Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Bingo! Rush just said it all...

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Rush just said that he would rather Hillary be President than McCain. He explained his preference by saying to a caller that if we're going to be governed by someone who's going to screw up the country, he wants the Democrats to get credit for it.

This explains why many conservatives (including yours truly) will likely sit out the election if we nominate a liberal for the GOP.

And if Paul doesn't get the nom and Romney does, Romney will have to do a better job of convincing me that he won't add new gun legislation or else I'll sit it out.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

or else I'll sit it out.

Translation 1: Cut off one's nose to spite their face.

Translation 2: If I can't be a ball hawg, I'll take my ball home.

I too would rather have the Dems totally in power to screw things up but the media will cover up their messes. The day a Dem walks into office, it will be the greatest economy in 50 years. The best unemployment rate. Everybody worldwide will love us.

Republicans will be forced back into the ground.
Personally, I think Republicans can work with Mitt.

He'll listen. McCain won't.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Translation: You didn't read what I said. My biggest issue with Romney is his problems with the 2nd Amendment. If he can clear that up we might have something to talk about. It has nothing to do with being spiteful or "hogging the ball."

If anybody's hogging the ball, it's the GOP by pronouncing a media blackout on Ron Paul and by limiting his answers and question time in the debates. It's nothing but voter fraud.

You seem to believe in the inevitability of the media triumphing over everything we hold dear in this country. If it is your belief that their power is that absolute then it will not matter how I vote.

Furthermore, my vote doesn't count anyway, so it shouldn't matter at all. Any 5th grade educated two-bit crack whore who has zero knowledge of government or politics but, thanks to the media, believes that Hillary feels her pain, will cancel out my vote.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I'm not a one issue kind of guy. Romney might not be your guy on the 2nd amendment, but tell me who is on the Democrat side?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

If anybody's hogging the ball, it's the GOP by pronouncing a media blackout on Ron Paul and by limiting his answers and question time in the debates. It's nothing but voter fraud.

Debates tend to give more time to the front runners. If everytime Paul opened his mouth he wouldn't make people shake their heads, he'd get more time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You seem to believe in the inevitability of the media triumphing over everything we hold dear in this country. If it is your belief that their power is that absolute then it will not matter how I vote.

I believe the American populice is stupid. Ignorant. Sheeple. Therefore, the slanted liberal media wins when it comes to public opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Furthermore, my vote doesn't count anyway, so it shouldn't matter at all. Any 5th grade educated two-bit crack whore who has zero knowledge of government or politics but, thanks to the media, believes that Hillary feels her pain, will cancel out my vote.

Find one and bed her. Then in the afterglow, you might have a chance to inform her on the topics and sway her opinion. Worked with my wife.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I'm not a one issue kind of guy. Romney might not be your guy on the 2nd amendment, but tell me who is on the Democrat side?

Bryan, stop skimming my posts. I didn't say the gun issue was my only issue. I said my biggest problem WITH ROMNEY was the gun issue. Please stop knee-jerk responding without reading completely. It's causing you to misunderstand.

And you really are a single issue kind of guy. The only big issue you disagree with Ron Paul on is the war. For that you call him a nutbag and label him dangerous. So you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing, but worse.

Quote:

Debates tend to give more time to the front runners. If everytime Paul opened his mouth he wouldn't make people shake their heads, he'd get more time.

First you say that front runners get more time. This is easily debunked by pointing out that Fred, who got far more time than Paul, is now out of the race, and Rudy, who also received far more time than Paul, has LOST to him in nearly every primary so far and, as you've acknowledged, will probably be out soon.

But then you say that he isn't getting enough time because of his ideas? So you're admitting that he is being silenced because of his message?

First of all, you're trying to cite two opposable reasons, and second, you're saying that some candidates should be censored because of their ideas.

Quote:

I believe the American populice is stupid. Ignorant. Sheeple. Therefore, the slanted liberal media wins when it comes to public opinion.

We agree on this point then. So I can vote freely and it won't matter. Glad you approve of my right to vote for the candidate of my choice.

Quote:

Find one and bed her. Then in the afterglow, you might have a chance to inform her on the topics and sway her opinion. Worked with my wife.

You married a hooker???

Posted by: 04SCTLS

McCain, Romney lob "liberal" smear in Florida push
Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:46pm EST

By Jason Szep and Tim Gaynor

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - In a tight battle in Florida, John McCain and Mitt Romney competed to stick each other with the "liberal" tag, a harsh smear among conservative Republicans whose votes could be decisive in Tuesday's voting for presidential contenders

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...50826120080129

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I'm not misunderstanding. You won't support Mitt because of his supposed stance on the 2nd amendment and therefore if he is the candidate, you'll sit out the election. What's not to understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And you really are a single issue kind of guy. The only big issue you disagree with Ron Paul on is the war. For that you call him a nutbag and label him dangerous. So you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing, but worse.

