Posted on 04/26/2014 11:48:04 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Someone needs to ask Maher to explain the Obama Doctrine.
But rather than say I have something in common with John Kerry, I would say I have something in common with republicans like Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker, Zoellick, Powell, GHW Bush, Lugar etc and democrats like Zbig, Kerry, Sam Nunn, etc.
A real leader should KNOW!
Need for what!? “Need” is a dynamic concept that changes as the world changes. There should however, be a minimum threshold on the US armament. But Odumbo wants to decimate that as well.
When DC is a threat, outside forces are as well.
Ben, a realist recognizes what a lack of military preparedness resulted in as it relates to WWI and WWII.
We can all toss out names until we’re blue in the face. Reagan was the type of realist I respect. He saw what a lack of military preparedness resulted in across the board. He refused to allow it during his tenure.
The fact is, John Kerry does approve of dismantling our military. And the fact is, the dismantling that has already taken place, has resulted in military adventurism in the same place it did twice last century.
Why do you think this military adventurism won’t lead to the same things that took place in WWI and WWII?
If Russia were to take over Europe, how many weeks do you think it would be before he would be expanding into South America, via insurgent groups and people like Manuel Ortega or Fidel Castro types?
Where do you wish to draw the lines, our borders? Do you really wish to see all future global wars fought on U. S. soil against the whole rest of the world?
Your #2 and #3 are contradictory. How can the federal government “bring back American jobs”? And how does that “restore freedom and initiative to this country”? Too vague and meaningless phrases. But, hey, the list feels nice.
With a pro-business environment, there would be more entrepreurs. People would show initiative and try to build something. Currently, a lot of people have "gone Galt" and tried to get out of the system because they perceived corruption and a stacked deck. Again, if government "did less", I think more people would jump in, show initiative and try to build their lives.
And, of course, any change involving less taxation, less regulation, and more vibrant economy would foster more freedom in society.
I see no contradictions. I think government blocks solutions. Less government = more solutions.
Jobs, economy, healthcare, feelings, culture, arts etc are not responsibilities of the gubmint.
No taxes, no welfare, no healthcare, no culture, no arts, and no feelings! The gubmint has to be lean and mean. When you have to fend for yourself, you will be completely free to thrive (or wither).
Start by voiding such parasitical gubmint programs as social security, medicare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and arts. Then dismantle the concept of taxes, income, capital, sales, and property! No exceptions.
The heck with “American jobs”. That is a socialist concept. The ideal business will require no “jobs” as these are expenses that every business SHOULD BE CUTTING! Freedom is when you have to survive and thrive on your own.
“Maher asked, then, what exactly President Obama‘s supposed to do”
That’s the million dollar question, s***head: What exactly does Obama do?
Besides, that is, golf, vacation and get reach-arounds from his boyfriends.
But we still owe all this money for Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the worst thing for defense spending was the sequester.
Ben I agree the sequester was used to do things they wanted to do, but didn’t want to take responsibility for. They had to but, but did they cut welfare or domestic freebies? No. They gutted the military. It was a Leftist’s dream come true.
I will say this though, under Reagan we had a two theater level of military preparedness. Today we have perhaps one, if that.
We’re about to find out in short order how well that works for us.
Bush / Cheney really screwed us on that. Clinton let our armed forces dwindle to a one theater level, and then Bush came along. He should have fixed it. Instead he made it official policy.
We may very well see WWIII about 100 years after WWI, and for basically the same reasons, nobody to stand up to the evil men in the world.
And here I thought we learned our lessons in the last century. No. We’re about to do it all over again. Our youth will be sent into harms way, because at the end of the day, there is no choice. We stand up to evil men sooner or later. It best be sooner, or it’s in Dallas, Miami, Denver...
None of us wants that.
I'm not surprised that the moron isn't familiar with the old adage:
"When your enemy is destroying himself, don't get in his way".
“Maher asked, then, what exactly President Obama‘s supposed to do, calling out Republicans for criticizing Obama every which way on Ukraine but “they never say quite what Obama should do.” He said, “If you’re not suggesting we should go to war or send troops, what are you saying?”
It is surprising that someone as “smart” as Maher and other lefties can’t see how idiotic his question is. Obama was presented to us by leftists such as Maher as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Unlike previous presidents, republicans of course, Obama could do far more than walk and chew gum at the same time. He would know what to do, and do it without fail. Maybe they believed that, but it is hard for me to believe. It is even harder for Putin to believe it.
Reagan sure woudn’t have gone to war over Crimea or Ukraine, that’s for sure. How do I know? Crimea and Ukraine were under Russia’s control the whole time Reagan was president. Reagan didn’t go to war against Russia - or any other country (and please dont call the Grenada weekend rescue operation a “war”).
In contrast, Obama has had a long war going - Afghanistan - for his whole administration He also went to war against Libya. And he wanted to go to war against Syria. But the war hawks on FR still think he hasn’t started enough wars.
How I long for Reagan’s time, when being conservative didn’t mean being in favor of endless foreign wars.
Ditto.
Thanks for your dissertation on histrionics and the comparing of the Ukraine under the USSR and today as a sovereign free nation.
Sheer brilliance...
D.C. is a threat to my liberty. My liberty isn’t threatened by who rules Ukraine. What WILL be a threat to my liberty - because it will mean more federal growth, deficitis, and debt , and maybe even a draft - is if we go to war with Russia over Ukraine. How fathomlously stupid would that be.
I think you are exactly right, Obozo is Putin’s bitch and has been since day one. He is pulling the strings and look for Russian troops on the ground here one day.
I keep noticing how liberals continue to say “what is the Republicans solution to XYZ”, but ignore the fact that its this administrations lack of policy that has led to these problems. Just trying to pin blame on the Republicans instead of looking at the a$$clown in the white hut.
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.