“a terrorist attack”?
I’m not just talking about recent years. And even further than that what about attacks on U.S. Embassies among other institutions? But whatever it doesn’t matter. You think you have some divine knowledge that supersedes anyone else’s. If you think things will be better with immediate pulling out then you sir need to get your facts organized and hold a meeting with the Pentagon and prove to them how right you are.
Well you already stated yourself that attacks on US embassies and such are a result of blowback so obviously for things like that not to happen, the US should NOT be involved in overthrowing other countries governments, starting wars, supporting dictators, and throwing on sanctions. I don’t see how these actions really help us as U.S. citizens.
This isn’t divine knowledge its the idea that US has no right or obligation to use its resources to “help” Iraq. Iraq’s future should be in Iraqi’s hands, even if its bleak.
anyone who thinks Al-Maliki’s administration will do anything short of steal money is delusional…
Ha, same with our administration, but again its not up to us to decide whats best for Iraq and it never was.
I don’t know about the Hillary is capable of running a country part, but I agree with everything else u said. If the black vote was so powerful we would not be in term 2 of the Bush presidency. But then again I’m sure Bush and Co. managed to hoodwink a lot of the older black vote by playing on their strong Christianity and making gay marriage such a strong issue last election. I was shocked to find out how big of an issue that was with some blacks. Mountain out of a mole hill.
If Obama wants to win, he’s gonna need WHITES. The blacks should be automatic, but a lot of black folks like Bill Clinton, and if they don’t really think Obama has a chance they may go with Hillary. Of course, Iowa told us that Obama does have a chance, but did the message get out to the everyday urban voter? who knows.
The good thing about Hillary is that if she wins she WON’T be running the country, it will be Bill Clinton 2.0. If you don’t think she’s talking everything over with Bill you’re kidding yourself.
=
To me, Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of this election. He won’t win any nom, I don’t think I’m breaking any news by telling yall that, but I can see him going third party independent and trying to hang with the big boys for a while like Perot did. Of course Perot had the cashola to do that. Not sure what Paul is bringing in.
Holy shit! I see it all clearly now! Every single problem with Iraq is America’s fault and nothing else whatsoever could have possibly contributed! Saddam Hussein? Pshaw. He was our fault too. All the bad decisions he made that negatively impacted his people were actually somehow made by us, including the mass murders and genocides, and we probably somehow put him in office too. And there’s definitely a 100% certain scientifically proven link between the use of depleted uranium and adverse health effects, and it’s not tenuous or disputed in the scientific community or anything like that.
Not just our involvement, but specifically our actions, which includes leaving people high and dry after we’d committed to giving them assistance.
Not until after tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were exterminated and millions more fled the country. But yeah, other than that stuff, Vietnam was pretty much hunky dory after we left.
Insisting that the only two options are the status quo versus a complete and instant pull-out is a false dichotomy.
I agree that invading Iraq was stupid and unnecessary in the first place, but we’re there now and we have to figure out how to make the best of a shitty situation. Iraq’s problems will not go away if we just leave. It is naive to think they will.
We are dealing with a global economy at this point. There is no escaping it. How we’re doing depends greatly upon how other countries are doing. The gold standard will not automatically prevent the dollar from weakening against somebody else’s currency–it only looks solid because the Fed would up interest rates to keep the dollar in sync with gold. Put simply, upping interest rates is bad for the majority of citizens. You are basically guaranteed an economic recession. In fact, many historians will attest that America’s rigorous adherence to the gold standard in the early 20th century (most notably, after Great Britain gave up its own gold standard) contributed to its inability to stave off the Great Depression. Most countries that were off gold at that point were relatively unscathed.
Fiat money–and again, keep in mind that we’re dealing with an international economy, so this is important–is vastly superior when it comes to dealing with shifting currency values. The burden is split between surplus and deficit countries, rather than loaded solely onto the deficit countries, which (kinda sorta really) fucks them over.
I’d agree with what your saying IF there wasn’t such a thing as election corruption, lobbyist, political dominated media (far right).
How can you ignore the amount of support the United States had given Saddam Hussein? It is borderline ridiculous. He would not have lasted as long without the amount of military support he received from us.
yeah we gave people great assistance such as removing democratically elected leader Mossadegh in Iran and replacing him with a dictator. Or how about the constant money we throw into the corrupt leaders of Saudia Arabia, Egypt’s Hossni Mubarak, or Pakistan’s Musharraf. I think people had enough of our assistance. There’s no reason for us to supply any of those countries with weapons or financial support.
I never said Iraq’s problems will go away if we just leave because their economy/infrastructure is practically destroyed. But to think that WE can figure out how to improve the situation is what’s truly naive. Because all our presence does is continue to make things worse.
Its late so I’ll respond to the fiat currency later because it’ll take more time- but one of the basic issues regarding Ron Paul is that the Federal Reserve Bank itself should not be involved in the market or controlling the supply of money and that congress relying on the Fed for its out of control spending is the cause for the fall of the dollar. And its not a call back to the previous gold standard that he’s for although thats whats repeated.
Edwards has a good chance, say he becomes Obama’s vice president…Obama gets sniped, BAM!! he didnt even have to break a sweat 
.
Seriously though, Edwards did a damn good job in the state of North Carolina.
So i’ve been thinking about the primaries and presidential election stuff quite a bit lately, trying to figure out who i was gonna vote for and what not and i started really thinking about the parties and some of the things about these parties main foundations seemed to be in contrast with each other.
For the republican party the first thing i think of is smaller government, less spending and taxes.
Then the second thing i think of is social conservatism, pro-life, “family values”, ect…
For the democratic party the first thing i think of is big government, socialism, lots of spending and high taxes.
And the second thing is the opposite of social conservatism (whatever thats called), pro-choice in any sort of social situations.
So basically to me it seems like:
Republics: "You can keep your money you just have to live by our rules"
Democrats: “We don’t care how you live just give us your money”
And so they both seem to be about freedom in one area but heavy restrictions in another.
Normally i would just vote for money (republican) but it seems like the last couple years they havent been doing much of the small government spending thing.
So i feel like if i would vote republican right now i would get bad and bad in both of the areas i was talking about before.
But if i vote democrat i would get worst and good.
And so its basically which one would be worst.
As far as candidates go:
Republicans:
-Huckabee i dont like at all.
-McCain seems to just be running on his “i was right about iraq” thing. I dont like him very much.
-Rudy doesnt seem very good, hes talking about that huge tax cut proposial but would keep things going in iraq and doesnt seem to talk much about cutting spending anywhere he just doesnt sound very responsible.
-Ron Paul I like domestically but it seems like if he was president he would go crazy and isolate us from the rest of the world.
-Thompson is a constitutionalist and might be alright but i dont know too much about him beyond that other than hes not getting much support right now and doesnt look like he’ll get the nod.
-Romney was saying alot of the right things for a while and i was just chalking up the attack ads and what not to competitiveness but now that he lost the Iowa and NH and he’s getting desperate he goes into Michigan and starts promising things like federal aid to help them rebuild the auto industry there which scares me. I’m all for federal investment in innovation but that didnt seem like what he was talking about.
Democrats:
-Clinton no.
-Obama doesnt seem like he has much substance to him if that makes any sense.
-Edwards seems like a pretty good guy and would try and do good things but it doesnt look like he has the support to make it.
Anyways thanks for reading and letting me get that out. I didnt wanna talk about it with friends or families cause thats a good way to start arguments…but yeah i have some thinking to do.
On paper, these are the distinctions between the two parties, but both of them have gravitated away from their basic platforms in practice. It’s gotten to the point where the names of the parties have become just that–names.
2 puppets, one master…
Don’t care, but I’d put money on Obama winning the whole thing if Edwards does not pick it up.
I don’t see any republicans getting a win over Barrack.
I know both parties try to stay towards the middle of the road to get that independent vote but still every republican talks about cutting taxes and overturning roe v wade while every democrat talks about socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth.
Some other possibilities ive though of as far as the presidential race is concerned was republican president and democratic congress or vice versa.
As we have seen if the same party controls both there will be huge spending no matter which party controls.
I was thinking if it was a democratic president with republican congress not many bills would get through but the ones that would make it through would be automatically signed without a second look.
With a democratic congress and republican president there would be lots of bills going to the white house and not many getting signed but at some point the president has to sign some, especially if he wants his own legislation to make it through the congress.
I think i like the second option better as it maybe forces more cooperation but there would probably be more pork on the bills.
Where as the first one doesnt seem to support cooperation cause the republicans know their legislation will get signed most of the time so it will be hard for the president to do anything at all.
Real republicans belive in what you listed. The Neo Conservatives calling themselves Republicans and running the White House do not.
I’d vote the green pary if they had a chance…lol
Man where you been at?
Vote Sakura '08
I don’t like Hilary Clinton to be honest. She just isn’t strong enough to be president.
^^^cause she’s a woman rite?
People keep saying that but never give real reasons why she isn’t. Don’t let that fake crying on tv fool you. On that note how do you measure being “strong” enough to be president?
And someone asked what is a terrorist. Short answer, someone who inflicts terror on others. But it all depends on your definition or terror. Heres my list of some little talked abuot terrorist
Carl Rove
Dick Cheney
Paul Wolfowitz
Scooter Libby
Donald Rumsfield
George W. Bush
Sean Hannity
Geroge Carlin
Rush Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Joel Osten
The camp leaders in that movie “Jesus Camp”