I can't wait til November!

Martial Media, Culture and Other Arts Off Topic
21

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015494]I look forward to voting Democrat for the next 20 years or so.[/QUOTE]

Why not just move to Cuba and leave this country alone?

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015494]The GOP is the party of war,[/QUOTE]

LBJ was a Democrat.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015494]of foreign military adventures,[/QUOTE]

Clinton sent our troops to more foreign countries than any other President.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015494]of deficit spending on bombs, bullets and drones [/QUOTE]

Is deficit spending on entitlement programs any better?

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015494]Even if that means electing a radical green socialist or otherwise unacceptable candidates just because they do not have an (R) next to their name.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, you have learned nothing from history.

The people of Cuba said the same thing about the Batista regime. The people of Russia said the same thing about the Czars. The people of China said the same thing about the Nationalists. And after the millions of murders committed by the communists/socialists who replaced those governments, I’m sure the people would have preffered to skip the “change”.

22

[QUOTE=1bad65;1015507]Why not just move to Cuba and leave this country alone?
[/quote]
It’s my country and you lack the will or the firepower to make me leave. To be blunt.

Clinton sent our troops to more foreign countries than any other President.

Yeah but it wasn’t to the tune of a quarter million service members plus all their support, equipage, etc. Bush and Cheney are the ones who started that ball rolling.

Is deficit spending on entitlement programs any better?

Sure it is. At least the money is arguably wasted at home creating economic benefit for American businesses (it’s not like the poor invest their pittance overseas.. they buy their daily bread and pay their rent with it).
Deficit or borrowed money spent on a bullet or missile is destroyed overseas.
Deficit money spent on the poor supports American enterprise and incidentally keeps the rabble loyal to the civic entities and social contract (if you want to be really cynical about it).

The people of Cuba said the same thing about the Batista regime. The people of Russia said the same thing about the Czars. The people of China said the same thing about the Nationalists. And after the millions of murders committed by the communists/socialists who replaced those governments, I’m sure the people would have preffered to skip the “change”.

That may very well be true.. but this is America, and in America we have (mostly) free elections that (generally) are largely fair.
And the right and responsibility of the electorate is to vote in the national interest and in their own beliefs. And that means using politician’s track records as a benchmark.

In my case that means cutting off my own right hand before supporting the warmongers at the voting booth.

23

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015585]It’s my country and you lack the will or the firepower to make me leave. To be blunt.[/QUOTE]

I’d never force a law abiding citizen out. That’s wrong. Maybe you advocate that though, judging by your reaction to my post.

I mean, why not save yourself all the trouble of trying to transform this country when you can go to somewhere like Cuba that already has all the poilicies/programs/Government in place that you advocate.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015585]Yeah but it wasn’t to the tune of a quarter million service members plus all their support, equipage, etc. Bush and Cheney are the ones who started that ball rolling.[/QUOTE]

So the liberal President gets a pass in your book. Ok, at least your honest, unlike your President.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015585]Sure it is. At least the money is arguably wasted at home creating economic benefit for American businesses (it’s not like the poor invest their pittance overseas.. they buy their daily bread and pay their rent with it).

Deficit or borrowed money spent on a bullet or missile is destroyed overseas.
Deficit money spent on the poor supports American enterprise and incidentally keeps the rabble loyal to the civic entities and social contract (if you want to be really cynical about it).
[/QUOTE]

Newflash!!! Since the entitlements started, the problems they were designed to fix have gotten worse.

We have more people on the dole now that when the “Great Society” began over 40 years ago. Thats failure. We have a larger number of children born into poverty and single parent households than 40 years ago. That’s failure. We spend more on entitlements per year than the liberals who created them said they would cost in total. That’s failure. And all of that is wasted money.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015585]That may very well be true.. but this is America, and in America we have (mostly) free elections that (generally) are largely fair.
And the right and responsibility of the electorate is to vote in the national interest and in their own beliefs. And that means using politician’s track records as a benchmark.

In my case that means cutting off my own right hand before supporting the warmongers at the voting booth.[/QUOTE]

It’s not a case of it “may very well be true”, it IS true. Throughout history when people revolt/vote/etc for “change”, just for Change’s sake, it’s not good. There is always something worse out there. So to me, voting blindly against a Party, and not listening to the individual candidates, is dangerous.

Also, remeber this when talking about government vs “Big Business”: Big Business didn’t legalize slavery, Governments did. Big Business didn’t tell blacks they couldn’t vote, Government did. Big Business never banned or burned books, Governments have. Big Business never threw people in gas chambers and ovens, Governments did.

