, but he's a Democrat and so I expect it. I didn't expect it from a Republican that tried to pass himself off as a conservative. That's what irks me.

There are LOTS of people out there bashing Obama, Democrats, Liberalism, etc. This website proves that point in spades. There are a hell of a lot fewer out there making sure that conservatives actually act like conservatives which is far far more important. Why so important? Because the masses in the so-called "conservative" movement know very little about political ideology, philosophy, or the origins of political thought. They have a sense for what they believe and they allow the rest of it to be filled in by people who are, purportedly, leaders of the "conservative" movement. Unfortunately, the message they often carry to the masses is wrong and not the least bit conservative and therefore it improperly influences a great number of people into believing a false conservatism.


I interpreted it as "Bush's big government actions were because he had a dem congress i.e. he compromised."

I didn't think it read that way, or I would have changed the wording. (Poor Sicem almost went over the cliff thinking what you did)

Bush was easily influenced by socil engineering thinking, and got enough backing from some misguided R's in congress to get it through. No doubt some democrats were influential with W, on some of his social programs. I don't remember those programs being introduce by any R's in congress, although he did get support from enough R's to get them passed. My point was that W was the culprit for doing RINO things, and that coupled with an effective enough assault against the R's by the MSM, resulted in the D's taking over congress in '06, and the Transformation got into high gear.

In either case, you're both still wrong. Once again it seems like both of you are a couple of Rip Van Winkles who have only been awake since the Democratic takeover in 2006. I have news for both of you: Almost the ENTIRE, let me say that again, almost the ENTIRE Bush domestic agenda was passed when he still had a Republican Congress. EVERYTHING, domestically, was a done deal by the time the Democrats took over in 2006.

Bush was not bamboozled by the Democrats into creating a progressive domestic social agenda and getting it passed by a Republican congress. Personally, I think Bush is a smart guy. Bush didn't just get "bad advice." Most of these programs were extensions of programs he himself created as Governor of Texas. Bush didn't just get a "few R's" to support him in Congress -- he had the entire leadership solidly behind him and making threats to virtually every Republican on the hill into supporting his progressive domestic agenda. In fact, that ****-ant corrupt sleaze ball, DeLay threatened half a dozen conservative members of Congress into supporting the bill or losing the financial support of the HRCC and even threatening them with primary opponents.

Let me say all this again so that hopefully you guys will get the message loud and clear: BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA WAS A DONE DEAL/OVER AND DONE WITH BY THE TIME THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS!.

I'll hang up now.

MR2-Sooner86
8/17/2011, 06:49 PM
This is what Ron Paul touched on in the debate schooling Santorum.

VKoLG9VoAaU

****in' A!

TIMB0B
8/17/2011, 06:53 PM
Nonsense. Clinton was at fault well, but the difference here is that Clinton was a Democrat. You expect Democrats to act like Democrats. I don't fault a Democrat for being a Democrat regardless of how vehemently I disagree with them.

I do blame a Republican for acting like a Democrat. More civil liberties were lost under Bush than Clinton. More money was spent under Bush than Clinton. The economy was better managed under Clinton than Bush. AND the size of government grew less under Clinton than under Bush.

Sure Clinton is to blame for more things than I could ever possibly list here, but he's a Democrat and so I expect it. I didn't expect it from a Republican that tried to pass himself off as a conservative. That's what irks me.

There are LOTS of people out there bashing Obama, Democrats, Liberalism, etc. This website proves that point in spades. There are a hell of a lot fewer out there making sure that conservatives actually act like conservatives which is far far more important. Why so important? Because the masses in the so-called "conservative" movement know very little about political ideology, philosophy, or the origins of political thought. They have a sense for what they believe and they allow the rest of it to be filled in by people who are, purportedly, leaders of the "conservative" movement. Unfortunately, the message they often carry to the masses is wrong and not the least bit conservative and therefore it improperly influences a great number of people into believing a false conservatism.




In either case, you're both still wrong. Once again it seems like both of you are a couple of Rip Van Winkles who have only been awake since the Democratic takeover in 2006. I have news for both of you: Almost the ENTIRE, let me say that again, almost the ENTIRE Bush domestic agenda was passed when he still had a Republican Congress. EVERYTHING, domestically, was a done deal by the time the Democrats took over in 2006.

Bush was not bamboozled by the Democrats into creating a progressive domestic social agenda and getting it passed by a Republican congress. Personally, I think Bush is a smart guy. Bush didn't just get "bad advice." Most of these programs were extensions of programs he himself created as Governor of Texas. Bush didn't just get a "few R's" to support him in Congress -- he had the entire leadership solidly behind him and making threats to virtually every Republican on the hill into supporting his progressive domestic agenda. In fact, that ****-ant corrupt sleaze ball, DeLay threatened half a dozen conservative members of Congress into supporting the bill or losing the financial support of the HRCC and even threatening them with primary opponents.

Let me say all this again so that hopefully you guys will get the message loud and clear: BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA WAS A DONE DEAL/OVER AND DONE WITH BY THE TIME THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS!.

I'll hang up now.

Uh, don't lump me in with the "blame the dems" crowd. That's not what I was reiterating.

TIMB0B
8/17/2011, 07:01 PM
****in' A!

Pretty ****ed up, isn't it? Everyone see what happens when we meddle in the mid-east?

StoopTroup
8/17/2011, 07:23 PM
I have said this many times. Israel with cease to exists in the future. The demographics are against the Jews because the Arabs are out breeding them two to one. At some point they will have the political power and Israel will change.

They might change. You probably can talk about what kind of change because if you seriously think God's Chosen People will cease to exist in the future you completely ignore the Bible and it's historical context. They have held on to that land there like Texans held onto the Alamo (supposedly).

I know the board posters who don't believe in God and religion will tear up and go all crazy about someone saying the Bible is a Historical Document but it does hold some significance in giving a timeline as far as the Jewish People are concerned as does Egypt. They have been around a long time. A real long time. It might be something you sit around dreaming will happen but Hitler and his bunch (whether you believe in the Holocaust or not) changed the Jewish People and the World for that matter and anyone that really thinks that bunch of cockroaches in the Middle East that stab each other in the back for new ear buds for their IPOD they have, are going to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth or even make them leave Israel, will find Israel and the surrounding areas uninhabitable for at least a 100 years if not more and that makes anything you have to say about them disappearing or losing their grip on Israel really inconsequential as none of us will be here to see it.

Even Hitler on his best day really had no real way to get rid of the Jewish People, their Ideals or even their Faith.

I find it pretty silly to hear folks speculate about it when there has never even been anyone close to making such a thing happen.

87sooner
8/17/2011, 07:28 PM
They might change. You probably can talk about what kind of change because if you seriously think God's Chosen People will cease to exist in the future you completely ignore the Bible and it's historical context. They have held on to that land there like Texans held onto the Alamo (supposedly).

I know the board posters who don't believe in God and religion will tear up and go all crazy about someone saying the Bible is a Historical Document but it does hold some significance in giving a timeline as far as the Jewish People are concerned as does Egypt. They have been around a long time. A real long time. It might be something you sit around dreaming will happen but Hitler and his bunch (whether you believe in the Holocaust or not) changed the Jewish People and the World for that matter and anyone that really thinks that bunch of cockroaches in the Middle East that stab each other in the back for new ear buds for their IPOD they have, are going to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth or even make them leave Israel, will find Israel and the surrounding areas uninhabitable for at least a 100 years if not more and that makes anything you have to say about them disappearing or losing their grip on Israel really inconsequential as none of us will be here to see it.

Even Hitler on his best day really had no real way to get rid of the Jewish People, their Ideals or even their Faith.

I find it pretty silly to hear folks speculate about it when there has never even been anyone close to making such a thing happen.

that's one hell of a long sentence...

where was isreal prior to 1948?

soonercruiser
8/18/2011, 11:41 AM
Nonsense. Clinton was at fault well, but the difference here is that Clinton was a Democrat. You expect Democrats to act like Democrats. I don't fault a Democrat for being a Democrat regardless of how vehemently I disagree with them.

I do blame a Republican for acting like a Democrat. More civil liberties were lost under Bush than Clinton. More money was spent under Bush than Clinton. The economy was better managed under Clinton than Bush. AND the size of government grew less under Clinton than under Bush.

Sure Clinton is to blame for more things than I could ever possibly list here, but he's a Democrat and so I expect it. I didn't expect it from a Republican that tried to pass himself off as a conservative. That's what irks me.

