Free Republic

I believe I just heard he is the oldest living exPresident ever.

What's the deal with this?

Agreed. Sometimes I get fed up with the way some things are in this country, but then I step back and realize what a great country it is. People from other nations and some on the left in America cannot comprehend the ultimate ideal of the people ruling the country and the government as opposed to the other way around. I recall the tsunami as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if private citizens an charities in the US provided more donations than all the governments on the planet put together.

These people also don't understand that people who have been successful want to give back, and that the real meaning of Christianity is helping those who need help. These people want to point out all of our shortcomings, but fail to see that these shortcopmings are exceeded by our strengths.

I agree with you 100%.

That is nice.

I hope those two bastrad get raped and beaten to death in jail.

"Still, his main point is that more Americans, regardless of ideology, should embrace giving as a tool for progress. Brooks quotes Proverbs: "One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty."

This is not all that surprising of a finding. I will say that I do know people I would consider liberals that are very charitable, but it is just funny to see this considering the way the media and some on the left attempt to portray all conservatives as mean, greedy people.

Well I live DC so terrorism is a concern of mine. All you have really done is superimpose a bunch of beliefs and labels on me, all of which do not apply. I have actually spent considerably portions of my time studying these people, learning their language, and I recognized the threat of Islamic terrorism before some people in our government could find these countries on a map.

Perhaps in your simplistic world view America going around wiping out nations with nuclear weapons is a bright idea, but it really is not a good thing for a country to be in opposition to the entire planet. Nobody would stand with us if we launched a premptive nuclear attack against two third world nations with third-world militaries.

I would also like to point out that I want to use our resources going after the people who actually attacked us and our planning to do it again. They are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but our so-called leaders spend their time cowtowing to those nations while they support AQ behind our back. If anyone will give AQ a nuke it will come from Pakistan or it it will be bought off the black market with Saudi oil money. Those are the facts, so you can listen up to those. They are the real threats that I want to deal with rather than wasting our time destroying two nations that will not have nukes in the next 10 years.

You may want to brush up on your reading comprehension if you think the quote you provided supports your conclusion. I stated we still have the highground, but preemptively nuking Iran and Syria would cost us that highground in the eyes of the world, and in the eyes of any sane rational person.

Since when is Wal Mart state-owned?

Good point. Jesus would either go to Wal Mart or Sam's Club if he had a membership.

This woman thinks you are a baby machine that should have sex 15 time in your life. One time for each child you are supposed to have.

The author does not even define promiscuity, but her definition of a promiscuous woman probably included every woman who has had sex before marriage. She sounds like one of those self-rigteous types that wants to impose her own morality on everyone else. It has been my experience that most women on college campuses do not like being labeled as sluts, so the author's notion that their is no stigma attached to a woman who has sex with everyone she meets is just not true.

Remaining anonymous is also a slick way to sell books. When I went to a liberal college, which was not all that long ago, we were handed pamphlets warning about unprotected sex and STDs. It is difficult to believe this woman would be fired for her opinions.

Sorry but Iran and Syria are third-world failed states that pose no legitimate threat to America. They are regional threats to the middle east that threaten their neighbors. They pose no threat to US interests outside that region. Their militaries have 1970s technology and we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. Any American who is afraid of Iran and Syria is the useful idiots because nations like Russia, Pakistan, and China are far greater threats to the US.

You have a personal stake in wanting war with Iran and Syria because they wronged you in your home country. The US military is not a police force and is not responsible for righting all the world's wrongs. We need oil from the middle east and that is it. We need to stop concerning ourselves with the plight of everybody in the region because the entire region is a mess and a headache for the entire world.

Perhaps useful idiots like me would be more inclined to go to war with Iran and Syria if their was any indication that our government would actually fight to win and destroy our enemies, rather than taking part in nation building like we are in Iraq.

I agree in the short term. The problem is that we need some type of progres in regard to the rivaling sects and their ability to cohabitate the country. I was thinking if partition happened Baghdad would be carved up like East and West Berlin or Israel and Palestine. It would entail a lot of security fences and towers and roadblocks, but it would help prevent a lot of interaction between the groups. It is not ideal, but something like that may work.

I am also not convinced the Kurdish movement in Turkey would grow stronger if the had their own state. With America's help, many of the Kurd may move there and prosper as so many have since the war.

I agree that we really want a secular Iraqi government, but it will be anywhere from difficult in that country.

I wist it was not true, but you are right. We have been better off postponing the elections and leaving Allawi as a the ruler of the country indefinitely.

My primary point was that the author was incorrect to state that the Palestinians are a proxy for Iran because to my knowledged the Saudis give the Palestinians far more money than Iran does, and the Saudis are Sunnis as are most Palestinians. I never meant to imply that Iran has no influence in Palestine or that Shiite and Sunnis can never collaborate. But, Sunnis will always side with another Sunni and vice versa. Just look at Iraq.

Plus Iran has their own terrorist network that is probably even better trained and more dangerous than Al Qaeda. There may be collaboration, but no one has demonstrated that is really is going on in any significant way. Iran was an enemy of the Taliban, so it is not outside the realm of possibility that they do not like Al Qaeda.


Iran is obviously a terrorist-supporting state, but one could make the same argument about the Saudi government. The Saudi Arabia also has the money to buy nukes from Pakistan or anywhere else they could get them, and they do have some type of nuclear program.

Why is everyone so gung ho about premptively obliterating Iran when there are many other threats out there that are at least as severe? Another poster pointed out that we can defeat Iran at any time we choose so there is no good reason to do so before it is actually necessary. If we did it would cost AMerica the highground in the world community that we still have regardless of what the MSM and Dems say.

I share your concerns because the Democrats are not the right people to protect America, and I think and hope the American people do realize this when it comes to the 2008 elections. They key for the Republicans and America will be to put a candidate on the ballot who can win. I will probably be supporting McCain or Guiliani because I feel they have the right mindset when it comes to foreign policy. I disagree with them on 2nd Ammendment issues, but we must prioritize in this point in time.

And I think you are right on in describing this illusion that we are appeasing.

I think it is too soon to move against Iran. Their nuke program is not that far along, and a war would certainly disrupt the world economy. Iran's intel services and the terrorists they support are all over the world, including in America. We could obviously defeat Iran if we wanted to, but it is not worth it at this time. Iran is not like Al Qaeda because they still have the goals typical of a nation-state, while Al Qaeda has no interests other than terrorism.