Some questions for my Right leaning friends.

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Why is it our job to police the world?

Why do we still have military bases in Europe?

Why do we get involved in every one else's affairs?

If we became energy independent and no longer needed ME oil, withdrew from the UN, closed down all our bases and brought home every last soldier, reduced our interaction with other countries to friendly relations and trade and stopped meddling in the affairs of other countries, what incentive would there be for people to continue to consider us an enemy?

IMO, none. All the problems that we have are self-induced.

The world has changed, but we haven't. It's time to stop being everyone else's big brother, and it's not just for security.

In the next 15-20 years, our obligation to SS, Medicare, and military pensions will total upwards of $52 trillion. That's almost a half a million dollars for every man, woman and child at our current population.

Kook Font Alert:

WE'RE FUCKING BROKE!!!

End Kook Font.


We are on a path that is unsustainable and our survival depends on our ability to accept this new reality.

 

[hippieki11er]

No one on the 'right' would have a problem with such an agenda. Would you honestly support withdrawing from the UN though? Most liberals would not FWIW.

 

[Romanowski]

You can reduce the amount of oil we import from the ME, but not totally.

Which is why drilling in Alaska was a hot issue. Dem congress vetoed that possibility

The problem is you can't divide the country into two dicotomies any longer

I dont think everybody on the left is against exploring Nuclear Energy to replace a lot of what we use today domestically

But under the liberal umbrella does exist the sentiment to be weary and ignorant of Nuclear energy, as just one example

 

[festeringZit]

Why is it our job to police the world?

Why do we still have military bases in Europe?

Why do we get involved in every one else's affairs?

If we became energy independent and no longer needed ME oil, withdrew from the UN, closed down all our bases and brought home every last soldier, reduced our interaction with other countries to friendly relations and trade and stopped meddling in the affairs of other countries, what incentive would there be for people to continue to consider us an enemy?

IMO, none. All the problems that we have are self-induced.

The world has changed, but we haven't. It's time to stop being everyone else's big brother, and it's not just for security.

In the next 15-20 years, our obligation to SS, Medicare, and military pensions will total upwards of $52 trillion. That's almost a half a million dollars for every man, woman and child at our current population.

Kook Font Alert:

WE'RE FUCKING BROKE!!!

End Kook Font.


We are on a path that is unsustainable and our survival depends on our ability to accept this new reality.

I'm a rightie, and I agree with every issue you mentioned.

We can't be the world's police any more, and we can't rely on
ME oil any more.

And, we have to stop printing money that we don't have. It will be
the end of us.

Hello Obama?

 

[TomGshotput]

1 Police/fire is one of the few necessary services government should provide. While local issues are always of most importance, globalization can be a very good thing

2 Service member unions won't allow it

3 Not sure on this one, you can ask the women I work with, they try and butt into everything, makes me hate my job

4 There is never a good incentive for most people to consider anyone an enemy. Yet some people still do so

Government has wasted so much already and I have survived fine. I expect them to continue to waste a lot more and I expect to survive for several more decades. If they stop being so wasteful that would be great, because I would have more money to spend on luxury items. But I doubt that will happen

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

No one on the 'right' would have a problem with such an agenda. Would you honestly support withdrawing from the UN though? Most liberals would not FWIW.

The UN is impotent. Why didn't the UN stop the slaughter in Rwanda? What about Haiti? Burma? They are completely useless, and to make matters worse we provide most of the funding.

You label me a liberal, but I'm much more conservative than you would think. It's my stance on religion that makes me appear much more liberal than I am.

I disagree with you that no one on the right would have a problem with such an agenda, though. I think many relish the idea that we are (were?) the most powerful nation on the planet and every now and then we take a 90 pound weakling, grab him by the neck and shove him up against the lockers. Too many people believe it's our role to keep the world "safe", when in fact our presence creates significant unintended consequences.

I also know that many people on the right try to paint left leaning Americans as non-patriotic. I love my country, though I recognize the fact that we're no better than many other countries. Our politicians are corrupt, our system is unfair, and we are run by corporations. The fact that we don't have the longest lifespan, don't have the lowest infant mortality rate, don't have the lowest poverty rate, etc shows that we are not living up to our potential. What's stopping us?

 

[hippieki11er]

I wasn't so much calling you a liberal, as I was challenging the implicit part of your argument that only liberals would support such an agenda, whereas conservatives would not.. especially in regards to UN withdrawal, as the former most certainly would not.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

I'm a rightie, and I agree with every issue you mentioned.

We can't be the world's police any more, and we can't rely on
ME oil any more.

And, we have to stop printing money that we don't have. It will be
the end of us.

Hello Obama?

Well, then. First off: :toast:

As for the money printing, they're all Keynesians (sp?). A Republican Administration wouldn't be doing a whole lot different. And you know what? The Dems would be the ones grandstanding against the bailouts in that scenario. It's all politics.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

I wasn't so much calling you a liberal, as I was challenging the implicit part of your argument that only liberals would support such an agenda, whereas conservatives would not.. especially in regards to UN withdrawal, as the former most certainly would not.

I may not have been clear enough. I was not arguing that only liberals would support such an agenda. I know the Right as a whole hates the UN.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

I disagree with you that no one on the right would have a problem with such an agenda, though. I think many relish the idea that we are (were?) the most powerful nation on the planet and every now and then we take a 90 pound weakling, grab him by the neck and shove him up against the lockers. Too many people believe it's our role to keep the world "safe", when in fact our presence creates significant unintended consequences.

Let me add that one of the reasons many on the right would not go for this is because that would mean Israel would have to fend for herself.

Which is a whole different thread altogether...

 

[Romanowski]

lol Israel's biggest enemy is the UN

 

[hippieki11er]

^^ Exactly. And you do realize DEAC that the USA likewise assists in tying Israel's hands, right?

 

[Romanowski]

"fend for herself"...could do that just fine against dumb and lazy arabs with Russian arms

ten to twenty times cheaper too

the oil would be bought ad sold in Rubles today too, what a different world

Because "she" is the bargaining chip that arabs respect

He who controls Israels controls the area

You dont know whats what if you believe the US govt or its citizens are getting a raw deal by siding with Israel

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

All of which goes back to our need for ME oil.

 

[Romanowski]

agree

you cant get off oil, you can try to get off foreign whenever possible

why not drill in alaska? why is nuclear cryptonite to the left?

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

agree

you cant get off oil, you can try to get off foreign whenever possible

why not drill in alaska? why is nuclear cryptonite to the left?

Because the left is hostage to Environmentalists. I am big time for the environment, and I think it's been established that they could drill in Alaska with a minimal effect.

I think the left is coming around to nuclear power. Thorium seems a much safer and economic route than uranium, it's just the stigma attached to nuclear power that has to be overcome.

 

[punter]

Not sure why the Alaskan wildlife preserve keeps being kicked around. I view it as an untapped reserve that we will have as long as it is untapped.

Drilling is not the question, when oil was at $80 every rig that we have was busy, now at $50 nearly 1/2 are idle. The oil companies would have loved to make deals for the rights to public lands when Bush was in office because more than any other administration they were prone to give our natural resources away. It would make no difference in the rig count. Price determines the rig count.

 

[Illini]

Could not agree more with you, DEAC.

 

[tiznow]

I think the left is coming around to nuclear power. Thorium seems a much safer and economic route than uranium, it's just the stigma attached to nuclear power that has to be overcome.

thorium has alot of issues too...

here's a good read on it...

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

we'll see if the indians can come up with anything viable....as they got alot of thorium reserves

overall just seems like another catch phrase type deal for our government to spend money on that'll likely lead to nowhere let the free markets figure it out

 

[roadreeler57]

I don't see how you think just the left is for the issues you mentioned...You must be confused... You mentioned SSI & Medicare "at our current population" do you think bringing 128,000 LEGAL foriegn immigrants per month or 2 1/2 million (a city the size of Philadelphia) every 2 years is going to help these 2 issues?..... Maybe somebody will read this & watch the video www.numbersusa.com/video