Lion's Daily Blurb - Tues., Wed., Jan. 20-21

[Lion]

On Tuesday around noon-time (EST) Barrack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the USA, and history was made as the first black President became the leader of America. Hundreds of thousands of folks were in Washington, DC for this gala event. Inauguration Day is very special in that we witness a peaceful transfer of power as one President steps down, and another steps in to lead for the next four years. I listened on TV as now President Barrack Obama gave his inaugural speech. It was very inspiring and eloquently delivered. We as Americans must not dwell on past failures, but look to the future with a positive attitude and know that our country will weather the storms that face us. I say thank you to our outgoing President George Bush for his service to our country, and welcome our new President Barrack Obama. May God bless him, his family, his administration, and America.

[m60uk]

I just hope that he does as good a job as POTUS as he proclaimed he would. He definitely has a big magnifying glass pointed at him, with a lot of eyes (American and just about every other country) looking towards him hoping he won't disappoint, and will somehow, with some miracle fix our economy, and resolve some of the world issues and our standing in the world in 4-8 years. Good luck to him, hope he doesn't get assassinated by some retard racist. Has to be the first president where I am actually concerned for his safety.

[Slapper]

All the best to him and his family, a proud day for minorities. Good for him. Long overdue as well. Well spoken man and seems honest and for real.

But, i wish him luck, he will need it. I dont think he's a savior and i dont think he can fix all the problems he inherited from Shrub...

In fact, i dont really believe much will change. He may pull out of Iraq, but that only means a lot of people in Iraq will be shifted next door...The Military wont get much of a break. He may close Guantanamo, he may mend some fences and a few other minor things, but i cannot see him fixing islamic extremism, greed of corporations, reeling in Wall street or taxing the rich more than slugs like us, nor do i see him conquering the Oil problem.

The rich will continue to rule, he is now in the old boys club..the seat of power, the toughest job on earth. He will be sucked in like the rest of them by the richest people on earth. It depends on what you believe, i believe no American President has REALLY been in charge since 1913, buts thats my take on it, im not alone to be sure....

Remember this little tidbit, no matter what he does, the debt this generation, the next and the next will inherit is nothing short of staggering, its pretty much incomprehensible the numbers we are talking. It isnt his doing nor will owing the Fed even more trillions while he is the sitting President be his fault, its part of the deal...He has no choice, the bankers made sure of that....

So good luck to him. He will need it.

[berlin88]

All the best to him and his family, a proud day for minorities. Good for him. Long overdue as well. Well spoken man and seems honest and for real.
But, i wish him luck, he will need it. I dont think he's a savior and i dont think he can fix all the problems he inherited from Shrub...
In fact, i dont really believe much will change. He may pull out of Iraq, but that only means a lot of people in Iraq will be shifted next door...The Military wont get much of a break. He may close Guantanamo, he may mend some fences and a few other minor things, but i cannot see him fixing islamic extremism, greed of corporations, reeling in Wall street or taxing the rich more than slugs like us, nor do i see him conquering the Oil problem.
The rich will continue to rule, he is now in the old boys club..the seat of power, the toughest job on earth. He will be sucked in like the rest of them by the richest people on earth. It depends on what you believe, i believe no American President has REALLY been in charge since 1913, buts thats my take on it, im not alone to be sure....
Remember this little tidbit, no matter what he does, the debt this generation, the next and the next will inherit is nothing short of staggering, its pretty much incomprehensible the numbers we are talking. It isnt his doing nor will owing the Fed even more trillions while he is the sitting President be his fault, its part of the deal...He has no choice, the bankers made sure of that....
So good luck to him. He will need it.

The rest of the world loves Obama because his political views are similar to theirs. The socialists and welfare state people in Europe love the Dems because they advocate the same things. Bush claimed to be a Conservative, something that wasn't very popular abroad.

America should not be concerned about world popularity. We should be concerned about doing whats best for Americans. If the EU wants to become a welfare state or advocate socialism go right ahead, but America can and must reject the welfare state/ soclialism.

Note: When I say reject the socialist agenda, I mean Congress/ the Federal government must reject it. The individual states can run whatever Welfare programs they like, just so long as Congress doesn't get involved.

How do we get out of debt if COngress wants to pass a 850 billion Stimuls package? The Dems main solution seems to be to spend our way out of this mess, with bad regulation and more government control of the economy/ people's lives.

If we close Guantanamo Bay's prison, where do we put all the detainees? Are we just going to release them? What court will try them? If we put them in a civilian court, it will be next to impossible to get a conviction given the evidence requirements/ rules. Legally they have never been held in an area where America has sovereignty (read the treaty that lets us have Guantanamo Bay), so they technically have no constitutional rights. Thats why they were sent to Cuba, because sending them to the USA or a base in Asia or Europe would give them some constitutional rights.

I did a paper in my Con Law 1 class on what legal rights they had.


Anyways

Obama represents the first time in my life that we have had an actual Liberal/ Socialist in office. Yes I consider Obama and many in his party to be socialists masquerading as Liberals. In my lifetime there have been 7 Presidential elections, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Clinton, Bush Jr., Bush Jr and now Obama. Since Goldwaters landslide defeat in 1964, the Republicans are now 7-4 in Presidential elections. Thats 28 out of the last 40 years we have had Republicans. Though Obama now makes it 28 out of 44.

68- Nixon/ Ford
72- Nixon/ Ford
76- Carter/ Mondale
80- Reagan/ Bush
84- Reagan/ Bush
88- Bush Sr.
92- Clinton/ Gore
96- Clinton/ Gore
00- Bush/ Cheney
04- Bush Cheney
08- Obama/ Biden

Only 2 people on that list can be considered left of center, Carter and Obama.

While I wish Obama well, I stand by my view that America needs a Goldwater Conservative to fix some of our problems.

[Slapper]

If we close Guantanamo Bay's prison, where do we put all the detainees? Are we just going to release them?

i have 2 opinions here.

1. For those that believe these men were responsible for 9/11 {which i do not, patsys is a better term for what i believe} id put them in Marion State Pen, put them all in with the 9th street Crips and the latino gangs. Fitting if you ask me, an eye for an eye....etc etc...We would quickly see how tough this bunch really is. My guess they wouldnt last 5 mins in population...

2. Or...they could put the real money and brains behind 9/11, in jail like they deserve and send this lot of pansys/patsys back to where they came from, countrys of origin and birth, let them deal with em. But we know you cant prosecute the 2 main characters now, they are off into retirement and shame in history along with all the neocons. They got away with it......for now......

The truth will come out, it always does.

I tell ya what, if Barack really means what he says, that he is new and yes, we can, the 1st thing he should do is restore your civil liberties that Shrub took away. And rescind the Media ownership bill. That to me would be actual proof of change and good intentions. He talked in depth in his speech today about what the forefathers wanted and expected , he talked like someone who was ready to give you back your rights that were taken away by the Neo-Cons...we will see exactly where his priorities lie in short order.

Again, i suspect it will be the same old same old, old boys club...A quote i read today from a right wing reporter, he said " Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a white ivy league lawyer all dressed up and flashy, with pizazz and bling, in a black mans skin"....

I tend to think he is probably right, only time will tell, he remains to be judged. Im sure we all agree, the 1st time he ****s up, they will be all over him like flies to ****. It will either all be his fault, or Shubbies.

On that note, sheep will believe any damn thing these days, if CNN or any mainstream news says its true, it must be true, because, they are looking out for your best interests...right?.

{ pstt, the people who run all of those mainstream networks are the ones who made money for 8 years now from the war, but dont tell anyone, there might be a conflict of interest, but they would not use that advantaqge right? nahhhh, never, of course not. The former VP wouldnt do his old buddies at Haliburton any favors...right? nah, hes trustworthy to do the right thing and be truthful and honest...right?shhhh...its supposed to be a secret, dont scare the sheep awake, they might have a coronary if they have to face the truth and facts..we would not want to wake the sleeping sheep...}


While I wish Obama well, I stand by my view that America needs a Goldwater Conservative to fix some of our problems.

Well, i said it once or twice, start early, you can be President someday. Your a smart young man gifted with words and you speak the language well. Dont count it out. You could be that guy 20 years down the road. The path is open to you, start getting into Politics locally. { psst, polish up the typing skills, your spelling errors with typing are numerous. I could critique them and spellcheck for you? we can get your Inauguration speech going now, so that your prepared.. Berlin for President! hehe...}

Id vote for you.

