And here we have the fundamental antidemocratic element at the heart of the modern conservative movement. The people are free to choose what kind of government they want (Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected, remember?) as long as they choose a government based on some archaic 19th century understanding of the Constitution as mandating laissez faire capitalism. It's like Henry Ford, you can have any color car you want as long as it's black.
Obama, Hitler Billboard "Not Disrespectful" Tea Party Leader Says
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
And here we have the fundamental antidemocratic element at the heart of the modern conservative movement. The people are free to choose what kind of government they want (Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected, remember?) as long as they choose a government based on some archaic 19th century understanding of the Constitution as mandating laissez faire capitalism. It's like Henry Ford, you can have any color car you want as long as it's black.
Well, just give me some examples of what you're claiming. I know some of you have allot of bluster against universal healthcare. Well okay, there is some philosophical disagreement with it...but certainly it is not an out in left field out of the mainstream policy as most of if not all of developed nations do it too.
So where from is all of the angst you profess here constantly. You complain about Czars constantly yet Obama hasn't appointed as many as GWB over the same timeframe...You complain incessantly about executive orders as well...yet Obama hasn't issued nearly as many as GWB over the same period of time. I understand the barometer isn't GWB but you just made the claim that we are facing an even greater threat of these types of things (completely legal, constitutional acts) when in fact less of it is occurring.
I'm not mindlessly bashing you. I'm merely asking the bulk of you for A.) Consistency and B.) To reasonably back up your claims? I mean, if you want to have your positions taken seriously and not cast aside as more partisan malarkey.
Obama just came off vacation...he's being criticized by some for that. Yet over the same course of time Bush took nearly 3 times as much time off.
The Constitution gives you no such rights. The Constitution provides checks and balances with three branches of government. This is what we have and have had under various administrations, Republican & Democratic. I am sorry but I have yet to detect anything that resembles "socialism" in anything the Obama administration has put forward. There would be no America today if it was not for FDR -- and he was very far to the left of Mr. Obama.
I know the Soviet system was crumbling in the 80s. But Reagan's foreign policy and defense spending(which was justified) hastened the collapse.
SDI which was a paper project scared the living Bejesus out of the Soviets and forced them to spend in hyperdrive. So did the MX missile, the Seawolf, and stealth aircraft projects which were very real.
Move on Mega...............:tongue:
Nice claim. So show us their hyper-driven spending that correlated. Everyone knows the Soviets could not sustain their satellite g'ments and FOBs....
I know we don't give the Russians much credit for being intellectual but you're suggesting these people spent themselves into capitulation trying not to be beaten in a fight neither side would allow since both would lose if it took place?? Wow...must be some good shit you're on.:thumbsup:
Their economic model simply could not afford their empire....if anybody deserves a modicum of credit for ending the Soviets it would have been the mujahideen. If Soviet military spending spiked it was likely a result of their attempts to support the g'ment they backed in Afghanistan.
This is a nice old hat.
That thread is full of surprises. When a political regime is forcing hard working and law abiding people to pay healthcare and social security for non willing to work and lazy ass parasites, it is not a democracy, it is more or less socialism. When you try to improve the safety of your country by restricting the access and ownership to firearms, it is hardly a democracy. When you want the government to put its nose in every big private coporation, in order to see what happens or to manage it, this is socialism.
Facetious
Moderated
What's all this fuss over Mel Gibs, the guy had a few too many cocktails one or a dozen times, :dunno: at least he didn't drug induce a 13 year old girl, doink her in th' pooper, then flee the country!
Let's keep telling ourselves that while rocking back and forth in a corner.
What???? The man who brought us into a global war? The man who prolonged a Depression by nearly a decade? If you really believe in that New Deal mythology then I imagine you're willing to believe just about anything.
Nearly everything about FDR and his administrations is white washed and mythologized. I cannot believe what I just read.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
I'm assuming you were referring to antebellum Roosevelt. Or where you referring to any of his other policies?
FDR, savior of the United States of America. Gee whiz, as they said in his day.
Social Security and the Food and Drug Administration are socialism? Might want to consult an actual socialist before making those kinds of claims.
And what exactly has Obama done to restrict gun ownership?
He's a communist! That's why! And socialist and muslim and Black Panther and the reason for the oil spill and has a strange name!
Dude their spending wasn't because of Afghanistan for cryin' out loud. The muja would never have been successful without our help.
The Soviets spent money they could not afford to spend. Their industry was shit, their economy non existent coupled with the fact over 40% of their GDP was given to defense. They collapsed under their own weight.
Reagan's policies sped up the demise whether you like it or not. His defense budget sent the Soviet system into an abyss.
Oh and btw the Soviet leadership was very willing to launch a pre emptive attack on NATO/US in 1983/84. They had folks who believed a conventional attack which spilled into a global nuclear exchange was winnable.
Try and try again Mega:tongue:
Just like Saddam had WMD and posed an imminent threat to the US right?
Anyone can allege anything. Prove to me (reasonably) that's fact and not carefully crafted spin marketing to explain away a fraud perpetrated on the taxpayer.
Until you do...all you're doing is regurgitating a campaign to explain away an unheard of taxpayer bilking and a circumstance of inevitability.
While the US and Soviets were not friends...neither had first strike intent/concern because either first strike or second strike assured mutual destruction and the aftermath...if there was any...wouldn't be worth it anyway.
Conventional warfare between the US and Soviets??? Are you serious?? WTF is the purpose of having nukes if you would allow yourself to be defeated conventionally???
The Cold War was about political and economic ideals ....not military dominance since MAD ensured neither side would attack militarily for fear both sides would be obliterated. That is like Cold War 101 dude.
Stop buying spin and use a little common sense.:2 cents:
The hope of Soviet planners was to defeat NATO up to the French border using conventional weapons against the US forces and chemical/tactical nukes against the other NATO allies in CENTAG, and SOUTHAG.
Soviets had first strike ability and feared NATO would strike in a surprise attack during a pre planned "excercise".
The old members of the Politburo in '82-'84 felt the survivability of the Soviet Union was possible during a nuclear strike if certain conditions were militarily met i.e. NATO's battlefield surrender, and a quick strike using SLBMs against US CinC, satellites, bases, and installations.
Believe it or not Mega there actually was a Soviet strategy on winning WWIII.
P.S. I don't bother with spin or Republican or Democrat bull. I'm a military history buff, and I've been one since I was a kid.
So please carry on.............:tongue:
Saddam believed he could survive US attacks long enough to eventually return to power in the aftermath of a failed US invasion.
Who penned that theory?
Again, the malarkey you are willing to buy is grossly at odds with reality IMO.
You are theorizing according to spin it was Reagans "aggressive defense budget" based solely on spin versus the practical reality that our spending had virtually no effect on the USSR's demise.
Similar threads
