Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Aggressive Foreign Interventionism is something i see Socialists/Progressives & Neocons routinely agreeing on. Most on both sides like to pretend they're so different...but are they?
We should do this because the situation affects our economy? Wow, should we go to war with China because their cheap labor is affecting our economy? Face-to-palm, aye aye aye.
What gives us the authority? What makes people think we can financially afford this? Why should we put americans in harm's way? Why not use our sources to secure OUR borders and OUR ports rather than waste it protecting someone else's area?
In other words: NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, we need to make it so that things like this in such an unstable region DONT effect our economy, instead of trying to "fix" the instability.
You know......Brazil became energy independent in only 10 years.
We should do this because the situation affects our economy? Wow, should we go to war with China because their cheap labor is affecting our economy? Face-to-palm, aye aye aye.
What gives us the authority? What makes people think we can financially afford this? Why should we put americans in harm's way? Why not use our sources to secure OUR borders and OUR ports rather than waste it protecting someone else's area?
In other words: NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, we need to make it so that things like this in such an unstable region DONT effect our economy, instead of trying to "fix" the instability.
It's impossible to stabilize the middle east, Reagan admitted this when he cut and run from Lebanon, I sure wish we all would've learned our lesson decades ago instead of repeating our same mistakes over and over and over again.
Does Hillary Clinton have this one right? Should the U.S. enforce a No-Fly Zone in Libya? I'm interested in hearing what you all think. Thanks.
Aggressive Foreign Interventionism is something i see Socialists/Progressives & Neocons routinely agreeing on. Most on both sides like to pretend they're so different...but are they?
If a democrat is in office there's no one to stand in the way of aggresive foreign interventionism and warmongering.
The heightened warmongering in Afghanistan proved the anti-war crowd was actually just a group of principle-less liars when they cheered this on.
If a democrat is in office we don't even have democrats pretending to be anti-war and we know republicans will never be against a war in the middle east.
The difference between the 2? I have no idea.
Aggressive Foreign Interventionism is something i see Socialists/Progressives & Neocons routinely agreeing on. Most on both sides like to pretend they're so different...but are they?
If a democrat is in office there's no one to stand in the way of aggresive foreign interventionism and warmongering.
The heightened warmongering in Afghanistan proved the anti-war crowd was actually just a group of principle-less liars when they cheered this on.
If a democrat is in office we don't even have democrats pretending to be anti-war and we know republicans will never be against a war in the middle east.
The difference between the 2? I have no idea.
Well said and pretty accurate. I never bought into the so-called "Anti-War Left." They've always seemed very disingenuous to me. For them it just comes down to if their guys are in power or not. Their "Anti-War" stance is just a matter of political convenience in the end. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really do agree on much more than they like to admit. It would be nice to have an alternative to them both in the future.
You know......Brazil became energy independent in only 10 years.
They use food for fuel and pay (I think) the equivalent of $10/gal.
Aggressive Foreign Interventionism is something i see Socialists/Progressives & Neocons routinely agreeing on. Most on both sides like to pretend they're so different...but are they?
If a democrat is in office there's no one to stand in the way of aggresive foreign interventionism and warmongering.
The heightened warmongering in Afghanistan proved the anti-war crowd was actually just a group of principle-less liars when they cheered this on.
If a democrat is in office we don't even have democrats pretending to be anti-war and we know republicans will never be against a war in the middle east.
The difference between the 2? I have no idea.
Yay, and again I say...YAY!!!
Its high time for Khadaffi to go down...in flames.
He's going to end up being exiled and/or hanged for his crimes.
All under Obama's no-nonsense watch.
So now you support Americans dying to rid the world of an evil dictator.
you do know that from now on you can't say jackshit about Bush getting Saddam right?
You know......Brazil became energy independent in only 10 years.
They use food for fuel and pay (I think) the equivalent of $10/gal.
Actually, no. They don't derive their bio fuel from corn, they get it from sugar cane. Additionally, they sugar cane waste is used to power the fuel plant.
Oh yeah.........according to CNN, Brazil's fuel prices are 3.12/gal.
CNN/Money: Global gas prices
Does Hillary Clinton have this one right? Should the U.S. enforce a No-Fly Zone in Libya? I'm interested in hearing what you all think. Thanks.
Oh yeah that will go over great.
That is a military response.
They use food for fuel and pay (I think) the equivalent of $10/gal.
Actually, no. They don't derive their bio fuel from corn, they get it from sugar cane. Additionally, they sugar cane waste is used to power the fuel plant.
Oh yeah.........according to CNN, Brazil's fuel prices are 3.12/gal.
CNN/Money: Global gas prices
I'm no environmentalist, but isn't this a big reason for the destruction of the Amazon too? More sugar cane fields?
They use food for fuel and pay (I think) the equivalent of $10/gal.
Actually, no. They don't derive their bio fuel from corn, they get it from sugar cane. Additionally, they sugar cane waste is used to power the fuel plant.
Oh yeah.........according to CNN, Brazil's fuel prices are 3.12/gal.
CNN/Money: Global gas prices
I'm no environmentalist, but isn't this a big reason for the destruction of the Amazon too? More sugar cane fields?
Actually, the largest causes of the rain forest is because of illegal logging and illegal strip mining for gold.
Yay, and again I say...YAY!!!
Its high time for Khadaffi to go down...in flames.
He's going to end up being exiled and/or hanged for his crimes.
All under Obama's no-nonsense watch.
So now you support Americans dying to rid the world of an evil dictator.
you do know that from now on you can't say jackshit about Bush getting Saddam right?
Where did I say that? You denounce Bush for getting Americans killed, now you support Americans dying while praising Obama. it aint a stretch.
And you are a real horses butt if you can fan-dangle your claptrap to compare what Bush did and what's going on now. Hmm. Lets see. Saddam said he had the weapons, a breach of the peace treaty, he was killing his own for kicks. Gee, your right, the big difference is there is a (D) in the Office, so it's OK now. I did my service. You signing up now?
Bush I said that "Saddam is THE most dangerous man in the world and we MUST catch him at all costs." Months later that statement and sentiment was a memory. Didn't he say that about the time he invaded another country?
Bush II came along and said "Osama is THE most dangerous man in the world and we MUST catch him at all costs." On top of that Bush II said "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we must catch him at all costs." That was an out and out lie. He was wrong, horribly wrong.
How in heaven's sake do you compare the two? With all due respect...have you lost your cotton pickin' mind!?!?!
