Posted on 08/30/2012 4:05:34 PM PDT by GOPinCa
What I get here is a visionary who sees America that way Reagan saw her - a leader in the world and an influencer of freedom. The friend and supporter of free people everywhere. That's what America is as far as I'm concerned.
I sure don't see anything in here that smells like Obama's hatred of America or wanting to lose our borders language and culture into a "multinational", global melting pot with no national sovereignty or distinctions.
What I get here is a visionary who sees America that way Reagan saw her - a leader in the world and an influencer of freedom. The friend and supporter of free people everywhere. That's what America is as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2012/4/25%20rubio/20120425_rubio
I sure don't see anything in here that smells like Obama's hatred of America or wanting to lose our borders language and culture into a "multinational", global melting pot with no national sovereignty or distinctions.
What I get here is a visionary who sees America that way Reagan saw her - a leader in the world and an influencer of freedom. The friend and supporter of free people everywhere. That's what America is as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve always found it odd that Rubio in Spanish means “blonde” (which he’s not.)
no hey could go back to their own country fill out paper work then enter legally. Pay stiff fines etc!
There are lots of last names like that....in many languages.
;-)
What I get here is a visionary who sees America that way Reagan saw her - a leader in the world and an influencer of freedom.
______________________
You have good vision. ;-)
The TRUTH is always a good response. :-)
I am a Tea Party person (I keep my signs in the garage ready to go) and I very much like Marco Rubio.
Only a very few will ever credit Reagan with what he really did. He could have given speeches and “communicated” all day long and changed nothing. But what he *did* was what destroyed the Soviet Union, and very few people understand this.
Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union with grain.
To explain. Even at the height of the Dust Bowl, wiping out thousands of farms from Texas to Canada, the US still produced a large surplus of grain. With no disaster, we are bulging at the seams with grain.
But the Soviet Union was so ideologically rigid that despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they still insisted that communist communal farms *had* to be better than capitalist farms. So most of their farmland was dedicated to farms that produced just a tiny amount of grain. The USSR was thus always borderline to famine.
And these farms used a vast amount of animal labor, animals that also had to be fed grain.
But Reagan did something that nobody on the right or the left understood: he opened the floodgates to unrestricted grain sales to the USSR. The right accused him of “supporting Russia”, and the left of “buying the farm vote.”
But both were very wrong. Because US grain was very expensive. The Russians were too paranoid to eat it, so they only fed it to their animals, and diverted their animals grain for human consumption.
And they had to pay for it. First with every drop of oil they produced. Then with all their gold reserves, finally dredging their river deltas to get more gold to give us. And all their foreign currency as well.
American grain drained them of wealth like a vampire drains a victim of blood. And when the Russians were scraping the bottom of the barrel, desperate for anything to buy grain with, then Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, “Star Wars”.
Hundreds of billions of dollars given without pain to defeat the Soviet ballistic missiles. It was too much for the Russians to bear. It broke their spirit.
When I look at Obama, I see him and his party as ideologically rigid as were the Soviets. As such, all they can do is tear America down, insult our friends and support our enemies. But they have nothing to contribute that works or is efficient. They are losers, but like the Russian communists, they reject reality in favor of their fantasies.
Republican liberals are much more dangerous. W. Bush went to war against radical Islam, but he was so much a creature of war that he could not distinguish between foreign nations and America in pursuing that war.
What little threat there was here, was and is minor, and our domestic intelligence and federal police agencies were more than capable of dealing with it realistically, save when we handicapped ourselves with stupid ideas, like that “profiling is a bad thing.” It isn’t, and it works.
But W. Bush went “full police state retard”, oppressing Americans needlessly, when the battle was in other nations.
Oddly enough, this was probably more harmful to America than what Obama has inflicted on us.
And what they did were not polar opposites, but two sides to the same coin.
Which is why it is so important to get real conservatives into both congress and the presidency. To stop this nonsense, be it radical leftist or liberal-authoritarian Republican, before the combination of the two can destroy our nation.
The opposite to being shot is not being stabbed. Both are bad.
no, maybe ask some others around here. I don’t know all that much about how the site works.
no
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.