Fox News has the oldest audience of any cable channel

[lester1/2jr]

you don't see china going in for all this theatre. they don't do wars, they just do growth. at the same time, we have an advantage in that they will never have the types of freedoms we have here. We should emphasize that.

I'm in total agreement about the stuff with the railroads. if you want to see a really "bad movie" about these issues check out my seven part ugly robot voiced cartoon play based on Albert Jay Nocks "our enemy the state"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGkZxgzxTlk
	Small | Large

[the ghoul]

just don't buy into that sort of conspiratorial world view.

similarly with judge death and his call for more socialism for me both these things are counterproductive to my really only concern which is economic competition with China. fighting wars inthe middle east and taxing corporations who will them move elsewhere is not the way to achieve that.

I agree, and the question I would ask these conservatives and liberals who are supposedly so different from eachother regarding the direction they want to go in is why do both sides support policies that are going to make us lose big time when it comes to that economic competition with China?

[Flick James]

just don't buy into that sort of conspiratorial world view.

similarly with judge death and his call for more socialism for me both these things are counterproductive to my really only concern which is economic competition with China. fighting wars inthe middle east and taxing corporations who will them move elsewhere is not the way to achieve that.

I agree, and the question I would ask these conservatives and liberals who are supposedly so different from eachother regarding the direction they want to go in is why do both sides support policies that are going to make us lose big time when it comes to that economic competition with China?

The simple answer is, they're not so different. They both want to control, control, control. The current two-party system is just two sides of the same damn coin. They are far more interested in expanding their political power base and opposing each other as a means to do that than they are with actually serving their constituents. Take the immigration issue, for example. I've brought this up in a discussion before, but I'll be bold enough to say it bears repeating. The Democrats keep saying that we need immigration reform and tend to refuse to acknowledge or do anything about the borders. The Republicans say "No immigration reform until the borders are secure," a convenient way to oppose the Democrats while pretending to give a s**t about the actual American people, and also pretty smart politically because they can just continue to say the borders are not secure enough and thus forever be able to oppose the Democrats. Then there's the reality: THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN AND THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN NOW!" What kind of imbecile would object to something that they acknowledge needs to happen? Because they are more concerned with political posturing than they are with fixing problems. So are they two parties going to get together and actually secure the border AND enact badly needed immigration reform? f**k no.

[the ghoul]

The simple answer is, they're not so different. They both want to control, control, control. The current two-party system is just two sides of the same damn coin. They are far more interested in expanding their political power base and opposing each other as a means to do that than they are with actually serving their constituents. Take the immigration issue, for example. I've brought this up in a discussion before, but I'll be bold enough to say it bears repeating. The Democrats keep saying that we need immigration reform and tend to refuse to acknowledge or do anything about the borders. The Republicans say "No immigration reform until the borders are secure," a convenient way to oppose the Democrats while pretending to give a s**t about the actual American people, and also pretty smart politically because they can just continue to say the borders are not secure enough and thus forever be able to oppose the Democrats. Then there's the reality: THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN AND THEY BOTH NEED TO HAPPEN NOW!" What kind of imbecile would object to something that they acknowledge needs to happen? Because they are more concerned with political posturing than they are with fixing problems. So are they two parties going to get together and actually secure the border AND enact badly needed immigration reform? f**k no.

Right on.  Karma to you for keeping your eyes open and seeing things for what they really are.

[indianasmith]

   I think our entire Congress needs a good thorough house cleaning.  While I agree with most of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party, too many Republicans are too caught up with being part of the establishment and have lost the conservative principles that helped them get elected in the first place.  To be blunt, the GOP - and America in my opinion - desperately needs a man like Ronald Reagan.

