Here comes the Inflation

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

No, sir. Neo-Conservatism is an abberation; a corrupted form of true conservatism that willingly betrays it's principles in the name of maintaing power for The Party. Neo-Conservatism has destroyed The United States of America, the Republican Party and the name of conservatism. There can be no compromise with those of such a philosophy. America needs Pat Buchanans, but all Team R gives us are Newt Gingriches, of which this Boenher is yet another copy; a continuation of the politics of failure. The patriotism of the Neo-Conservatives is an illusion; they willingly throw the nation under the bus as convenience dictates.

Neo-Conservatives are no better than the Progressives they have replaced.

See. Patriotism means removing Barack Obama from office.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

See. Patriotism means removing Barack Obama from office.

No, patriotism means removing Obama and the progressives and the neo-conservatves. Fracture both parties. Create a coalition government. Destroy what is the failure of political dualism. It will not happen though. Too many people like you will see to it's continuance.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

No, patriotism means removing Obama and the progressives and the neo-conservatves. Fracture both parties. Create a coalition government. Destroy what is the failure of political dualism. It will not happen though. Too many people like you will see to it's continuance.

What you ask for now is a parlimentary coalition ideal, on the Euro model. To have what you want would require a change in our constitution to implement.

PS Doctrine means what when it comes to Christainity? Is it only foreign policy?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

What you ask for now is a parlimentary coalition ideal, on the Euro model. To have what you want would require a change in our constitution to implement.

Yes it would. And it would force government to govern from the center, which is a good thing, as I believe that most of the American people are in favor of the following:

1. Bringing the troops home and ending the doctrine of intervention.

2. Less personal intrusion by government.

3. Lower taxes.

4. Enforcement of immigration laws.

5. An end of the support of economic globalism.

Sadly, the track records of both the Republicans and Democrats are out of step with those items. So long as we do not have other options, America's decline will only accelerate. But what do you care, so long as your party is in power? Nation be damned.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Yes it would. And it would force government to govern from the center, which is a good thing, as I believe that most of the American people are in favor of the following:

1. Bringing the troops home and ending the doctrine of intervention.

2. Less personal intrusion by government.

3. Lower taxes.

4. Enforcement of immigration laws.

5. An end of the support of economic globalism.

Sadly, the track records of both the Republicans and Democrats are out of step with those items. So long as we do not have other options, America's decline will only accelerate. But what do you care, so long as your party is in power? Nation be damned.

All good ideals. No argument there, but the devil is in the details and remember there could be greater geo-political functions in play. Which means lives, both quality of, and loss of.

doctrine of intervention

.

This is your major issue with GWB? No? But RFD did the same thing after 07 DEc 41. Remember Clinton's intellagences forces, as well as Euro spy places identified Saddam and his government as bad actors and supporters of Al Queda.

[tater]

I call myself a "lower case" libertarian because I don't sign on to the isolationism the actual party likes (I'm also pragmatic enough to only vote for someone who can actually win, since letting the one farthest away from my goals win would be idiotic).

The US occupies a unique geopolitical position in the world. Without us, someone would need to invent us. Still, hard to find a similarly 2-oceaned replacement. Like it or not, the US needs to be prepared to fight wars when others won't—someone has to.

I should add that you need to look at what the geopolitical goal of the US actually is. It's not what many might think.

[CaptainHaplo]

To use the correct terminology, you should say "agenda" or "policy" instead of "doctrine". Politically speaking, doctrine does infer a view or action in foreign affairs, while agenda or policy are associated with domestic issues.

But more importantly - is it worth spending 2 pages on arguing the semantics when you both know what you each meant by your comments? Lets instead debate the OT:

Putting 600 billion into the economy sounds good - but its not that they are "buying" it - they are printing the money first to inject into the economy through the "purchase" - which devalues the worth of the dollar further, as if it wasn't low enough.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

.

This is your major issue with GWB? No? But RFD did the same thing after 07 DEc 41. Remember Clinton's intellagences forces, as well as Euro spy places identified Saddam and his government as bad actors and supporters of Al Queda.

You're reading too much into it. Simply, it is my problem with the course of politics, particularly since the late 1960's. I also find it perplexing that you continue to hold up leftists as examples, as if they were my personal heroes. My point is not that progressives are good; I believe I have clearly stated to the contrary, and done so repeatedly. My point is that the Neo-Conservative Republican Party is no better, as evidenced by their track record, and that their return to power is nothing to be excited about.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

.

This is your major issue with GWB? No? But RFD did the same thing after 07 DEc 41. Remember Clinton's intellagences forces, as well as Euro spy places identified Saddam and his government as bad actors and supporters of Al Queda.

RFD acted after US soil was attacked, same with Bush and Afghanistan. But Iraq, well, to this date there has been no valid reason for the "liberation". The alleged Hussein - Al Qaeda links were debunked almost immediately after the Coalition gave it as yet another excuse for the "liberation" (you know, after they didn't found WMD's and all that).

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

All good ideals. No argument there, but the devil is in the details and remember there could be greater geo-political functions in play. Which means lives, both quality of, and loss of.

Well, globalism and intervention haven't contributed to the quality and protection of life either, as they have made us no safer than we were in 2001 and significantly less prosperous. One of the primary reasons that economic recovery remains elusive has nothing to do with the stimulus. The stimulus was a red herring; it masked a power-grab by the progressives with the economy as an excuse. There was no way that the stimulus was going to fix anything. It has not failed, as that is not what it was intended to do. In fact, the stimulus was very, very successful; brilliantly so.

The reason that the economy has failed to improve is that the backbone has been long removed from America's economy: Globalism has sent our heavy industry overseas. Americans don't have jobs because there are not any jobs to give them. And need I remind anyone that the road to globalism was not paved by the progressives. It was, rather, a betrayal of of the principles of conservatism by the members of the Republican Party.

There you go again. I was with you until you blamed it on conservative values. It wasn't conservatives who have stop businesses or water over a two inch long fish.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The reason that the economy has failed to improve is that the backbone has been long removed from America's economy: Globalism has sent our heavy industry overseas. Americans don't have jobs because there are not any jobs to give them. And need I remind anyone that the road to globalism was not paved by the progressives. It was, rather, a betrayal of of the principles of conservatism by the members of the Republican Party.

And of course, nothing will be done about it. All the politicians want, is to further their personal careers, power, and wealth. I haven't heard of anyone making a serious effort to address this. By the time this becomes forefront to the public concious, at a level where the politicans will have no choice but to address it - it will be too late.

The republicans will continue to do what they've always done, the democrates will as well, and neither will allow anything to pass so long as the other exists. Furthermore, anyone who thinks either party will save the country is a fool. Our slide into the ditch's is a foregone conclusion, the real question that remains, is how long do we have before everything officially goes to s**t?