I disagree with a cornucopia of things with RP, least of which is his foreign policy stance, and with that stance, I stop dead in my tracks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Rudy and McCain got the lions share in the last debate. Where was Huck? He used to be the front-runner and now doesn't get the time. Coincidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

But then you say that he isn't getting enough time because of his ideas? So you're admitting that he is being silenced because of his message?

I have told you repeatedly it is not the message, it is the messenger. The way he comes off. He's surly and angry at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

First of all, you're trying to cite two opposable reasons, and second, you're saying that some candidates should be censored because of their ideas.

No, I am saying the guy censors himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

We agree on this point then. So I can vote freely and it won't matter. Glad you approve of my right to vote for the candidate of my choice.

Vote On.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You married a hooker???

Having been with more than my fair share of women, I figured if I had to settle down with just one, she might as well have the best skills. Sure it's all chicken, but it doesn't hurt to have it served up in many different and delectable ways.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I disagree with a cornucopia of things with RP, least of which is his foreign policy stance, and with that stance, I stop dead in my tracks.

You haven't cited one single thing in any discussion that you disagree with Paul about other than the war. I don't necessarily think we should yank our troops out of Iraq until the job's finished, but the war isn't the highest priority issue for me, either. The economy, freedom, taxes, illegal immigration are all more important to me. I value American issues higher than Iraqi issues.

Posted by: shagdrum

It should be pointed out that the prez has near absolute authority on foriegn matters and policy (sole organ theory), except for specific issues, like approving treaties, declaring war, and funding. Domestically, the Prez is very weak, especially in comparison to the legislature.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

economy, freedom, taxes,

Outside of the War on Terror, American Sovereignty, War on Drugs, Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and Ron Paul himself, I agree with almost everything else he says to some degree.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

It should be pointed out that the prez has near absolute authority on foriegn matters and policy (sole organ theory), except for specific issues, like approving treaties, declaring war, and funding. Domestically, the Prez is very weak, especially in comparison to the legislature.

Absolutely incorrect. The President has MUCH power over regulation, such as direct oversight over agencies (such as the BATFE, which abridges the 2nd Amendment daily) and executive orders that could relieve restrictions that could have a direct impact on oil drilling, for example, and other forms of energy production. Not to mention he has the bully pulpit with which he can push through just about any program he wants if the issue is framed properly. Just look at the war in Iraq.

All of you are pee-ing into the wind with your "The President can't get anything accomplished with an opposition Congress" line. Just look at what Bush has accomplished this year alone - he's getting all the $$$ he wants for the war, he's got a tax rebate pushed through for a stimulus, the Dems have backed down time and time again this year, and Bush is a freaking lame duck for crying out loud. You guys are ignoring the FACTS.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Outside of the War on Terror, American Sovereignty, War on Drugs, Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and Ron Paul himself, I agree with almost everything else he says to some degree.

Interesting. I didn't know you didn't support American Sovereignty. Ron Paul does. He rejects signing the LOST treaty, and he wants out of the UN, something NONE of the other candidates want. And Ron Paul introduced a bill to allow pilots to carry guns on planes - something the Congress and Bush have rejected. So much for supporting the war on terror.

Posted by: TheDude

I have to agree with Fossten, Ron Paul isn't treated fairly in the debates; which in my opinion, is an underhanded tactic. Regardless of how nasty some think he presents himself, or how dangerous his stances may be, he should be allowed to voice his thoughts equally.

If he is that much of a nut, allowing him to speak more of his "nuttiness" would only serve to sink his ship faster, no?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The President has MUCH power over regulation, such as direct oversight over agencies (such as the BATFE, which abridges the 2nd Amendment daily)

Most (if not all those agencies) were unconstitutionally set up by the legislature. Congress cannot delegate, transfer, or give up their legislative power. Organizations Like the EPA are unconstitutional, however the Supreme Court has a history of letting that unconstitutionality stand and never challenging it. The constitution delegates all legislative powers to Congress and the Senate. Those powers cannot be given away. delegata potestas non potest delegari.

Many of those agencies powers are derived from the legislature.

As to the BATFE, it's law enforcement function is constitutional, but the regulation side of it is legislative derived and unconstitutional.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court won't overturn the law creating it, even though it is unconstiutional.

Quote:

and executive orders that could relieve restrictions that could have a direct impact on oil drilling, for example, and other forms of energy production. Not to mention he has the bully pulpit with which he can push through just about any program he wants if the issue is framed properly.

you are right, he does have some power and influence. The Constitution was set up with the President having very limited power and influence domestically (in comparison to the legislature) and much broader authority in foreign affairs. We both know that the dynamic between foeign and domestic powers regarding the prez and congress hardly reflects what the Framers originally intended. Still, the President has less power then the Legislature in domestic matters.

The power of executive orders isn't absolute, it has to be tied to a law passed by Congress or in the Constitution (at least since 1952). See Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952). Executive orders are also subject to judicial review.

Also, as you point out, the prez does have the bully pulpit which he can use to try and puch through any issue he wants. The doesn't guarantee the issue will be pushed through. Just look at Hillarycare in the early 1990's (and that was with a sympathetic congress and media). Reagan and Bush jr. have been experts at using the bully pulpit. Still they have to go through congress to enact their agendas. The bully pulpit's biggest strength is using getting the public on board an agenda and getting them to pressure congress. Congress still has to enact the agenda. In these type instances, congress has direct power, the prez has an indirect way to influence that power.

On domestic policy, congress is in the drivers seat, the prez is trying to give directions.

Quote:

Just look at the war in Iraq.

Foreign policy...

Quote:

All of you are pee-ing into the wind with your "The President can't get anything accomplished with an opposition Congress" line. Just look at what Bush has accomplished this year alone - he's getting all the $$$ he wants for the war, he's got a tax rebate pushed through for a stimulus, the Dems have backed down time and time again this year, and Bush is a freaking lame duck for crying out loud. You guys are ignoring the FACTS.

Yep. Bush and Reagan got their agenda's through an opposition congress. Clinton couldn't get his through a friendly congress. I personally think that had to do with the strength of the message and what the public wanted.
Still, in all those cases the president had to go through congress.

When it comes to Ron Paul, while most conservatives agree with him domestically, they disagree with him on foreign policy. Since the president has very broad authority on foreign policy, but has to go through congress on domestic policy and is thus more limited in power, the one area where they disagree with him is the one area where he will have the most influence.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I never said the President can do away with the BATFE. I am aware that they were created legislatively. However, you may not realize that they are under his authority, so he can dictate their policy and appoint leadership that will be more constitutional in their actions.

You are WAY oversimplifying your Presidential examples. This is not a cookie-cutter, one size fits all formula. What you seem to be saying is that as long as a President goes to war, he can get anything done that he wants, but otherwise he's handcuffed. Ridiculous. I cite for you this latest "stimulus" package and the tax cuts a few years ago. The point is that public opinion is the strongest ally a President has, and who doesn't want their taxes reduced? Using the bully pulpit, FDR got Social Security passed.

And you did not persuasively answer my regulations comment. Economically the president has much power. He has authority over the Treasury and the Justice Dept., and can dictate monetary policy regarding things like currency, which Ron Paul would do to our benefit. Even Alan Greenspan has stated that we should abandon the fiat monetary system we have, in favor of returning to the gold standard. Talk about credibility, Ron Paul would not have to look very far to find support.

He can also affect things like using our troops to protect our borders instead of flinging them around the world willy nilly, which many conservatives would appreciate if they would just stop and think for a minute. We have 700 bases around the world and our borders are open. Logical? NO. How many wars are we in again? 700? Is Bush interested in protecting us or projecting an empire? Look at the evidence. Ron Paul would focus more on protecting us at home by zipping up the borders and reducing unnecessary spending. Diplomacy and trade would still continue.

You know we still have 50,000+ troops in Korea? Why on earth do we need that? South Korea would obliterate NK if NK invaded. So why are we still there? It's a waste, along with hundreds of other bases.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Wow, you have really drank a glassful of the Ron Paul concoction.

Why not put a bullseye on the back of every American travelling abroad. Make it open season. Hell, put up your wall and gate America in. Don't let anybody in or out. Then we will all be safe. Let the rest of the world destroy itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Listen to the way you are talking. Peace comes thru freedom. South Korea has succeedly EXACTLY because we are there.

Eastern Europe is mostly peaceful and democracy is flourishing EXACTLY because we are there.

The Russians are embrassing democracy and benefitting from it EXACTLY because we stood up to communism.

Japan is our allie EXACTLY because we stayed there and helped them rebuild.

You are SO wrong and you have become hopelessly lost in the Ron Paul rhetoric.

One nuclear bomb going off in America and you can kiss trillions of dollars good-bye.

You might think the RP strategy will save you a penny, when in reality, it will cost you a dime.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Wow, you have really drank a glassful of the Ron Paul concoction.

Why not put a bullseye on the back of every American travelling abroad. Make it open season. Hell, put up your wall and gate America in. Don't let anybody in or out. Then we will all be safe. Let the rest of the world destroy itself.

Funny. I never said what you're accusing me of. I'm referring to protecting our borders from illegal immigration. Are you saying you support letting illegals flood through our borders, or are you being obtuse intentionally?

As far as the rest of the world destroying itself, we've already done a good job of that, in Darfur, Ethiopia, Cambodia, etc etc ad infinitum. But we only get in trouble when we start interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

Dubai is a good example of what happens when a country sees the light and follows our example. That city is wealthy beyond imagination, and we didn't have to conquer them for it to happen.

But you know what? Let's say you're right, Bryan. You're right. We should conquer EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY around the world that doesn't embrace democracy. We should conquer them, and force them to hold elections for candidates while we give billions (that we've borrowed from the Chinese) to certain ones that we like. Does that sound better? And then everybody will love us, because they just needed a good old fashioned dose of American military power followed up by forced democracy. What were they thinking? How silly could they be?

And in the meantime, all the money that we are sending overseas in the form of foreign aid will continue to be denied to our OWN citizens in the form of tax relief, so that way we can continue to be in debt up to our ears, mom and dad both working to make ends meet, the state raising our kids, and the dollar collapsing.

Good plan Bryan. Glad to see you thought this through.

Quote:

Listen to the way you are talking. Peace comes thru freedom. South Korea has succeedly EXACTLY because we are there.

South Korea NO LONGER needs us there. You cannot dispute that with any facts whatsoever.

Quote:

Japan is our allie EXACTLY because we stayed there and helped them rebuild.

I never mentioned Japan. How many bases do we have there?

Quote:

Eastern Europe is mostly peaceful and democracy is flourishing EXACTLY because we are there. The Russians are embrassing democracy and benefitting from it EXACTLY because we stood up to communism.

You've just exposed your ignorance. It is common knowledge that Russia has returned to a dictatorship. Nice try.

Quote:

You are SO wrong and you have become hopelessly lost in the Ron Paul rhetoric.

Your argument is NOT persuasive. You've been unable to make your case so far. How's the whole exportation of democracy working for us these days?

Quote:

One nuclear bomb going off in America and you can kiss trillions of dollars good-bye.

You might think the RP strategy will save you a penny, when in reality, it will cost you a dime.

Your fearmongering doesn't work on me Bryan. You cannot successfully tie in a nuclear strike with not projecting an empire around the world. In fact, I posit that refusing to seal our borders from illegals will make a nuclear strike more likely, despite the fact that you apparently favor leaving our borders unprotected.

But while we're at it, let me tell you something - continuing down this domestic economic path WILL result in the collapse of our economy. How will we be able to continue to send billions overseas when we have no money? What will the world think of us when the gravy train dries up? Oh, they love us so much they'll not only forgive our debt, but they'll lend us more, right? Oh, but the Chinese are already propping up many of our financial companies, or didn't you know that?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I fully support building a 50 foot high electric fence to fry anyone trying to cross illegally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

As far as the rest of the world destroying itself, we've already done a good job of that, in Darfur, Ethiopia, Cambodia, etc etc ad infinitum. But we only get in trouble when we start interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

Wait till HillBilly or ObamaBoy get iunto office. We will suck up to the U.N. and have our troopps all over the world, in the exact places you just named. We'll even have a draft implemented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Dubai is a good example of what happens when a country sees the light and follows our example. That city is wealthy beyond imagination, and we didn't have to conquer them for it to happen.

What is with this conquering talk. What do you think happens if somebody decides they watn Dubai for themselves. Who's gonna come to the rescue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

But you know what? Let's say you're right, Bryan. You're right. We should conquer EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY around the world that doesn't embrace democracy. We should conquer them, and force them to hold elections for candidates while we give billions (that we've borrowed from the Chinese) to certain ones that we like. Does that sound better? And then everybody will love us, because they just needed a good old fashioned dose of American military power followed up by forced democracy. What were they thinking? How silly could they be?

And the conquering crap. Talk about silly. Who have we conquered? We help them hold elections, try to have people we want to win actually win even though that does not always happen. Why don't we go in and kill the people we don't like that are elected?
Conquered.... good grief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And in the meantime, all the money that we are sending overseas in the form of foreign aid will continue to be denied to our OWN citizens in the form of tax relief, so that way we can continue to be in debt up to our ears, mom and dad both working to make ends meet, the state raising our kids, and the dollar collapsing.

9/11 cost us billions and billions of dollars. The next attack will cost us trillions and trillions. I look at the big picture. The amount of money we spend on entitlements dwarfs the amount spent on protecting us and our inteests around the globe. You want us to sit back and wait to dragged into WWIII where our loses will be counted in the millions, instead of a few thousand. Sounds like a good plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

South Korea NO LONGER needs us there. You cannot dispute that with any facts whatsoever.

I agree. BUT, BUT, BUT.

We need places and spaces from which to conduct operations around the globe. We need fly over area. We need land bases. Not everyhting fits on a carrier.

Peace comes from projected strength.

I can't believe as a conservative you have changed as far as your foreigh policy opinions.

You want to drag me into arguments of domestic policy on which I agree with Ron Paul. My fit is with his foreign policy.

He is wrong and that is why nobody will listen to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I never mentioned Japan. How many bases do we have there?

Camp Courtney
Camp Foster
Camp Gonsalves
Camp Hanser
Camp Kinser
Camp Schwab
Camp Zama
US Fleet Sasebo
US Fleet Yokosupa
Marine Corps Futenma
Marine Corps Iwakuni
Marine Corps Camp Butler
Naval Air Atsugi
Sagamihari Housing
Torri Station
To name a few.
And what do you think keeps China from taking Taiwan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You've just exposed your ignorance. It is common knowledge that Russia has returned to a dictatorship. Nice try.