Has to be the first president where I am actually concerned for his safety.

Same here.

[berlin88]

i have 2 opinions here.
1. For those that believe these men were responsible for 9/11 {which i do not, patsys is a better term for what i believe} id put them in Marion State Pen, put them all in with the 9th street Crips and the latino gangs. Fitting if you ask me, an eye for an eye....etc etc...We would quickly see how tough this bunch really is. My guess they wouldnt last 5 mins in population...
2. Or...they could put the real money and brains behind 9/11, in jail like they deserve and send this lot of pansys/patsys back to where they came from, countrys of origin and birth, let them deal with em. But we know you cant prosecute the 2 main characters now, they are off into retirement and shame in history along with all the neocons. They got away with it......for now......
The truth will come out, it always does.
I tell ya what, if Barack really means what he says, that he is new and yes, we can, the 1st thing he should do is restore your civil liberties that Shrub took away. And rescind the Media ownership bill. That to me would be actual proof of change and good intentions. He talked in depth in his speech today about what the forefathers wanted and expected , he talked like someone who was ready to give you back your rights that were taken away by the Neo-Cons...we will see exactly where his priorities lie in short order.
Again, i suspect it will be the same old same old, old boys club...A quote i read today from a right wing reporter, he said " Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a white ivy league lawyer all dressed up and flashy, with pizazz and bling, in a black mans skin"....
I tend to think he is probably right, only time will tell, he remains to be judged. Im sure we all agree, the 1st time he ****s up, they will be all over him like flies to ****. It will either all be his fault, or Shubbies.
On that note, sheep will believe any damn thing these days, if CNN or any mainstream news says its true, it must be true, because, they are looking out for your best interests...right?.
{ pstt, the people who run all of those mainstream networks are the ones who made money for 8 years now from the war, but dont tell anyone, there might be a conflict of interest, but they would not use that advantaqge right? nahhhh, never, of course not. The former VP wouldnt do his old buddies at Haliburton any favors...right? nah, hes trustworthy to do the right thing and be truthful and honest...right?shhhh...its supposed to be a secret, dont scare the sheep awake, they might have a coronary if they have to face the truth and facts..we would not want to wake the sleeping sheep...}
Well, i said it once or twice, start early, you can be President someday. Your a smart young man gifted with words and you speak the language well. Dont count it out. You could be that guy 20 years down the road. The path is open to you, start getting into Politics locally. { psst, polish up the typing skills, your spelling errors with typing are numerous. I could critique them and spellcheck for you? we can get your Inauguration speech going now, so that your prepared.. Berlin for President! hehe...}
Id vote for you.
Same here.

Slapper, Pelosi may go after some of the Bush officials, but will ignore the major figures.

Obama is not going to restore any civil liberties without the approval of his party. If the Dems start talking about all the civil liberties Bush took away, that opens them up to attacks by people claiming the Dems are just as guilty.

Federal Socialism/ Welfare= loss of freedom and liberty

Obama voted for wire tapping, is he just going to flip flop on the issue and vote against it?

Most voters are sheep slapper. Either left wing sheep or right wing sheep. They have been brainwashed into supporting whatever their party says and bashing whatever the other party says.

If you claim to be a Conservative Republican, they automatically associate you with the old Southern Dems who were also Conservative. They just assume the two are one and the same.

Ask a bunch of young voters to define "Liberal" or "Conservative" and you will get some interesting answers. Half of them will just repeat whatever the party leaders say, and the rest will have no clue.

Ask them to justify Welfare/ social programs and they will come up with 100 answers to justify supporting it, all wrong answers.

This was common place when I was in college, you couldn't have a real debate with anyone. All you had to do was mention the GOP or that you were a Republican, and your argument lost instant credibility. Just like all the students who supported socialism/ welfare made no sense to me.


I am a semi blind sheep like the rest. I examined a few of Goldwater's books/ speeches and it made sense. Now I support Goldwater Conservatism. Some of the stuff Bill O'Reilly advocates also made sense to me and I support some of it. For the left wingers, it could very well be that socialism seems logical to them or makes perfect sense, hence why they support it.

If poor spelling/ grammar or lack of editing is my biggest flaw, then I think I would do just fine. A speech writer/ press secretary can fix that :)



However, here would be my biggest obstacles to running for office.


1. St. Paul is 2/3 Democrat, we haven’t elected a Republican to the U.S. House of Representatives since the late 1940’s. Could get worse in 2010 depending on the US Census data if we lose a seat in Congress.

Tell them you are against Federal Funding for schools and they will kick you out the door.

2. Even trying for a spot in the state legislature would not be easy, but it is possible. You won’t win unless you try. So either it would have to be the U.S. Senate or an at large bid for state legislature. Or better yet, move to a county where I have a more realistic chance of winning.

3. Money/ GOP support would questionable. The party likes to run moderate/ liberal members for office in Minnesota to increase their chances of winning. Governor Pawlenty isn’t very Conservative and he barely won reelection in 2006.

4. Minnesota has a strong Libertarian base/ party, accounting for like 10%+ of the voters, so I would be competing with them for voters. Goldwater Conservatism is similar in many aspects to Libertarianism, though not identical. Maybe I could steal some of their votes?

5. Campaigning. Run for office and you are likely to be smeared and bashed by the other party, especially the far left. The other side will say anything and everything if it helps tear you down, even it means spouting lies or half truths. Voters/ the public will not forget what is said, even if it is untrue, so you have to be prepared to live with it.

6. Lack of credibility/ experience. I have not worked in politics before and don’t have any credibility, so it would be pretty easy for people to question my viability. Just repeating Goldwater’s ideas is not very convincing to some voters. They are going to ask how Goldwater Conservatism would deal with poverty or health care and how it is applicable at the state level.

[Korona]

It is weird how the elites have subverted the idea of socialism in the minds of many Americans. Kids not working in the factories, a maximum working week, a minimum wage, paid holiday. Every step has been resisted by reactionaries as damaging to our economy but despite all this social progress the economic growth of the west has been staggering. There is no reason why our economic growth should not also produce social reforms. What is the use of being so rich if we don't get to enjoy health and security from it?

An informative and fun video about the world's economic growth and development:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

I am really hoping Obama can drag the US up to the top of the health and social welfare tables where it (as the world's richest country) really belongs. There is no reason why that can't happen. If you watch the video you can see that the US is skewed towards a poor social ranking. I can't help that this trend is psycological rather than based in solid reasoning. I think a socialist is just what you need :lol:

[Slapper]

The in and outs and politics of Government Health Care and whether its good or bad are clear cut to people like me. Canadians.

It works, we get 1 level of Healthcare for ALL, not different levels for level of richness. We pay taxes, we dont have to worry about it. It works and has since day 1. I dont see the objections to it and dont understand them. Someone please someday explain why Government paid healthcare through your taxes is bad. We have 0 deficit in this country as of today, this will change as of next week from the looks of it, but we will only be in debt a few billion as a country. Thats pocket change compared to the U.S. debt.

Berlin, you got to start somewhere, all those others did, they didnt necesarily start at 24 years old either. The only thing you need to do is what all the other Politicians do, learn to lie and BS and play the tune, sing along, stay in step and kiss the right asses. haha, J/K, but not really...your credibility is what you make it. Never say you cant do something. I think we have seen otherwise, even today as an example. Who would have thought that a black man could be President when i was a young guy, even if he is an Ivy Leaguer. We didnt think it possible. He said it himself today, nothing is impossible. Its not a stretch to imagine a young guy from Minnesota who has the tools and the will to succeed standing up there as your new President did today. Dont sell yourself short and id give that advice to any young person, ive said this to my own kids. Your a well informed and thoughtful speaker, ive watched you for years now. Dont sell yourself short, my gut feeling on you says your a budding Politician struggling to get out...As for bashing, well, hell, if you can hold your own on the Den forums in any debate or discussion and back it up factually as i have seen you do many times, then the rest is in the bag. Too easy. The White House needs a Flamerz corner yes?..

Theres no need to repeat others ideas, just rewrap em and serve them up differently, like a good steak on the BBQ. Thats what they do anyways isnt it? Dems? Reps? and the rest?

[Mpdabunny]

:\ I have serious doubts about Obama, but I've always felt it wasn't appropriate to level "personal" complaints about any president while they're still in office (I feel I should at least try to respect any "current" president of my own country). I'll just grin and bear it. It will be interesting to see if all the people who called Bush stupid and made fun of his poor delivery of speeches are still so vocal about every single flub with Obama, though for some reason I doubt they will be.

I guess as of today no more personal attacks from me. :( I have no problem complaining about decisions he may make down the road, but I guess I can't just assume he "will" make them. Hopefully he is more realistic about his decisions and doesn't follow this path of handing out money to all comers Washington seemed to have adopted recently.

As for the rest of the world's opinion of the U.S. it will be right back to where we were before Obama, just as soon as he makes one decision they don't like, and they declare he is just like all of our other presidents. It's not a big deal, people are fickle. I also hope he makes decisions based on what's best for our nation, not some shining ideal the rest of the world may have for the U.S. under Obama. He's our leader, not some patsy that will follow what those outside this nation really "want". Just as any other nation would do what's best for them, not their world image. Though is seems we in the U.S. are always the demonized for such actions. Having good relations with other nations is fine, but putting their opinions above the well-being of your own nation is asinine.

[nilloC]

Obama's innaugural speech is likely the nearest speech to my personal ideals that I'll ever hear another President mutter in my lifetime.

This depresses me.

I'm uncertain about Obama, but I have no negativity yet. Not until he and his administration begins openly lying about world issues and what America is doing will I think negatively about the next 4 years.

EDIT: Also, Mpda, by Obama's flubs, do you mean how the Chief Justice worded the Oath incorrectly, thus confusing Obama? :p

[Mpdabunny]

By flubs I mean every little mistake "he" himself may make. We all know Bush would often stumble on his words during his speeches, and seemingly professional people would be on the news later that day calling him "stupid". I'm fine with insulting a president's political choices and actions, but I WILL NOT level personal insults against a sitting president. He's my president as much as any other person living in this nation, and I feel I at least own him that respect as "my president".

[nilloC]

So it's okay if I start leveling personal insults against Dubbya now, then? :p

I've been good about Bush; to be honest I've never been on the whole "make fun of him for his 'stupidity' " thing some people get on. And I don't much wish to make fun of him now either, as I'd rather look to see what this administration will do.

I feel that Presidents are products of their administration. Take that how you wish.

[Mpdabunny]

If you want to sure, you can have a field day making fun of Bush now, I wont say a word. However, I will say I do not think he was a bad person. Good people can make bad decisions, unfortunately.

As for the comment about the "Administration" my respect isn't about where the decisions are made, or who truly holds the power. It is more about the symbolism of the position he holds in our country.

I wasn't raised to be very patriotic, but somehow I turned out to be that way, sometimes to a fault.

[WILL!!]

Why are you Americans so against socialism?

Over here in Australia we have what i suppose you would call a socialist democracy (not a good description), we have public health care, welfare system (doll, i strongly disagree with this) and job protection. Australia has the best of both worlds and no liberties removed (unless you do something dumb).


Good luck to Obama, I think he will make a fine president although pulling completely out of Iraq atm is not a good idea due to Americas dependence on war to fuel it's economy.

[nilloC]

Why are you Americans so against socialism?

A little thing called the Cold War, and the hypersensitivity associated with that.

I consider myself to be a socialist. An American socialist, at that. However I model myself after Eugene V. Debs. Not Barry Goldwater. :p Everyone would do good to read and heed Deb's most popular quote. But since I'm sure most people won't bother looking it up, here goes.

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

He gave this speech at his hearing, where Woodrow Wilson's "Espionage Act of 1917" found him guilty of "inciting anarchy" due to his humanitarian speeches. This act will come to be known as a form of repression, in violation of our dear First Amendment right. This man was a class act; persons of any background should be acquainted with him; for he puts the prosperity of all humans ahead of political agenda.

[Derek]

I'm not sure how you get Barry Goldwater = American socialist, but whatever.

Anyways, the Democratic party is socialist, so don't worry, they're well represented. Its just that if they openly announced themselves as a socialist party they would instantly lose half their votes. But it looks like a duck and it talks like a duck, there is no difference between the Democrats and foreign socialists (other than being slightly more moderate, but only in order to get votes).

As to why I oppose socialism? Because its a bad system of economics. Free markets with very moderate regulations work very well (this economic crisis was caused by anything but free markets). And yes, all forms of socialism inhibit freedom to some extent (bear in mind, all forms of taxes, among other things, also inhibit freedom to some extent, its just a matter of degree).

[nilloC]

I'm not sure how you get Barry Goldwater = American socialist, but whatever.

I was being facetious.

I had a friend that went to Carnegie-Melon. He convinced me that they steal peoples' facetious-detectors. :p

Berlin constantly throws out "Goldwater Conservatism", so I figured I'd plug that bit in there.

Anyways, the Democratic party is socialist, so don't worry, they're well represented. Its just that if they openly announced themselves as a socialist party they would instantly lose half their votes. But it looks like a duck and it talks like a duck, there is no difference between the Democrats and foreign socialists (other than being slightly more moderate, but only in order to get votes).

Agree to disagree. The Democratic party is not socialist. Obama is quite left, in that I agree. But the Democrats are not socialist. The socialism that Marx wrote about, and I agree with, is something closely aligned with most humanist thought. The Democrats are a political regime... They do not represent socialism. I would imagine the Socialist Party, USA (http://www.sp-usa.org/) may just be socialist though. The Humanist Party (http://www.newhumanist.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=21) also fits my ideals well. However... The Democratic party is neither particularly socialist or humanistic.

As to why I oppose socialism? Because its a bad system of economics. Free markets with very moderate regulations work very well (this economic crisis was caused by anything but free markets). And yes, all forms of socialism inhibit freedom to some extent (bear in mind, all forms of taxes, among other things, also inhibit freedom to some extent, its just a matter of degree).

Sure, a form of socialism would limit degrees of freedom, but mostly for the upper classes. My argument is what socialism lacks as a form of "acceptable economic policy" (which I think it is very, very acceptable) it makes up for as a form of "acceptable human policy". How can we better our society and world if we do not better the lower working class supporting it?

[Derek]

I was being facetious.

I had a friend that went to Carnegie-Melon. He convinced me that they steal peoples' facetious-detectors. :p

Berlin constantly throws out "Goldwater Conservatism", so I figured I'd plug that bit in there.
I knew you weren't serious (kind of obvious), but I really wasn't seeing the joke.

Agree to disagree. The Democratic party is not socialist. Obama is quite left, in that I agree. But the Democrats are not socialist. The socialism that Marx wrote about, and I agree with, is something closely aligned with most humanist thought. The Democrats are a political regime... They do not represent socialism. I would imagine the Socialist Party, USA (http://www.sp-usa.org/) may just be socialist though. The Humanist Party (http://www.newhumanist.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=21) also fits my ideals well. However... The Democratic party is neither particularly socialist or humanistic.
Humanism is a philosophy, not a political ideal. I consider myself a humanist, but I do not support welfare governments to any extent.

However, it is far too late to be getting into any serious debates :p

[Ace]

I think the dude shows some promise and its to early to tell what he will do good and less good.
Somehow he seems honest and stuff and judging from what he done in the campaigns i think he will be a good president not running all corporate business.
Imo the talk of a new new deal thing seems like a good plan, it worked back in the days, why not now? :)
@Slapper totally agree with you on the healthcare and welfare, americans hasn't tasted civilization yet so they don't know what they talkin about :D

[starscream007]

While I wish Obama well, I stand by my view that America needs a Goldwater Conservative to fix some of our problems.

During these past eight years anyone that advocates Goldwater's policies was deemed a flaming liberal.

Anyway here is four years of more losses to civil liberties, more economic turmoil and possibly war with Iran (especially with Hillary being SoS). Maybe the Republicans were finally get their heads out of their asses a return to small government and more personal freedom or the Libertarian Party becomes a bigger party either one would be fine.

[Korona]

War with Iran won't happen. Not without something crazy happening first like a big attack on Israel. Afghanistan is a big enough problem. We can't afford to jeopardise that for another war.

