Posted on 10/06/2007 8:23:17 PM PDT by Josh Painter
;)
Oh man oh man. I hear you, brother. Arnold has been bad news. Definitely a lesson learned for many of us.
LOL!
You are funny, too. ;o)
BTW, I “got” your post before you sent the smiley.
I love subtle humor.
It’s nice to “meet” you. ;o)
“I think Iraq is important only from the standpoint I do not want to show weakness to the Islamofascist.”
My main concern will be the nation-states in the middle east, namely Iran. Iraq’s stability is critical...it’s not just face, it’s fact. Especially given Iran’s motion towards war.
“But from the standpoint that the US has put its nose in foreign policy all over the globe far too often in the last 50 years, I 100% agree with Ron Paul.”
Yes and no. Sometimes too often, but other times it was necessary for our greater security.
“Just think WE’RE the ones who funded Saddam and WE’RE the ones who funded OBL originally.”
The context is important in why we did such. For OBL, it was an attempt to indirectly fight the Russians. Personally, I think OBL acted like he was a big part of that, and others took a bigger role. We’d definitely be better-off not supporting him.
As far as Saddam goes, we were trying to out ally the russians in Iraq. The Russians were attempting to gain influence there, and we were attempting to keep Saddam on our side (at the time). Stupid or smart? Well, that’s how it was seen at the time. For the most part weapons accrued came from Russia, France, and the chemicals from Malaysia...I believe. I believe our help was with technology. Not wise, imo.
______________________________________________________
“our military leads me to believe that overall we need to return to a more isolationist policy than before after Iraq is over.”
I disagree. We need to outflank the Democrats in their position. We need to talk the living crap out of the Syrians and Iranians (aka diplomacy). We need to give them every single chance to reform, and when it’s no-longer an option we’ll have clean image for trying..,.and the dems will have no foundation for their foreign policy.
________________________________________________________
“This is a sign of a weak position and its sad that the leading conservative website would allow that kind of dribble in my opinion.”
I don’t really have a negative opinion on Ron’s domestic policies but I do disgree with his foreign policies...and I question whom he has as supporters and whom he gives his time to. That I find questionable, but I don’t think the man is ill-intent.
I don’t think he’s a Rudy. Rudy can destroy our party,...Ron’s just being Ron...he’s nothing in the Republican party nomination, so why care!?
” Oh man oh man. I hear you, brother. Arnold has been bad news. Definitely a lesson learned for many of us.”
I couldn’t stand the thought of voting for him [Arnold]. I know several here did, but I hope..hope..hope...they think this one over, and they don’t go for the liberal republican [Rudy].
I’ll get sick on election day if I have to vote for him or Hillary. Might as well ask if the devil has a brother.
Most here are forgetting that with Ron Paul, the need to care about Iraq/Iran would be near zero as he would immediately allow drilling pretty much everywhere and allow more nuclear energy sites in the US and within 5-7 years the US would be energy self-sufficient. That is a huge reason why I do not think Iraq/Iran is nearly as important as what some make it out to be.
“Most here are forgetting that with Ron Paul, the need to care about Iraq/Iran would be near zero as he would immediately allow drilling pretty much everywhere and allow more nuclear energy sites in the US and within 5-7 years the US would be energy self-sufficient. That is a huge reason why I do not think Iraq/Iran is nearly as important as what some make it out to be.”
Well,..here’s my problem with that. Most of our oil is either domestically drilled or from Canada or Mexico. We aren’t all too dependent on the ME...atleast in comparison to Europe.
Now doing that would have rather big effects on Europe. If we just allowed chaos to happen, and Iran acquired a nuke, then we’d see a big war in the...perhaps even with the Sauds. Oil would easily hit over $100. Domestic drilling wouldn’t effect prices..remotely. It takes years to set-up offshore rigs, and years to find oil.
Nucluer power is for electricity and until electric cars are very affordable and wide-spread, nucluer power isn’t going to effect our petro needs. Muchless we’re a global economy, and such a war would effect Europe’s economy incredibly and put Russia in to a hugely dominant position over Europe. This is a very negative consequence of ignore the ME.
I disagree with your view of what would happen, if that is your view. I think it’s unrealistic. As much as I want to ignore that region of the world, and let it waste away...it’s unfortunately holding a source so valueable to our existence, we can’t ignore it. If I thought your timeline was reasonable in replacing our energy needs, I would join in.
I think algae biomass will have that role in replacing petro...perhaps in 15-20 years. The timelines for realistically replacing the middle east are all out many years from now, so isolation isn’t an option.
Engage and prepare for the worst...hope for the best.
Slightly off-topic, they were mocking Thompson on Saturday Night Live tonight (lazy, doesn’t want the job, yadda yadda). The best part was, they have the guy who impersonates Cheney impersonating Thompson. I had to laugh despite myself.
Romney’s campaign released two statements about Rush by two different spokespeople, a day apart.
On 9/28, Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden released this statement to the Huffington Post:
“Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/romney-criticizes-limbaug_n_66363.html
On 9/29, Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom made this statement to the Boston Herald:
“Rush’s comments were unfortunate. People should be free to express their opinion and no one has earned the right to express that opinion more than these soldiers,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for ex-Bay State governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/view.bg?articleid=1034890
On 10/3 Hugh Hewitt emailed Romney to ask about it, and Romney called Hewitt to attempt to clarify:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/28139037-19f7-4282-be75-650b7e445635
Yep -- I can't support Paul because of the war, but I will always respect his staunch and often lonely support for smaller government.
I'd find myself hard pressed to vote for a gun-grabber mayor or a socialist governor. It won't happen. NEVER....
And this is just what the left wants. Giuliani or Romney to be our choice because it will shatter our unity and make Hillary the queen.
And whoever responds on that point, don't bother looking for a response from me other than I won't vote for those two. Won't happen. If it has to be Hillary, lets get the "flush" over with.
Romney’s statement was extremely stupid. If he hadn’t bothered to research the segment, he should have said so, done his homework, and then said Rush made sense...especially while we’re at war. How many times has Fred said, ‘I didn’t know that, hadn’t heard that. Let me look into it and I’ll get back to you.’ Easy, smart, honest and an example of Fred being Fred, thank God. (Sometimes politicians are so sharp, they stab themselves in the back.)
Way to hand him his posterior there! His ridiculous comment made me laugh and cringe at the same time and I was glad to see that you called him on it.
It is troubling, isn’t it, that lately there is such a tremendous unwillingness on the part of many here to debate anything at all and instead resort to name calling, outright fabrications, and/or childish put downs. This is especially so when the subject is the nomination and someone mentions anyone other than “His Excellency Fred Thompson” as being a good candidate.
Amen, Amen, and AMEN!!! I second every single word.
buh, buh, buh...but I thought the New York Times said that Fred sucked.....?
We get oil oversees more than you think. Saudi - 1.4 million barrels/day. Venezuala 1.1 million barrels/day. Nigeria .9 mill/day. Algeria .5 mil/day. Iraq .5 mil/day. Kuwait .2 mil/day. Libya .2 mil/day. Many are not exactly 'friendly' as far as I'm concerned.
See post #23, it was started by you guys.
BTW the link you cited has been refuted a thousand times.
A while back there was a comparison chart for how much each candidate spent while in office. Fred had the best rating, because of how much he saved while trying to cut waste and so on.
Does anyone know where I can get this chart? I can’t find it online.
Think carefully about what truly is the lesser of two evils. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, doesn't have a thing to do with the fact that elections almost always boil down to choosing between the lesser of evils. That's the way it is and that's how it's going to stay as long as we are a free people. Denying it is futile; dealing with it is reality.
What Arnold taught me is that what I thought would be the lesser of two evils (a Liberal Republican) may in fact be the worst. Had Cruz won, he would have crashed and burned a lot of things, but it would have been on a D watch and he would just be one more wacky Lib who screwed the pooch, evidence overwhelming, and one more arrow in the quiver of Republicans. As Arnold advances ludicrous "global warming" power-grabs, government-administrated health care from cradle to grave, and other social engineering nonsense, he's doing it on MY watch -- an R watch. He's harming more than the cause of freedom. He's seriously weakening the future of the Republican party because thoughtful potential new voters look at that and say, "If that's 'Republican,' that ain't what I'm looking for."
Hillary combined with a Dem congress (which she would probably lose quickly) would be a horrible, awful thing. A vast evil.
Perceivably, the lesser evil would be a guy like Rudy OR Romney -- both of them are Rs of loose reputation. They're loose with Big Government. They see Big Government as a solution to ills; the main difference is degree and administration. In much the same was as you couldn't stand the thought of voting for Arnold, I couldn't stand the thought of voting for a Republican who endorses government-controlled health care. The health habits and choices of individuals are intensely personal, therefore private, things. Respect for human dignity hinges on enabling the personal to remain private. It is absolutely, completely, morally and economically OUTSIDE the purview of government. Those who think that "things have changed" and that technology, etc., have changed that, are victim to very flawed priorities. The rule of respecting dignity is TIMELESS. It will always be that way no matter the time or technology.
"Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind for me when mulling the task of determining the lesser of evils in the choice of Rudy/Romney vs. Hillary. Further, Hillary would immediately become the most deeply despised president in American history and would damage the Democrat party horrifically, and quickly.
Rudy or Romney would, at a more slower rate, institute the Liberal Democrat philosophies of Big Government, in the name of Republicans -- thus diluting my party's immediate and long term future. Frankly, I'm inclined to think that Hillary would be the lesser of the evils because America could recover quickly from her. Republicans who are wholly Democrat Lites do damage that is much more difficult to repair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.