I am considering selling products in Russia because of the democratic progress to a free market they have made. People are getting a taste of the good life. Democracy soon follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your argument is NOT persuasive. You've been unable to make your case so far. How's the whole exportation of democracy working for us these days?

Pretty good I'd say. Libya, Iraq, Columbia, Poland, Palestine, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Build the Fence. Protect our interests WorldWide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

But while we're at it, let me tell you something - continuing down this domestic economic path WILL result in the collapse of our economy. How will we be able to continue to send billions overseas when we have no money? What will the world think of us when the gravy train dries up? Oh, they love us so much they'll not only forgive our debt, but they'll lend us more, right? Oh, but the Chinese are already propping up many of our financial companies, or didn't you know that?

Deal with entitlements and we'll have plenty of money.

The military, CIA, FBI are not the place to start.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Wait till HillBilly or ObamaBoy get iunto office. We will suck up to the U.N. and have our troopps all over the world, in the exact places you just named. We'll even have a draft implemented.

Not much difference with McCain or Romney. Those guys love the UN also.

Quote:

What is with this conquering talk. What do you think happens if somebody decides they watn Dubai for themselves. Who's gonna come to the rescue?

There you go again, saying it's our job to police the world. And while we're at it, we can conquer the country that conquered Dubai, and force them to hold elections too.

Quote:

What you just described is known as a coup and nation-building, something Bush campaigned that he would not do.

Quote:

You sound like somebody who's freaking out with alarmism. Please cite your sources for this wild, crazy propaganda Bryan. Kthx.

Quote:

I agree. BUT, BUT, BUT.

We need places and spaces from which to conduct operations around the globe. We need fly over area. We need land bases. Not everyhting fits on a carrier.

You're talking about military operations I presume? Readiness is a good thing, but spreading ourselves too thin and bullying other nations is another thing entirely.

Tell me, how many countries in Southeast Asia are we at war with currently that require us to be launching operations from South Korea? [irritating sound of buzzer goes off]

And please tell me what heavy equipment that doesn't fit on a carrier is needed in South Korea, and why.

Quote:

Peace comes from projected strength.

I think you've bastardized a once famous quote. Peace comes through strength. What you call projected strength I call nation building. And we aren't very strong right now. We couldn't handle another big conflict at this time if, say, China decided to invade Taiwan. We'd have to watch and yell at them.

Quote:

I can't believe as a conservative you have changed as far as your foreigh policy opinions.

I haven't changed as much as you think. I've come to realize that every country that has tried to project empires around the world while imploding economically at home has collapsed. We're next.

I can't believe you're falling for Romney's so-called brand of conservatism. You haven't addressed anything I've said about him so far. Denial maybe?

Quote:

You want to drag me into arguments of domestic policy on which I agree with Ron Paul. My fit is with his foreign policy.

He is wrong and that is why nobody will listen to him.

So now you admit that you are a single issue guy? You're contradicting yourself AGAIN, Bryan. Your most important issue is Iraq and not domestic. That's where we differ. Romney is a big government establishment guy and will NOT advance conservatism. Conservatism is NOT "Project power and hit countries around the world." Conservatism is reduced government and expanded freedom. How can you miss that pertinent fact?

Quote:

And what do you think keeps China from taking Taiwan?

Not us. This is a very good point. We're so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, that if China decided to invade Taiwan, we couldn't stop them. Thanks for making my point for me.

Quote:

I am considering selling products in Russia because of the democratic progress to a free market they have made. People are getting a taste of the good life. Democracy soon follows.

Good for you. My brother has been a missionary over there several times in the last few years and he vouches for my statement, as has Dick Morris.

Quote:

Deal with entitlements and we'll have plenty of money.

The military, CIA, FBI are not the place to start.

"Deal with the entitlements?" Oh, goody, now you're talking my language. Except...which candidate has actually said he'll address this? Um...uh...

Yes, that's right, only Ron Paul has stated he'll "deal with entitlements."

Posted by: daves2000ls

HOLY CRAP! you just said exporting democracy worked in Iraq! If it worked so well, why after almost 5 years of continual warfare are our troops still there dying in foreign sand, for a known lie?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves2000ls

for a known lie?

BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!

omg, My head is gonna explode.

Posted by: 97stscaddy

Quote:

Find one and bed her. Then in the afterglow, you might have a chance to inform her on the topics and sway her opinion.

Boortz was talking about exactly this today. To keep Billary out of office, every single man in the country should become someones sugar daddy for the next year.

Which would work but we could end up with McCain in office. Id vote for Ron before I'd vote McCain. If we're gonna have a liberal president we might as well go all the way and vote for Barry!

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Pretty good I'd say. Libya, Iraq, Columbia, Poland, Palestine, etc, etc, etc.

You have GOT to be kidding. Palestine? Hello? Terrorist group Hamas elected? Civil war? Killing? Is this thing on? [Tap tap]

Libya is NOT a democracy.

Where are you getting your facts?

Iraq? Not so good right now. Still losing over 30 soldiers a month in Iraq. McCain's numbers - 100 years * 12 months per year * 35 a month...um...carry the two...well, that's only 42,000 troops. That's an acceptable loss for somebody else's country that doesn't even want us there. /sarcasm

Note that we did not have to conquer Colombia for it to become a democracy. Same thing with Poland. You prove my point. We export democracy by being a good example, not by using our gunships and tanks.

On the other hand, some countries don't want to be democracies. It is not our job to sacrifice our people and fortunes to force them to consider our form of government.

Posted by: daves2000ls

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!

omg, My head is gonna explode.

Quit purposely missing the point to divert attention to b.s. colors rather than debating why are soldiers should have to remain in Iraq. Why is it that Ron Paul has recieved more money in campaign contributions from active duty officers than any other candidate? They know what he says to be true. Something you must not want from a candidate, honesty.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves2000ls

HOLY CRAP! you just said exporting democracy worked in Iraq! If it worked so well, why after almost 5 years of continual warfare are our troops still there dying in foreign sand, for a known lie?

It is STARTING to work! They've held elections. People their want freedom. The country is becoming safer than half our major cities.

In 2006 alone in the United States: crime stats

17,000 murders.
92,000 forcible rapes.
447,000 robberies.
862,000 aggravated assaults.
2,000,00 burglaries.
6,600,000 larceny thefts.
1,200,000 vehicle thefts.

Look in the mirror friend.

Confucious says: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

How long did it take the United States to get our act together?

How long was our civil war?

I had to pull out the hankerchief for the 'our troops are dying on foreign soil for a known lie' drivel. boohoohoo, sniffle, sniffle. We're at war. Good people die. Bad people die. Innocent people die. It is the way it is.

Save your grief for the next 1,000,000 innocent Americans that get executed by a terrorist here in the U.S.

Posted by: Calabrio

It doesn't matter whether we reverse EVERY foreign policy decision this country has made in the past century. It doesn't matter if every single American troop was off foreign soil. The Islamic-terrorists are looking for parity. Ayman al-Zawahiri is on the record as having said:

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million
Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and
wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to
fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with
the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the
[Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Posted by: MonsterMark

Let's all hold hands and sing 'Give Peace A Chance" and we'll all be safe.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I feel sorry for the hundreds of thousands of Americans that gave their lives during the 1st, 2nd, Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars.

All we got out of those wars was a majority now of ungrateful pansy-ass entitlement loser Americans.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

No good deed goes unpunished

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

No good deed goes unpunished

Real nice comment.

Why don't you be the 1st liberal to stand up and beg the jihadist for forgiveness. I'm sure he will.

Be a man for once in your life. Watch the video. The whole thing.

For every one else, graphic violence.

Sorry I had to do it, but this guy needs a clue.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

In the rules of debate, the person who resorts to calling his opponent names is losing,
I don't like religious extremists of any faith but these guys are blowback for US foreign policy of the last 50 years.
They can't challenge our military might so they use religion to breed human bombers which seem to scare the hell out of you.
The terrorist is the one with the small bomb.

Posted by: buddylee

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And if Paul doesn't get the nom and Romney does, Romney will have to do a better job of convincing me that he won't add new gun legislation or else I'll sit it out.

Ron Paul ??

Just what makes that little old ant
Think hell move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, cant
Move a rubber tree plant

But hes got high hopes, hes got high hopes
Hes got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

...I don't like religious extremists of any faith but these guys are blowback for US foreign policy of the last 50 years.

Did you watch the video?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddylee

Your mocking does not impress me. An actual, reasoned, logical argument might. Haven't heard one yet. "He can't win" or "he's a nutbag" doesn't work. You don't seem to get it. Ron Paul's chance to win is NOT my reason for voting for him. Otherwise, I'd be a lemming like the rest of the party members. I'm voting for the best candidate in my opinion rather than following the party line. Even you Republican diehards admit that McCain is a shoddy candidate. No wonder voting for him makes you queasy.

I voted for Bush twice. He called me a racist for opposing his shamnesty bill that Ted Kennedy wrote. He's compromised the party principles too much already. I'm not going to compromise my principles this time.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes I watched the video.
Made to appall and disgust and instill fear in typically squeemish western audiences.
They know we have a soft stomach for this stuff.
We never do see videos of children and civilians blown apart and dismembered by colateralal damage from errant american bombing.
Only glimpses from suicide bomber explosions.

we've killed and injured a lot more of their people than they have us.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

we've killed and injured a lot more of their people than they have us.

You fail to acknowledge the countless Americans who have died because of our government's policy to SPARE innocent life. To do everything in our power to limit those deaths, at the expense of our own.

You also fail to note that those same people we fight have killed FAR MORE of those innocent people ON PURPOSE than we regretfully might have.

The "blowback" you refer to has little to do with us. The U.S. has far less involvement in the Middle East than people tend to think. We didn't plant flags there. We didn't draw the boundaries. In fact, virtually all the interference people like you tend to note came primarily from the colonist intentions of the Europeans, NOT America. Same goes for Africa. Same goes for Asia.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

The CIA overthrough the elected government of Iran and put the Shah on his puppet throne. He was deposed in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and we were humiliated with the taking of hostages, which started this whole islamic thing rolling.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I voted for Bush twice. He called me a racist for opposing his shamnesty bill that Ted Kennedy wrote. He's compromised the party principles too much already. I'm not going to compromise my principles this time.

I think you speak for every conservative there. Peggy Noonan claims that Bush broke the republican party. I think that is pretty accurate.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

we've killed and injured a lot more of their people than they have us.

That's the sign of an effective military. Kill more of your enemy then the kill of you. The question should be asked, which side has purposly targeted and killed more innocent civilians. America hasn't killed one. How many have they killed?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

The CIA overthrough the elected government of Iran and put the Shah on his puppet throne. He was deposed in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and we were humiliated with the taking of hostages, which started this whole islamic thing rolling.

No. You're simply not accurate.

To say that the CIA was able to over through the government in Iran gives that organization far, far too much credit. The operations in Iran were a cluster f#(k, at best.

You also fail to note that it was BRITAIN that initially sought to influence the government of Iran following Prime Minister Mossadegh's decision to nationalize the oil fields, robbing the British of their investment. If I remember right, Mossadegh was also cozy with the Soviets.

You also don't seem to know that the Shah vastly improved the quality of life in the country, investing heavily and modernizing the infrastructure of Iran. Anything that resembles the 20th century left in Iran to this day is the remnant of the Shah's autocratic control of the country. That's why Iran doesn't look like Afghanistan and has some chance at reformation from the inside. NOTE: We didn't place the Shah, him and his family were in power already. We simply supported him.

Thank Jimmy Carter for dropping the ball on that and allowing that country to turn into the viper nest it is.

America's interest in Iran WAS NOT oil- it was simply to prevent the soft expansion of the Soviets. The Europeans WERE involved for the oil.

But back on point, it didn't get this "Islamic thing rolling," it had started long before that. Frankly, I don't have the time, and you don't have the interest to understand Middle Eastern politics, the distinctions between Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism, ect... but that ball "was rolling" LONG before 1979.

However, after Carter's failed foreign policy looked the other way and then abandoned the Shah, Iran was able to become a breeding ground for that radicalism.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

we've killed and injured a lot more of their people than they have us.

Good! Let's keep it that way.

Let me get this straight.

Did Saddam invade Kuwait or was that a figment of the United States imagination?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Good! Let's keep it that way.

Let me get this straight.

Did Saddam invade Kuwait or was that a figment of the the United States imagination.?

You also might have been imagining Saddam launching missiles on America jets patrolling the no fly zone.

You might also have been imagining that Saddam attempted to assassinate President George HW Bush.

You might also have been imagining that Hussein had been a sponsor of terrorism through the region.

And you must have also been imagining the fact that Hussein had a nuclear and biological weapons program that undeniably existed, though in a suspended state, waiting for the impending lifting of UN sanctions at the behest of France and Germany, and the inevitable fortunes from oil revenues that would be freed to fully fund it.

Not to mention the various genocides Hussein carried out while in power, including the Kurds and the marsh arabs.

Clearly, you have a very vivid imagination.

Posted by: Machspeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

You know, you could have done yourself better by saying that our support for Israel is what got this whole ball rolling. With that, you might, at the very least, have presented yourself in a more credible way.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machspeed

No, that would have been incorrect to.
Historically, the U.S. HAS NOT supported Israel. That's a more recent policy.

It's certainly used as a propaganda tool, just as the Iranian revolution is, but it's a dishonest argument.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

AIPAC has a virtual lock on the US Congress and the state department.
Any politician who criticizes Isreal is systematically targeted and run out of office at election time.
I truly believe that the last plane on 9/11 was targeted to hit congress and not the white house to kill as many Isreal supporters as possible.
To Isreal it's a matter of life and death survival being surrounded by a hundred million people taught from childhood to hate them.
It is something that's easy to understand.
This is all based on envy of course as Jews are overall very smart and successful.
Unfortunately they did not have the strength to run all the arabs out of Palestine in 1948. The other arab countries don't really care about these people who have only called themselves Palestinians since 1961 and would sell them out in a minute if it suited their purposes.
For now they are a convenient excuse for hating Isreal as they could easily be absorbed into the neighboring arab states.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

AIPAC has a virtual lock on the US Congress and the state department.
Any politician who criticizes Isreal is systematically targeted and run out of office at election time.

Absolutely NOT TRUE.

