5 words for anyone who thinks there’s no difference between Romney and Obama. Those 5 words are “Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.” Case closed. Anybody but Obama.
This post was last modified on January 31, 2021
- Bonfire of the Absurdities in News New Format
View Comments (115)
Dontcha love their "heads I win/tails you lose" debate strategy, too? If we're in Iraq, we're in there for the "precious oil." If we're in Afghanistan, with no such resources, then "we have no vital national interest to be there."
Antother thread shot to hell and gone by a twenty something know it all moron. He talks of speaking to a brinck wall, but notice HIS views are engraved in stone. He never even LOOKED at Sidekick's references and explanantions. WHo is talking to a brick wall?
It could have been shot to hell by a crabby, 50 something know it all, so be happy.
Wow! A short walk through this thread yields 9 or 10 triples!
No way to prove or disprove what you claim but I'd be surprised if Iran already had the bomb based on what I've seen and heard up to now.
I'd not heard of the Vela incident but I looked it up and an official reported updated in 2001 made for interesting and inconclusive reading.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html
EDIT: Randome-11, you deleted your post but I will leave my reply.
This is a scary thought, however would Holder'up really get past the confirmation hearings? What could be reveled about the gun running? How about the 'Contempt of Congress' deal going on? Could and would he really be confirmed? Just Questions.
Finial thought on this: Choosing the lesser of two, or more, evils is still choosing evil.
= the same people (Wall Street, the Bankers, Multinational Corporations, Israel, …), =
From his comment at another thread folks. See that? He's wrapped up in the International Zionist Conspiracy/New York City Jew Bankers obsession. Cred = 0
No, actually it goes back to the Engles/Marx Communistic movement of the 1840's and what were the causes, who were all the 'players' and where did they get their financial backing. Prior to that, the Catholic church, the Cathers, the crusades, on and on back thru history.
Oh God no. You forgot the Freemasons, the Mithraists, the Druids, and the Spanish Inquisition.
How about pre Sumer!, time of the Vedas and before?, if you want look up Carl Munck and watch his video's. Here's the first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Te08rDvis&feature=relmfu
Watch them all, they're long and some what technical (Spherical Geometry, Radian based) but, present a different view of the past.
Also go to the following, read it all.
http://electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm
We live in a false reality, an illusion, if you will. The real history and advancements of human beings have been suppressed and replaced with a dogmatic Hegelian Dialectic driven society, to the advantage of a few and the detriment of the majority.
Problem, Reaction, Preordained Solution. Controlled Media to direct the masses.
Look outside the box! Like the following, unpolished as it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVO-FcxDio
The answers are starting to appear, due the research, don't assume to know, without first admitting you (we) know nothing about how reality works.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin - Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.
And finally, for now.
" Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiment, and they wonder off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla.
Edit: 'due the research' to 'do the research'.
I didn't owe it to anyone.
I can vote for Ron Paul if I want to, without it helping Obama at all. I'm in California, and this state will go to Obama anyway, regardless of how I vote. I think it's about time to amend the only part of the Constitution that should be changed, the Electoral College. Unless you live in a "swing" state, your vote doesn't even matter.
I don't have a problem with the electoral college. I DO have a problem with some states' "winner take all" model. I think the electoral votes should be distributed to reflect the popular vote.
The only real problem with the electoral college is that states toggle all their votes to one candidate rather than giving representation for the actual numbers to each candidate. That's just stupid. Otherwise the system would be fine.
That's exactly the problem I have with it. I don't live in a swing state, so my vote for, (or against), a Presidential candidate has no meaning whatsoever.
Unfortunately, that would be true with or without the College.
I agree. And take it a step further and get rid of the two party system. The ballots should consist of ONLY a write in spot.
Getting rid of the two party system is easy, you just need enough people to register another party, libertarian for example.
JUST a write in spot....You really ARE a fluking maroon, you know that, right?
Why not? People right now think they only have 2 choices because that is what is presented to them. It's fine if one of those two is their honest choice they can easily write them in. But having preprinted choices sways lots of people who would otherwise not want to vote for either one.
There is no difference, they're both corporate sellouts who are out to destroy the middle class.
Ron Paul is our only hope.
