T Nation

A Liberal Supermajority

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
<<< it’s impossible talking to morons like you.[/quote]

Damn and I was just starting to like you.

I’ll keep holding out hope that you grow out of this.

All of these topics have been covered in full. I’m not up to typing it all over again at the moment.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Says who? You? The US is the only country in the world with military bases all over the planet. So how many other countries are facing a large terrorist threat besides Isreal(for different reasons) or the US?

India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, the Phillipines, Thailand, East Timor, Canada, Sri Lanka, the UK (especially), continental Europe, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Somolia, Kenya, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia,…

just off the top of my head. Jihad is pretty ubiquitous, unless your head is in the sand and therefore can’t see it. [/quote]

Stop mucking up his argument with facts. That doesn’t work in his favor.

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Says who? You? The US is the only country in the world with military bases all over the planet. So how many other countries are facing a large terrorist threat besides Isreal(for different reasons) or the US?

India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, the Phillipines, Thailand, East Timor, Canada, Sri Lanka, the UK (especially), continental Europe, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Somolia, Kenya, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia,…

just off the top of my head. Jihad is pretty ubiquitous, unless your head is in the sand and therefore can’t see it.

Stop mucking up his argument with facts. That doesn’t work in his favor.[/quote]

I’m not deluding myself that facts will alter his opinion one iota. How ever, it is fun to see the reaction.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Says who? You? The US is the only country in the world with military bases all over the planet. So how many other countries are facing a large terrorist threat besides Isreal(for different reasons) or the US?

India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, the Phillipines, Thailand, East Timor, Canada, Sri Lanka, the UK (especially), continental Europe, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Somolia, Kenya, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia,…

just off the top of my head. Jihad is pretty ubiquitous, unless your head is in the sand and therefore can’t see it. [/quote]

Technology has made it utterly untenable to maintain power and security without a global presence. I just don’t what else to say. People can hide in their Ron Paul huts all they want, (I know this isn’t Inner Hulk) but that is the modern reality.

Communication, transportation and deployment capability have totally transformed geo political logistics in the last 100 years

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
Get ready for spending to explode beyond what we have seen over the last 8 years.

Yeah, because Bush and the republican congress didn’t explode spending at allllll.

What is with you people?[/quote]

What’s with you? Do understand what comparative means? Do you beleive a liberal supermajority is going to reduce spending?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
Get ready for spending to explode beyond what we have seen over the last 8 years.

Yeah, because Bush and the republican congress didn’t explode spending at allllll.

What is with you people?

What’s with you? Do understand what comparative means? Do you beleive a liberal supermajority is going to reduce spending?[/quote]

They are in a state of pre orgasmic arousal just drooling for the opportunity to own the legislative and executive branches. If they manage a filibuster proof majority AND the whitehouse we will see ultra leftist taxation, intrusion and spending stream from the floor to the street in horrific rocket sled fashion.

I have to admit, I’m a hut hider.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Says who? You? The US is the only country in the world with military bases all over the planet. So how many other countries are facing a large terrorist threat besides Isreal(for different reasons) or the US?

India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, the Phillipines, Thailand, East Timor, Canada, Sri Lanka, the UK (especially), continental Europe, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Somolia, Kenya, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia,…

just off the top of my head. Jihad is pretty ubiquitous, unless your head is in the sand and therefore can’t see it.

Technology has made it utterly untenable to maintain power and security without a global presence. I just don’t what else to say. People can hide in their Ron Paul huts all they want, (I know this isn’t Inner Hulk) but that is the modern reality.

Communication, transportation and deployment capability have totally transformed geo political logistics in the last 100 years[/quote]

I’m fine with isolationism, actually. But we’ve never had it. If we could keep the Muslims out, we would have no terrorism problem other than the very occasional Timothy McVeigh or William Ayers type of attack.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
The world is not a nice place populated with generally agreeable folks who will leave you alone if you just smile and mind your own business. Foreign installments are subject to case by case assessment, but this is not the 18th century. What happens on the other side of the world will find it’s way to our front yard if we do not crush that shit “over there”.

Says who? You? The US is the only country in the world with military bases all over the planet. So how many other countries are facing a large terrorist threat besides Isreal(for different reasons) or the US?

Hmmmmmmmmm?
…[/quote]

India, Philippines…

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have to admit, I’m a hut hider.[/quote]

I would like nothing more than to be able to be, but the world does not work that way.

What’s the magic radius. Is it absolute sovereign borders? Does that mean that we should’ve allowed Khrushchev to keep his missile on Cuba. If that’s too close then again, what’s the magic radius? With ICBM’s almost anyplace is too close by the Cuba standard.

Do we allow self expanding communist states to absorb territory at will (cold war) thus gaining resources and geography making their potential attack on this continent easier? If so count me out. If not then any forceful expansionist move at all must be resisted or we make any subsequent resistance to larger ones more difficult for ourselves.

Is it that people like me are just nuts and nobody would ever dare attack our sacred shores… because? I believe they already have. I agree we have to quit all this self destructive tolerance of everything except traditional American values and control our borders accordingly, but that doesn’t preclude tying them and their resources up over there as well.

Look, I would love all the nations of the Earth to get along, practice fair and equitable trade and be happy with what they have, but do I have to even say that this is not and never will be the case except in somebody’s novel?

When great and terrible weapons can be transported and deployed from one side of this planet to the other in a few hours no place is too far away to patrol in my view. We would have a surplus even after all that defense spending if it were not for the hundreds of billions we waste paying for our own destruction in the guise of compassionate socialism.

BTW, my examples above are for the sake of illustrating the points. Put them on whatever enemy you wish and they still apply in one form or another though of course not all enemies are equally equipped.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You do know that true conservatism is opposed to foreign intervention, foreign installments, and in general war…Right?

Military spending is actually allowed by the Constitution. It even says so. Most of the rest of the stuff isn’t.

“True” conservatism, (I assume you mean the Buchananesque paleo-con type), likes to play a little bit fast and loose with the historical data, usually to complain about Israel and the Jewish lobby. We were using our navy to interdict piracy in the Mediterranean as early as the 1780s. Then there was the war of 1812,…[/quote]

Yes, and Jefferson was blasted by his own party for taking the fight overseas.

mike

DAMN you, Tirib!

The thought of Nancy Pelosi being Pre-Orgasmic is going to give me nightmares for years! (I won’t even MENTION the actual orgasm of finally getting that Supermajority!)

(OOOOooooo…!!!)

Mufasa

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You do know that true conservatism is opposed to foreign intervention, foreign installments, and in general war…Right?

Military spending is actually allowed by the Constitution. It even says so. Most of the rest of the stuff isn’t.

“True” conservatism, (I assume you mean the Buchananesque paleo-con type), likes to play a little bit fast and loose with the historical data, usually to complain about Israel and the Jewish lobby. We were using our navy to interdict piracy in the Mediterranean as early as the 1780s. Then there was the war of 1812,…

Yes, and Jefferson was blasted by his own party for taking the fight overseas.

mike[/quote]

What’s your point? The Muslims were raiding Europe and European shipping and carrying Europeans off as slaves (read “White Gold”). They were also preying on our shipping, which provided jobs for our young nation. If ever there were a just cause for war, it was with those savages (who likewise appealled to Mohammed’s actions as justification for their own).

Further, the British were pressing our merchant seamen into their navy by the thousands. This is called “slavery.” We needed a strong navy to stop that as well. I’m sorry, but the Ron Paul camp prefers to ignore inconvenient historical data when it suits them.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
DAMN you, Tirib!

The thought of Nancy Pelosi being Pre-Orgasmic is going to give me nightmares for years! (I won’t even MENTION the actual orgasm of finally getting that Supermajority!)

(OOOOooooo…!!!)

Mufas[/quote]

The thought of Pelosi at all gives me nightmares.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I have to admit, I’m a hut hider.

I would like nothing more than to be able to be, but the world does not work that way.

What’s the magic radius. Is it absolute sovereign borders? Does that mean that we should’ve allowed Khrushchev to keep his missile on Cuba. If that’s too close then again, what’s the magic radius? With ICBM’s almost anyplace is too close by the Cuba standard.

Do we allow self expanding communist states to absorb territory at will (cold war) thus gaining resources and geography making their potential attack on this continent easier? If so count me out. If not then any forceful expansionist move at all must be resisted or we make any subsequent resistance to larger ones more difficult for ourselves.

Is it that people like me are just nuts and nobody would ever dare attack our sacred shores… because? I believe they already have. I agree we have to quit all this bullshit tolerance of everything except traditional American values and control our borders accordingly, but that doesn’t preclude tying them and their resources up over there as well.

Look, I would love all the nations of the Earth to get along, practice fair and equitable trade and be happy with what they have, but do I have to even say that this is not and never will be the case except in somebody’s novel?

When great and terrible weapons can be transported and deployed from one side of this planet to the other in a few hours no place is too far away to patrol in my view. We would have a surplus even after all that defense spending if it were not for the hundreds of billions we waste paying for our own destruction in the guise of compassionate socialism.

