Unlike the liberals of the past, the new liberals of our age are simply lazy, wet, little cowards. The likes of Carter and Clinton. They have driven the country into a hole that republicans are trying to manage, and are now blaming republicans for not managing it well.
Let's start from Carter, that dude, believed the U.S had an inordinate fear of the Soviets. Sounds familiar? It is. Barack Obama alike believes the U.S has an inordinate fear of terrorists. The liberals have coined the war against terror as only as spoof driven by fear. Carter too believed it in the Soviet days. He stopped the production of B-1 bombers, gave away our Panama canal strategic location, and withdrew our support for the Iranian leader because he didn't like the Iranian treatment of spies. Today, we, and future generations to come are going to have to deal with the radical islamic lunatics that Carter helped into the Iranian government.
When Iranians including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days, Carter sent a rescue, that couldn't rescue itself. They ended up losing eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. This demoralization of the US military has become a pattern among Liberal leaders, both in little communities such as Berkeley, California and Toledo, Ohio and on a national scale-- Obama and Clinton(Bill).
The aggressive diplomacy that Barack has been clamoring is what, good guy, Carter did when he even kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek. A short while later, the soviets invaded Afghanistan. Carters response "I can't believe the Russians lied to me." I bet the Russians where having tea listen to him and saying what a loser.
Communism spread almost world wide in Carters Regime to nations like Ethiopia, South Yemen, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and more. In the midst of this threat, Carter cut defense spending with a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, a 75% reduction in ships, an 83% reduction in attack submarines and a 90% reduction inhelicopters. Barack Obama, of course, has repeatedly asked for a cut in defense spending.
By the end of his term he had successfully achieved 12% inflation rate , 21% interest rates(highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), a depleted military and serious energy crisis. Energy which the Russians could own all of in only a matter of time.
Obama has said we should never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. The truth is by running to Cuba who co-operated with the Russians in installing missiles that could hit the homeland and the Iranian president who held Americans captive for 444 days, he is doing exactly what he's preaching against. He is negotiating out of fear. The Bush administration has said repeatedly that it would negotiate with Iran if Iran meets certain benchmarks, that doesn't look too much, to me, like somebody fearing to negotiate.
Obama's foreign policy has failed even before it starting. With his sweet words nicely coined quotes, and charm he has been able to win people over without them critically examining his stance on issues. If he becomes the President, which is becoming increasingly likely, all i can say is, America hold on to your seat, because you are in for one hell of a ride. God bless the USA
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&statu...
And what else about the economy? Are you forgetting that under Clinton not only did we have a wonderful reputation abroad but we were brought into a surplus.
Then came Bush, who spent more money than we had by a few BILLION dollars and ruined the world view for us.
Besides that, I think your first sentence discredits the rest of your blog. It is mostly well-written, but opening a blog with an insult that frankly, applies to a lot of readers here will not get you a lot of support or sympathy. That, and it's downright childish.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
I'll write about the economy, THEN we would talk about the economy. Now, the issue is national security.
"...support or sympathy..." Thanks for the desire to give "support" and "sympathy" but i really don't want it. It is your views unscripted in an unapologetic manner that i want.
My views are not scripted and i don't recall being apologetic. My views I come by on my own, no matter what you believe.
National security has a lot to do with how other nations view ours. If country Q respects our actions, then they will support us. If we act like international assholes, then Q will lost respect/admiration for us and the loss of face means loss of support and lower security as more and more countries essentially hate us.
And to be fair, you did bring up inflation rates and such. If that doesn't have to do with the economy, I don't know WHAT does.
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
"My views are not scripted " Obviously not, the problem is that you want me to script mine in order to gain your "support or sympathy".
The way you stated it "If country Q respects our actions, then they will support us." That is exactly the way liberals see the world. Unfortunately that's not how the world works. "country Q" is not a computer and is as unpredictable as the guy next to you in a mall. Liberals have this simplistic view of the world that amazes me. Really.
On the 9th of September 2001, Muslims in the nothern part of Nigeria were dancing in the streets and opening champagne glasses. That is a nation where they depend on us for almost their entire GDP and we have never had a cause to be at odds with them.
Of course the guy Carter put in Iran "respect(ed) our actions"(which was a noble one by the way) and turned against the US almost overnight. Russia, that he kissed on the cheek must have "respect(ed) our actions" and invaded Afghanistan a few days later.
You're kidding me right?
