Who should be the next president?
- Thread starter Legzman
- Start date
Good quotes! :1orglaugh
Problem is by that time they will all be saying that,it will be who is least to blame for the problem of having troops we have to bring home that will win.
Like who?!?
Yeah but will they actually do it? Hillary and Obama were basically saying "let's bring most of them home but leave a small response force..."
I want ZERO troops in the Middle East. We are not needed, and we're only getting in the way. Iraq is such a frakking mess that it's best if we leave, take the public relations hit, and let the League of Arab Nations figure out what needs to be done with Iraq. Our biggist mistake was not removing Saddam. It was for thinking that his removal would be a great thing. It hasn't been because we simply don't have a fucking clue how Middle Eastern people think. We know next to nothing of their culture and we arrogantly assume that they "want our ways..Democracy...capitalism...blah blah blah" The Republicans are saying that if we "leave now" that Iran will move in and takeover Iraq. That's BullShit. Saudi Arabia will never let that happen.
We did a great thing in destroying the Taliban and trying to nail Osama. Maybe we got him. Maybe we didn't, yet. It would've been a greater thing had we destroyed all those Afghan Poppy fields and really struck a blow to the drug market. We didn't do that, sadly.
To answer the thread directly. I like a Bill Richardson/John Edwards ticket. I really would like Howard Dean to get involved with the new Democratic presidency, somehow. Howard Dean has correctly predicted the outcome of every W. blunder throughout this whole mess. Someone that smart needs a job.
That's easy ... Michael Bednarik
If you are upper middle class and up, I agree. The best choice.
If you are middle class? Possibly. Maybe even probably.
If you are below middle class - definitely not, IMO.
Though I admire much about the Libertarians. I have come to realize fairly recently that they have a very strong 'every man/woman for themselves' mentality.
That is fine for those capable of taking care of themselves. And it's fantastic if you are relatively wealthy and up.
But if you depend on the government to any reasonable extent then you could be in serious trouble.
The Libertarians seem to think that private charities are the answer. That they can look after those that the government currently does and do it more cheaply and efficiently.
It has been my experience that private charities usually do not do what is required. If they did, why would so many always need more and more money? Even the good ones? Because most people do not care much about other people that are not like them. Unless there is some big movement going on at that moment (like LiveAid was or something similar).
I like much of the Libertarians platform. Even love some of it. But they have some work to do on looking after those less fortunate - IMO.
angelfire1972
Banned
The Constitution has been fucked with by the Legislative and/or Executives before, it will be in the future.
But the important thing that matters is that it bounces back with Judicial Rule, as it is being right now.
Even with the two (2) Judges appointed by W., they have not sided with him on many things.
Shows our Checks'n Balances are alive'n well, and only the ignorance of civics and why things don't change overnight is of concern.
member006
Closed Account
I thought this page interesting. I saved it and intend on watching to see if it updates regularly. It would be great if it does.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
LL
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
LL
Ron Paul.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Obviously he's bad with numbers ...
Obviously he's bad with numbers since there aren't even 200,000 troops in country (although probably close to that with contractors and civil personnel).
More seriously now, it doesn't matter if we are in Iraq or are not. This organization has sworn to the destruction of the US and our way of life. That's why it -- despite the rhetoric -- really is the "War on Terror" -- a phrase that was coined by Bill Clinton because he had to deal with it too!
And even if the US pulls out of the middle east and develops alternative fuels, they will still be around. Maybe they will focus more on the EU (which actually imports more from the middle east than the US -- we tap more elsewhere as well as have far more coal reserves), but they won't stop.
Yes, we were quite stupid to go into Iraq and that hurt our focus. But in reality, it didn't matter where we went, this organization is against the US and the EU, and that's not going to end after leaving Iraq or anywhere else. It's going to be going on for a long time.
Obviously he's bad with numbers since there aren't even 200,000 troops in country (although probably close to that with contractors and civil personnel).
More seriously now, it doesn't matter if we are in Iraq or are not. This organization has sworn to the destruction of the US and our way of life. That's why it -- despite the rhetoric -- really is the "War on Terror" -- a phrase that was coined by Bill Clinton because he had to deal with it too!
And even if the US pulls out of the middle east and develops alternative fuels, they will still be around. Maybe they will focus more on the EU (which actually imports more from the middle east than the US -- we tap more elsewhere as well as have far more coal reserves), but they won't stop.
Yes, we were quite stupid to go into Iraq and that hurt our focus. But in reality, it didn't matter where we went, this organization is against the US and the EU, and that's not going to end after leaving Iraq or anywhere else. It's going to be going on for a long time.
yeah, don't forget that terrists are hiding in your toilet bowl! so we might as well put in some more puppet dictators, whack a few elected officials and keep selling off the world to mcdonalds, becuase it wouldn't make a difference anyway.
I really don't like the expression War On Terror, that sounds too agressive, that's not good PR. why can't we have a mild, calmingly expression for the new Cold War?
I really don't like the expression War On Terror, that sounds too agressive, that's not good PR. why can't we have a mild, calmingly expression for the new Cold War?
Similar threads