Glad to see you people finally agreeing with me
I know this will come as a shock to you, but RON PAUL IS NOT RUNNING!! H finally dropped out of the race. Romney has earned enough delgates for the nomination. Period. You need to grow up, realize your choice for candidate is out of the running, and do what you can to get Romney elected if for no other reason than to be sure Obama is on his way back to CHi town. Besides, whatever goo ROn paul has come up with is negated by his lack of foreign policy. WIth the rest of the world all thinking they hate us, we need a strong foreign policy and Paul simply can't deliver. He's made his try twice now. He is a little to out there for most voters, no matter what their afffiliation, even no affiliation. So shut up about Ron Paul already!
Our strong foreign policy is the reason WHY the rest of the world hates us. Paul realizes that. Romney doesn't.
Example. Then I'll tell you why you're wrong.
2 examples:
First being the obvious "war on terror" for the past decade where we have essencially obliviated Iraq in the name of catching one man (and of course securing their precious oil for Cheney and his corporate butt buddies)
Second being the ongoing debate with the Iran conflict which is nothing but Israeli propaganda to get Congress to give them aid for no real benefit to us. Let them fight their own war.
I'm talking to a wall though. You won't listen anyway.
securing their precious oil for Cheney and his corporate butt buddies
You're delusional! We hardly get a significant amount of oil from Iraq, 4.72% of what we import to be precise. We wouldn't miss a drop if we stopped getting oil from Iraq!
Gross imports account for 53 percent of U.S oil consumption, therefore, Iraq oil accounts for about 2.4% of total US oil consumption, hardly a significant amount.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/25opec/sld002.htm
The latest available numbers according to the US Energy Information Administration:
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,324
SAUDI ARABIA 1,465
MEXICO 1,099
VENEZUELA 759
NIGERIA 529
COLOMBIA 510
IRAQ 403
ECUADOR 299
ANGOLA 283
RUSSIA 275
BRAZIL 163
KUWAIT 145
ALGERIA 139
CHAD 74
OMAN 72
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Yeah, that was just one argument he could not back up. MSNBC is usually short of supporting evidence when they propagandize.
Their research department makes a head start class look professional.
I am "listening" but you make no sense. If Iraq was about oil, then why do we pay so much? So that argument holds no water. Iraq is hardly "obliviated". Do you not understand who and what was running that country prior to 2003. You need to go back and review the events that led up to the invasion.
Iran has stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. That alone is reason enough to prevent it from acquiring a bomb. By the way, it is us that is holding them back from striking Iran preemptively.
Problem with you, john, and people like you is that you have no knowledge of history and therefore no concept of the context of today's events as it relates to events and conditions in the past. Read some history. Lastly, who gives a darn if "they" hate us. It isn't important.
Kind of ironic that Saddam was actually our ally against the Soviet Union back in the 80s. Kind of an Orwellian "we have always been at war with eastasia" type of thing, huh?
And Isreal has their own military, they can handle Iran on their own, same with Iran. If we pick sides, we will only make the other side needlessly hate us. It's their war, not ours.
John, did you not read where I told you that it is the US that is restraining Israel? Again, who gives a darn if "they" hate us. That is not important. We must pick sides, it goes with being a superpower. Really, you not agreeing is not important either. It is how the world works. The Ron Paul view is infantile naïveté to the extreme.
Like I said, didn't we learn anything from Vietnam about getting into wars we shouldn't be in?
Our actually BEING in the war in Vietnam wasn't the problem. It was the idiots RUNNING the war that were the problem. American troups went in circles capturing ground, giving it back and recapturing it. We had strategic bombers to bomb a bridge that wat rebuilt alomst before the aircraft landed back on base. I agree we should pick and choose where we get involved. It should be a last resort, and we should go into WIN at all cost. I feel bad for the civilian population, but you know what? In the long run fewer casualties result from shorter wars. I say we bomb them into oblivion and start over. Many would disagree with me, but if we are not willing to do that, we shouldn't be there.
didn’t we learn anything from Vietnam about getting into wars we shouldn’t be in?
Vietnam got dumped in our lap by the French that bailed out when the going got tough (big surprise!). It is nothing like Iraq.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
Sada knew the people involved with the airlift. He was well connected despite when he held various offices. That is not irrelevant as you claim. Clinton has been out of office for 12 years, do you think he is out of touch with politics?
I'll debate this with you because you are missing a
huge point. Sada's claims are well documented. Whether you believe them or not means nothing. Hans Blix record as chief weapons inspector was poor. He didn't look very hard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/27/international/27CND_IRAQ.html
So to draw the conclusion that because the UN could not find WMDs is hardly evidence that they were not there.
WMDs were only a part of the justification for UN Resolution 1441. Rewriting history changes no facts about the full rationale for the invasion.
The fact is that UN inspections did not turn up any WMD's and looking back on the war in retrospect proved that. Meaning that the war was a waste.
BTW, Sada retired from his command in 1986, he had no control over Iraq's dealings for 15 or so years before the Iraq war. And that was back in the day when the middle east was having conflicts with the Soviet Union. Of course they would have a heightened military presence back then. Mean's nothing after that conflict ended.
We were bringing up irrelevant ancient history by using him as insight to Iraq's plans, insight that was vastly outdated.
Georges Sada, in his book, stated that Iraq's WMDs were airlifted to Syria and buried there where they remain. He was the head of of the Iraqi air force under Saddam. Again do some homework. Your little wiki citation is inadequate.
The Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear research facility but nukes are not the end of WMDs are they. You should retread the UN resolutions. Despite your feelings about Iraq, the invasion was legal and justified.
Again, who gives a crap if the rest of the world hates us? Seriously. It makes little difference since nothing will change that. Obama's apology strategy had only emboldened our enemies.
I assume you meant "sada" who was apparently an Iraqi general who sided with the US. Here's a quote from him I found:
""Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981".
In short, Iraq has PLANS for WMDs but never actually made them, which the later invasion proved when we found nothing. Of course if we just listened to the UN inspectors for 5 or so years prior to the war we would have know that without needing to waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on a pointless war.
You're ignoring my posts. Did you google General Sadas? Did you review the events prior to the invasion? Obviously not.
Does anyone even talk about WMDs anymore? Because they seemed to have been the reason for us declaring the war. Everyone is hush about it now because it's definitively true that we didn't find any and Iraq didn't pose any immediate or crucial threat to begin with.
That and it was all about gaining control of the oil, can't hide that.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Iraq was actually our ALLY back in the 80s.
Again, apples and oranges. Vietnam and Iraq are false equivalencies. Who says we shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Are they right? You need to re-examine the events that led up to the invasion. You also need to read General Sadas's book. Google him if you don't know who is.
Proxy wars make strange alliances. As I said, you need to look at context.
We shouldn't be in someone else's war in the first place. We have nothing to gain for it and it only gets unnecessarily escalated if we do.
Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?
Ron Paul is no longer running.
He never was, except in his own mind, and the dreams of the Paulifarians.
john,. Ron Paul will never be president. He never had a shot at being president and he is a nut! I actually like his Austrian economics POV and his Constitution based philosophy of domestic governance but when he talks about being fine with Iran getting the bomb and other foreign policy idiocies, he has lost any rational thinker.
So have you climbed out of the basement or are you still living the life of Ignatius Reilly?
Nope, it is you who is not rational if you believe Iran getting the bomb is among your bigger problems, when China´s thermonuclear and biological arsenals remaines a complete secret.
It isn´t too long before biological weapons can be made much less discriminatory on which peoples they target or not target, genetically speaking...
One has nothing to do with the other. Paul asserted that we have no business interfering with Iran's nuclear program. I disagree. China was not even in the realm of my argument. Another straw man argument from the Branch Paulinians?
You both assume time hasn´t kind of run out for that, Iran already got atomic bombs and soon, if not already have the means to detonate it over the US. http://news.discovery.com/space/iran-satellite-launch-120203.html
They have been working on it since a while, the Shah started his nuclear project in the 50s, later Persia collaborated with South Africa and Israel, resulting in the “Vela incident” back in 79.
In any case, even if he was elected, Ron Paul´s proposed policies simply cannot be applied.
Well I'm voting for him and you should too. Yes we all want Obama out but that doesn't mean we should give the job to just anyone. Heck I'd vote for myself if I was old enough. That's something for the 2020 election I guess.
