Beardog Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'd like to see a president who thinks the US does NOT have to be the world's policeman. I second that motion. Wouldn't that be a dream come true. Let some one else take over the overseer duties or no body at all. That would be Ron Paul (more of a Libertarian than Republican) - I was reading a piece a bit ago about him wanting to bring all US troops home from all US military bases and operations around the globe. No more troops in South Korea, no more troops in Germany, no more troops anywhere except US soil unless a war is declared by Congress or they are on short term training exercises. The term is referred to as "isolationism" and it was US policy -- up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "awoke a sleeping giant." US policy was changed forever. Can we ever go back? Do we want to? Do you really think it is the U.S.'s role in life to find a way for the other failing countries in the world while we totally ignore our own people. I would venture a guess the money we spent in Iraq would have found a cure for cancer or help the people who could really use some decent health care. Most americans can give a rats ass if Iraq goes under(except for oil interests) Usually our policing revolves around what mr. big gets out of it, & I do not believe for a moment cause the U.S.are soooooo good & want to help out the world. Why be so naive? Not meant to be offensive at all. Besides if we did not assume the position of the worlds police I don't think that would make us to be an isolated country, but a smart country spending time & effort on our own instead of going to the brink of a recession or World War 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'd like to see a president who thinks the US does NOT have to be the world's policeman. I second that motion. Wouldn't that be a dream come true. Let some one else take over the overseer duties or no body at all. That would be Ron Paul (more of a Libertarian than Republican) - I was reading a piece a bit ago about him wanting to bring all US troops home from all US military bases and operations around the globe. No more troops in South Korea, no more troops in Germany, no more troops anywhere except US soil unless a war is declared by Congress or they are on short term training exercises. The term is referred to as "isolationism" and it was US policy -- up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "awoke a sleeping giant." US policy was changed forever. Can we ever go back? Do we want to? Do you really think it is the U.S.'s role in life to find a way for the other failing countries in the world while we totally ignore our own people. I would venture a guess the money we spent in Iraq would have found a cure for cancer or help the people who could really use some decent health care. Most americans can give a rats ass if Iraq goes under(except for oil interests) Usually our policing revolves around what mr. big gets out of it, & I do not believe for a moment cause the U.S.are soooooo good & want to help out the world. Why be so naive? Not meant to be offensive at all. Besides if we did not assume the position of the worlds police I don't think that would make us to be an isolated country, but a smart country spending time & effort on our own instead of going to the brink of a recession or World War 3 A global player...yes. Worlds policeman..absolutely not. If any other country thinks they need US help, let them ask and see what can be negotiated. Iraq isn't the only money pit. The US is pouring many billions into hostile shitholes all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) You would think that a SANE middle way is possible. Policeman of the world? No. Actively spreading democracy through the world? No, partly because we don't really want that, we like it when our guy's win, we don't like it when our guy's don't win, and more and more they don't win. Engaged in the world? Yes. Providing an improved positive example at home of how free markets, free speech, religious tolerance, free protest, and democracy can improve the lives of the masses worldwide with no waterboarding and torture? Sure, why not? In any case, a major adjustment is way overdue. Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEENTHEREDONETHAT Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The US has over 700 bases in 130 countries and has over 250,000 men stationed at them. Seems like overkill tome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardog Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I'd like to see a president who thinks the US does NOT have to be the world's policeman. I second that motion. Wouldn't that be a dream come true. Let some one else take over the overseer duties or no body at all. That would be Ron Paul (more of a Libertarian than Republican) - I was reading a piece a bit ago about him wanting to bring all US troops home from all US military bases and operations around the globe. No more troops in South Korea, no more troops in Germany, no more troops anywhere except US soil unless a war is declared by Congress or they are on short term training exercises. The term is referred to as "isolationism" and it was US policy -- up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "awoke a sleeping giant." US policy was changed forever. Can we ever go back? Do we want to? Do you really think it is the U.S.'s role in life to find a way for the other failing countries in the world while we totally ignore our own people. I would venture a guess the money we spent in Iraq would have found a cure for cancer or help the people who could really use some decent health care. Most americans can give a rats ass if Iraq goes under(except for oil interests) Usually our policing revolves around what mr. big gets out of it, & I do not believe for a moment cause the U.S.are soooooo good & want to help out the world. Why be so naive? Not meant to be offensive at all. Besides if we did not assume the position of the worlds police I don't think that would make us to be an isolated country, but a smart country spending time & effort on our own instead of going to the brink of a recession or World War 3 A global player...yes. Worlds policeman..absolutely not. If any other country thinks they need US help, let them ask and see what can be negotiated. Iraq isn't the only money pit. The US is pouring many billions into hostile shitholes all over the world. Agreed upon both points! Global player is a win win situation. The rest is money down the toilet at our expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farang prince Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Jingthing, Michael Bloomberg stands a snowball's chance in hel_l of being elected. He has the charisma of a dried prune. Arnold Schwarzenneger can't run for Vice President because he is not a native-born American. The Constitution requires that anyone in the line of succession to the presidency has to be a native-born American. Other than that, your theories have a lot of traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rice_King Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I would venture a guess the money we spent in Iraq would have found a cure for cancer or help the people who could really use some decent health care. I have decent health care insurance and I don't really want to pay for it twice. Moreover, I don't want to pay for your health care or anyone else's. Maybe there are Canadians in here that would like to comment on their publicly funded health care system? How's it working for them? "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." -- P. J. O'Rourke Besides if we did not assume the position of the worlds police I don't think that would make us to be an isolated country, but a smart country spending time & effort on our own instead of going to the brink of a recession or World War 3 So we withdraw to our borders, then the enemies of the US will lay down their weapons. (Dust off and cue up your old 45, "Kumbaya.") This was the US posture just prior to both WWI & WWII. It didn't change anything -- our enemies came calling and caught the US military flatfooted. Why be so naive? Not meant to be offensive at all. Are those "rose-colored" glasses in your avatar? Call me "naive" Beardog, but "Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it." No offense taken nor intended Beardog. I'll get off my soapbox and let this thread get back to the subject of the current US election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) Jingthing, Michael Bloomberg stands a snowball's chance in hel_l of being elected. He has the charisma of a dried prune. Arnold Schwarzenneger can't run for Vice President because he is not a native-born American. The Constitution requires that anyone in the line of succession to the presidency has to be a native-born American. Other than that, your theories have a lot of traction. I thought there might be a loophole allowing him to be Vice President. Of course, he cannot be president unless the constitution is changed, which it could be in an eight year period. "The law is very clear, but it's not 100 percent clear that the courts would enforce that law rather than leave it to the political process," said Columbia University Law School professor Michael Dorf, an expert in constitutional law. Charisma? Its a factor but not everything. If Bloomberg does run, I look forward to hearing his policy statements on important issues like universal health care and foreign policy. We already know he will be the darling of Wall Street! If not Schwartzenegger, I wonder who else would even come close for buzz factor? Colin Powell? Obama (if he loses to Clinton)? Bloomberg might win: As a result, the time is riper for victory by a third-party candidate than it has ever been in our nation's history. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...11/133455.shtml http://bloomberg08.wordpress.com/2007/12/0...berg-could-win/ Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardog Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) I would venture a guess the money we spent in Iraq would have found a cure for cancer or help the people who could really use some decent health care. I have decent health care insurance and I don't really want to pay for it twice. Moreover, I don't want to pay for your health care or anyone else's. Maybe there are Canadians in here that would like to comment on their publicly funded health care system? How's it working for them? "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." -- P. J. O'Rourke Besides if we did not assume the position of the worlds police I don't think that would make us to be an isolated country, but a smart country spending time & effort on our own instead of going to the brink of a recession or World War 3 So we withdraw to our borders, then the enemies of the US will lay down their weapons. (Dust off and cue up your old 45, "Kumbaya.") This was the US posture just prior to both WWI & WWII. It didn't change anything -- our enemies came calling and caught the US military flatfooted. Why be so naive? Not meant to be offensive at all. Are those "rose-colored" glasses in your avatar? Call me "naive" Beardog, but "Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it." No offense taken nor intended Beardog. I'll get off my soapbox and let this thread get back to the subject of the current US election. I have 6 dead friends from the Vietnam war & 2 with limbs blown off . One is presently being eaten alive after 14 years of duty to serve our country. 2 dead in Iraq that are now historical characters. I make a point of giving funds for treatment & development of cancer & help the less needy. Not a hero, just doing what I feel is what I would want.My healthcare is good but how about your neighbors. I am not rich ,but I realize you can't take it with you, so why not be a bro about it and help what you can. even if it costs a couple of tax dollars. My point is why are we wasting precious lives over bullsht. What are we gaining by trying to turn the world into a democracy? So I am more inclined to vote for someone who might make some good decisions. If it comes true with any candidate is a bonus round! We all got opinions & your entitled to yours too! I would like to see a win win situation instead of having it made worse by opening up the proverbial "can of worms" & no I don't own a pair of any rose colored glasses. And hel yah the Mexican border needs to be beefed up. Not feeling any love but negative cash flow from Mexico. Edited December 14, 2007 by Beardog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Much like the real polls here in the US, our TV poll shows Obama overtaking Hillary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 14, 2007 Author Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) Hillary Clinton wins! Its a wrap. Next ... BTW, now there does appear to be more total democrats here than the dark siders. Maybe we can play this again when we are down to the final two (or three) choices. Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Well, It will be set in another 45-60 days anyway. Once the two nominees are final, then the $$ warchests open up and everyone can enjoy the best mudslinging money can buy. ......and it will be likely be unprecedented this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2396 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Obama would be fine too. I don't believe he will be nominated, but he might be. I also think he would lose the general election due to the racism factor. People say one thing to pollsters, another thing behind the curtain, this is a proven fact.People don't have to like or love their president personally to elect him. Look at Nixon. Hillary Clinton does indeed come off as cold and aloof. Do you think Americans would elect Mary Poppins to be commander in chief? As the probable first woman president of the US, a truly historic possibility, well, we will have an Ice Queen. Obama is an invention of the liberal media. He has little experience to be a serious candidate for such an office. If it weren't for his color, he would be on the back pages. In my opinion, there has not been a U.S. President with great vision, froresight and high intelligence since Kennedy. Since 1963, the political system has tended to go for the lowest common denominator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbk Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I agree Jingthing, it is a wrap. Now lets wait and see which candidate blows it at the last minute. //CLOSED// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts