Enahs Live wrote:If the US goes back to an isolational policy in dealing with foreign matters, strengthens the border to keep out the riff-raff and drugs, and sucks up to the Middle Eastern countries so they don't want to destroy the US and will give us oil at a cheaper price, well, don't you think this country would be a much better place to live in?
I think the U.S. simply can't do this, due to the fact they've been pushing themselves to be the most important force worldwide in international politics. If the U.S. would now isolate themselves and not bother with international politics I don't think the rest of the world who are now good partners of the U.S. would agree, this could affect the trade relations between the U.S. and a lot of countries, especially in the case of a conflict where the U.S. now suddenly would not interfere.
¤ wrote:Europe and others demanded we get involved and stop being isolationalist. When we do nothing they demand we do something, then they want us not involved. Nothing wrong with being the World's Police. Someone has to do it and the UN and it's clones don't seem to be very effective at all.
¤ wrote:We don't need to be cut off from the rest of the World, that's not the best interest of the United States. We need to do what's best for the country and not let others rape us. That's why Bush is good for us, unlike Clinton/Gore.
¤ wrote:I don't care if they work on watermelon farms, those are jobs United States Citizens should have rather than sitting on Welfare or Disibility when they could do that job easy.
Dan Gadzuric wrote:What clones do you mean? From what I know there's only one organisation that combines armies for peace missions, but I could ofcourse be forgetting some
Dan Gadzuric wrote:My point wasn't the U.S. would cut itself off, the rest of the world might cut the U.S. off if they suddenly step away from their self imposed responsibilities. Ofcourse it would be a big blow to the U.S. trade partners to stop trade with the U.S. and I doubt they would indeed cut them off, but it would be a possibility to force the U.S.
Dan Gadzuric wrote:The problem is they won't take those jobs because they think theirselves too good... the same happens in the Netherlands, where (illegal) immigrants are on one side being discriminated (yes, still.. just like in all coutries that claim to do otherwise) but on the other side they are important to the economy because they fill jobs that inhabitants of the country in question wouldn't take.
and perhaps Canada deserves it after the PM referred to Bush as "that idiot"
TheBob wrote:Lets get real, Bush is an idiot. For anyone to deny that is just blatant stupidity. However, I don' think that it was a wise move considering Bush is in control of the most powerful country on the planet. Back to what I was saying before though, Bush didn't even know Canada's PM's name, he called him Pm Poutine. Which for those of you who don't know is a term that reffers to fries with gravy and melted cheese on in Quebec.
Jamal wrote:Sorry for my lack of knowledge, Ben. The US dont have millitary on its borders? I am surprised.
Jamal wrote:Maybe I am paranoid, but if I am a leader of a country, I definitely wont feel safe that my country's borders are wide open. Putting millitary on the borders is a must, in my opinion.
Jamal wrote:As for Bush, I dont really like him, but I wouldnt say he's bad or he's an idiot, although I do think he should put more work on his speeches.
Jamal wrote:I once read some news saying he called the Pakistan people "Pakis", and my Pakistan friend was getting all pissed when he saw that news. It was a long while ago, I dont remember when. I dont watch a lot of news so I dont know if his speech had improved yet.
Bush is not an idiot. He's more than obviously the most capable leader this country has had since Ronald Reagan. He's pro-United States unlike Clinton/Gore, he's assembled a better staff and is more apt at "strategery" than his father. Now, he's won control of Congress. It's time for him to start some major reforms of the country and show how damn good he is for this country. I say start with Immigration, the Socialist Programs and the biggest sinner of all. Education. Up with Freedom!....What do you think about the real topic Bob? Military on the border. Let's talk about that.
DR. P wrote:I will say this, however, if you consider Reagan, Bush, Lil' Bush, etc. to be any stonger a leader than Clinton was, I think your kidding yourself.
DR. P wrote:I haven't seen a president as charismatic as Clinton since Kennedy, and I think he was just as solid a leader as we've ever had
DR. P wrote:And I don't think Bush, won over Congress, I think people just wanted a change.
DR. P wrote:the Democrats will be on the hook to make some things happen. That's the way it should be.