Quote:

I truly believe that the last plane on 9/11 was targeted to hit congress and not the white house to kill as many Isreal supporters as possible.

You're a fool if you think the aggression directed at the U.S. is honestly caused by our allegiance to Israel. And you're a coward if you think we should abandon the only free country in that region.

Quote:

To Isreal it's a matter of life and death survival being surrounded by a hundred million people taught from childhood to hate them.

Israel was able to defend itself remarkably well before the U.S. started giving the aid with strings attached. In fact, Ron Paul is right, they were stronger before we got involved. What's a matter of debate is whether they became weaker because we got involved or simply because they became fatigued after a half century of defensive wars.

Quote:

It is something that's easy to understand.
This is all based on envy of course as Jews are overall very smart and successful.

... do I detect a tinge of antisemitism here? Are they all good with money too?

Quote:

Unfortunately they did not have the strength to run all the arabs out of Palestine in 1948.

THEY HAVE NEVER TRIED TO RUN THE PALESTINIANS (or whatever they want to call themself) OFF. There is a significant number of Palestinians, and other Middle Eastern minorities, living as citizens of Isreal, happily and successfully.

Israel has been more than powerful enough to dominate the region, but that has NEVER been their goal. If you honestly had even a tiny understanding of the history of the region, you would know this. After being attacked countless times, they responded defensively and seized a defensive border.... then gave the rest of the territory back.

Hell, the Israelis could have marched on Cairo if they really wanted to.

Quote:

The other arab countries don't really care about these people who have only called themselves Palestinians since 1961 and would sell them out in a minute if it suited their purposes.

Not only WOULD they, they HAVE.
Those Arab countries have all seized the land designated to the Palestinians, then abandoned them.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Absolutely NOT TRUE.

You're a fool if you think the aggression directed at the U.S. is honestly caused by our allegiance to Israel. And you're a coward if you think we should abandon the only free country in that region.

Israel was able to defend itself remarkably well before the U.S. started giving the aid with strings attached. In fact, Ron Paul is right, they were stronger before we got involved. What's a matter of debate is whether they became weaker because we got involved or simply because they became fatigued after a half century of defensive wars.

... do I detect a tinge of antisemitism here? Are they all good with money too?

THEY HAVE NEVER TRIED TO RUN THE PALESTINIANS (or whatever they want to call themself) OFF. There is a significant number of Palestinians, and other Middle Eastern minorities, living as citizens of Isreal, happily and successfully.

Israel has been more than powerful enough to dominate the region, but that has NEVER been their goal. If you honestly had even a tiny understanding of the history of the region, you would know this. After being attacked countless times, they responded defensively and seized a defensive border.... then gave the rest of the territory back.

Hell, the Israelis could have marched on Cairo if they really wanted to.

Not only WOULD they, they HAVE.
Those Arab countries have all seized the land designated to the Palestinians, then abandoned them.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I never said we should abandon Isreal and saying that anti semitism is based on envy is not an anti semitic statement.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

This is all based on envy of course as Jews are overall very smart and successful.

How is this statement anti-semitic?

Seems very complimentary to me.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

How is this statement anti-semitic?

Seems very complimentary to me.

Because often times it would be followed with, "and they're good with money." Perpetuating a positive stereotype is still perpetuating a stereotype based on perceived prejudice, be it positive or not. That apparently not what he meant to do. It's not that "Jews" are smart and successful, it's that the state of Israel, which includes it's diverse population, has been successful.

The envy argument is very true, it's a critical component of the Anti-Israel rhetoric there.

Israel is a thriving, successful country in the middle of that sandy hell that is the Middle East. And despite not have been blessed with rich oil reserves to rely upon, the Israeli people have had to be industrious and use their human talents. It stands in stark contrast to the other countries in the region. So, it's not difficult to convince uneducated, angry, emerging radicals that the success of Israel is do, not to their hardwork, but because they stole it from the Muslims.

Posted by: Machspeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Yes, indeed it is used as a propaganda tool, but there is some truth to it too. We have throughout Israel's existence given them much in the way of support, be it through private organizations or international legislation. In fact, United States support for the partition of Palestine was crucial to the adoption of the UN partition plan and to the creation of the state of Israel. President Truman was a big factor in that. Also, we have been instrumental in providing them with much needed intelligence that has given the Israeli's an edge over their aggressive war making Arab neighbors.

Is this the #1 reason that Muslims dislike us so....NO! Is this, as 04 says, the thing that got the whole ball rolling....NO! They, the radical Muslims, and most Middle Eastern Muslims in general, simply despise our way of life. They don't call us the Great Satin for nothing. We are against everything they believe in.

Posted by: fossten

Our current policy toward Israel harms Israel. We give them aid, creating dependence much like our own welfare state. Then we use that leverage to tell them what to do, such as pressuring them to give up land to terrorists. Then we give 3 times as much aid to Israel's enemies.

We don't support Israel IMHO.