There are LOTS of people out there bashing Obama, Democrats, Liberalism, etc. This website proves that point in spades. There are a hell of a lot fewer out there making sure that conservatives actually act like conservatives which is far far more important. Why so important? Because the masses in the so-called "conservative" movement know very little about political ideology, philosophy, or the origins of political thought. They have a sense for what they believe and they allow the rest of it to be filled in by people who are, purportedly, leaders of the "conservative" movement. Unfortunately, the message they often carry to the masses is wrong and not the least bit conservative and therefore it improperly influences a great number of people into believing a false conservatism.




In either case, you're both still wrong. Once again it seems like both of you are a couple of Rip Van Winkles who have only been awake since the Democratic takeover in 2006. I have news for both of you: Almost the ENTIRE, let me say that again, almost the ENTIRE Bush domestic agenda was passed when he still had a Republican Congress. EVERYTHING, domestically, was a done deal by the time the Democrats took over in 2006.

Bush was not bamboozled by the Democrats into creating a progressive domestic social agenda and getting it passed by a Republican congress. Personally, I think Bush is a smart guy. Bush didn't just get "bad advice." Most of these programs were extensions of programs he himself created as Governor of Texas. Bush didn't just get a "few R's" to support him in Congress -- he had the entire leadership solidly behind him and making threats to virtually every Republican on the hill into supporting his progressive domestic agenda. In fact, that ****-ant corrupt sleaze ball, DeLay threatened half a dozen conservative members of Congress into supporting the bill or losing the financial support of the HRCC and even threatening them with primary opponents.

Let me say all this again so that hopefully you guys will get the message loud and clear: BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA WAS A DONE DEAL/OVER AND DONE WITH BY THE TIME THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS!.

I'll hang up now.

And YOU are wrong again!
I have repeatedly mentioned no big love for the dumb things that Booosh did here!
It just gets rather old - your LW explaining away Obama and the Dems destructiveness. Put the housing bubble blame on all of them....not just Boosh.
:rolleyes:

bigfatjerk
8/18/2011, 11:50 AM
Bush had 8 years to stop it. And even though there were some attempts, he and the republicans didn't really come close. The real problem with the housing bubble is the same thing that's wrong with our medicare right now. Trying to fix a problem that doesn't/didn't really exist.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/18/2011, 12:17 PM
Bush had 8 years to stop it. And even though there were some attempts, he and the republicans didn't really come close. The real problem with the housing bubble is the same thing that's wrong with our medicare right now. Trying to fix a problem that doesn't/didn't really exist.It's about buying votes, and government power. Making people dependent on the govt.

FaninAma
8/18/2011, 01:24 PM
see below.

So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

SoonerProphet
8/18/2011, 02:31 PM
So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

Spot on.

In addition, we still have the most powerful military on the globe, I think it is safe to say we can protect the Straits of Malacca if the need arose. To dismiss out of hand the need to address one of the big three revenue bleeders is nonsense.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/washingtons-foreign-policy-hypochondria-5652


Social Security and Medicare threaten to swamp what remains of America’s fiscal health. But the foreign-policy component is not trivial. A country that spends some $700 billion a year on the military—nearly as much as the rest of the world combined—has room (and need) to reduce those outlays as well.

To do so, however, requires abandoning the mindset that any significant change in the foreign-policy status quo would signal isolationism and lead in short order to global chaos. Unless one assumes that there are no other capable powers in the world whose interests overlap with those of the United States—or, alternatively, that those nations would be catatonic and not seek to maintain stability in their own regions despite an obvious security interest in doing so—the thesis of global chaos absent perpetual U.S. hegemony is utter nonsense. America’s allies and clients free ride on Washington’s security exertions because it is convenient for them to do so, not because they have no alternative. The member states of the European Union, for example, are certainly capable of handling any likely security problems that might emerge in their neighborhood. It is preposterous to assert that the EU, an entity that has both a larger population and a larger economy than the United States, cannot deal with new troubles in the Balkans—the most likely arena for instability.

StoopTroup
8/18/2011, 02:58 PM
We just need a POTUS man enough to use those damn Nukes we got. Then once we are out of Plutonium and Uranium nobody will need Nukes and we can get back to tossing grenades into bunkers and building Solar Panel Tanks. :D

Midtowner
8/18/2011, 03:01 PM
http://www.endofworld.net/

pphilfran
8/18/2011, 03:01 PM
So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

Great post!

soonercruiser
8/18/2011, 03:31 PM
So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

Good post! +1
But, no one worth their salt thinks that there is "glory" in wars.
But, just the same, they will always be there.

bigfatjerk
8/18/2011, 03:33 PM
So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

This post hits the nail on the hammer. I don't know how anyone can say it better.

OU_Sooners75
8/18/2011, 03:37 PM
Israel cannot defeat Iran because they cannot occupy them.


Israel would beat the ever living **** out of that wannabe army from Iran!

There is a reason Iran doesnt do more than just talk!

OU_Sooners75
8/18/2011, 03:41 PM
Someone has to be.


Thsi world functioned just fine for thousands of years with countries controlling and dictating their own rules.

Sure, those that tried to be the bullies have usually suffered a devastating end, but it balanced out.

No matter what religious beliefs people have, humanity will do the right thing at the end of the day.

It isnt called rules, it called survival and self preservation.

OU_Sooners75
8/18/2011, 03:45 PM
Ok, so I see the drift of the last 10 or so posts.
How about thinking about this?

All the great blessings and wealth that GOD has given this great nation - was it given to the United States of America to just sit on, and put in our own pockets?

Who is to decide?
Who is the "Good Samartin"?


Yeah, Thank you all that have a strong faith. But stop trying to make it out as God this, God that, and wake up to reality and understand that God has nothing to do with this! This is a Human problem!

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2011, 03:54 PM
So Homey, how far do you propose the US goes to make sure we get whatever those in charge of the country feel is vital to our well being?

If Iran does get a nuclear weapon do you support invading the country or just trying to replace their leaders ala the CIA Ajax operation in the 50's that helped install a totalitarian Shah?

How much meddling is justified and what cost to our country in terms of lives lost and fortune spent?

How long do we stay in Afghanistan, Iraq? How long do we maintain military bases in South Korea, Japan and Europe?

These guys need to quit living on the tit of the US taxpayer and pay for their own protection. The world needs to share the burden. We are broke and we can't afford to be the policeman of the world any more.

And as far as Paul being a lunatic I guess he is a lunatic in the same vein as the Founding Fathers who advocated strongly against entanglements in foreign conflicts that have been going on for CENTURIES.

The problem with the neocons is that they are still trying to revive their glory years of the Cold War and the world has changed since then.

http://www.howdoesshe.com/wp-content/uploads/applause-2.jpg

NormanPride
8/18/2011, 04:03 PM
The problem always comes back to corporate money, it seems. There is too much money in war. Just like there is too much money in payments from Medicare.

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2011, 04:05 PM
The problem always comes back to corporate money, it seems. There is too much money in war. Just like there is too much money in payments from Medicare.

Too many conservatives give Big-Business a pass. They ought to be as distrustful of Big Business as they are of big government.

NormanPride
8/18/2011, 04:08 PM
But you're not a true conservative unless you're also a laissez-faire capitalist. :rolleyes:

SicEmBaylor
8/18/2011, 04:16 PM
But you're not a true conservative unless you're also a laissez-faire capitalist. :rolleyes:

Yep, which is why as libertarian as I come across sometimes I'm not truly a libertarian at all. I'm a paleoconservative.

Laissez-faire capitalism is all about destroying the old and replacing it with the new. "Creative destruction" is hazardous to traditional American institutions. Some of those certainly deserve to be destroyed, but there is something to be said for preserving some tradition.

I know I have this unrealistic Norman Rockwell view of America sometimes, but I've always liked the idea of traditional small-town America with locally owned businesses and restaurants.....

Anyway, big business has destroyed a lot of that. It almost depresses me when I have to drive down to Dallas along 69/75 through the northern suburbs. It's cookie-cutter restaurant and business after cookie-cutter restaurant and business for miles and miles. It's so formulaic that it's almost comical. You have your Chilis, Staples, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Outback all within a 1sq mile of each other and then that same formula is repeated ad-infinitum in cities and towns from coast to coast.

It bothers me, but what can you do.....