Ahhhh. I knew it. Another basement dwelling 16 year old that thinks he know everything. Grow up little boy. We have all experienced life that you can't even imagine, and probably don't even know exisits. Thank GOD you can't waste a vote on someone who ISN"T RUNNING!
16 year old? You fail at simple math. I gave you the fact that I will be of the required age to run for president in 2020. That said requirement is 35.
I'll leave it up to you and your first grade education to figure out my age from there.
So you're 27, unemployed, live at home, no prospects, no life, morbidly obese, and you are going to insult others' education? Really? No wonder most rational people despise Ron Paul fanatics. They are deluded moreso than Paul himself is. The guy carves out his little political niche yet he has accomplished nothing of note that I can think of in his political career yet people drool over him as pathetically as the Obama worshippers do. What is with people and their susceptibility to cults of personality?
Some people want to drink the Kool Aid but have others think they know what they are doing.
She's referring to your intellectual age.
You write in Paul and you just cast a vote for Obama. First thing is to get rid of BHO. Period. Romney will be kept in check by the Tea Party. He will be a pleasant surprise, IMO.
Getting rid of Obama for Romney is no improvement, imo. I'll stick with voting for who I want to.
Of course, since you are not old enough to vote, you won't be voiting for ANYONE. Maybe you will have grown up and seen the truth of how politics work by the time you DO have the priviledge of voting!
This year will be my 3rd presidential election that I will have been of voting age for. Three elections have taught me that this so called "priviledge" is just a front and the truth is your vote has no decision on who gets elected. The only reason any of you can give for choosing Romney is that "he's better then Obama". You can't give me one specific policy that Romney said he would implement.
I can give 3 for why I'm voting for Paul:
1.) Audit the Federal Reserve
2.) Restructure both corporate and social entitlements
3.) End overseas wars and spending and prevent foreign governments from influencing congressional decisions.
Go ahead and hide this but I have given more rational insight in this one post then all you gave on this whole forum.
What will the audit accomplish? Seriously? I mean it sounds all cool and authoritative and gives the appearance of getting things done but what will it accomplish? Correct. Nothing. Your second point is being championed by Paul Ryan and your third point is a Paulinian's pipedream that sounds "fabulous" but is a platitude.
I'm way behind again but don't all of his bullet points
1.) Audit the Federal Reserve
2.) Restructure both corporate and social entitlements
3.) End overseas wars and spending and prevent foreign governments from influencing congressional decisions
have to originate from Congress? What, the Dem Senate stops laughing their asses off long enough and says, "oh ok, here you go." or does all this just happen by magic? Or is he hoping for an even bigger CF of executive fiats?
Exactly. EVERYONE running for office promises to do all kinds of shit, but the reality is theat the COngress dooes stuff such as you have listed, not the President (unless you are Barak Obama and have issued an Executive order to bypass COngress.) People running for Sneator and House positions all claim to be ready to take up arms. Except in COngress, an individual can do nothing. Its all a team effort, which is why we can't get anything done now. Sometimes you have to compromise on little stuff to get closer to getting the big stuff done. And freshman Reps and Senators are virtually worthless. Is it right? No, but that is the reality. Get use to it.
Start the process to give the issuing of money back to the federal government rather then with private banks. The law states that only the government can print money, yet we let the banks hijack that.
The law says that illegal aliens have no right to work or attend college here too. How's that working out?
Yeah, boy, that Ron Paul inspired Fed audit will get our monetary policy right where it needs to be.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the central banking system but sadly unless we completely wreck our currency it probably will be here for quite a while longer.
Yeah, right. Good luck with that.
Well, considering that most of us have been voting since before you were born, this is my 9th Presidential Election, I would say we have a bit more experience vetting a candidate than you do. I like certain aspects of Ron Paul's platform, his fiscal policy is quite sound, but his foreign policy is a horror story! What good is having sound fiscal policy if you are going to let someone that wants us dead to have nuclear weapons? We will be on the road to prosperity just as we are annihlated!
On topic though, WHY are you voting for Romney other then to not vote for Obama? I gave you my reasons for voting for Paul.
Sidekick:"the 12th Iman."