You're completely ridiculous here. The entire reason the Iran Hostage Crisis occurred was because of the threat of US Intervention in Iran under our foreign policy of "Containment". Once we promised not to mess in their affairs in the Algiers Accords, the problem was solved. It was the Republican foreign policy of asserting our will over the rest of the world and bossing everyone around that started the entire problem in the first place. Had we been more diplomatic, the entire problem would have been avoided in the first place, which is exactly what the Democrats are trying to help fix now.
Your argument is amazing! I don't necessarily agree with it, but I have to say that it is nicely written and if I did not already dislike Obama, I think that you would have had me convinced.
Today on my blog, I drew some parallels between Obama and Carter and I received a comment that Carter was a bad example because his administration is looked upon as an outlier. I was just wondering how you would respond to that criticism, because frankly, he was not favored much by his own party, let alone the nation. (I do have great respect for the man because of his honesty and because of his Camp David Accords and such, but I am just trying to represent the majority view of him)
What do you think the Republicans, if they achieve office will do to help ensure the nation's security. Also when you bring energy into the equation and the democratic platform to rid the nation of foreign dependency on oil by promoting green energy, how does that fit in? Would such a plan not increase our self-sufficiency and in essence allow us to have fewer connections with the Middle East, which is potentially one of our major areas of foreign policy concern at the moment (in terms of national security)?
Now you make me think even deeper with the question, "What do you think the Republicans, if they achieve office will do to help ensure the nation's security?". I think it depends on the Republican you're talking about. I think it doesn't just take a person with the label republican, i think it takes someone who understands that the world doesn't have to like you, although that'll certainly help, for you to survive as a super power.
Who understand that it doesn't matter what you do, some people would like you and some would not... the list goes on and on haha
If the republicans gain office though, it would be easier for them to fight the war on terror because they haven't been fighting against those fighting against the terrorists.
"Also when you bring energy into the equation and the democratic platform" I think Al-Gore been the main proponent of energy independence has helped (1) Intertwine two very different issues ({i}energy independence and {ii} energy, environmental friendliness), and (2) the democrats make those energy issues seem like issues divided along partisan lines. The truth is that the fact that Bush hasn't added Al-Gore's "priority" to the list of his own priorities doesn't make an issue partisan, (but that's politics). By the way Bush had been working on independence long before Al-Gore found his new calling.
I think democrats and republicans alike are concerned about those issues and anyone making it a partisan issue is a grossly uninformed.
LASTLY, WHATEVER PLAN THEY HAVE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND REDUCING EMISSIONS CAN BE EASILY DEBATED ON AND PASSED, ASSUMING THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT STEROIDS AND BASEBALL STARS, AND PASSED NOW THAT THEY ARE THE MAJORITY AND MANY REPUBLICANS SUPPORT THOSE NOTIONS.
trutalk, I like what you write. Keep it up.
Read the first sentence and I took it very offensive. Liberals are not any of those things and your arguments make no sense. I don't like Obama, I think he is a disgrace to the Democratic Party (sorry, but its true), so you can't really base the Democratic Party on him. I agree with violinkeri 100%. I must say republicans are not so great as they seem to think they are. Thanks to Fox News the Republican brainwashing and the Right Winged conspiracy has taken over the young minds of my time. I think your agrument is ridiculous and you need to get a reality check. The Democratic Party is the most diverse, understanding, and committed of any party that has ever existed. Look at the Democratic Party, what do you see? I see blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, men and women all working together to make the world a better place. Working towards ending poverty, stopping genocide, combatting global warming, creating universal healthcare, creating better education for our children, ending the war, decreasing the number of homeless people, and so many things I could go on forever about. But then I look at the Republican Party, I see a bunch of white men along with some white women who have been brainwashed by their husbands working towards absolutely nothing important (the war against drugs and the war against science?) all they are worried about is that every country in the world be a democracy well what made democracy the best from of govt. Ours sure ain't great. FL and MI don't even get a say in who gets to be the Democratic Nominee. Oh yeah democracy at work. Please.
I find it interesting that you don't address any of the issues raised... ALL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FACTS.. but you "took it very offensive". HAHAHA. I want to see your mad face.
"Obama, I think he is a disgrace to the Democratic Party". I disagree, i think he's a disgrace to the U.S FYI he's been named the most liberal senator by those more informed than you.
"I see a bunch of white men along with some white women who have been brainwashed..." Look at the racism you are spewing.
"Ours sure ain't great. FL and MI don't even get a say in who gets to be the Democratic Nominee. Oh yeah democracy at work. Please."
I hope you're not suggesting the GOP has anything to do with that.