Large Governments are ALWAYS present when people are murdered by their Governments. Small Governments don’t have the ability to murder millions, only big ones do. I look at Government like fire, it’s needed and serves some good. But left unchecked and allowed to grow too large, it can be a very destructive force than can kill everything in its path. I feel we should not take the risk that if we have a big Government, all will be ok. And history is on my side…

24

Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.

Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not ‘government’. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government.

And the Chinese nationalists did not have a truly free press for most of their history, and dissent was normally responded to with purges and assassinations until the US was getting embarrassed about it. The Chinese situation was complex, to sum it up as good guys vs. bad guys is naive. The nationalist leader, in real terms, was nothiing more than a warlord with no stable authority until confined to an island that he could easily control due to the size of his forces vs. the land mass. He never, never had a chance of ruling the whole mainland and also having ties with the US. There is a reason the communists won, for good or ill, and it isn’t a simple one, and there are so many dirty hands in it, that often the loudest complainers are from the countries whose influence had to be driven out, by whatever leadership could do it.

25

What Fmr Pres Clinton did was nowhere near the scale of what Fmr Pres Bush did, militarily. More countries? Doesn’t matter, because, like said before, in terms of equipment, money, and soldiers, Fmr Pres Bush deployed exponentially more soldiers and gear than Clinton.

HOWEVER, I don’t think this point is really making sense, as both were responding to different times and situations. Apples and oranges, really, though I do think declaring war on Iraq before Afghanistan was even close to finished was just a bad idea.

26

[QUOTE=Drake;1015608]

HOWEVER, I don’t think this point is really making sense, as both were responding to different times and situations. Apples and oranges, really, though I do think declaring war on Iraq before Afghanistan was even close to finished was just a bad idea.[/QUOTE]

In all honesty.. if we (i.e. America) wanted to institute real and lasting regime change in Afghanistan we would have gone in with EVERYTHING, and we would have ignored almost everything else until we had truly won (and that would be 10-15 laters MINIMUM). Till a whole generation of young Afghans had grown up with McDonalds and Walmarts and Beyonce.

Not just the military, or primarily the military. Send in the doctors, the nurses, the school teachers, the businessmen and women, the engineers. We would have had to do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

There was plenty of support worldwide for doing something in Afghanistan.. but it would have required Bush and Cheney to spend literally the entire remainder of their term/s working relentlessly pouring American knowhow, culture, business practices etc. into the region to actually do it right. And then they would have to hand it off to the next two Presidents to do the same thing.

Instead we went in hard and fast, took Kabul and declared victory.

This is, pardon my French, dumb as f*ck. The 'Stan is called “the Graveyard of Empires” for a reason. The only real way to change that is to send in massive amounts of everybody BUT the military, and have the conventional military play a security role for the Peace Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Public Health Service and every other aid organization we could bribe, threaten, cajole and pressure into the region.

Of course that would not be very sexy and would not get us any oil to speak of.

Bush would probably have gone down in history as a much better President if he said
“People from Afghanistan have attacked America. We will not destroy the country who harbored these attackers. But we will change the country that they used as a base. I confidently expect my democratically elected successor to declare victory in 20 years, and do so standing next to the 5th democratically elected head of the Afghan state. Excuse me, we have alot of work to do”.

As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation’s highest office, in all likelihood.

27

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1015605]Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.

Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not ‘government’. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government..[/QUOTE]

True. Why is it that the “small government” types (with the notable exception of Ron Paul and Rand Paul) seem to be all about small government EXCEPT for military spending and certain sorts of crime control?

Because they are moral cowards, and lack the courage of their convictions.

If you believe in minimalist governments you can’t justify vast standing armies and three ways to nuke the world (ICBMs, bombers AND subs). Not without a clear super-state (like the USSR) as a declared enemy threatening invasion anyway.

28

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015611]In all honesty.. if we (i.e. America) wanted to institute real and lasting regime change in Afghanistan we would have gone in with EVERYTHING, and we would have ignored almost everything else until we had truly won (and that would be 10-15 laters MINIMUM). Till a whole generation of young Afghans had grown up with McDonalds and Walmarts and Beyonce.

Not just the military, or primarily the military. Send in the doctors, the nurses, the school teachers, the businessmen and women, the engineers. We would have had to do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

There was plenty of support worldwide for doing something in Afghanistan.. but it would have required Bush and Cheney to spend literally the entire remainder of their term/s working relentlessly pouring American knowhow, culture, business practices etc. into the region to actually do it right. And then they would have to hand it off to the next two Presidents to do the same thing.

Instead we went in hard and fast, took Kabul and declared victory.

This is, pardon my French, dumb as f*ck. The 'Stan is called “the Graveyard of Empires” for a reason. The only real way to change that is to send in massive amounts of everybody BUT the military, and have the conventional military play a security role for the Peace Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Public Health Service and every other aid organization we could bribe, threaten, cajole and pressure into the region.

Of course that would not be very sexy and would not get us any oil to speak of.

Bush would probably have gone down in history as a much better President if he said
“People from Afghanistan have attacked America. We will not destroy the country who harbored these attackers. But we will change the country that they used as a base. I confidently expect my democratically elected successor to declare victory in 20 years, and do so standing next to the 5th democratically elected head of the Afghan state. Excuse me, we have alot of work to do”.

As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation’s highest office, in all likelihood.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely.

29

LOL… the great voting scam of democracy, where everyone thinks their vote counts… republican, democrat… two sides of the same coin. wanna make a difference?? stop giving them power. :slight_smile:

30

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1015605]Small government could never deal with the policies that required us to be in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that people like Ron Paul who call for a much smaller government also call for us to leave Iraq, right?

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1015605]Also, it was slaveholders in Congress and the need for those slave holding states in the union that laegalized slavery, not ‘government’. And segregation was not first and foremost government related, either, and where there was a government aspect, it was usually state, not federal government.[/QUOTE]

LMAO at this excuse. Governments have ok’d slavery, apartheid, segregation, etc. It is what it is.

I can’t actually believe you typed that Congress legalized slavery, but not government. What the hell do you think Congress is???

[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1015605]And the Chinese nationalists did not have a truly free press for most of their history, and dissent was normally responded to with purges and assassinations until the US was getting embarrassed about it. The Chinese situation was complex, to sum it up as good guys vs. bad guys is naive. The nationalist leader, in real terms, was nothiing more than a warlord with no stable authority until confined to an island that he could easily control due to the size of his forces vs. the land mass. He never, never had a chance of ruling the whole mainland and also having ties with the US. There is a reason the communists won, for good or ill, and it isn’t a simple one, and there are so many dirty hands in it, that often the loudest complainers are from the countries whose influence had to be driven out, by whatever leadership could do it.[/QUOTE]

Which Government murdered tens of millions of innocent Chinese civilians, the communists under Mao or the Nationalists?

What I’m saying about large governments being dangerous is true, history does not lie. You just either cannot grasp it, or you refuse to.

31

The rest of your post has some good points, I agreed with some actually. But this is likely not gonna happen:

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015611] As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation’s highest office, in all likelihood.[/QUOTE]

I say this because America truly is starting to develop a “political class”. Look at how many sons of big name politicians are in politics; Beau Biden is involved in politics, and Jimmy Carter’s son just got elected to office in Georgia. You may be right, but there is a chance you will be wrong. I myself like ‘new blood’ entering politics, I think it reduces graft/bribes/corruption/etc, but I am against a law enacting term limits. Voters should just enact the term limits themselves by paying attention to the issues and candidates, not just repeadedly voting for incumbents while not paying attention. As much as I believe voting is a wonderful right, and people should take full advantage of that right, it’s usually not good when people who pay zero attention to politics get out and vote.

32

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015613]True. Why is it that the “small government” types (with the notable exception of Ron Paul and Rand Paul) seem to be all about small government EXCEPT for military spending and certain sorts of crime control?[/QUOTE]

Because you need a strong military to maintain peace. We were attacked on December 7,1941 for example because we were perceived as weak. We were not attacked that day because Japan wanted to fight the biggest, baddest country on the planet.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015613]If you believe in minimalist governments you can’t justify vast standing armies and three ways to nuke the world (ICBMs, bombers AND subs). Not without a clear super-state (like the USSR) as a declared enemy threatening invasion anyway.[/QUOTE]

Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don’t need enough to just destroy the world once and you’re safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It’s called the “Mutually Assured Destruction” doctrine. Ask Drake if you don’t believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.

33

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe…but not the big ones. Having them just doesn’t make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it’ll devastate the entire world. It’s suicide.

34

[QUOTE=Drake;1015697]Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe…but not the big ones. Having them just doesn’t make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it’ll devastate the entire world. It’s suicide.[/QUOTE]

My point was that I’m sure you are familiar with the doctrine in question. You may not agree with it, but I just wanted you to back me up in saying it and the theory behind it do indeed exist.

35

[QUOTE=Drake;1015697]Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe…but not the big ones. Having them just doesn’t make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it’ll devastate the entire world. It’s suicide.[/QUOTE]

Drake.. maybe you should explain to 1Bad65 about the “three prongs” of America’s strategic nuclear arsenal (boomers, bombers and ICBMs) and how the use of even one of the prongs tends to result in feco-ventilatory impact on a planetary scale.

And that doesn’t even go into all the SADMs and various tactical nuke toys the lab-coats designed to use by NATO “stay-behinds” in a Soviet-occupied Europe.

We really don’t NEED three ways to destroy the world. China is a land power. They can’t march that army across the Pacific.

The politicians should pick 1 or even 2 of the prongs of the strategic nuclear deterrent and mothball the remaining prongs. Maintaining them is extremely expensive and we could (assuming you are all about being the world’s policeman) use the money on more Special Forces for asymetric unconventional warfare.

36

[QUOTE=1bad65;1015691]
Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don’t need enough to just destroy the world once and you’re safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It’s called the “Mutually Assured Destruction” doctrine. Ask Drake if you don’t believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.[/QUOTE]

I don’t have to ask Drake. I actually support America having a strong nuclear deterrent. I’m personally a fan of scrapping the aircraft carriers, converting the Navy to mostly boomers and lighter surface craft useful for interdiction but not projecting power via naval aviation squadrons, and then giving the Air Force a choice between the Stratofortress or the ICBMs.

That gives TWO ways to destroy anyone foolish enough to mount an invasion.

You need to understand something 1Bad65… I’m not a ignorant military-hating hippy… I’m a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody’s blessing to) Jane’s and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.

Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that’s long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

In otherwords.. the power to utterly destroy any nation on the planet, the power to protect our shipping on the oceans, protect US states from land or sea invasion by a state actor, and ridiculous levels of natural disaster response.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.

37

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015741] You need to understand something 1Bad65… I’m not a ignorant military-hating hippy… I’m a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody’s blessing to) Jane’s and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.[/QUOTE]

I never thought you were like that, but thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your service as well.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015741] Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that’s long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.[/QUOTE]

Nuclear weapons aside, that’s exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.

Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you’ve made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I’ll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have. :eek:

38

[QUOTE=1bad65;1015747]

Nuclear weapons aside, that’s exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.
[/quote]

Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That’s what the Founders believed and I agree with that.

Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you’ve made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I’ll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have. :eek:

If I had a chance to vote for a Libertarian candidates that had an ice cubes chance in Hades of taking power I might.

But the FIRST virtue of Libertarian thought is the NON INITIATION OF FORCE.

That means my libertarian principles require me to vote for the party that is less inclined to kill non-Americans in military actions.

For a long time I held my nose and voted for the GOP on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and firearms.

Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it’s better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.

The Demos are more to my taste on social morality issues (alternate lifestyles, drug legalization, science and biotechnology research, healthcare) and I know the GOP will spend as much as the Demos will. they will just use the money on corporate kickbacks and bombs.

For what it’s worth I’m scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.

The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren’t all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.

39

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015763]Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That’s what the Founders believed and I agree with that.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree.

Of course it’s the Democrats who pass anti-gun legislation, not Republicans.

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015763]Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it’s better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.[/QUOTE]

Don’t lump all Republicans in with Bush. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative”, not a “conservative”. I openly admit Bush let spending get way out of control. In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.

And lets be honest here, Obama has spent more in one year than any other President. And it’s deficit spending. :eek:

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015763]For what it’s worth I’m scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.[/QUOTE]

Come on now. Either you are not paying attention, or you won;t admit the truth. In Congress, its the GOP who said Obamacare would be alot more than Obama promised, and now they were proven correct. It’s the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts. And it’s Obama who is now considering bailing out the Teachers Union, which should cost a good ~$25 billion. This guy already has a bigger deficit than GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan had COMBINED. :eek:

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1015763]The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren’t all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.[/QUOTE]

In some ways, yes. But fiscally, no friggin way. They are gonna bankrupt this country for the sake of buying themselves votes. That’s a **** shame.

And why would the GOP lock you guys up and throw away the key? :confused:

40

[QUOTE=1bad65;1015992]In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

It’s the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetNPJJcuAE