They say you should never discuss religion or politics amongst friends, however I think we're all friendly enough to avoid being butt-hurt.
First, I think Obama will be a good leader some day if he completely changes every view he holds. He lives in an anti-white, anti-capitalist "Utopia" that is frankly...dangerous. Can you really believe that the pastor he had been relying on for guidance and truth suddenly fell off the deep end and started preaching America the white devil for the first time in 20years? Sounds a little familiar...like something that comes out of extremist mosques all over the world. He actually has a Che Guevara flag in one of his campaign offices...a revolutionary??? Try another mass murdering communist.
Ryan, the "Hitler vs Stalin" comparison is hardly applicable and all though I don't think Ron Paul is completely wack (although I'll NEVER respect a man that believes 9/11 was our fault...we can get into a "man is responsible for his own actions"/"terrorists simply want to terrorize and send the world back into the 7th century where fear rules") I know he will not win the election. Do you really think that economically and socially the country will be in the same place regardless of who gets elected? I tend to agree that the president has relatively little power compared with congress and the judicial system. McCain actually hit it on the head when he said that one of the greatest weapons of the U.S. president is the bully pulpit and I believe he will stand up and say what needs to be said to leaders around the world while Obama will studder along with no conviction. The rest may be up for grabs.
As a side note, the U.S. is not a welfare state. Not yet anyway, and you had better hope that the socialism that is preached by liberal democrats (like Obama) never comes to be. I have seen some of the real evil that sneaks in with all the government control over every aspect of society. Ryan, I hope you're wrong about America being lost...but I wouldn't bet on it.
10 comments:
... So then can we talk about religion now, friend? ;)
What's all this I hear about politics being discussed, and I have yet to weigh in on the side of the forces of righteousness and truth???? I independently arrived at the same conclusion as the nomosian this very weekend (you can ask my wife if it isn't so): This election is a choice between Hitler and Stalin - endless, aggressive, illegal, preemptive war and militarism v. wealth redistribution on the most massive imaginable scales. In both cases, it is absolutely unlimited government of mind-boggling proportions, and more of the politics of plunder. But, hahaha!!! We don't live in a neutral universe, we live in a moral universe, so we will get what we deserve, which is exactly what we're getting right now! And it's only getting started! Democracy is where the people get what they want, good and hard. A totalitarian government is not judged by its concentration camps, but whether it recognizes any legitimate limits to the exercise of its power. Can someone, anyone, PLEASE, for the love of all that's sacred, tell me one specific limit either side of our one-party government recognizes to the legitimate exercise of its power???
Matt, Ron Paul never defended the 9/11 attacks. He said they were completely wrong and reprehensible. He voted for action in Afghanistan against al Qaeda. What he also said at the same time is that they were provoked by our senseless and renegade foreign policy. That is just looking for motive. If someone commits murder, and we look for a motive of why they did it, that does not mean we are excusing the murder. It is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful and desirous of revenge when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. The official term for that is blowback: the unintended consequences of military intervention. Al Qaeda terrorists are ten times as likely to come from a country in which U.S. troops are stationed than from one where they're not. I think if we refuse to really be serious about the unintended consequences of our foreign policy, that's most irresponsible of all, and we'll have more 9/11s.
What comes first?...U.S. troops stationed in a country with a functioning government or a rogue terrorist state that requires U.S. supervision and intervention to protect our national interests? It is naive to think that we can remain isolated from the rest of the world with out consequence. We don't produce all our own food, fuel, cars, clothes and all the other junk we get from other countries. Those interests need to be protected to protect our way of life. Everyone has missed the main point I'm trying to make. 1 of 2 candidates will win this next election. Those are your only REAL options. Who's it going to be? I agree they are essentially of the same "party" but that doesn't matter, I believe McCain is the better option of the 2. We can't have a true "democracy" because America is filled with too many idiots who would never have the stomach to make the tough choices. Just like your parents did when you were young and uninformed, we need someone with power to protect us when we are unaware of the danger around us. It has gone too far but you can't go back the other direction too much without leaving the country exposed.
Until the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history. So the Iraq invasion came first, in that case. My point is that there are no real options. The choice is between Hitler and Stalin: unlimited government in either case. I don't advocate isolationism, I advocate non-interventionism. They're two distinct foreign policy approaches. The picture of the people as helpless children who need someone in power to protect them, take care of them, and provide for them, because they're too stupid to take care of themselves is precisely the conception the statists want us to have. That is the traction they have for the endlessly expanding Leviathan. Those in power who are pretending to protect us are themselves by far and away the single greatest threat we face (on earth). Hitler rose to power by promises of security and prosperity. He largely delivered both, for a while (just not to everybody). I agree that American foreign policy is what it is to a great extent because of our way of life, but that's exactly what has to change, and it's starting to change now, whether we want it or not. Domestic savings in this country went negative in 2004. We just can't afford our way of life any more. Every empire I am aware of in world history eventually collapsed and bankrupted itself by overextending itself militarily and government debasing its own currency. I haven't figured out how the U.S. can possibly escape the same fate, since we're doing the exact same things.
You are true Americans. Both of you. -Pete
Matt - my response is too long for the comment box, so I've added an entry on my own site in response to your entry here.
I recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s
Post a Comment