DR. P wrote:I'm all for Border control as long as its equally distributed. Don't give me this bit about, "well more drugs in Mexico so lets start there". If we're going to do it lets do it right.
DR. P wrote:That means when an individual comes over on a boat from Haiti or the Dominican Republic don't send them back if you in-turn let every Cuban come over with little protest to southern florida.
Yeah, well, at least he won't mess with the economy, institute evil socialist policies, let other countries rape us, lie, cheat and steal. And if he does, it'll be in the best interest of the United States.
Charisma is pointless if it ruins the country. Kennedy didn't really do anything great and nor did Clinton. I'm not even talking Lewinski, Whitewater, Marc Rich, any of that stuff. I'm talking the actually running of the country was poor. Newt could only do so much to save us.
.Except they'll [the democrats will] make bad things happen. Continue to limit freedom in the United States. Continue to destroy the liberal democracy with their new liberal teachings.....
I didn't say that. I said if we could only protect one border (because as the new liberals say we don't have the proper military to do anything) then I'd definately do Mexico because of not only the drugs but the fact that the illegal problem is greater there.
DR. P wrote:And then some of you guys wonder why more people post in hip-hop forums than in this one. Its clear, everyone wants to make this a partisan issue, when it should be bigger than that [I guess I should have know by the O'Riely picture where you'd stand on this issue, given his rather starchy conservatism] but here goes.
DR. P wrote:Listen, your "implication" that Clinton "mess[ed] with the economy, institute[d] evil socialist policies,..." yada, yada, yada, is hogwash and I'm not going to get into it really because its a waste of time and energy.
DR. P wrote:Clinton hasn't let other countries "rape" the U.S. anymore than Regan, Bush, Nixon, or anyone else and the economy has never been better under anyone in recent memory.
DR. P wrote:And frankly having jobs is a much more central issue to me than some of the other issues and rhetoric that you espouse are of more concern.
DR. P wrote:Frankly education and economy are high on my list so Clinton was fine in my view. And his ability to help us "balance" the budget
DR. P wrote:in my view, was a hell of alot better than that "Reganomics/Trickle down" crap that he and his disciple, G. Dubya Sr., tried to toss. And hey that's my view, you can disagree. Frankly, I don't see where G-Dubya Jr. is any better, its really 6 in one hand, half-a-dozen in another.
DR. P wrote:And from what I've seen so far from him, he's not really running this country all that well. I still haven't seen Bin Laden yet and it seems like more harsh talk, than action against Iraq.
DR. P wrote:O.K., whatever you say. I really don't see what Bush, Jr. is doing so much better now.
DR. P wrote:The economy sucks since he's been in office
DR. P wrote:we haven't seen any education reform, which was promised in his campaign, and I haven't seen Osama yet.
DR. P wrote:So I don't see what he's actually doing any differently than an of his predecessors have done. Its simply rhetoric, but no real action.
DR. P wrote:Don't be duped by it. And Newt didn't do anything either, merely a figurehead.
DR. P wrote:But, again if that's what you want to believe, then that's your perogative. But, please don't discredit others opinions when your merely providing your own as well.
DR. P wrote:O.k., if you say so. But I haven't seen what's been so great from Republicans. What have they done? Remember, we didn't have to worry so heavily about homeland security until recently.
DR. P wrote:And also your 401Ks, Stocks, E-commerce, mutual funds, etc. were doing well and you had a job with decent pay.
DR. P wrote:If that's making bad things happen, then yes I want it to continue to be bad. I'll give Republicans their chance now and I want to see this type of prosperity before I'll conceed that things are great at this point in time.
DR. P wrote:I didn't implicate you here specifically, I merely pointed out that I didn't want to hear that same swan song from people who are pro-border control, but anti-equality in enforcing such policies. It seems that some want to give preferences for some people, but torment others. I'm all for it, as long as its an equal policy for everyone.
DR. P wrote:And that's it for me in this thread. This really seems to be becoming more of a partisan thing and I had enough of that in 2000 and several weeks ago. So that's my take and I'm sticking to it....
Well, perhaps now that we have a good Congress and an increase in people advocating the cause we will actually be able to do something about it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests