OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan and Aecetia, aren’t “true” conservatives supposed to stay out of nation building and interfering in the affairs of other countries?

Isn’t the Federal government supposed to stay out of the states’ business?

Isn’t it not our job to be the world’s policeman?

I believe that spreading democracy and freedom and advancing human rights around the world is a progressive rather than conservative concept.[/quote]

Brian: Here’s something for you to consider: In 1938, the Czechoslovakians had one of Europe’s strongest and best trained militaries. It is entirely possible, had Germany invaded in 1938, that Germany would have been defeated. At a minimum, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (German army and air force) would have been badly mauled and, most likely, either unprepared or unwilling to invade Poland in 1939. However, Britain and France acceded to German pressure and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler without a shot being fired.

In 1940, prior to Germany invading, France enjoyed both qualitative and quantitative superiority of arms over Germany. However, German soldiers and officers displayed greater elan, aggressiveness and initiative than their French (and British) opponents and thus prevailed, entailing the fall of France.

The point? That none of what is going on with Russia at present has dick to do with nation building and if the French or British had displayed even one nut (let alone both balls) in the face of German aggression in either 1938 or 1940, we could have possibly avoided what Winston Churchill referred to as the “unnecessary war” (WWII); a war that cost in excess of 50MM lives.

So, rather than bandy semantics with you, I’ll refer to the eminent George Santayana and his quote: Those that don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yeah, I would do a little “nation building” or “world policing (America, fuck yeah!)” if it would spare 50MM lives. I’d even tolerate being called a progressive in the bargain.

[scaredyclassic]

y’know, it’s intriguing. for all the talk about “conservative judges who don’t interpret the constitution” being such a beautiful thing, it’s important to remember that it is very recently — certianly wihtin our lfietimes –that equal rights for women was recognized as a constitutional right. by “activist” judges. it sher don’t say thatc rap about women in that there constitution. at least, i don’t see it. ya gotta interpret that thing to see anything about wimmin having any particular “rights”. pretty cool. and hard to believe how ass backwards we were. I remember guys making comments about the utter incompetence and inability fo women to do any type of job when i was a youngster in the early 70’s,a dn it wasnt considered particualrly neanderthal-like. that’s “just the way it was”. until ruth bader gnsburg or someone or other had some balls and found that the constitution protected women. equal rights and so forth. man. weird. weird that it was so recent that women were second class citizens.

[scaredyclassic]

y’know, it’s intriguing. for all the talk about “conservative judges who don’t interpret the constitution” being such a beautiful thing, it’s important to remember that it is very recently — certianly wihtin our lfietimes –that equal rights for women was recognized as a constitutional right. by “activist” judges. it sher don’t say thatc rap about women in that there constitution. at least, i don’t see it. ya gotta interpret that thing to see anything about wimmin having any particular “rights”. pretty cool. and hard to believe how ass backwards we were. I remember guys making comments about the utter incompetence and inability fo women to do any type of job when i was a youngster in the early 70’s,a dn it wasnt considered particualrly neanderthal-like. that’s “just the way it was”. until ruth bader gnsburg or someone or other had some balls and found that the constitution protected women. equal rights and so forth. man. weird. weird that it was so recent that women were second class citizens.

[scaredyclassic]

y’know, it’s intriguing. for all the talk about “conservative judges who don’t interpret the constitution” being such a beautiful thing, it’s important to remember that it is very recently — certianly wihtin our lfietimes –that equal rights for women was recognized as a constitutional right. by “activist” judges. it sher don’t say thatc rap about women in that there constitution. at least, i don’t see it. ya gotta interpret that thing to see anything about wimmin having any particular “rights”. pretty cool. and hard to believe how ass backwards we were. I remember guys making comments about the utter incompetence and inability fo women to do any type of job when i was a youngster in the early 70’s,a dn it wasnt considered particualrly neanderthal-like. that’s “just the way it was”. until ruth bader gnsburg or someone or other had some balls and found that the constitution protected women. equal rights and so forth. man. weird. weird that it was so recent that women were second class citizens.

