Help Dubya remember a mistake

[Suburbanite]

I’ve looked at Peroutka’s platform many times, PH, and it scares me a lot. What America needs least now is a religious leader.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, One day you will stand before Him. Will you say I voted for the best there was, or for the least bad that I thought could win?

haha, I’m sure God’s first question would be “So, who did you vote for? Those damn ballots are private and I need to know!”.

[Young]

God see's all, I think this Country should have complete pure Democracy, where the people had a say in every aspect of every Vote. If that were the case I'd build a giant empty Throne, right in D.C. & it would represent that We would Give up Our Democracy for God to come and occupy that Throne. I support Henry in the believe that God Is Our Lord, No Matter what Name You might call Him by.

Young

[dotcoma]

Be careful with the term "complete, pure democracy". In a "pure" democracy, 51 percent get to control the other 49. We are a constitutional republic, founded on a rule of law: Equal protection for the majority AND the minority.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I’ve looked at Peroutka’s platform many times, PH, and it scares me a lot. What America needs least now is a religious leader. <!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry, One day you will stand before Him. Will you say I voted for the best there was, or for the least bad that I thought could win?

haha, I’m sure God’s first question would be “So, who did you vote for? Those damn ballots are private and I need to know!”.[/b][/quote]
Man, given your views on religion, I would not expect your support. That was addressed to Mr Vicchio. You, Suburbanite, should be thinking Russo, IMO also very good and honorable.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by roxdog, Be careful with the term "complete, pure democracy". In a "pure" democracy, 51 percent get to control the other 49. We are a constitutional republic, founded on a rule of law: Equal protection for the majority AND the minority.

Again, roxdog, you anticipated my thoughts

[dotcoma]

We're such stupid "leftists" aren't we....

[Young]

The 51% hurting the 49% won't happen Under my plan because Different People from Different regions will all express their views. Even without a Pure Democracy this is still an Issue, except the Majority is usually made by the control Money offered by Lobbyists have over Our representatives. Whe the People decide, sure Minority Toes Will be stepped on, This Is a Democracy...If You can't Dig, GET OUT!

Young

[Young]

Sorry *If You Can't Dig IT, GET OUT!*

Young

[dotcoma]

I agree with most of what you have to say. And I think you are kind of misunderstanding me. A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. We are a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy.

[Osborn F Enready]

We are supposed to be techinically, a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic.

[Impenitent]

right... a good ol democracy... 49% are SLAVES with no rights because the 51% won the election... why do you think there is a second ammendment? this is not, and never has been a democracy... nor will it ever be a democracy...

and god remains dead

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Suburbanite,@ I’ve looked at Peroutka’s platform many times, PH, and it scares me a lot. What America needs least now is a religious leader. <!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry, One day you will stand before Him. Will you say I voted for the best there was, or for the least bad that I thought could win? haha, I’m sure God’s first question would be “So, who did you vote for? Those damn ballots are private and I need to know!”.

Man, given your views on religion, I would not expect your support. That was addressed to Mr Vicchio. You, Suburbanite, should be thinking Russo, IMO also very good and honorable.[/b][/quote]

I have checked out Aaron. I have actually checked out nearly everyone. My "views" on religion really have nothing to do with why I don't like Peroutka. For me, voting for a Christian isn't something I am against; in fact, it isn't something I would even consider. The reasons aren't his personal beliefs that I have a problem with, I just see him as someone who wants to be the next great American spiritual leader. And that is something I definitely don't want for America. Also, I am skeptical of the Constitutionalist Parties super strict rules that negate parts of the Constitution and interpret other parts in different ways. The change isn't FOR me and that’s why I don't like Mike.
Anyways, I'm really not partisan what-so-ever. I value my own personal efforts in changing the world, and care little for who I vote for come election.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, I value my own personal efforts in changing the world, and care little for who I vote for come election.

What's that little signature I see below your posts? What does "breathe politics" mean to you?

[Suburbanite]

Sigh, I should remove it I guess. It was the name for the political website I was starting. I still have the domain, www.breathepolitics.com but I was abandoned on my project and was unable to finish. In retrospect though, I just might turn it into SOMETHING after all.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Sigh, I should remove it I guess. It was the name for the political website I was starting. I still have the domain, www.breathepolitics.com but I was abandoned on my project and was unable to finish. In retrospect though, I just might turn it into SOMETHING after all.

Oh.

[commonsense]

Reagan's rhetoric and speeches, at least, were very Libertarian and very inspirational.

A Libertarian would disagree with most of our governmental involvement with foreign nations internal affairs that Reagan was accused of, but not necessarily much of his military spending,
taking into account the very real Cold War threat of the time, and arguably because our military's degradation post-Vietnam/Jimmy Carter years put it in a condition that compromised its Libertarian and Constitutionally-mandated role of "Guard the Coasts", if not justifying a "build-up" most Libertarians would approve of being "sufficient to the task" which can get very subjective...

However, the whole "Star Wars" Stategic Defense Initiative was a brilliant and classic philosophically "Modern Libertarian" example of creative "outside the box thinking" foreign policy effort because it was a major blow toward tipping the Soviet Union toward its defeat due to the internal problems that will eventually bankrupt all socialist systems, even Canada's and eventually our own.
At that point in time, the Soviet leadership was very close to pulling a "Hail-Mary! play" in its death throes as their attempt to salvage their system, but Reagan's diplomatic moves, bordering on "brinksmanship" help secure Gorbachev's political destiny as the leadership was forced to look more practically toward reluctant change instead.
Of course Libetarians could argue about the degree of spending and how to get it, even if they agreed that some sort of active policy short of aggression was desirable.

This thread is about George W.'s "mistakes"
(talk about a nebulous topic that you criticised me for starting, Suburbanite!)
and the kind of thought I hope to stimulate is relative to the Reagan foreign policy:
Sure, he sent boys to Grenada, which was little more than the kind of "live-fire" training exercises we did at 'Benning, but he never did anything on the scale of Bush Sr or George W. ....

Harry Browne, whose present role in the Libertarian party right now escapes me, is considered a "nut" by many but as more and more die being George W. Bush's political, ideological, or business mercanaries,
hopefully many Americans will recognize "unorthodox" ideas in international affairs like the ones Browne suggested as more hopeful, more humane, more efficient effective, not to mention cheaper and certainly less animous-creating from the world's smaller nations.

I haven't read Browne in a while, but I'm referring to propaganda campaigns and other tactics like SDI that accomplish the world's population coming around to demanding freedom from their leaders instead of our present idea of "beating them into accepting democracy" which is a crock, and even if it weren't, is unacceptable for many purely pragmatic as well as humanitarian reasons.

For those of you who haven't read enough of me, who have even read thus far, you might find a recent post of mine in response to one of our "liberal" friends for another peek at what I think is a good and I hope generally agreeable synopsis of basic Libertarian thought:
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...=30&#entry27405

[Evil Baby]

That is because the EU forced Bush to drop his tarriff on steal. That would indicate it was indeed a mistake ******** no, dropping the steel tarrifs was not a mistake... the eu made concessions to us inorder for us to drop the tarriffs His cut down more trees to stop forest fires... Riiiiiiiiiight. ....not a mistake... learn something about firefighting... Learn something about National Forest then come back. ******** maybe you can understand this... http://www.smokeybear.com/kids/forest_fighting.asp Thank you for the easy read, the problem is that it is too general. :rolleyes: too general? hardly... you cut down trees to prevent and fight forest fires. period.

Except for clear cutting can lead errosion which can help create fires. However there are issues of what you can and can not cut down. There are certain trees that are no longer protected that are far more resistant to fires but also worth more on the timber market. If you kill everybody you get rid of terrorism, does this seem feasiable to you?

your environmentalist wacko propaganda doesn't address the issue of fighting forest fires.

sorry you can't comprehend facts.

The average person is driven by hate. When the leader of the U.S. is considered the most dangerous man to world security there are some issues :rolleyes: only dangerous to terrorists... This: "The average person is driven by hate" was supposed to be "The average person isn't driven by hate" but I'm sure you got the picture. :rolleyes: the average person is driven by greed and feels hate and envy for those that are better than they... to think otherwise is naive

Except where these surveys were done people would generally think they are just as good or better off thent he U.S. Most Western societies are not envious of the U.S. especially with Bush in power.