    I was born in December 1963.  I always loved history, and Jimmy Carter was elected when I was 12.  He was the first President that I really paid attention to.  I remember Nixon resigning, and Ford getting shot at twice, but Carter was the first President that I really watched to see what he would do.  It was not a pretty sight.  In four years, I saw America become more and more powerless, confounded, and confused.  It seemed to be a given that our country was entering a long, slow decline that would take us to the ash heap of history.  And what was worst, many people seemed very happy with that - or at least, content to let it happen. They seemed to feel we deserved it.   Inflation hit 14%, unemployment around 12%, and consumer confidence foundered.  Iran seized our people and held them hostage, and our military response collapsed in shameful disaster, and the President seemed like a struggling fly caught in a web of failure he could not break.  The Soviets were more aggressive than at any point since World War II, invading Afghanistan and sponsoring Communist revolutions around the world.  The Cold War seemed lost, and the tide of freedom was receding around the world.
  Then came a simple, plain spoken man from California who simply had the courage to BELIEVE in America.  He believed that there really was good and evil in the world, and that America was on the side of the angels.  He believed in the power of democracy and capitalism to defeat the evils of socialism and dictatorship.  He used the power of his voice to inspire the American people to remember the greatness that led them to victory in World War II.
   I saw this country completely turn around in 8 years.  I listened to the left howl in dismay as America woke up and remembered its strength.  Reagan's words restored our courage, his bold stance against the Soviets restored our moral leadership of the free world, and his economic actions shook some - not all - of the shackles off of our economy and led to an unprecedented period of economic growth.
   When he took office, Soviet-style communism was on the march, and all of Eastern Europe was enslaved.  When he left, the Soviets were trembling on the brink of extinction, and the Berlin Wall was shuddering in anticipation of the blows that would shatter it - blows that Mr Reagan himself boldly called for.

   We need a man like him again.  We need some one who believes in liberty, who believes in democracy, and who believes in the power of capitalism.  We need someone who acknowledges that, whatever its faults, it is not the excesses of capitalism that have caused most of the world's misery.  It is the excesses of GOVERNMENTS.  Governments builts Auschwitz and Dachau, governments built the Soviet gulags, governments muzzle the masses and deny them the freedom that is their God-given birthright.  Governments carry out pogroms and ethnic cleansings.
  The solution to the excesses of government is NOT more government!  Any approach to solving our nation's problems that involves giving more money, more power, and more authority to the government is flawed, because once government takes your money, you never get back as much as was taken.  Once government takes your liberty, you have to fight to retrieve it.  In the end, virtually every liberal solution to every problem ultimately involves giving more money and power to government.  How much is too much?  How long will we let it continue?  When will someone find the guts to say "No More"?

   Yes, I supported our military operations in the Middle East, and still do.  Lester - I don't "buy into" concocted theories about the jihadists, I simply read what they themselves write, to the goals that they clearly articulate.  I fully recognize that they are a minority of the world's Muslim community, but there are still enough of them to pose a potent danger to the future of democracy.  Watch what is happening in much of Europe is Muslim immigrants gain political power.  Much of the West will be Islamicized in the next 50 years by simple demographics.  How long do you think the freedoms we have been raised to cherish will last when a majority of the population comes from a background that not only doesn't cherish liberty, but regards it as something unclean? Soviet-style communism is dead, as is the Nazi philosophy of Hitler.  The jihadists are the Nazis of the 21st century, an evil that cannot be appeased and must be opposed.   But one importnat way to do that is to encourage the growth of moderate Islamic states, like the one we are helping to build in Iraq.

I also agree that we must beat the Chinese economically.  But we won't do it through regulating and  taxing our businesses into oblivion, and we sure won't do it by continuing to spend money on huge social programs that we cannot afford and do not really need.

We need to find leaders who can grasp these truths and clearly explain them to the people, and unite our nation in the process.  We need another Great Communicator.

Ronnie?    You out there, big guy?

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

you don't see china going in for all this theatre. they don't do wars, they just do growth. at the same time, we have an advantage in that they will never have the types of freedoms we have here. We should emphasize that.

I'm in total agreement about the stuff with the railroads. if you want to see a really "bad movie" about these issues check out my seven part ugly robot voiced cartoon play based on Albert Jay Nocks "our enemy the state" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGkZxgzxTlk

I wouldn't count the Chinese out of war just yet. 