BTW, my examples above are for the sake of illustrating the points. Put them on whatever enemy you wish and they still apply in one form or another though of course not all enemies are equally equipped.[/quote]

I don’t know, that just doesn’t work for me any longer. Seems like a perpetual state of war based on “might happens.” Let the EU, Eastern European, S. Koreans, ME nations, etc, step up. Let the critics on the other side of the globe roll back THEIR welfare programs to fund their own defense. Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters. Disasters (and others) we’ll have to live with for a long time to come.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The president will have a super majority!

My god, maybe they’ll expand the federal governemnt by 40%, maybe they’ll pass a 3$ trillion dollar budget as the largest in history, maybe they’ll propose military spending amounts that haven’t been seen since WW2, maybe they’ll redistribute wealth globally via $35 billion dollars in foreign aid, maybe they’ll…oh, yeah, that already all happened, a lot of which was under a republican ‘super majority’.

Carry on you terrified vaginas.[/quote]

Awesome!

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The president will have a super majority!

My god, maybe they’ll expand the federal governemnt by 40%, maybe they’ll pass a 3$ trillion dollar budget as the largest in history, maybe they’ll propose military spending amounts that haven’t been seen since WW2,

Maybe they’ll redistribute wealth globally via $35 billion dollars in foreign aid, maybe they’ll…oh, yeah, that already all happened, a lot of which was under a republican ‘super majority’.

Carry on you terrified vaginas.

Awesome!
[/quote]

Retarded!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< I don’t know, that just doesn’t work for me any longer. Seems like a perpetual state of war based on “might happens.” Let the EU, Eastern European, S. Koreans, ME nations, etc, step up.

Let the critics on the other side of the globe roll back THEIR welfare programs to fund their own defense. Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters. Disasters (and others) we’ll have to live with for a long time to come.[/quote]

They won’t and in some cases can’t.

So then when do we act?

I guarantee you it would only take one, UNO, of those might happens to actually happen before a multitude of minds would be instantly changed and the cacophonous cries of “how can this possibly be?” would be heard from sea to shining sea.

So, should we have allowed Khrushchev to keep his missiles on Cuba?

Do we allow enemy countries and causes to spread and gain strength setting ourselves up for a larger, more costly and more deadly conflict eventually?

Do you believe we will be left alone if we just “mind our own business”?

Unless you are willing to wait until you have dead citizens on your hands, “might happens” are what you must act on. That is just the way it is and the way it always has been. We have the ability to do that and no excuse not to.

The money would be there if we would stop wasting it here. The constitutional mandate for national defense translated into today’s world does not allow for any other conclusion.

History is littered with the corpses of mighty empires that underestimated it’s enemies and under pursued their own security.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
<<< I don’t know, that just doesn’t work for me any longer. Seems like a perpetual state of war based on “might happens.” Let the EU, Eastern European, S. Koreans, ME nations, etc, step up.

Let the critics on the other side of the globe roll back THEIR welfare programs to fund their own defense. Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters. Disasters (and others) we’ll have to live with for a long time to come.

They won’t and in some cases can’t.

So then when do we act?

I guarantee you it would only take one, UNO, of those might happens to actually happen before a multitude of minds would be instantly changed and the cacophonous cries of “how can this possibly be?” would be heard from sea to shining sea.

So, should we have allowed Khrushchev to keep his missiles on Cuba?

Do we allow enemy countries and causes to spread and gain strength setting ourselves up for a larger, more costly and more deadly conflict eventually?

Do you believe we will be left alone if we just “mind our own business”?

Unless you are willing to wait until you have dead citizens on your hands, “might happens” are what you must act on. That is just the way it is and the way it always has been. We have the ability to do that and no excuse not to. The money would be there if we would stop wasting it here.

The constitutional mandate for national defense translated into today’s world does not allow for any other conclusion.

History is littered with the corpses of mighty empires that underestimated it’s enemies and under pursued their own security.[/quote]

Not at all. Cuba would certainely count as a bordering nation, in my mind. Therefore, when positioning missiles into Cuba, one could only conclude we’d be a target of any possible strike. However, an invasion wasn’t even required. Having agreed to remove our own missiles from Turkey the Russians ceased their own action.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The president will have a super majority!

My god, maybe they’ll expand the federal governemnt by 40%, maybe they’ll pass a 3$ trillion dollar budget as the largest in history, maybe they’ll propose military spending amounts that haven’t been seen since WW2,

Maybe they’ll redistribute wealth globally via $35 billion dollars in foreign aid, maybe they’ll…oh, yeah, that already all happened, a lot of which was under a republican ‘super majority’.

Carry on you terrified vaginas.

Awesome!

Retarded!
[/quote]

Boobs!