[berlin88]

War with Iran won't happen. Not without something crazy happening first like a big attack on Israel. Afghanistan is a big enough problem. We can't afford to jeopardise that for another war.

If Iran keeps building its nuclear power plant or nuclear anything, Israel may attack. America may not attack, but Israel is more than willing to do it. While the U.N. tries to negotiate an end to Irans nuclear programs, Israel will simply bomb the place to ruins.

Nuclear Iran= Israeli offensive
Israeli offensive= retalitation by Iran
Retalian by Iran= Massive regional conflict or crisis


EDIT: To the other posters, Goldwater Conservatism is not a Libertarian ideology or socalist ideology. It may have many similarities to Libertarian philosophy, but there are differences. I would have to examine the Libertarian philosophy to properly define the differences.


My personal views are close to Goldwater Conservatism, hence why I support it. There are a couple differences.

1. I support some level of modest regulation to keep the economy going. History has shown some basic level of regulation is needed.

2. I support true religious liberty, meaning things like 10 commandments monument, school prayer and the like. Basically, an originalist interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The 1st amendment states no laws against religion and true religious liberty was a key part of our history.

True religious liberty is essential for having a free nation. It also means no one denomination is declared the top faction. Read the original purpose of the Establishment Clause. People seem to think we have to be secularist, but we don't.


3. When I state I am against Federal welfare programs, its mostly for economic, moral and political reasons.

A. The government gets its money from the states, so why can't the states pay for it/ operate it?

B. Its not a legit function of government. Unless the constitution is amended to legalize it, I will oppose it. If the constitution doesn't say it, you can't do it. Does Canada's constitution speciaifcally mention welfare programs as a legit function of government? Until America's constituion has an amendment supporting the welfare state, I will oppose it.

C. Giving that kind of power to the government is aksing for trouble.

D. It makes people dependent on the government rather than self sufficient AND it takes away their desire/ motivation to be self relient.

E. When the government wants to do it, people say yes, but if the individual states had to vote on welfare, they would likely vote no.

F. I am not against welfare, I just think it should be done at the state level and only if there are no other viable alternatives.

[Slapper]

Well, our Constitution does not specfically mention Welfare or State paid Healthcare, but you cannot argue with its success in this Country.

Point 1 being that we are not broke and we do not owe a dime of of today to anyone. The cost of Healthcare is soaked up by the Government, most of that coming from our Taxes anyways....

Point 2 being you have 2 or 3 or 4 levels of Healthcare in the U.S. If your rich or super rich, you get the best money can buy and fast. If your not, theres no denying the care you get in a public hospital is less than that of the latter and its not immediate if your not dying. Look at the lineups and wait times in public hospitals, especially in the big citys....

As far as Welfare, that i can tell you is a gesture of the good hearted people most Canadians are Berlin...the have's helping the have nots. If we fought against it, it could go, but most of us understand not everyone is able to live a normal life and not everyone out there is genetically gifted enough to work or hold a job or make it through school. You ask 100 people here what they think of Welfare, i guarantee you no less than 75 per cent support helping the less fortunate. I guess that is a fundamental difference in our Countrys, you must keep in mind our population is dwarfed by the U.S population, there are less mouths to help than your Country. Either that or there are just more smart people willing to work in this Country...who knows...but it works here and we owe noone a thing as of this minute. I dont see the moral objection, it makes more of a moral argument to say you HELP the less fortunate as opposed to not helping them and letting them fend for themselves. What your Country uses for rules about Welfare creates hopelessness and the feeling of being less of a person that the rich or well off. This very idea spawns class difference. Why should a rich ****er get better healthcare and a better life than the poor people? Under whos moral rules does that fall into? all citizens here get the same treatment. Why would you morally argue against helping the poor live healthier or safer? or get surgeries, meds or timely access to top rate healthcare? Im stumped. Explain.

From a moral standpoint, the haves not helping the have nots is morally wrong. I dont even wonder anymore why the U.S reputation is sullied. You have people living in the streets, classes divided, terrible education, expensive healthcare, a falling economy because of the greed and noone gives a **** about each other except when something bad happens. Meanwhile, they spend billions and billions on War and controlling other Governments while all this goes on at home.

There is no viable alternative to dealing with humans that fell out of the genetics tree and cant function on this planet. They need the better off to help them, there is no moral argument for that, it is black and white. Unless you consider assisted suicide or abortion before birth if they are not genetically perfect. Thought id throw that out there. I think you see where im going with this.....

FYI, Welfare is at the Provincial { State } Level, so is the Healthcare......

If your gonna be President someday, i expect a good rebuttal and explanation.... :D

[Mpdabunny]

@Slapper totally agree with you on the healthcare and welfare, americans hasn't tasted civilization yet so they don't know what they talkin about :D

Yeah, sounds like civilization, always looking down on what they deem to be "lesser" ways of life. A civilization is only as "civilized" as their system of beliefs would imply.

Anyway, that's exactly the high and mighty attitude that turns a lot of Americans off of these types of ideas before they even care to find out what they're really about.

I would point out we do have a welfare system and healthcare system for people who need them (granted they do need to be improved upon), but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

[berlin88]

FYI, Welfare is at the Provincial { State } Level, so is the Healthcare......
If your gonna be President someday, i expect a good rebuttal and explanation.... :D

I will start off with that comment. You just said welfare is at the state level, aka provincial level. That is different from the Federal government controlling it. IF Minnesota funded, controlled and operated the welfare/ social programs, I would accept that. Its when Congress (aka Washington D.C.) operates it that I have a problem.

Federal funding= federal control

If they feds give it to you, they can take it away.

Secondly, Canada has always had a strong Federal government. America did not start out that way, we started with a weak central government and strong state governments. The founders had a very good reason for doing this. They knew the government would become corrupt/ inefficient as it grew larger, so why not keep it weak and small?

America is still transitioning from small government to large government. Canada is very slowly doing the opposite, going from large to small. In America Conservatives/ Libertarians defend small government, while in Canada its Liberals who defend small government.

The Federalists stated very clearly that the purpose of government is to promote freedom and liberty. Politics is the art of maximizing freedom while maintaining social order.

HMO's were originally tried in the free market system and failed, but congress stepped in and tried to save them. They forced companies to adopt/ implement HMO's even when they were on the verge of failure. So a system that would have failed was saved by Congress.


Here are some comments on hunger/ ability of the poor to get access to food.

"In the US, the Federal and state governments pay farmers to NOT GROW FOOD or destroy whatever crops they have, in order to artificially inflate prices. That's what they mean when they say "farm subsidies". They also set minimum prices for food...it's actually illegal to sell milk, one of the most universally healthy and useful foods, below a certain price!

This raises food prices above what the poorer fifth in the US can afford, even though they're more prosperous than the poorest fifth in most other countries. Then the government hands out billions of dollars in "free food", via food stamps, WIC, et cetera. This extra money is, itself, a form of food subsidy, raising the dollars available for food, and therefore causing food prices to increase.

In other countries, governments set price controls on food directly, which destroys the supply/demand system, so that they end up with food shortages...having to beg for food aid from the US, even while their own farms simply sit idle, or worse, actually are EXPORTING food to neighboring countries (that lack price controls) while their own people starve."

Ok, back to my ranting.

Free enterprise removed the need for a class struggle, hurting the followers of Carl Marx who wanted the Western world to become socialist. Proletariat had no reason to rise up and revolt under a free market system.

Welfare states were the solution. The collectivists knew that via the welfare state they could impose socialism on the people AND get them to support it. There goal was to make the individual subordinate to the state.

Property can be confiscated via high taxation just as easily as it can through confiscation.

Making the individual dependent on the federal government for his job and his welfare takes away is freedom/ liberty. It leaves the individual at the mercy of the state.

Socialism's success depends on people needing the federal government for their basic needs AND the inability of the free market to provide those needs. Socialism eliminates the competition AND makes use of the governments services mandatory.

The biggest problem with welfare/ socialism that there is NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Under the welfare state, participation is mandatory, not voluntary.

Socialism- through- welfarism poses grave threat to national freedom/ liberty and is almost as expensive as national defense.

The effects of welfarism will become apparent once the people who should be benefiting have become the victims.

Supporter of welfarism use popular appeal like health care for the poor to gain public support and votes. They then try to demonize people who vote against it as being enemies of the needy/ poor.