They have serious military numbers, and decent hardware.  They are still a major supporter of N. Korea (as they were in the first Korean war) and what role they would play in future N. Korean aggressions is very uncertain.  If they were to stage a joint assault on the DMZ, we would be unable to repel it w\o some serious losses (if we
could at all.)


Adding to China's questionable role are regular annual joint military exercises with the Russians (resumed about 5 years ago) with airborne landing and invasion as their top practice.

Lastly, their economic growth would also mostl likely see additional increases in their military. And this is no longer the old China with half-assed Russian weapons. Unlike the Cold War era Russians, who only had quantity over quality, the Chinese have both in their corner.  Don't count em' out just yet...

[lester1/2jr]

The jihadists are the Nazis of the 21st century

my point was you believing this allows the government to get you to willingly part with your money in satiating this fear (which is actually impossible, there are biillions of muslims all over the world and our enemies are non state actors) . If you didn't believe that than you wouldn't.

The solution to the excesses of government is NOT more government

and yet...

Yes, I supported our military operations in the Middle East, and still do

so you are against big government except when it's the biggest big government, the one that actually kills human beings and drains blood and treasure on a scale that would make stalin envious.

on huge social programs that we cannot afford and do not really need.

like nation building in the arab world. where they fire at us as we attempt to give them the money our citizens earn at their jobs and which is then taken from them and they have no choice in this.



“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan



really, is declaring the iranians the new hitler courageous?

"If they aren't mad, are you really being bad?" - Nelson "the simpsons"

[indianasmith]

What is the option?  Do nothing, stay home, mind our own business, and watch the fires of liberty go out all over the world?  Sometimes evil reaches such a scale that it must be opposed.  The state of Iran is run by some very, very spooky characters.  Their president wants to launch a war of extermination against Israel, and will soon have the means to do so.  Would you have us do nothing as the staunchest ally we have had since World War II is buried under a tide of blood and nuclear terror?  Will that make the world safer or better?

I don't LIKE war, but I like seeing evil victorious even less.  There ARE things worth fighting for.  Trying to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism and promote the growth of democracy in a very critical region of the world is one of those things.

"The only thing worse than winning a war is losing one."

[Flick James]

But one importnat way to do that is to encourage the growth of moderate Islamic states, like the one we are helping to build in Iraq.

While we're at it, let's help them develop and give them arms to fight those jihadists so they can turn on us later. Wait, we've already done that before

No, can't agree with you on that one, although I do agree with most of the rest of your post. We've become far to interventionist and now we're getting into bigger and bigger trouble because of it. I recently discovered American Empire: Before the Fall by former Reagan associate deputy attorney Bruce Fein. I haven't read it yet, but the following quote from the back cover has prompted me to pick it up:

“The United States was born as a Republic. The individual was the center of society and rule of law was King. Neutrality and non-entanglements were the North Stars of foreign policy. Preemptive wars were feared as precursors to executive tyranny. The Republic would not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Transparency was the rule and secrecy the rare exception. And the thrill of self-government was the utmost good. Since the emergence of Manifest Destiny and the Mexican-American War, the United States has progressively degenerated into an arrogant, swaggering Empire featuring hundreds of military bases abroad with defense commitments to foreigners. The degeneration was accelerated by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and Obama are a philosophical triumvirate in national security matters. The Empire is earmarked by perpetual and global warfare unilaterally initiated by the President for the sake of domination; unchecked executive power; the crucifixion of the rule of law on a national security cross; the diminishment of Congress to a constitutional ink blot; secret government; unsustainable trillion dollar budget deficits; and, a craving by the public for risk-free lives more than freedom itself. The Republic can be regained if a President emerges who renounces executive usurpations and secrecy, terminates all U.S. military bases abroad and revokes all defense treaties or executive agreements, immediately ends the Afghan, Iraq, international terrorism wars, and makes the rule of law the nation’s civic religion.”

[lester1/2jr]

What is the option?  Do nothing, stay home, mind our own business, and watch the fires of liberty go out all over the world?