[scaredyclassic]

y’know, it’s intriguing. for all the talk about “conservative judges who don’t interpret the constitution” being such a beautiful thing, it’s important to remember that it is very recently — certianly wihtin our lfietimes –that equal rights for women was recognized as a constitutional right. by “activist” judges. it sher don’t say thatc rap about women in that there constitution. at least, i don’t see it. ya gotta interpret that thing to see anything about wimmin having any particular “rights”. pretty cool. and hard to believe how ass backwards we were. I remember guys making comments about the utter incompetence and inability fo women to do any type of job when i was a youngster in the early 70’s,a dn it wasnt considered particualrly neanderthal-like. that’s “just the way it was”. until ruth bader gnsburg or someone or other had some balls and found that the constitution protected women. equal rights and so forth. man. weird. weird that it was so recent that women were second class citizens.

[scaredyclassic]

y’know, it’s intriguing. for all the talk about “conservative judges who don’t interpret the constitution” being such a beautiful thing, it’s important to remember that it is very recently — certianly wihtin our lfietimes –that equal rights for women was recognized as a constitutional right. by “activist” judges. it sher don’t say thatc rap about women in that there constitution. at least, i don’t see it. ya gotta interpret that thing to see anything about wimmin having any particular “rights”. pretty cool. and hard to believe how ass backwards we were. I remember guys making comments about the utter incompetence and inability fo women to do any type of job when i was a youngster in the early 70’s,a dn it wasnt considered particualrly neanderthal-like. that’s “just the way it was”. until ruth bader gnsburg or someone or other had some balls and found that the constitution protected women. equal rights and so forth. man. weird. weird that it was so recent that women were second class citizens.

[briansd1]

Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?

[briansd1]

Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?

[briansd1]

Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?

[briansd1]

Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?

[briansd1]

Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?[/quote]

Brian: You’re right. Yeah, letting the Europeans fend for themselves is the way to go. It worked out so well in 1914 and 1939; what was I thinking?

When you have a moment, check out Kennan’s take on things. A little dated, to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

This can’t be a serious discussion for you, since it appears the geopolitics of the last century aren’t anywhere near being instructive, so I’ll concede that allowing Europe to be bullied by the Soviets, er, Russians is completely acceptable and we do have bigger fish to fry, especially with those pesky Chinese and North Koreans. And it appears that Obama has a firm hand on the tiller, so, in the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman: What, me worry?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?[/quote]

Brian: You’re right. Yeah, letting the Europeans fend for themselves is the way to go. It worked out so well in 1914 and 1939; what was I thinking?

When you have a moment, check out Kennan’s take on things. A little dated, to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

This can’t be a serious discussion for you, since it appears the geopolitics of the last century aren’t anywhere near being instructive, so I’ll concede that allowing Europe to be bullied by the Soviets, er, Russians is completely acceptable and we do have bigger fish to fry, especially with those pesky Chinese and North Koreans. And it appears that Obama has a firm hand on the tiller, so, in the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman: What, me worry?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?[/quote]

Brian: You’re right. Yeah, letting the Europeans fend for themselves is the way to go. It worked out so well in 1914 and 1939; what was I thinking?

When you have a moment, check out Kennan’s take on things. A little dated, to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

This can’t be a serious discussion for you, since it appears the geopolitics of the last century aren’t anywhere near being instructive, so I’ll concede that allowing Europe to be bullied by the Soviets, er, Russians is completely acceptable and we do have bigger fish to fry, especially with those pesky Chinese and North Koreans. And it appears that Obama has a firm hand on the tiller, so, in the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman: What, me worry?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, if the govmin’t of the USofA keeps on the assuming the role of big brother, then what’s the incentive for the French, Brits and Germans to prepare for their own defense against possible Russian aggression?

Are we not providing “defense welfare” at our own taxpayers’ expense to ’em wusses who don’t even contribute to our defense budget?

Besides, didn’t Bush argue that the missile defense in question was to defend against possible IRANIAN aggression? Who was talking about Russia?[/quote]

Brian: You’re right. Yeah, letting the Europeans fend for themselves is the way to go. It worked out so well in 1914 and 1939; what was I thinking?

When you have a moment, check out Kennan’s take on things. A little dated, to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

This can’t be a serious discussion for you, since it appears the geopolitics of the last century aren’t anywhere near being instructive, so I’ll concede that allowing Europe to be bullied by the Soviets, er, Russians is completely acceptable and we do have bigger fish to fry, especially with those pesky Chinese and North Koreans. And it appears that Obama has a firm hand on the tiller, so, in the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman: What, me worry?

[Author]

Posts