Well I don’t consider myself Libertarian, but rather conservative. My beliefs are quite basic. I believe we are free because that is what our God wanted for us and thus the reason America was founded on Christian values and its very clear those values run deep and strong in the Constitution.

I believe in personal responsibility and that others are personal responsible for themselves and their own actions. I believe there will always be those who for one reason or another can not, due to circumstances outside their control, take care of themselves and that it is society’s obligation to care for them and take care of their “basic” needs, which are shelter, food and medical. This would be those with medical conditions and mental conditions, NOT a women who has a child out of wedlock and decides on her own that it is better to stay home and receive free money, free food, free medical and free dental.

Now, with that said it takes two to make a baby and obviously if she can not take care of herself and child it means the father is out there somewhere and he is ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY responsible for ALL the expenses of his child, no if and or buts about it. Call me a sexiest if you will but if one is man enough to create a child he had BETTER be man enough to take care of that child…

I don’t hate Dean but rather I strongly disagree with him and his main values of pure HATE. To me Dean is no different then some of those that are on the far right that just HATED Clinton.

I may not have agreed with a lot of what Clinton did or stood for but the man was never about pure HATE towards his opponents. When he was President he was my President even though I never voted for him. He was America’s spokesman at the time and when it came to foreign affairs I agreed with our current President when he had stated (before he was President) ”America speaks with one voice”

You are half correct in that it takes economic strength to have power, the other half of the equation is military power. Either one of those on their own guarantees nothing at all.

I don’t know where you ever got that I think we need a ton of SSBN’s to have power, we simply need a powerful and fully equipped military to INSURE our safety and stature in the world.

I have said it before and will say it again that it is easy to prove my theory of needing a military to insure peace and freedom. Take one large city like Los Angles and take all the police force out of there and see how long Los Angles remains in “somewhat” peace and security, it would be a free for all just like the riots in the early 90’s of which I was there for. Not good my friend, not good at all…

The reason a strong military has not helped Israel is because we, America has held Israel back from using it. If America gave the green light to Israel the Palestine’s would in FACT be at the table talking about peace…

Oh, and when did Switzerland become a superpower in military and economics? Switzerland depends on America for its safety, sure they may provide some of their own but the fact remains if there was no America there would be no Switzerland as we know it today…

 

First, thanks on getting the actual text I was referring too…

I knew abortion was a bad example but the best I could think of when it came to badly abusing the Constitution and some thinking there is something in the Constitution that states that abortion is somehow a legal right.

I don’t want to get into the subject of abortion itself, personally I feel it is a society issue not a government issue and I have my own views that are not necessarily solid and are not in complete agreement of many conservatives…

So with that out of the way, the only way I was trying to relate abortion to the Constitution is the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution one way or the other about the “issue” of abortion and thus if any laws are necessary for one way or the other on abortion is should be left to each state to decide…

 

Interesting, I've never seen a dead person with aluminum foil on their head either. Looks like I have a project tonight.


Try searching back discussions. The opposite is true. Also most of us realize it's not smart to start battles on many fronts. 1 at a time.

And as it was said, N. Korea knows what will happen if they cross the line. The countries against terrorism have stepped up and let it be known that they are not affraid to act.

Talk about lack of facts. If memory serves me Iraq doesn't even rank that high on our places that we get oil.

If a country that harbors terrorists is being turned upside down by military forces of other countries, forcing the terrorists to flee and fight back in that country (which leads little to no time to plan future attacks), how exactly does that not make countries no safer from terrorism?

Honestly I've seen more true libertarians act like true conservatives in recent political discussions. Times are changing and so are parties. Hell maybe it's time we just throw away the political parties and each person that runs for a(ny) office has to do it on their own character, no political backing.

 

As of when? Check your history. Besides which, Iraq is sitting on the largest oil fields in the world.

Because the terrorists who are currently sunning themselves in Indonesia aren't exactly quaking in their boots about the fact that we invaded Iraq. They are, however, pretty pissed off about it and may decide that blowing things up in the US would be nice for a change.

-Don

 

Talk about people who need to start wearing aluminum foil hats...

Will you please get real. Switzerland has not been invaded in hundreds of years. This includes during both World Wars and long before the US showed up on the scene.

As for economically powerful? Well, I don't know how to clarify the fact that being a world banking and financial center makes you economically powerful.

-Don

 

here we go.

after the 160 billion plus that iraq has cost us (not including american lives) i can honestly say i feel no safer today than i did on 09/12/01.

not to rehash old posts, but, it wasnt individuals from iraq carrying out the terrorist acts. if there was no iraq, the towers would still have been destroyed. also, iraq seemed to be doing okay with their own tribal/mafia type arrangement where they seemed to be killing themselves off (relieveing us of the task, and keeping their problems 'in house' so to speak)

however, if it was not for the saudi's and afghanastan,the towers would still be there.

this does lead to a different point however. many months ago i saw some sort of report on tv (dont remember what network) that was interesting.

they showed a farmer (in job-title only) in afghanastan. he was wearing rags, standing in a dusty sandy/dirt field behind a single ox, pulling a plow that looked like it was left over from little house on the prarie.

the translation was something to the effect of 'we see money coming in form the u.s. to our government, but none of it seems to trickle down to the people. i just want to feed my family. i will take aid from whoever will give it to me in order to do that (al queda or whoever)'.

there are many ways to skin a goat (raul probably can rattle off a few without even breaking a sweat). i think combined smart strikes there, and helping those people put food on the table would have worked better than the mess we have made in iraq.

i also feel that showing these groups that we would operate outside the box, on their level, by going after individual punks rather than an entire country would have them think twice about what they are doing. i would think that al queda doesnt give a rats a$$ that iraq is biting the bullet for what they did. they probably just see it (in their twisted perception) as an example of how america is out to attack muslim belief's.

again, we needed to answer back, with force, and set an example of why we should not be screwed with, but i think our response was misguided.

bullets are not responsible for killing, people kill people. (this can be a whole seperate topic in itself)

this thread makes for a real good read.

 

Ok billycouldride you going to be the first to answer my question of:

A man is standing in front of you with a loaded gun. You are unarmed, so which is more dangerous, the gun from Afghanistan or the bullet that is from Iraq?

It’s not a trick question so you shouldn’t have to think to long to come up with the correct answer…

 

okay, i'm a little niave, feel like i'm walking into something here, but what the hell.


i cant see how i can answer that question properly as dont think its a simple 'a' or 'b' answer but,


a bullet cant hurt me with a firing mechanism

a gun cant hurt me with a projectory, unless the man pistols whips my a$$, so i will go with the gun.

therefore, i'm leaning towards the gun, and its my final answer.

i think the correct answer is 'c', the man, cause if he doesnt have a gun he can get me in other ways.



so whadda i win?????

 

Billycouldride:

Actually you did get it right with your initial response of “both” the gun and the bullet, the combination of the two are deadly. Each left by themselves are basically harmless as far as any major damage they could do to someone.

Same with a terrorist, by himself he is basically harmless nothing more then someone with a big mouth and bad attitude.

Same for like a chemical or biological weapon of some type. Left in the proper storage they are basically harmless where they are at.

Now, combine a load mouth wuss terriost with a chemical or biological weapon (gun and bullet) and you have a very serious deadly weapon.

The point about Iraq has NEVER been that Iraq was going to or even able to send a missile that could reach the United States the point has been Saddam was and had been developing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons of which he could have easily given to a terrorist from any country.

Saddam never had any problems with using chemical weapons, not even on his own people and he ran his wuss mouth continuously about wanting to do major damage to America.

Saddam had been told time and time again by the entire free world (those represented in the United Nations) he had to give up all his weapons of mass destruction but failed to do so for over 10 years.

President Clinton had warned America and the world time and time again (for almost 8 years) that Iraq was a serious and grave threat to America because of Iraq’s chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons and the very real threat of Saddam putting them in the hands of terriost to hand deliver to America. Let’s not forget just about every democrat now stating they do NOT support what we did in Iraq had previously agreed with it and approved of it had President Clinton wished to do as President Bush did.

The Iraq war has very little to do about oil and has a whole lot to do with neutralizing a once VALID threat to America. America is much safer with Iraq free and Saddam captured, we got a big supply of bullets now taking care of it’s a matter of getting as much as we can of the remaining bullets…

What I don’t get about liberals in general (not calling you a liberal) is the fact that their previous leader, Clinton, got it so how come they don’t get it now???

 

Sitting on and getting from are two different things.

Taken from:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html

That was just a quick search.


If you notice Iraq is #6 in 2001 and #5 in 2002. Not even in the top 3.

How is it about the oil then?

 

I think it went like this with the oil suppliers....

#1 Canada (which is believed to have a bigger reserve than Suadi Arabi lying under the Canadian boreal forest.)

#2 Mexico

#3/4 Suadi arabia/venezuela (I can't remember wich was which)

Iraq reserves are not believed to be the biggest. They are large for sure but I think they rank about 4th on estimated reserves.

edit: you know I had a 4 paragraph essay written up on the whole terrorist thing. Then I realized you wouldn't listen anyway, and I would have to reinforce it. Then eleborate for 12 more paragraphs and you still wouldn't be listening. I said F it, delete, continue on. Go vote for Dean he's not listening either.

 

My point, which both you and Viper utterly failed to comprehend, was that before the first Gulf war, Iraq was one of primary suppliers. Even during a period of embargo, they came in at number 5.

The point behind the war wasn't that the US could get cheap oil, but that Haliburton and the Oil companies would make a lot of money selling it _after_ we conquered Iraq.

Brilliant. The number 3 supplier of oil to our country is the one that _actually_ sponsored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. (You do remember that the terrorists had Saudi passports right?)

Number 4 is a country that is about as politically stable as Argentina.

Why aren't you sitting there advocating that we attack Saudi Arabia?
They are number 2 in known reserves and believed to be sitting on the largest untapped reserves.

I live in NYC. I use to do a lot of work for clients at the WTC. I had friends in both towers when they were struck. Please don't sit there and tell me about the terrorist situation.

I am the one who gets on the subway and gets to watch National Guard soldiers walking around with M16's. How long will it be until they are walking around on every street corner? How long until I get to drive through military checkpoints on my way into the city? We are becoming like every country we despise. You are content to let it happen. I am not.

-Don

 

I can do Dean one better. I don't just hate Bush, I loathe him.

I'm sure he is a nice guy and he would probably be a lot of fun to have drinks with. I don't believe for a second, however, that he has my interests at heart. His administration has taken our civil liberties and thrown them out the window.

You are willing to overlook this or are willing to believe that the Democratic nominees would do the same thing. I am not willing to overlook this and I don't believe for a second that the Democratic nominees (with the possible exception of Lieberman) would be willing to throw out our rights.

Bush has polarized this country. People either love him or hate him. That might be fine for a rock star, but it isn't a good quality in a president.

-Don

 

XLT,

You love these random analogies don't you? What is the point of this question? Is the US supposed to be unarmed?

You, and everyone who agrees with you, believe that Iraq was the most dangerous threat to this country. I believe that North Korea and Saudi Arabia are far more dangerous threats.

Hussein has been running around for 10 years with the same weapons and spouting the same nonesense. Exactly what happened a few months ago that made it critical that we start a war immediately? Why didn't we finish with Bin Laden? Why didn't we finish rebuilding Afghanistan?

This whole war in Iraq has been like a giant game of three card Monte. We start out trying to figure out which shell Bin Laden is hiding under and next thing you know, Bush pulls Hussein out from under a different shell. Instead of asking where the hell Bin Laden is, you are busy cheering.

Castro has been spouting the same anti-US sentiment that you accuse Hussein of. Why haven't we invaded Cuba? Because just like Hussein, Castro is all talk and no show. Do you honestly believe it failed to occur to Hussein that if he pisses the US off we would come in and finish what we started?

We proved how easy it was to defeat him the first time. In a subsequent war we would have better weapons and more time to prepare. I believe he knew that and wasn't about to risk his comfy job.

-Don

 

I am curious about a few things:

1. Why are people so willing to put up with the current budget deficits? We are talking about a 500 BILLION dollar deficit. This isn't a joke. It is an economic disaster.

2. Doesn't it bother anyone that the oil and gas industry is being given a $14 billion subsidy?

3. Why do people respect a man who has been arrested several times, averaged a C in college, treated National Guard duty like a joke and ran most of the businesses he was in charge of into the ground?

4. Why don't people respect a man who, despite being a Dean (As in the financial firm of Dean Witter) worked hard and became a doctor?

5. Where the &%$ is Osama Bin Laden?

6. Why are people willing to vote Bush back into office after he signed into law the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II (No matter what they decided to call it in the end)?

7. Why are we being asked to accept the No Child Left Behind Act by the former governor of Texas, a state that happens to have the lowest test scores in the country?

XLT,
You never answered my question: On which issues do you disagree with Dean? Dean certainly seems to care more about civil liberties than Bush does, and you already said that you disagreed with subpoenas being issued without judicial oversight. You've also told us you hate the prescription drug plan.

Besides the war in Iraq, on what issues do you actually agree with Bush?

-Don

I am not trying to endorse Dean here. Any qualified Democratic candidate would substitue equally well.