?? look at the transformations post communism in India, China, Brazil. Africa is starting to come along.  With India and China alone you are talking billions and billion of people whose lives are vastly better than they were a few years ago. I have a friend who was just in shen zen near hong kong. It was like grass huts 30 years ago, now it's a metropolis. It's crazy.  

We didn't invade China and teach them capitalism. They learned it, in no small part by us opening trade with them. We lost the vietnam war, but now vietnam is trading with us too.  so we won, in a sense. ou beliefs won. we couldn' figure out how to defeat guys who were willing to live in tunnels for ten years at a time just to come out and snipe us, but they knew saving up for 5 years for a crappy schwin bike was no way to get ahead.

so the fires of liberty are burning. or at least the fires of commerce and high standards of living

  

Sometimes evil reaches such a scale that it must be opposed.  The state of Iran is run by some very, very spooky characters.

  so we can not like them.

  

Their president wants to launch a war of extermination against Israel, and will soon have the means to do so.

??  first of all, you don't need a  nuclear weapon to have a war. israel is tiny. You could do a ton of damage with regular bombs but why would they do that?  Iran has a lame economy and barely an air force.  They don't want war with the united states, which is what they would get if they attacked Israel.

more to the point: the president of EVERY COUNTRY in the middle east and some countries NOT in the middle east want to exterminate israel! it was set up by westerners in the middle of the middle east. the people who lived there were kicked out.  maybe you have a different narrative for their story but in the middle east that is how it's viewed.

Would you have us do nothing as the staunchest ally we have had since World War II is buried under a tide of blood and nuclear terror?  Will that make the world safer or better?

We aren't God. If the situation really were as dire as you are making it, the israelis should leave like Helen Thomas said and go back to europe or america.

If not they should stay and deal with it.  .  

the middle east has been going to hell in a handbasket and it's going to continue going that way wether we are there to take bullets as it goes or not.

We can't take money out of americans hands to try and remake the middle east in our image. it's not right

[indianasmith]

But one importnat way to do that is to encourage the growth of moderate Islamic states, like the one we are helping to build in Iraq.

While we're at it, let's help them develop and give them arms to fight those jihadists so they can turn on us later. Wait, we've already done that before

No, can't agree with you on that one, although I do agree with most of the rest of your post. We've become far to interventionist and now we're getting into bigger and bigger trouble because of it. I recently discovered American Empire: Before the Fall by former Reagan associate deputy attorney Bruce Fein. I haven't read it yet, but the following quote from the back cover has prompted me to pick it up:

“The United States was born as a Republic. The individual was the center of society and rule of law was King. Neutrality and non-entanglements were the North Stars of foreign policy. Preemptive wars were feared as precursors to executive tyranny. The Republic would not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Transparency was the rule and secrecy the rare exception. And the thrill of self-government was the utmost good. Since the emergence of Manifest Destiny and the Mexican-American War, the United States has progressively degenerated into an arrogant, swaggering Empire featuring hundreds of military bases abroad with defense commitments to foreigners. The degeneration was accelerated by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and Obama are a philosophical triumvirate in national security matters. The Empire is earmarked by perpetual and global warfare unilaterally initiated by the President for the sake of domination; unchecked executive power; the crucifixion of the rule of law on a national security cross; the diminishment of Congress to a constitutional ink blot; secret government; unsustainable trillion dollar budget deficits; and, a craving by the public for risk-free lives more than freedom itself. The Republic can be regained if a President emerges who renounces executive usurpations and secrecy, terminates all U.S. military bases abroad and revokes all defense treaties or executive agreements, immediately ends the Afghan, Iraq, international terrorism wars, and makes the rule of law the nation’s civic religion.”

 


In my humble (but usually correct) opinion, this guy needs to be on some kind of medication.  We were isolationist in the Federalist era because we were too weak to be anything else.  And what happened?  War kept finding us anyway.  We can't return to the 18th century, and I'm not so sure it's a good idea to do so.


LESTER - Israel is the historic home of Judaism.  Jerusalem was a Jewish city for nearly 2000 years before Muhammad was born.  You and Helen Thomas would seemingly have the Jews return to Auschwitz?  That is BULL.  Israel is their religious, historic, and cultural homeland, and they have a right to live there.