The government that is able to take care of its people as wards and dependents has gathered unto itself immense economic and political power, and can rule as effectively as any despot.

Welfarism is paid for by confiscating the earnings of x and giving them to y. That’s income redistribution. Will the people who help pay for their fellow citizens health care be rewarded at any point in the future? NO.

Why does he government have to take my money by force? Why not just encourage people to donate money to a hospital or charity that provides services to the poor?

The people who vote yes for welfare mortgage themselves to the government. They give the government new power and authority it does not need. The government then provides health care using YOUR OWN MONEY. The government provides services, but you still pay the bill via taxes and deficit spending.

It gives the government the power to give or withhold the necessities of life, and removes the individuals feeling of responsibility for his own welfare. Instead of worrying about his own life, he lets the government manage it.

Let welfare be promoted by the church, private hospitals, charities and other organizations, where both the giver and receiver understand the true cost/ benefit of welfare. Helping out your fellow human via humanitarian efforts should be encouraged, but the government has no obligation to provide such services. That way you have freedom of choice and you do not lose your freedom to the government. Free Market/ Private organizations like charities can be just as effective as the government if not more so, yet avoid loss of freedom/ governmet corruption.

Every dollar not taxed by the government could be donated to private charities.

IF we must have welfare, then it must be done by the states and not the federal governments and they cannot possibly accumulate the immense power or corruption prone to Washington D.C.

"the spiritual and material sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the state to assume responsibility of one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free"- Barry Goldwater

[Slapper]

Well, that was a good rebuttal, you got your point across.

But all that being said, i think you'd find the majority of Canadians sleep better at night knowing we are taking care of our own people that cannot live a normal life or function like the majority of us. If it means i pay more taxes, so be it, most of the people i know have no problem with it, you'll always find a few who are against it, that goes without saying.

For us it is not a political issue, there is really no debate about changing.. We can put it this way, in fact our Healthcare system here my friend, IS the 3rd rail of Canadian Politics along with our Constitution and freedoms. Touch it and you die....

So if it was so bad, then im sure we have enough intelligent people in this Country to oppose our system and change it. Noone will and they are finished politically if they try, and they ALL know it. Its never really been a center stage topic, as the majority would not support ****ing with any of those 3 things. Its worked for a long long time and will continue. The only reason we are going to be in debt come next week? The auto industry, mining sector and manufacturing are all getting money to stay afloat, otherwise, we run balanced books.

It cannot be so bad.

Hopefully the new President will improve our relations even further, GW Bush was not a fan favorite in this Country, he was overwhelmingly rejected by us as a Warmonger and the reason our boys are fighting in Afghanistan when it was supposed to be a peacekeeping mission, and that is what we are all about. Noone asked the people if we wanted to go and fight, they asked us to peacekeep. Then behind our backs, Shrub talked our Prime Minister into slipping that little detail by us and i am one of the people who was duped and had to go and do a mission we never counted on having to do. Disgraceful if you ask me. The time for secrecy and Warmongering ending is long overdue...Use the olive branch approach and carry a big stick. Shrub has not a clue what that is nor do the neocons. They think beating people into submission with a blunt instrument is going to win them over. The big stick approach stopped the 2 most powerful Countries militarily on the planet ever from anihilating each other for decades. The World is in desperate need of this old approach.

Obama talks a good game, lets see if he got game....

[Thumper]

what i have noticed is since obama won the election, i havent heard the words "terrorists" and "freedom" every 10 seconds in every speech.

[Slapper]

what i have noticed is since obama won the election, i havent heard the words "terrorists" and "freedom" every 10 seconds in every speech.

That is exactly right, and your not the only one to notice. I was looking for exactly that for a clue into what game they are going to play, so far so good....

But, i still have seen 0 about the privacy and freedoms they have taken from you. He talks about the Constitution as if it is the only way to proceed, yet not a word about FISA, not a word about warrantless spying, on your emails, your internet usage, your phones and cell phones. Then theres detention with no rights and the worst one, they being able to enter your home while your not there, search it, do whatever they want, leave, no warrant, nothing, and they can even arrest your neighbor if they tell you the FBi or whoever was there...Those laws were exactly the kind of thing our forefathers fought in WW2 to rid the planet of. And not 1 word, so far....

Your papers please! Your papers are not in order! Come with me please! Like **** they would ever get away with that in this Country. Not even maybe....You can notice straight away that our Government never even considered any laws like this, they made new Terrorist Laws, but unlike the broad context of the Patriot Act, our laws truly reflect punishing ONLY the real guilty Terrorists, not the general population. Our new laws are not even remotely close to Patriot 1 or 2. We never bought the booogie man in the cave is going to get you, we can protect you, just give up your freedoms BS...

Truthfully speaking, id say that our Law Enforcement uses racial profiling quietly under the radar, only those who are Muslim and come from those Countrys who are associated with extremists would have anything to worry about. If your name is Smith and your a white guy born and bred here, they cannot invoke Terrorist Laws against you for any reason. Thats the plain truth of it, but you wont get anyone to admit to it.

And you think he is change? i really dont think so, but we will see.

[berlin88]

That is exactly right, and your not the only one to notice. I was looking for exactly that for a clue into what game they are going to play, so far so good....
But, i still have seen 0 about the privacy and freedoms they have taken from you. He talks about the Constitution as if it is the only way to proceed, yet not a word about FISA, not a word about warrantless spying, on your emails, your internet usage, your phones and cell phones. Then theres detention with no rights and the worst one, they being able to enter your home while your not there, search it, do whatever they want, leave, no warrant, nothing, and they can even arrest your neighbor if they tell you the FBi or whoever was there...
And you think he is change? i really dont think so, but we will see.

Is this at all surprising? Is was FDR and the Dems who made it possible for big government to enter your house without a warrant.

Bush wasn't the first President to rewrite the privacy rules. Police were generally there to protect the citizenry and the property from the feds, but FDR threw that out in the 1930's and made them obsolete, so they changed their tune to "protecting your rights".


Here is some stuff I have left over from my Con Law 1 and Con Law 2 clases, mainly Con Law 2.

Before 1890 no American court had protected inviolate personality or a right to privacy independent of property rights. Courts had not prior to 1890 granted relief expressly for invasion of a right of privacy. Laws of trespass and prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure were interpreted as safeguards of privacy interests against official and unofficial intrusion. Invasions of domestic privacy that fell short of physical trespass were dealt with by the criminal law. Eavesdropping, a common law crime noted by Blackstone,was prosecuted in America on the ground that "no man has a right . . . to pry into your secrecy in your own house."

Thomas Cooley, a leading constitutional authority, linked the fourth amendment to the common law principle that "a man's house is his castle," a guarantee of the citizen's "immunity in his home against the prying eyes of the government”


Boyd v. United States, is one of the first Supreme Court decisions to interpret the fourth amendment,43 expressed a similar view of the purpose of this constitutional safeguard.44 Relying on the English precedent of Entick v. Carrington,45 the Court recognized an "indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property"46 against "all in-vasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."


Nineteenth century jurisprudence also recognized a privacy component in the fifth amendment safeguard against self-in-crimination.86 Until the close of the century, "incrimination" was read broadly to include "infamy and disgrace" in addition to liability to criminal prosecution.87 One purpose of the amendment, it was argued, was to avoid "compel[ling] a man who has fought his way from obscurity to dignity and honor to reveal crimes of which he had repented and of which the world was ignorant”
Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

In GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), the Court struck down a state law forbidding married adults to use contraceptives, because it violated their right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Although a majority of the Court recognized privacy interests that may be inferred from these several constitutional amendments, Justice POTTER STEWART noted in a dissenting opinion that "no such general right of privacy" can be found in the express language of "the Bill of Rights" or "any other part of the Constitution." Originalists argue that courts cannot apply a general right to privacy in a politically neutral manner without protecting all sorts of illegal activities that are conducted in private, such as spousal abuse, price-fixing, and prostitution.


Lastly, Warrants were not needed in the 19th century and Miranda rights did not exist. If the cops busted down your door and found evidence to prove you had done a crime, then off to jail you went. If they didn't find anything, then you could sue them for illegal trespassing. Thats how it was originally. Only the Federal government needed warrants,local authorities did not. Activist judges created new "rights and "liberty" by rewritng the law.


Due Process

"THE FOURTH AMENDMENT today is an embarrassment.
Much of what the Supreme Court has said in the last half-century- that
the amendment generally calls for warrants and probable cause for all
searches and seizures, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence-is
initially plausible but ultimately misguided. As a matter of text, history,
and plain old common sense, these three pillars of modern Fourth Amendment
case law are hard to support; in fact, today's Supreme Court does
not really support them. Except when it does. Warrants are not requiredunless
they are. All searches and seizures must be grounded in probable
cause-but not on Tuesdays. And unla&lly seized evidence must be
excluded whenever five votes say so. Meanwhile, sensible rules that the
amendment clearly does lay down or presuppose-that all searches and
Fourth Amendment First Princzjdes 155
seizures must be reasonable, that warrants (and only warrants) always
require probable cause, and that the officialdom should he held liable for
unreasonable searches and seizures-are ignored by the Justices. Sometimes.
The result is a vast jumble of judicial pronouncements that is not
merely complex and contradictory, but often perverse. Criminals go fkee
while honest citizens are intruded upon in outrageous ways with little or
no real remedy. If there are good reasons for these and countless other
odd results, the Court has not provided them. . . ."

[Slapper]

Too many ****heads try and second guess what the Framers meant or wanted, even to this day.

People have diverse ways of interpreting your Constitution. I can say 100 per cent for sure, here, your home is your castle and the Goverment prying into it never goes over easily or well. They have been ruled against on thousands of occasions by Provincial Judges and even the Supreme Court when they try and become ever more intrusive into our lives...This is a fundamental difference in our Countries. They would not get away with it and they dont even try to ignore our Constitution in courtrooms. It is held up as the final and only solution to legal problems a citizen could have when it comes to Civil Rights and the Constitution, no court ever rules against it. If they do, i have never seen it. Im sure its happened, but not about anything as important as privacy and freedom issues or the taking away or supressing of them. That is a no go area.

This Country always has and always will hold its freedom and privacy as the most important factor in our society and our personal lives. This is a Canadian hallmark. You can still to this day stand on Parliament hill and say whatever you wish at the top of your lungs or even with a bullhorn, and not from 5 blocks away either. As long as its not a threat to anyone, and even with no permit i might add, as a small or large group, with no real hassle at all. Try that in Washington or NYC.....

I wish anyone who trys to tread on our rights a bunch of luck, they will need it.

[Derek]

But all that being said, i think you'd find the majority of Canadians sleep better at night knowing we are taking care of our own people that cannot live a normal life or function like the majority of us.
People would also sleep better at night if they had an armed government agent with them 24/7. But that doesn't make it a good thing.

For us it is not a political issue, there is really no debate about changing.. We can put it this way, in fact our Healthcare system here my friend, IS the 3rd rail of Canadian Politics along with our Constitution and freedoms. Touch it and you die....
Thats because welfare is like a drug to a country: Its easy to start, but nearly impossible to stop. Thats why we can't get rid of the ****ed up Social Security system. The entire thing needs to be thrown in the gutter, it serves no purpose, but to get rid of Social Security means either A) Someone who paid in doesn't get paid out or B) The government has to pay Social Security without receiving Social Security tax for many years. Notice that the start of SS was the exact opposite: Someone was paid out without being paid in. Easy to start, hard to quit. The best solution is just not to start.

Hopefully the new President will improve our relations even further, GW Bush was not a fan favorite in this Country, he was overwhelmingly rejected by us as a Warmonger and the reason our boys are fighting in Afghanistan when it was supposed to be a peacekeeping mission, and that is what we are all about.
I don't give a rat's ass what foreigners think of our Presidents. The President serve us, not them, and we elect him, not them. Bush was hated by most people outside the US, I don't care. Obama is loved by these people. I don't care. I supported Bush then and I supported him until the day he left office (yesterday). I'll wait and see how Obama does, but what others think, and especially others outside the US, is meaningless to me.

Noone asked the people if we wanted to go and fight, they asked us to peacekeep. Then behind our backs, Shrub talked our Prime Minister into slipping that little detail by us and i am one of the people who was duped and had to go and do a mission we never counted on having to do. Disgraceful if you ask me.[/quote]
I'm sorry you got to help someone somewhere, but I still respect that, even if you don't.

The time for secrecy and Warmongering ending is long overdue...Use the olive branch approach and carry a big stick. Shrub has not a clue what that is nor do the neocons. They think beating people into submission with a blunt instrument is going to win them over. The big stick approach stopped the 2 most powerful Countries militarily on the planet ever from anihilating each other for decades. The World is in desperate need of this old approach.
Obama talks a good game, lets see if he got game....
Now this just doesn't make any sense. You say to carry a big stick, but criticize the use of military force? Thats what the big stick is. Its self-contradictory.

[berlin88]

Too many ****heads try and second guess what the Framers meant or wanted, even to this day.
People have diverse ways of interpreting your Constitution. I can say 100 per cent for sure, here, your home is your castle and the Goverment prying into never it goes over easily or well. They have been ruled against on thousands of occasions by Provincial Judges and even the Supreme Court when they try and become ever more intrusive into our lives...This is a fundamental difference in our Countries. They would not get away with it and they dont even try.
This Country always has and always will hold its freedom and privacy as the most important factor in our society and our personal lives. I wish anyone who treads on this ever, a bunch of luck, they will need it.

Yes, but here in America they have convinced people its for a good cause. Rewriting the law or expanding the governent is not debated, just why we are rewriting the law. Like expanding liberties and rights.

Rewriting the law in Canada would not be acceptible and any politician would get voted out, but here in America people just accept it, and many support it.

This is what the Federalist were afraid of, mass populism would trump the legal system and that activist judges would do the opposite of what they were supposed to do, defend and interpret the Constitution.

People didn't debate the legality of Miranda rights in Public, they just debated the morality of reading people their rights. If you don't read a criminal the Miranda rights, the evidence gets thrown out and they can sometimes get away with the crime because of it.

People are not thinking "I hope they read me my rights" when they get caught, they are thinking "oh %$^% I got busted"


Rewriting the law to "supposedly" protect rights and liberties? ok

Rewriting the law for political gain? ok

Expanding government power/ control to help the people? ok


The Progreesives have spent the last 100 years rewriting the law, and the judicial activists they put on the court support it.

[nilloC]

Humanism is a philosophy, not a political ideal. I consider myself a humanist, but I do not support welfare governments to any extent.

So because it is only a "philosophy" it should not be adhered to by politicians? That's a load. Particularly when there is the philosophy and belief of the "American Dream" that several members of or government really believe in, despite that being an incredibly loaded term and idea.

People would also sleep better at night if they had an armed government agent with them 24/7. But that doesn't make it a good thing.

Nirvana fallacy I believe? Maybe "appeal to ridicule"? I forgot. But that's a ridiculous argument; I know you don't agree with welfare or a "welfare state" or whatever label you would like to apply to universal health care, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give you a free pass to make an absolutely horrible "connection" between free health care and a government provided bodyguard.

Also, I don't think I'd sleep nearly better if I had an armed government agent with me.

Thats because welfare is like a drug to a country: Its easy to start, but nearly impossible to stop.

Ugh, I've heard this analogy before and it is wretched. First of all, what kind of drug is welfare? A hard or soft one? Secondly, something similar could be said about "war", or "imperialism", or (oh my god) capitalism. Plug anything in where you have "welfare" and you'll be able to say (ill-informed) that it is like a drug.

I agree that Social Security needs a major revamp. Social Security is a cluster**** right now. But I know you're very intelligent, and thus figure you can come up with something better than a drug analogy.

I don't give a rat's ass what foreigners think of our Presidents. The President serve us, not them, and we elect him, not them. Bush was hated by most people outside the US, I don't care. Obama is loved by these people. I don't care. I supported Bush then and I supported him until the day he left office (yesterday). I'll wait and see how Obama does, but what others think, and especially others outside the US, is meaningless to me.

That's fine you don't care what foreigners think of the US president (seriously, I'm not joking here). However the US is a major world power; what we do sends ripples across the globe that can have minor or major repercussions on countries both small and large. Since our country deals a heavy hand in the welfare of several other countries, I think it is damn fine that they care who our president is.

Of course I come from the mindset that the world is my country, thus find it desirable to know that a majority of the world agrees with my second choice for president. Every US president since the 1950's was not just the president of our country, but a leader in the world. As stated earlier, the choices the US president makes are felt by millions (or billions) of other humans; in this effect I believe they have a damn good reason to be interested in our political leader.



For once (somehow) I actually agree with Slapper on a quite a few of the issues being discussed. I would offer more resistance to Berlin, but I've never taken a Constitutional law class. Only history. A ****load of history. And several poli sci classes. Plus it's 12:30 in the morning, and I know no matter how much I argue I'm not going to change Berlin's opinion, just as he won't change mine. :p

[Slapper]

Huh.

So we get that Derek doesnt give a **** about what the rest of the World thinks? and somehow that makes you better than us? You elected him not us, let him **** you? **** us? **** everybody? Lie? Lie somemore? who cares? Billions of us care.... all the dead in the Middle East care. The people left behind from Shrubs lies and Wars care...The familys of those sent to fight a rich mans War for Oil and resources who havent came back care...i ****ing care, because some of my friends didnt come back from his BS War. And i get to go there again next week and put my life on the line again for what??? Shrub and his made up boogie man? **** Shrub. I picked my profession for honorable reasons, what i am forced to do I have a hard time with sometimes. Know that....I ****ing care more than you could know....Im not sitting in front of a computer as of next week puffing my chest up and acting like i rule the ****ing world and i know America is always right and **** the rest. Im putting my ****ing life on the line for his BS Derek...are you? nope, you arent, ill be ****ed if ill take your insults and self rightousness sitting down. America is not the World Police and we dont all subscribe to what your spoonfed by those crooks...

Therein lies exactly why your Country is ****ed up. You dont look or give a **** about anything outside your bubble called America and America is always right.

And if i have to explain what walk softly and carry a big stick and olive branches mean, then we got a problem, i never took you for that kind of guy, your colors are coming out it seems to me, Mom, Apple Pie and the American Flag, **** everyone else...Oh right, you were a sperm count when Russia and America used those strategys, they didnt nuke each other, did they?

I dont profess my Country is any better than anyone else. what i can say, with proof, is that our political system, our healthcare, our rights, freedoms? they all have worked and continue to work, and we do not owe Trillions to anyone. We owe **** all. So what does that say. It doesnt work?...

We can thank the greed next door for the money we will owe come the next budget, we can thank Shrub and his Corporate friends on Wall Street and their greed for all of this stupidity.. If you dont give a ****, i can assure you most of this Country dont give a **** about GW or his band of crazies either. Electing a ****ing monkey would have gotten all of us more truth and justice than Shrub. That ****er couldnt even tie his ****ing shoes without help.

ofc, some asshole will argue this point and make no sense then insult me. Fair enough, ill act like a self rightous American... " i dont give a **** what they think"

Rant over. you got a problem with me, we can take this to Flamerz ****ing corner, no problem. I can hold my own with a snot nosed, self righteous kid who dont know **** from shinola outside his borders. You strap on those boots and weapons and come and serve with the rest of us, then you will have earned the right to gate your trap off. You can come and see 1st hand what his decisions and lies have cost, the human cost of it and you can also come and explain this i dont give a **** attitude to all the wives and kids who lost their husbands to this BS War on Terror......not precious money cost, real childrens fathers, flesh and blood human beings who are there because they were lied to and used...Who the **** you think you are saying you dont give a ****? God? if he did exist, you aint it..... Until you come and see it yourself, save your BS for people who will shut up and swallow it. 1 thing that gets me ****ing excited is some civvie talking about politics and how his Country is so damn great when he has no blood on him and does not see what those decisions cost in terms of lives lost and pain suffered. You know jack **** kid. Come out and play and see how great Shrubs ideas are..

No ****ing wonder its a mess if theres 300 million Dereks out there.

[nilloC]

hahaha, can I high five you Slapper??

Holy ****, it gets better with edits!

No offense Derek (meaning I agree with Slapper's statements when applied to a massive amount of northern Indianians, not particularly you) but portions of what Slapper said are what I have wanted to say to several (many) people I know, that's why I wish to high five the **** out of him. Unfortunately, me being a United States citizen, I'm not exactly in the position to declare such a statement, as I've never lived outside of the country for more than 3 months.

Nonetheless, high five Slapper!

[Slapper]

sure you can Nilloc.

Really, after i calmed down, its more a sad feeling in me now.

The thought that bright young Americans think the way he does, is sad. If this is a prevalent attitude in America with young people, which i would hope it is not, then there is not much hope anything will change....

After all, a Country is a reflection of people and their ways and opinions, if his attitude is the prevalent one, then good luck America, you wont fix a ****ing thing.

Remember this, every ****ing bully meets his match at some point, America will find that out someday if they continue this path of go it alone, we do what we want, take what we want, and lie to get the rest. You are not the World rulers and someone someday will put that Country in its place if people who think like Derek rule it...History will repeat itself. Rome and many others learned the hard way a blunt object is ****ing useless after a time.

You should give a **** what others think is the bottom line, this planet belongs to all of us, not just America.

[berlin88]

sure you can Nilloc.
Really, after i calmed down, its more a sad feeling in me now.
The thought that bright young Americans think the way he does, is sad. If this is a prevalent attitude in America with young people, which i would hope it is not, then there is not much hope anything will change....
After all, a Country is a reflection of people and their ways and opinions, if his attitude is the prevalent one, then good luck America, you wont fix a ****ing thing.


Slapper, there are a lot of people in the USA with different viewpoints.


Republicans used to be Isolationists, and Ron Paul is currently one of them. He would just ignore the rest of the world and let them fend for themselves. Not only would he not intervene in places like Iraq, but no foreign aid and/or alliances like the UN and NATO.


Here is Goldwater foreign policy (Cold War Anti Communism)

1. Victory. Don't just fight a war against Communism, win the war.

2. Take the offensive. Don't just wait for the enemy to make his move first, strike blows of your own. If possible, roll back communism, and fight on ground and with weapons of your choosing.

3. Achieve and obtain military superiority

4. Make America economically strong- Encourage economic freedom as much as possible.

5. National posture must reflect strength and confidence and purpose as well as good will. Act like a world power.

"We need not be bellicose, but neither should we allow other nations to believe American rights can be violated if impunity."

No nations has ever succeeded in making a foreign country love them, but they can make them show respect.

6. American aid should be given only to friendly anti communist nations. Encourage them to do their part, and don't give them free hand outs. Loans and technical aid primarily. Don't give them stuff they can and should produce themselves. If they can build tanks on their own, then don't give them any unless its to supplement what they build.

7. Declare Communist nations outlaws, an enemy of those who seek freedom and don't recognize their governments. Make it clear to the world we don't consider them legitimate governments.

8. Encourage people to revolt against Communism. Only if it fits into a larger world strategy for defeating Communism.

9. Support those people who do revolt. Goldwater mentioned the South Vietnamese, Free Chinese and South Koreans possible attacking mainland China. Unlikely to have happened, but a possibility.

10. Take offensive operations to liberate the world from Communism. Attack the vulnerabl regimes.

1956 Hungarian Revolution- tell the Soviets that intervention on their part will not be accepted and if they refuse, move a large force into the area. Force the Soviets to chose between intervention and war with the United States, or non intervention and a loss of territory in that area.

Basically, Goldwater would have threatened war against Russia for interfering in the Hungarian Revolution to squash it.

MAD was also a key component.

Goldwater saw 2 options against the soviets

1. The Soviets maintain the offense and we have to decide between surrender, retreat or all out war.

2. We take the offense, and its the Soviets who have to decide between retreat, surrender and all out war.

Both options carried the risk of WW3, so he felt we might as well take the offensive.



Foreign Policy writing by Goldwater

A Foreign Policy for America- 1960 Article in the National Review

Conscience of a Conservative- 1960 (Chapter 10)

Why Not Victory?- 1960's book


EDIT: It aso used to be the case that American Presidents more often than not had military experience. About 20 of Americas 44 Presidents have had some military service. (Counting guard/ militia duty)

Out of the 18 who were Republicans, 14/ 18 had some military service. All the prominent GOP members like Roosevelt, Lincoln, Ford, Nixon, Eisnehower, Reagan, Grant and Even Bush has experience. Its the lesser guys Hoover, Taft, Harding and Coolidge who didn't, though there was no major war for them to have faught in. That used to be a key of the campaign for party nominee, what military service had they had. WW2 + Civil War provided most of the experience, along with WW1 for Ike and Spanish American War for Teddy. Lincoln served in the Illinois miltia and faught in the Blackhawk Wars.

If you look at the 4 Whig presidents (Republican party replaced the Whig party when it died) that would factor 4 more Presidents into the equation, with all 4 having service time.

[Alpha and Omega]

America is not the World Police and we dont all subscribe to what your spoonfed by those crooks...
Therein lies exactly why your Country is ****ed up. You dont look or give a **** about anything outside your bubble called America and America is always right.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, nor am I trying to insert myself into this arguement.
But if we didn't care about anything but us...we wouldn't be in Iraq. If we wanted oil, we would've bought it under the table from Saddam like everyone else (UN Oil for Food scandal). You wouldn't attack someone who's sitting on flammable material for the fun of it.
You can't have it both ways here. Either we think we're the police who have to protect everyone, or we don't care...pick one.

I dont profess my Country is any better than anyone else.

I don't think my country is better than any others...I think my country IS the others. Tired, poor, huddled masses anyone?

We can thank the greed next door for the money we will owe come the next budget, we can thank Shrub and his Corporate friends on Wall Street and their greed for all of this stupidity..

Canada has lots of resources, the US uses lots of resources, and pays better than anyone else. So while yes, you can thank us for the economic decline, we're neighbors...we rise and fall together. If your neighbor needs to borrow a rake or something, you help out, just as our countries cooperate constantly. But if your neighbor murders his family and sets his house on fire as America is doing...you don't owe him anything, let the palaces burn.

Rant over. you got a problem with me, we can take this to Flamerz ****ing corner, no problem. I can hold my own with a snot nosed, self righteous kid who dont know **** from shinola outside his borders. You strap on those boots and weapons and come and serve with the rest of us, then you will have earned the right to gate your trap off.

QFT.

You can come and see 1st hand what his decisions and lies have cost, the human cost of it and you can also come and explain this i dont give a **** attitude to all the wives and kids who lost their husbands to this BS War on Terror......not precious money cost, real childrens fathers, flesh and blood human beings who are there because they were lied to and used...Who the **** you think you are saying you dont give a ****? God? if he did exist, you aint it..... Until you come and see it yourself, save your BS for people who will shut up and swallow it. 1 thing that gets me ****ing excited is some civvie talking about politics and how his Country is so damn great when he has no blood on him and does not see what those decisions cost in terms of lives lost and pain suffered. You know jack **** kid. Come out and play and see how great Shrubs ideas are..

I'll have blood on my hands soon enough...

I wish you didn't have to be there Slapper...not because I think the War on Terror is a lie, or because we're there for oil or some other joke of an excuse, but because poor planning put good men and innocent civillians in jeopardy.

We should have no losses in Iraq, because it should only have taken a tiny handful of men to take back that country and turn it over to the people. I agreed with the removal of Saddam, he was a war criminal. I agreed with the idea of ALLOWING (not SPREADING, but ALLOWING) democracy to take root in the middle east, if they wanted to try.
But this "LET'S RACE TO BAGDHAD!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" plan was a joke and we knew it from the start.
THAT'S what makes me mad, that good ideals can be ruined by bad implementation.

[berlin88]

I'm not disagreeing with you here, nor am I trying to insert myself into this arguement.
But if we didn't care about anything but us...we wouldn't be in Iraq. If we wanted oil, we would've bought it under the table from Saddam like everyone else (UN Oil for Food scandal). You wouldn't attack someone who's sitting on flammable material for the fun of it.
You can't have it both ways here. Either we think we're the police who have to protect everyone, or we don't care...pick one.
I don't think my country is better than any others...I think my country IS the others. Tired, poor, huddled masses anyone?
Canada has lots of resources, the US uses lots of resources, and pays better than anyone else. So while yes, you can thank us for the economic decline, we're neighbors...we rise and fall together. If your neighbor needs to borrow a rake or something, you help out, just as our countries cooperate constantly. But if your neighbor murders his family and sets his house on fire as America is doing...you don't owe him anything, let the palaces burn.
QFT.
I'll have blood on my hands soon enough...
I wish you didn't have to be there Slapper...not because I think the War on Terror is a lie, or because we're there for oil or some other joke of an excuse, but because poor planning put good men and innocent civillians in jeopardy.
We should have no losses in Iraq, because it should only have taken a tiny handful of men to take back that country and turn it over to the people. I agreed with the removal of Saddam, he was a war criminal. I agreed with the idea of ALLOWING (not SPREADING, but ALLOWING) democracy to take root in the middle east, if they wanted to try.
But this "LET'S RACE TO BAGDHAD!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" plan was a joke and we knew it from the start.
THAT'S what makes me mad, that good ideals can be ruined by bad implementation.

What reason did we have for going into Iraq?

Sadam had no weapons that could reach America or a neighbor, and had taken no offensive action. Israel would have attacked if he had operational WMD's.

I agree poltical correctness and bad policies/ startegy were used, but I don't think we had a reason to go.

We encouraged the Kurds to revolt in the Gul fWar, then left them to get squashed by Saddam. We could have done the job the first time when Saddam actually had WMD and was a threat. We kicked him out of Kuwait and then left him alone.

Also, you don't need a mssive invasion to remove Saddam, special forces and air strikes can do the job just fine.

[Alpha and Omega]

Obviously, I supported the removal of Saddam for different reasons than those given by the administration.

I don't care about WMDs, everyone else has 'em anyway.
I don't care about oil.
I don't care about what the UN tells Saddam or anyone else to do.
I could care less about his previous war crimes. If International Courts wanted to bring him in, fine I'll help, but just this once.
I don't care about terrorist ties, the only way America fanned the flames of Islamic extremism before the war was allowing corrupt leaders like Saddam to throw dissenters into plastic shredders.

The idea was to kill the monster we helped create, and allow the people of Iraq to experiment in self-government. In that way, the idea was, we improve our standing among the people.
If terrorism is a result of our moral faults in foreign policy, should we not try to make up for our previous mistakes? We failed to support the Kurds and Shiites before, we should have supported them one time, and helped oust Saddam.

Which, of course, is where we failed, and made it worse. Should have been an almost entirely SOCOM job, same as Afghanistan.

[Slapper]

the only way America fanned the flames of Islamic extremism before the war was allowing corrupt leaders like Saddam to throw dissenters into plastic shredders.

Exactly and he was what kept them from killing each other as well.

As far as Iraq and Saddam, he was no threat to anyone. Just for example, they were saying over and over, the VX and Sarin Gas , Anthrax were a threat?

I tell you what, IF Saddam did have those weapons even after the 1st Gulf War, it would have made 0 difference. Research what the shelf life of all 3 of those substances are. The Sarin he had was made in the 1980's, the materials for 3 of his weapon systems were supplied by none other than: Donald Rumsfeld and Co..... By the time the 2nd war was on, none of those substances were capable of doing any harm, its not ok to drink it, but what was there was certainly not usable as WMD's. The CIA knew this as well, but failed to mention it. It was no mistake im sure.

This was part of my job back in the late 80's and early 90's. I knew what the CIA knew. They didnt feel it important to tell the American public this information in the runup to the War. I wonder who would have stopped them from sharing this info?

[Ace]

maybe the whole iraq thing was just a way to get extremist groups occupied on two fronts counting afghanistan in some weird black way?

[starscream007]

Slapper, there are a lot of people in the USA with different viewpoints.


Republicans used to be Isolationists, and Ron Paul is currently one of them. He would just ignore the rest of the world and let them fend for themselves. Not only would he not intervene in places like Iraq, but no foreign aid and/or alliances like the UN and NATO.

Ron Paul isnt an isolationist, he believes in nonintervention. There is a difference an isolationist cuts themselves from the rest of the world entirely and an non-interventionist believes we should trade, have foreign relations but does not believe we should complex military alliances. Neoconservatives have been trying to redfine isolationism for years and its been working sadly. There is nothing that says we should give tons of tax payer money to subidize other countries. The UN has been nothing but a joke, it would be in the best interest for the US to get out of the UN.