The point is the average person in the world does not feel Bush is only dangerous to terrorist but a danger to the entire world. That is a serious issues that Bush has failed to address and is a mistake. :rolleyes: no, it isn't a mistake... the rest of the world are targets as well...

except it is a issue when it comes to world communications, information sharing, trade agreaments and others

Fiscal irresponsiblity ...not a mistake, he took issues away from the party of the impeached liar by doing so... I could understand how runing a 600 billion shortfall wouldn't be a mistake, really I can... :rolleyes: if you understood that the shortfall isn't even 5% of our total economy you could, we will grow out of the debt as reagan proved

and Bush will find another way to spend that money with no plan. If Bush hadn't run such a deep hole then he would have a better plan then cutting his defecipt in half in the next 4 years

******* exactly, we won't have to spend as much rebuilding the military that clinton decimated, and we will get far more revenues through taxes... thus the budget deficit drops... Sounds easy to me.

ahhh yes the great arguement that Clinton destroyed the military. Go back and look at how much he spent on the military and you will be surprised that there is an increase from the time he took office to the time he left office, not to mention there wasn't one other country in the world that was even close to the U.S. military budget. Also factoring in the relative peace the world had. It is all bullcrap and you know it. You budged was above $260 million while the closest to you was $60 million and you had no wars to fight.

[RightThinker]

ahhh yes the great arguement that Clinton destroyed the military. Go back and look at how much he spent on the military and you will be surprised that there is an increase from the time he took office to the time he left office, not to mention there wasn't one other country in the world that was even close to the U.S. military budget. Also factoring in the relative peace the world had. It is all bullcrap and you know it. You budged was above $260 million while the closest to you was $60 million and you had no wars to fight

----Evil Baby


Go back and look at the city in which I am from. Just one of the SAC airbases he closed with his little commission. Tell the economy of Rome NY that he didn't cut the military. He closed more bases than any president I can think og!

As for peace? Peace? This was when the taliban was taking root and shortly thereafter when al Qaeda declared war on the US and its allies.

[Evil Baby]

Originally posted by RightThinker, ----Evil Baby Go back and look at the city in which I am from. Just one of the SAC airbases he closed with his little commission. Tell the economy of Rome NY that he didn't cut the military. He closed more bases than any president I can think og! As for peace? Peace? This was when the taliban was taking root and shortly thereafter when al Qaeda declared war on the US and its allies.

ok so you missed the world relative, in case you missed it again I will make it larger for you RELATIVE. Ok, now that is out of the way. Yes a few bases were closed but when you're not fighting any major wars and you are spending over $200 billion more then your closest 'potential' enemy cutting back isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. The U.S. was still fully capiable of defending itself and mounting an effective counter attack. Don't for one secdon belive that it wasn't. Now unlike Bush and his increase in military spending Clinton actually tried to take Osoma Bin Laden out and even warned Bush that Al Queda was the largest threat the U.S. faced.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by Evil Baby, Except for clear cutting can lead errosion which can help create fires. However there are issues of what you can and can not cut down. There are certain trees that are no longer protected that are far more resistant to fires but also worth more on the timber market. If you kill everybody you get rid of terrorism, does this seem feasiable to you? :rolleyes: erosion does not create fire... fire proof trees? riiight... yes, if you kill eveyone there is no terrorism... sorry you can't comprehend facts. :rolleyes: sorry that what you accept as fact is not factual at all... Except where these surveys were done people would generally think they are just as good or better off thent he U.S. Most Western societies are not envious of the U.S. especially with Bush in power. :rolleyes: the ones in europe that are stagnating? except it is a issue when it comes to world communications, information sharing, trade agreaments and others :rolleyes: not really, when the us wants to open a market, it does and Bush will find another way to spend that money with no plan. If Bush hadn't run such a deep hole then he would have a better plan then cutting his defecipt in half in the next 4 years ******** no, bush doesn't want to be the next lbj ahhh yes the great arguement that Clinton destroyed the military. ********** he did, and your leftwing lies and fabrications will not work Go back and look at how much he spent on the military and you will be surprised that there is an increase from the time he took office to the time he left office, not to mention there wasn't one other country in the world that was even close to the U.S. military budget. ************** we defend the world... Also factoring in the relative peace the world had. It is all bullcrap and you know it. You budged was above $260 million while the closest to you was $60 million and you had no wars to fight. ****** bosnia, haiti, somalia... right...