I simply don't understand your willingness to see them exterminated.

[lester1/2jr]

and Helen Thomas would seemingly have the Jews return to Auschwitz?

yeah that's exactly what I was saying.  

Israel is their religious, historic, and cultural homeland, and they have a right to live there.

no one has a right to live anywhere.  we didn't just go to the Indians "Hey, come on it's our manifest desinty" and expect them to roll over. the israelis have to fight for their land and they are facing a billion "indians" who would rather they didn't.

  also there are millions of israelis, russian, ethiopians who have no genetic conection to the land at all.  If you converted to judaism in the 19th century Israel cannot fairly be said to be your "historic homeland" can it.

so Yes, I am fine with letting the chips fall as they may in this troubled region of the world. I think it's backwards and uninteresting and don't know why anyone, jewish muslim or christian would want to live there.  if people want to build houses in the middle of the forest they can, just don't expect me to rescue you when a forest fire comes.

Theres being an idealist and there is just being stupid.  I am baffled that any jewish person wants to live in the middle east when they could live in America or Europe but if they want to do something so strange they can feel free.

[Skull]

I am baffled that any jewish person wants to live in the middle east when they could live in America or Europe but if they want to do something so strange they can feel free.

It's funny how we never stop and think... Why?

The problem is quite simple... Not everybody in the middle east wants to kill a jew. So why is that be a problem?

It's not a problem at all. It just that we in America has a mindset that every mulism wants to kill a jew because the terrorists claim they are supporting the mulism cause. When in fact they dont, otherwise the mulism population (which outnumber the jews) would had overthrown the jewish population years ago.

 

[Flick James]

In my humble (but usually correct) opinion, this guy needs to be on some kind of medication.  We were isolationist in the Federalist era because we were too weak to be anything else.  And what happened?  War kept finding us anyway.  We can't return to the 18th century, and I'm not so sure it's a good idea to do so.

Don't think I don't respect your experience and expertise, indiana. However, if war is going to find us anyway, what's the point in seeking it? As the industrial military complex grows, something Eisenhower warned us against before leaving office, we grow closer and closer to a fascist posture. Joseph Grcic identified one of the key aspects of fascist systems as the will and ability to commit violence and wage war to keep the nation strong. Fascist systems also tend to be corporatist, and given how much influence corporations have over policy, I have to lend creedance sometimes to the notion that we ARE becoming fascistic. The Halliburton Corporation alone bears out both of those premises: corporatist government waging war abroad to keep the nation strong.

Am I a historian? No, but that doesn't mean I can't do a bit of research and observation and hold a position. In my humble opinion, U.S. inteventionist policies are not in keeping with the spirit of the Republic we were founded on. Do times change? Oh, you betcha. But I for one would welcome a return to that philosophy. The notion that war is going to come to us anyway is not justification. It's expensive, and it creates more enemies than allies. We've painted ourselves into this corner of being the policeman of the world. I've heard the justification that going to war overseas is better than waiting for war to come to us because we don't want war to come to American soil. I understand that, I woudn't want that either, but maybe the American people would band together for a change to defend freedom rather than accept convenience.

I'm not against building relationships with other nations, but I would much rather build healthy relationships that are based on trade, not intervention and war. I'm being hypothetical here, but just imagine if, in the middle east over the past several decades, we had built trade relationships rather than play one against the other as we did through the cold war and after. I don't think it's entirely naive to think the world would be a better place. Perhaps the Arab world would be more industrious and less warmongering. I don't think that is too farfetched a notion. Fundamentalist Islam is partly our fault. We have helped cultivate it through decades of dangerous policies. It's time our government take responsibility for that.

Then again, maybe I need to be on medication.  

[lester1/2jr]

we were isolationist in the 80's and 90's!  think of all the wars we could have had with russia, iraq, libya whoever, that we didn't.  and those were  great years. Meanwhile, Iraq pretty much killed the last deacde.