A Liberal Supermajority

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<<<
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]

What if they hadn’t?

Do we allow Putin to continue to take land now? Poland? Who will stop him or shouldn’t he be stopped?

Do we allow N. Korea to conquer S. Korea?

What do we do when somebody tries to take Iraq and it’s oil 15 minutes after we leave?. Should we have allowed Hussein to gain Kuwait’s oil?

What if Chavez decided he would like a bit more of S. America.

These situations directly affect us and our security. The world is much smaller than in the past and these people do not go away if we ignore them.

On the contrary every unchecked advance emboldens and empowers them until eventually we WILL be forced to defend our own shores against an enemy much more formidable than he would’ve been had we stopped him early.

I just don’t know how you could be willing to gamble that that never happens.

42

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obama Chavez will be very busy spreading that wealth. Without any serious opposition. It’s going to get real ugly.[/quote]

43

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
<<<<
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.

What if they hadn’t?

Do we allow Putin to continue to take land now? Poland? Who will stop him or shouldn’t he be stopped?
[/quote]

Perhaps the EU? I don’t know, but I don’t see how it’s a security issue for us. Would Poland be a stepping stone for Putin to conquer the world? One can only conquer so much before running into problems just keeping what’s already conquered under control.

Not even we could conquer the world. Heck, it’s taken so much of our blood and money just to ‘pacify’ Iraq. And, we had to let Afghanistan go to hell in a handbasket just to make the progress we have.

Same as above. But, I’ll add that S. Korea has about twice the population and a far, far, better economy than the North. Time to stop soaking the US taxpayer.

I’d imagine he’d have wanted to sell it.

[quote]
What if Chavez decided he would like a bit more of S. America.[/quote]
Well, I definitely don’t mind security alliances along our borders.

[quote]These situations directly affect us and our security. The world is much smaller than in the past and these people do not go away if we ignore them.

On the contrary every unchecked advance emboldens and empowers them until eventually we WILL be forced to defend our own shores against an enemy much more formidable than he would’ve been had we stopped him early.

I just don’t know how you could be willing to gamble that that never happens.[/quote]

I just think any destruction we might face from outside powers would most likely result from continuously placing ourselves in the role of world cop around the globe.

Jumping into wars, because one day, maybe, at some point in the future, a two bit Middle Eastern dictator might consider conquering us. We can’t win those wars. Because you’ll lose public support, the opposition party will be voted in, and it’ll all have been for nothing.

44

Worrying about Russia is a waste of time. They’re in complete demographic collapse. Why worry about a corpse?

46

It took a Dem to help us out of the last great depression (and he enjoyed 12 years as Pres).

Reagan’s “trickle-down” is a failure. Even Bush 41 knew this when he called it “fuzzy math”.

47

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It took a Dem to help us out of the last great depression (and he enjoyed 12 years as Pres).
[/quote]

It really took a war. The new deal was an abysmal failure.

[quote]
Reagan’s “trickle-down” is a failure. Even Bush 41 knew this when he called it “fuzzy math”. [/quote]

The past 25 years has seen perhaps the greatest growth of wealth the world has ever known. Yeah, what a failure.

48

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Actually the great recession that we are about to enter may check the democrats unnatural lust for taxing everything that moves. If we’re lucky by the time obama’s four years are up he and the democrats may get the blame for this economic mess, which they deserve the majority of anyway.

One more positive; obama as the first black President will have proven that there are no need for “special rights”. Most by then might just be fed up with quotas, protected classes and other racial insults.

Keep in mind the country had to endure four years of Jimmy Carter before we got to Ronald Reagan and eventually 12 straight years of republican rule.

This entire liberal mess might just workout fine in the long run.[/quote]

Except he may have by that time tatooed us with a couple lifetime court appointments.

49

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Actually the great recession that we are about to enter may check the democrats unnatural lust for taxing everything that moves. If we’re lucky by the time obama’s four years are up he and the democrats may get the blame for this economic mess, which they deserve the majority of anyway.

One more positive; obama as the first black President will have proven that there are no need for “special rights”. Most by then might just be fed up with quotas, protected classes and other racial insults.

Keep in mind the country had to endure four years of Jimmy Carter before we got to Ronald Reagan and eventually 12 straight years of republican rule.

This entire liberal mess might just workout fine in the long run.[/quote]

I’ve been comforting myself with that thought as well - a newly-energized & newly disciplined CONSERVATIVE moment.

Well…a man can dream, can’t he? :slight_smile:

50

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Actually the great recession that we are about to enter may check the democrats unnatural lust for taxing everything that moves. If we’re lucky by the time obama’s four years are up he and the democrats may get the blame for this economic mess, which they deserve the majority of anyway.

One more positive; obama as the first black President will have proven that there are no need for “special rights”. Most by then might just be fed up with quotas, protected classes and other racial insults.

Keep in mind the country had to endure four years of Jimmy Carter before we got to Ronald Reagan and eventually 12 straight years of republican rule.

This entire liberal mess might just workout fine in the long run.

I’ve been comforting myself with that thought as well - a newly-energized & newly disciplined CONSERVATIVE moment.

Well…a man can dream, can’t he? :slight_smile: [/quote]

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.

51

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Except he may have by that time tatooed us with a couple lifetime court appointments.[/quote]

Yeah, that’s the greatest danger really. Well, probably he’ll only be in for four years - so maybe he won’t be able to do too much damage. We can keep the conservative judges on life support for years :slight_smile:

52

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.[/quote]

Hard to see it actually getting a foothold though; seems too esoteric for majority of Americans, too ideologically based, not “practical,” kinda exotic, etc.

53

[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]

Very good point.

A lot of this shit has already happened and the Republicans (can’t call them conservative, because they aren’t), went along with most of it. Like the easing of loan restrictions that restrict home loans to only those who might be able to pay it back so -everyone could own a home-. Brilliant!

54

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.

Hard to see it actually getting a foothold though; seems too esoteric for majority of Americans, too ideologically based, not “practical,” kinda exotic, etc.[/quote]

Hey, I happen to like the libertarians and find them more common sense based than you are giving them credit for.

It’s anarchist light. One can only dream.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t eventually some sort of backlash against the ever leftward leaning political stage.

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< I just think any destruction we might face from outside powers would most likely result from continuously placing ourselves in the role of world cop around the globe.

Jumping into wars, because one day, maybe, at some point in the future, a two bit Middle Eastern dictator might consider conquering us. We can’t win those wars. Because you’ll lose public support, the opposition party will be voted in, and it’ll all have been for nothing.
[/quote]

I’m not talking about anybody in particular. The examples I cite are just that. IF we had actual allies with any muscle and balls things would be different. I am not eager to see us involved wherever we don’t have to be.

Creeping enemy causes must be stopped regardless of whether they’re middle eastern or not. I would say though that willing alliances are not within our purview to stop. If one country decides it wants to be allied with another then that’s their right, but when an enemy threatens an ally it IS in our interest to protect that ally.

Again, if we had the money we waste on self destructive domestic socialism we would be able to handle anything at all that came along without the present struggles.

Of course this is part of a package and you’re right citizens unwilling to act in the interest of themselves or their allies will forever be a problem in a society that’s free to inflict itself with these limp wristed “leaders”.

Human history has turned in just about every case on wars. A pretty much constant state of war of some kind is the way it is for any nation significant enough to be able to effectively fight them. That really blows, but is the reality of this planet.

56

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.

Hard to see it actually getting a foothold though; seems too esoteric for majority of Americans, too ideologically based, not “practical,” kinda exotic, etc.[/quote]

I don’t know, but I hope your wrong. I’ve had my fill of Republican Conservatism.

57

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.

Hard to see it actually getting a foothold though; seems too esoteric for majority of Americans, too ideologically based, not “practical,” kinda exotic, etc.

Hey, I happen to like the libertarians and find them more common sense based than you are giving them credit for.

It’s anarchist light. One can only dream.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t eventually some sort of backlash against the ever leftward leaning political stage.[/quote]

I like them too and always have - I used to work at CATO, which is fairly libertarian, and have gotten to know quite a few libertarian candidates.

They often, however, get too theoretical (I agree with some of what they say, but still when they start talking about “spontaneously ordered systems” they lose most people - and yet, how else can they argue against the orthodoxy except by bringing up theory?); and candidates often find themselves getting ridiculed for things like, say, advocating privatizing sidewalks - things that they often have to say in order to get nominated because they compete among each other (in the libertarian party) as to who is more pure/extreme as a libertarian v. who is “selling out,” etc.

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I honestly don’t think that’ll happen. I’m tempted to believe Libertarianism might actually grow in appeal as a foil to Democrats.

Hard to see it actually getting a foothold though; seems too esoteric for majority of Americans, too ideologically based, not “practical,” kinda exotic, etc.

I don’t know, but I hope your wrong. I’ve had my fill of Republican Conservatism.[/quote]

I agree completely Sloth - but with the proviso that I’ve had my fill of Republicans feigning at conservatism. Hopefully, libertarian ideas and people will be part of a new conservatism.

59

Ok, some bad news and some good news:

The BAD NEWS is that I will be appointed to the Polit-bureau and that my task will be to expropriate ALL of you, give your properties to welfare recipients, as well as sending all of you to political re-education camps. Please behave, because I am going to appoint Bill Ayers as head of camp discipline. If anybody in your bunk-house starts acting up, well, oops, there went the bunk-house…
You will be allowed to go to church on Sundays to listen to Reverend Wright’s inspiring sermons.

The GOOD NEWS is that each political re-education camp will be equipped with lots of weight equipment and anybody caught doing curls in squat racks WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT (that’s right, Bill Ayers, is going to be in charge of the squat racks, too). There will also be lots of scantily clad, nubile, females. You will be happy to know that Bill Ayer’s girlfriend/wife, Bernadette Dohrn, will be in charge of sex education. As you may or may not know, the Weather Underground once waged a “Smash Monogamy” campaign and this will be reinstituted at the camps by Ms. Dohrn.

60

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Except he may have by that time tatooed us with a couple lifetime court appointments.

Yeah, that’s the greatest danger really. Well, probably he’ll only be in for four years - so maybe he won’t be able to do too much damage. We can keep the conservative judges on life support for years :slight_smile:
[/quote]

If it were not for that I would vote for Obama. Seriously. People need to see once and for all the horrific devastation these assholes will inflict on this country if left unchecked. It is only the courts that still have me voting for Mccain or rather against Obama.