Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ah, why don't we take a route which draws upon the benefits of each side? I agree that we can't be isolationist in any absolute or near-absolute sense of the word, yet it's clear that the notion of being the “world's policeman” is unrealistic and just bad policy. I think that the neo-conservative hawkishness of the previous decade needs to be replaced by a coherent conservative policy which lays out the roadmap for when international action is permissible, and when it is necessary. This policy should raise the bar for international military action so that while we don't remain isolationist, we are slower to dabble in world crises. Of course, diplomatic action and non-military action in response to international issues needs to be a part of this policy.During the debates, I don't think I heard words about a consistent approach to foreign policy by any of the candidates.
Hillary will by 69 years old in 2016. “Older” – yes, but well within the range of candidates who are generally put forward (McCain looked than that in 2008). She'll also be the only candidate who served as both Senator and Secretary of State, which gives her credentials. Honestly, though, the fact that she is an older female candidate may hurt her across the board, just as the fact that Obama is a younger, “handsome black man” undoubtedly helped him.
The obvious choice for the Dem candidate is Hillary, and unfortunatley for the rest of us, she may be difficult to beat. She had a strong base in 2008, and they will continue to lead for her in 2016.
Look, now. We're all a bit numb from this. Not only is it frustrating, but it's depressing knowing that the Republic, built on the sweat of generations and the blood of soldiers who died in battle to protect our freedoms, is dying a slow death because people like to elect the guy who gives out free phones and birth control. However, the more I study history, the more it strikes me how the course of things ebbs and flows, so what is bleak one day is bright the next. We have truth on our side, and that should give us a tremendous amount of confidence. We all need to hold in there and not give up the ship quite yet. While is seems like the next election is an eternity away, there is hope that things will get better then.
In regard to that article, I think it's easy to say “you need to compromise”. The real questions – on what issues? We'll be hearing calls now at MSNBC and by liberals about how Republicans need to adopt liberal policies. As if liberals adopted conservative policies when Kerry lost in '04! The fact of the matter is that there are certain issues that cannot be compromised; ask the abolitionists of the 1850s if they should have “compromised” in their opposition to slavery.No, the way I see it, compromise is of some value on some issues (e.g. immigration), but not on others. The real opportunity is in persuasion. Right now, the Democrats have the upper hand since they have "stuff to offer" - that is free stuff - to the American people. This upper hand will no doubt come to an end when it comes time to pay the piper; when the debt becomes too great, or when China stops lending money, we will see the fruits of the Democratic deception. Republicans can try to press this message in hopes of convincing voters. The problem is that the voters don't seem to want to listen.
I wonder if Florida is slower than the rest of the country because of what happened there in 2000. Perhaps they have a process in place which prevents that circus from happening again.Ski, why would you want to boycott those people you mentioned? Yes, I got a bad taste in my mouth from Ann Coulter after she threw her support behind Romney back in the Spring by being really critical of Newt Gingrich. But at the end of the day, she and those others are fighting the war as the rest of us. They (and Romney) are not to blame for this loss so much as the attitude of the average voter. The consolation out of all of this is that while the Democrats may have won this political battle, they will never be able to win the battle for truth with many of their policies. That in itself should be something to instill confidence and hope in all of us.
I agree with Skiguy here. Any other candidate that the Republicans could have put forward would have had a list of deficiencies equal to or longer than Romney's. While there definitely were better potential Republican leaders who could have been offered in the race, I don't think there was a better candidate. And as Ski put it - the country rejected a moderate Republican. A conservative Republican would probably not have done better. I agree with what Donroc insinuated above - if this country had to go to war in any major way, the people might wake up and an Obama-typey candidate would never be elected. As it stands, people are content with electing the candidate who can wine and dine with Jay-Z rather than the one who can turn around our economy.
So begins a four year very dangerous period. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the American people can be. I am so disappointed right now in my fellow countrymen. I will be saying I told you so in 4 years when unemployment is still hovering around 8% and nothing has changed except the word is a more dangerous place. Apparently Americans are happy with a yellow-belly in the White House. We deserve whatever happens in the next four years. Forward! Indeed.
That is basically it - we reap what we sow. If Americans want a leader who will bring the economy on a slow-motion train-wreck while he funds his pet social policies, then so be it. They shouldn't be surprised when we end up a slave to China and morally devastated. Americans have decided to sacrifice prosperity and greatness for things such as the right to sexual escapades on demand and free stuff from the government.
By the way, if this site is running slow it may be because it's on a shared server with my inauguration site. That site is going crazy now with over 11k views in the past hour and a half. I think my web host may get mad at me if I do not upgrade my hosting package soon. 🙁
I don't think that Romney was a weak candidate. He was about as good a candidate that the Republicans could offer, MEANING that he had appeal for voters who were economy-minded, to many conservatives, and to independents who do not consider themselves to fall squarely into the conservative camp. Other candidates may have been better in terms of principle, but not necessarily in terms of political likeability (e.g. Newt Gingrich). The problems is that a) it's hard running against an incumbent, b) it's hard running against an opponent AND the mainstream media, and c) the American voter has changed into a force which is more intent on getting “free” stuff than ensuring a prosperous future.
Blah. Obama projected the winner. Things like this seriously make me question how long our Republic can last.
Karl Rove mentioned yesterday that he didn't think we'd know the results by 8 or 9 tonight, since some of these states will come down to the wire. Incidentally, how do you find information about candidates of local offices when they don't publish them on their web sites? For example, I don't want to put some liberal politician into any office if I can help it (even something like school board) but they don't announce all their positions to the public.
He is not injured, everyone there is fine. However, it will take some time to get everything fixed, as they will apparently need a new heater, electrical system (or parts), and so forth. I can imagine that it's got to be getting cold there at night, which doesn't help.
Interesting charts about consumer politics. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-does-your-food-say-about-your-politics-these-two-charts-might-surprise-you/
Those are some beautiful photos. Color makes all the difference in the world. Some of those practically transported me back in time. Oh, and that's an interesting photo of the public urinal...I didn't know they had them like that back then - http://www.worldwaronecolorphotos.com/html/ww_i_h_25.html