The 12th Imam seems to be another idea Muhammad lifted from the Bible. The 12 tribes of Israel. The symbolic 144,000 elect in the Book of Revelation being 12,000 times 12. I'm wondering if a significant number of Muslims will accept the Anti-Christ thinking he is the 12th Imam?
"Do you just work there or are you one of those executives lobbying for stricter regulations to prevent the ease for small businesses to get established. Therefore ensuring a monopoly, while at the same time shipping jobs overseas to further pad your six figure salary?
Your just a pawn working for the man. The ones at the top are the ones who will ensure they stay at the top by any means necessary."
Only someone who has never held a job would say something so incredibly stupid. You have no clue about business or how it really operates. Yeah, I'm an executive and I earn a good living. I also seek out ways to out perform my competition. I do this legally and ethically as do my competitors who are trying to take market share from me. That, john, is the free market system not some bullshit Michael Moore sold you as what capitalism is.
Do you just work there or are you one of those executives lobbying for stricter regulations to prevent the ease for small businesses to get established. Therefore ensuring a monopoly, while at the same time shipping jobs overseas to further pad your six figure salary?
Your just a pawn working for the man. The ones at the top are the ones who will ensure they stay at the top by any means necessary.
Show me where Romney is a corporatist! I work for a very large corporation but I'm certainly no corporatist. Romney, being a private equity guy, is probably more of a free market supporter than just about any other politician. Being in corporate life does not mean you support economic Facism.
Yet you agree that corporatism is the problem at the moment? Which Romney has dangerously suspicious ties to with his corporate history.
Knock yourself out. Paul won't be president, will he? So your ideologically pure motives will go unfulfilled. And no, john, big business did not get into this without a huge assist from big government You need to learn the difference between the free market system and corporatism because you sound really stupid when you try to go down that road.
Exactly Kick! Why the hell would we want the insanity of Paul's foreign policy when we can accomplish the fiscal policy without having to worry about Achmed the insane terrorist that is running Iran lobbing nukes around the middle east and possibly the US? Since we know they can deliver a nuke, they should be a priority, not North Korea that can't figure out how to launch a model rocket!
So if the only difference is where Romney is doing things based on business practices where Paul is doing the same things based on preserving the constitution and civil liberties, I'll go with preserving a constitutional and fair system. Espectially since how big business got us into all this mess in recent years.
Why do you think? Stupid question. Consider this: Ron Paul would eliminate the Department of Energy because it is unconstitutional. Romney would eliminate the same department because it is inefficient and makes no business sense. In the end the result is the same. In other words, Romney will accomplish much of the domestic policy necessary to get the economy going albeit for different philosophical reasons than Paul would but we get to forgo the foreign policy insanity that Paul would also bring. Wishing the world could go along smoothly without US involvement is not a viable strategy. Just look at Syria and sub-Saharan Africa. Does that mean we should involve ourselves in every dispute? No. But it does mean that without the US intervening at times, things go South fast.
North Korea already is proven to have nuclear weapons and they don't use them. And they hate us far more then Iran does. And getting involved in their conflict will only provoke them more.
Study the concept of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad (sp?)believes in the prophesy.
Achmadinijad doesn't care about retaliation, he's nuts, and would launch just to prove a point!
So, we have hundreds of warheads. They wouldn't dare use theirs for fear of retaliation, same reason why North Korea won't use theirs. And the same reason why we could avoid an actual war during the Cold War.
That's even if they actually have such weapons, because if Iraq didn't I doubt Iran does.
Wrong. Iran can deliver a warhead as far as Europe or about 1500 miles. Since Russia and China have been supporting them, that range will undoubtedly increase in the near future.
Neither is Iran. Espectially with all the post Soviet Union disarmorment operations to put such facilities out of commission in that area.
North Korea isn't capable of sending a nuclear warhead outside their borders!
Number 1, N Korea has also proven it cannot deliver a nuclear weapon
Number 2, N Korea is not on record vowing to wipe a US ally off the face of the Earth.
To compare those two countries is ridiculous.
Knock yourself out. There is no arguing with a Branch Paulinian.
Those Paulinians do salivate on cue don't they? (as an aside Mr. Kick, I do have a Q I'd like to ask, because of your background, I listen to your opinions. Not really the right thread, but do you mind? It's about Putin and the Russians)
Ask away Ghost. If you are asking what I think about Putin in general or what I think the Russians are up to, then I can only guess that Putin has dusted off the Soviet era proxy war playbook.
Putin is an old style Cold Warrior. He is doing everything he can to destabilize the Middle East with his tacit support of Iran and Syria. The reason he is doing this is to make things more difficult for Israel and the US.
The Russians know that we are weakened right now. Obama is weak and lost in his foreign policy, our military is over extended and shrunk down, and we are financially strapped. Those three conditions leave the US in a position where it has little or no leverage with Putin. Putin has also managed to build an informal alliance with China. That only increases the pressure on the US. Based on the virtual news black out concerning how Hillary Clinton actually spends her days, I have no idea if she is countering this new Russo-Sino alliance. India would be a good place to start.
Thanks Sidekick here's the short version, without trying to write a book length post (I'd love to grab you in an airport lounge during a lay-over and pick your brain for a couple hours).
You touched on it kinda, I understand Iran from their perspective, but this thing about Syria made me sit back and say huh. It's a long article but here's the quote that made me sit up and start some research on my own
"The roots of Russia’s support for Butcher Assad go deep. This is much more than nostalgia for Russia’s last Middle East ally from Soviet days. This is about getting back in touch with Russia’s pre-communist foreign policy traditions, and about Putin’s relations with one of his most reliable and important bases of support: the Russian Orthodox Church. The Church has historically exerted a strong pull on Russian policies overseas, especially in defense of Christian minorities in the Balkans and Middle East. Throughout the events of the Arab Spring, Russia has been reluctant — to put it kindly — to join the efforts to unseat dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Bashar Assad. Though these tyrants have often been brutal toward many of their citizens, Christian minorities have, by and large, thrived under their rule."
I don't know enough to have an informed opinion on some of the points in the whole article, but that caught me. Look at what's going on in Egypt especially, and across Africa and the Middle East, are the Russians the only ones standing up for Christians now? Making a complicated situation simple, but still.
Here's the article,
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/03/what-russia-doesnt-forget/
Still wrote a novella but part of the problem is my tendency to be a smart-ass when I post here so trying to be serious might get blown off, but I'm honestly curious if anything in that report grabs you.
My fascination{morbid?} with the USSR started when as a kid in the '70's I saw an article in the Dayton Daily (Comrade) News on Soviet nuke targets with a bulls-eye, right over my house it seemed to me (because of Wright-Patterson AFB), the same size as the one over D.C., one of five targets in the country with multiple warheads targeted.
Way too long I know, but if you have time for any thoughts...
Ghost, the Russians have always been expansionists. In the old days it was the need for a 12 month ice-free port and later it was to build a buffer around the borders. Once the communists came to power in 1917 the goal was to spread communism around the world.
Putin is actually a very typical Russian leader. He tolerates no dissent at home and seeks to destabilize the West. Syria is a convenient way to keep the US off balance. If it were really about the Christians, then why the unwavering support of Iran?
A renewed Cold War will not necessarily lead to an arms race but it will likely result in more of what we are now seeing in the Middle East. The proxy conflicts and competition for influence. Given how weak Obama is, this is a good time to be a Russian strong man.
For what's it worth
http://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/19_mhg_putin-reagan.jpg
Thanks for the serious reply, and it makes sense but one thing I don't get,
"I do believe that Putin is anxious to rekindle the Cold War and I believe any rationale for doing so is acceptable to him."
The part I don't get is what's the up-side for them in doing that? They want another pissing match? Again, I have so many questions but wanted to say thanks for answering and I'll stop now.
So, you don't think he's using his support of Christians to hopefully garner sympathy from the Judeo-Christian majority in the US, and keep scrutiny to a minimum? Or is that just a happy side effect for him?
The article is very interesting and the writer is accurate when he describes Tsarist Russia as the protector of Christians in both the Balkans and the old Ottoman Empire.
I think there is truth to the angle that Putin is taking it upon himself to protect the Christians by supporting a secular leader like Assad. Where I think
the writer goes off the rails is that he believes that it is the overarching motive. I don't buy that. I think it is more of a happy accident that two interests align. He gets to poke the US in the eye and claim that he is invoking the traditional role of Russia as a protector of the faith. In other words, I think he gives Putin too much credit in this instance.
The writer is wrong when he describes how Russians are faced with two political choices at home. He mentions Facism on the right and communism on the left. There is nothing (American definition) right
wing about Facism. That troubled me because it causes me to question the entire premise of the article.
I do believe that Putin is anxious to rekindle the Cold War and I believe any rationale for doing so is acceptable to him. Whether he wants to create a return to Tsarist or communist glory is really besides the point because as far as foreign policy goes they both are imperialistic systems.
He is keeping the US off balance and that is the objective.
Of course, all of this is just my opinion.
And the other problem is these things sound great in my head but between there and the screen the keyboard gets in the way. Hope that made sense. Why I jump up and down when you people make so much sense in so few words.
It's a case of a lesser of two evils. Romney was not my first choice. I have issues with his record in Massachusetts. I would like a someone who is from the Austrian school of economics also. But I see the choice between Romney and Obama as having a neighborhood full of petty crooks and a nuclear apocalypse. A neighborhood full of petty crooks is not desirable but can still be fixed. A nuclear apocalypse is not fixable. A second Obama term would be a nuclear apocalypse.
You shouldn't make a decision based on "who's less bad" because you have far more then 2 choices. That's the flaw of the two party system, too many people forget that they can vote for anyone they want.
I know what you're saying, I've voted in every election, big and small, (save one) since 1976. I voted for third parties and write-ins numerous times. I've told people the same rationale as your telling me now. I've read dozens of "think pieces" over the years about different election schemes that proposed to do away with the public's self-imposed two-choice dilemma. But yet, here we still are, nothing much is different. And it won't be. You're not gonna change ingrained patterns on election day, you're not gonna change it in one election cycle. Ron Paul used to run on the Libertarian ticket, now he and his son are Republicans. That's the way it has to be done. Ron Paul got more attention via the GOP primaries than he ever did in the 3rd party. Between the Paul candidacy and the Tea Party, there is more attention to the principles of limited government and sound economics than there has been in my lifetime. These people are moving the GOP. They won't get everything they want, but who does? But the main thing is, if Romney is elected, the Paulists and the Tea Party will have influence on him. If Obama is re-elected, fuhgeddabout it.
This November, for one to live quite well, please remember this axiom;
The essential difference between liberals and Conservatives is that liberals could not exist without Conservatives to defend their freedom and support them economically.
Conservatives, on the other hand, could exist and live quite well without liberals.
I've had that thought over the years, but never stated it quite so well.
I know I am going to to get a gazillion downdings for this but. If our republics future depends on the fate of one Supreme Court Justice appointment, we best be thinking about having our Patrick Henry moment. Quick like.
I don't know what made you think your comment was going to elicit a bunch of down thumbs. The only thing wrong about it was the period after the word 'but' and the errant uppercase 'I' in the word that followed it! We aren't typically all that picky here.
No, TiDavis, our country wasn't set up in such a way that we were supposed to wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on matters as the final authority. They've acted as lawmakers, usurping power. Overturning 50 state abortion laws in 1973 was probably their most egregious power grab. I found some of Newt Gingrich's ideas during the campaign for getting the courts under control, interesting.
SCOTUS was forever changed with the Marshall Court 200 hundred years ago. Marbury v Madison and McCulloch v Maryland set the stage for the perpetual activist courts. The first case gave power to the courts that Article 3 does not grant and the second case clamped down on the 10th Amendment. Liberals revere John Marshall, really that's all anyone needs to know about that era.
Romney probably would appoint decent Supreme Court Justices in a first term while looking towards re-election. I would be concerned in his second term about the attempt to appoint squishy, moderate, liberal Republican Justices in the mold of an O'Connor or even Kennedy. It has long angered me that with Democratic Presidents you know you're going to get liberals, but with Republican Presidents you have to worry about a squishy appointment. I'm not sure how much longer Scalia and Thomas will last. If Obama gets a second term, he might move the Court to the left which will make it hard for conservatives because of how the liberals go whining to the courts when they can't get their way at the ballot box.
Might?