View Single Post
Old 12-30-2007, 01:58 PM   #3
SBLive! Veteran
rhertz's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 248 rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future
Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
This article points out a few things which should be so glaringly obvious. The Republican party... USED to be about smaller government, fiscal responsibility. Don't go around trying to be the worlds' policeman. These were ideas that even George Bush was spouting back when he ran in 2000.

Yes, but then 911 happened in 2001. We were attacked on our own soil for the first time in my lifetime. It freaked a lot of people out including our President who clearly stated that changed his mission that day (to nearly unanimous support)

It seems to me that it is easy to catch our enemies after the event. In fact, they make it easy for us. They usually blow themselves up in the process. Catching bad guys cannot be the priority like it is at home on the streets for the police. The name of the game is preventing an attack in the first place. That means we have to go to the potential bad guys in an offensive manner before they can even get in a first punch. First punches are not acceptable against the United States.

We have not been attacked on that scale since 911. I have to assume that Bushes policies have been relatively successful and effective in preventing attacks in the last 7 years. I think that was his priority and here is why.

I imagine myself president and getting hit in a 911 attack. What would I do to keep it from happening again? Would I suddenly be willing to go deeper into debt than the day before? I probably would, just like I would borrow to save a family member. Would I go over to another country and stop future attack plans? I definitely would. Where would I go? I would go to places that hate our guts and want to assassinate our President, and make plans for terrorist attacks and assassination plans and stuff like that. I would also try to foster democracy in those areas so that maybe in the future, such attack planning may not be as numerious without monsterous dictators making it easy to keep the covers on the bad guys plans.

Now sure we could have just gone into Iraq and toppled Saddam and gotten the hell out without acting as the current "policeman". I don't know of very many politicians who didn't think Saddam was a major threat to us and/or our allies before we attacked. Such a notion would be sillly. We know he paid suicide bombers families for their suicide bombing "services". But if he just got out, then the "vacuum" would be filled by what? I'll tell you what. Radical Islam - Certainly not tolerant secular democracy which must be learned. Learned by who? Another successful democracy such as ourselves?

Now maybe you think Iraq is now a democracy or maybe you don't. I'm not sure myself. The final question is, "did we have to try?" I think so. There is a humanitarian aspect to the aftermath of war and the victors usually don't conquer and haul ass. They remain and influence the area and that is what pisses off the Radical Islamists so much. Any culture who hasn't changed in 100's or 1000's of years probably resists change. They don't like change so they hit us thinking it will help preserve their ideology..... dumbasses...

Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
...not be the world's policeman, a strong defense. I said to myself.. yeah, that sounds good, that sounds about right.. However, that is not what this current administration is about.

I kindly disagree. How can you have a "strong defense" and not be "the world's policeman" to some degree. Sure we could back off, but we would have to accept some degree of attacks in exchange. Is an attack on our homeland acceptable once every 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? What's a good number. If we did hit countries without staying for a while at least, I don't think the world community would respect that, not that we are running a popularity contest. But if there has been a failure by this administration, it has been on the PR front both at home and overseas, despite the fact that we have had no attacks since 911. Imagine the mileage in the press that a democrat would get with such a record.

Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
Now we've got the Patriot Act, they're pushin' for a national ID card.. illegal wire taps, Spending money like it's absolutely going out of style.. which it is by the way.. got some of the countries over there sayin' they don't want to be paid in American dollars for OIL..

Good Points. I'm for profiling arabs and to heck for being politically correct. Stuff like ID cards comes from trying to be "fair" in a PC sense. I hear you on the spending, but its the taxing and/or borrowing that has my panties all in a wad. As for being paid in dollars, I'm all for fair competition. May the best currency win!

Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
We simply can not afford what we're tryin' to do anymore. Somebody has to reel the government back down to size.

There is no single person or branch of government who could be expected to do this. It would take 2 out of the 3 branches of government to cut the government's size by a large amount. I'm all for that but "the people" are the only ones that have the power to make this happen, not a single candidate. The good news is that if "the people" were to vote in Ron Paul, they would also likely vote in senators and congressmen who were like minded and then maybe change on the scale you are talking about could happen. But you would need to take on the teachers unions and washington lobbiests and all sorts of orgs feeding at the trough.

Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
This economy bubble.. it's got to burst at some point. and we can wait until it burst in our face.. or we can try to start working on these problems in a more controlled manner.

I don't really agree with that either. If you look at a stock market chart over the past 100 years, in spite of fluctuations and even a bubble or two bursting, the average regression is always pointing up.

Past 100 Years

I'm just saying that the US still has the strongest economy on earth by far. If someone wants to invest in Peso's or Gold, or US stocks, let them. Yeah sure I wish there were no pesky fluctuations, cycles, and corrections in the markets. Eternal smooth sailing would be nice but that ain't happening. And yes there are things we can do to help keep us strong which are too numerous to go into.

Originally Posted by LateNight View Post
Somebody, someway has got to pay for the spending we've seen these last few years.. Where's it going to come from ?

It comes from taxes. But here is the catch. If you increase tax rates, the economy suffers, while if you cut tax rates, then the economy gets a boost, which can lead to even more total tax revenues down the road) Basically if the republicans stay in the whitehouse, capital gains tax will remain at 15% or whatever it is. If Hilary gets elected, you can count on this doubling at least to 30-40% which will reek havoc on the stock market.

I'm sure Ron Paul wants to cut taxes which makes him a good guy IMHO. However I believe the issue is not who will become president but rather who should not become president. It is fine to pick 1 out of 10 candidates to vote for. But rather than becoming enamored by one guy, I'm willing to keep an open mind about voting for any of 7 or 8 out of the 10 candidates in order to keep that 1 or 2 candidates from winning no matter what. I will not throw away a vote against Hilary or Obama no matter what. And for what purpose? To express myself? Heh, I'll draw a picture or write a poem instead. I would easily vote for Bush again if he was running against those two and I thought for a moment that he could beat them.

As things stand, this country is nearly split red and blue. It is important not to let a very small minority 2% or less decide the outcome of our future. I don't like things that are simple black and white but sometimes I must choose sides. I'm chosing the lesser of two evils, which is usually the case in politics...
rhertz is offline   Reply With Quote