I'm gonna go with pandering for 100 on this one. If not, the there's no hope for the entire GOP field this election.
And how exactly is that going to be accomplished? Shoot down a few more Russian planes? Sure, let's start WWIII over that shithole called Syria. That's really smart. Putin is a bully? Yeah, sure... NATO has been expanding its borders ever since the end of Cold War. NATO has been putting missile systems pretty much on the Russian border, saying that it's to deter Iran (the same Iran that Obama just gave $150B to), and Putin is the bully. Keep reading that BS in MSM. Putin's actions are a mere response to what NATO has been doing for the past 20+ years.
The other thing that is important to remember is that the US likes strongmen that can keep the peace in their own countries and that can keep their clients from going haywire in a crisis. Assad is not the reason Syria went haywire this time around. The Arab Spring is the reason things broke down and then the US/ISIS/Iran thing blew up when the US tried to get the Arab Spring going in Syria. Things could be much worse in the region right now if the Russians came in shooting as soon as the problems started. They waited and it turned into a long-term mess instead. The world would be a very different place if the US promoted Democracy every chance we got and then lived with the fact that some elected officials will disagree with us and do disagreeable things. The only thing we should really care about is that the next election is fair and all parties have a chance to express themselves and potentially get elected. Instead we influence elections to the point of knocking elected leaders out of office and replacing them with dictators to satisfy our foreign policy. We get dictators elected and then look the other way when they rig the system to stay in office. The world's problems are more about how US foreign policy works than any other single factor now. We've become the big empire that preserves our power at the cost of our stated principles.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America that indicates the US is expected to provide law enforcement anywhere other than within these United States.
However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty There were also dissenting voices. Benjamin Franklin arrived in England in 1757 as a devoted subject of the British Empire and left in 1775 as a revolutionary committed to the overthrow of it's rule in the American colonies. He wrote a satirical piece in 1775 shortly before his departure entitled "Rules by which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One". It's a tongue-in-cheek exploration of how large empires with central authority structures are likely to find themselves undone due to the basic needs that their farflung possessions will have and the disconnect between satisfying those needs and suppressing them. The first part of this are commentary on the pieces itself. Franklin's thoughts are in the area below For the Public Advertiser, the circular he published the piece in. Note that he is very much satirizing the notion of empire and that it would have been unsafe to say many of the things he says in other than a satirical way. He was in Britain of course and had not yet planned his departure to Philadelphia at the time. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-20-02-0213
These are ideas; ideas of individuals. Ideas that did not make the cut, just as those of religion and financial policy that were intentionally omitted from the Constitution. It's a pretty good document, one that every elected official should read and understand. If they disagree, too bad, there's always the provision to rewrite it.
It's been re-written many times already. Slaves are no longer 3/5 of a person for the census in terms of apportioning House members and electoral votes. The idea that the Founding Fathers ideas were wise only applies to the era in which their ideas were put on paper. In fact the Founding Fathers were just like most politicians in every era. They wrote the Constitution to empower themselves and preserve their rights and privileges. There's a good argument for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the thing. It might turn out to be worse than what we have but then at least the hypocrisy over the idea that what we have is best would end.
the founding fathers came from a period where monarchies were the predominant form of government, albeit sometimes under the guise of another name. they saw first hand and from recent history the tyranny that often came from one man and government having too much power and also realized the folly of that power being passed down by name rather than earned in some way. It was pretty normal for bloody wars to occur. we're thankfully far removed from tyrannical government and bloody wars on our home land. the unfortunate part of that is that we often don't appreciate how good we have it. the constitution isn't and wasn't perfect but it was good enough to create a world power that has stood for over 200 years and allowed more individuals to amass wealth than any government in history. we certainly have some issues as a country but we still have it better than most anyone else. a complete overhaul of the foundation that got us here is probably much more extreme than is necessary IMO. who is better fit to write a constitution, men who have experienced first hand an oppressive government and were willing to put their lives and families lives on the line to fight against it or men who live in freedom and think maybe we can do better?
Well said despite our disagreements on here. We do have it better than most of the world but take it for granted. But amassing the most wealth doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Rome is still the greatest. Not sure we will last 800 more years
Probably neither; all points of view must be considered lest we be burdened with a rule of law promulgated by only one sector of society.
The open question is whether their fear of a tyranny of the majority made them instead enable a tyranny of the minority, those being the rich and powerful. The Constitution was certainly written in a way in which the vote and the government only extended to a small percentage of the population. Individual states had better or worse takes on the theme but universal white male suffrage was not the reality back in the early days of the Republic, let alone the vote for anybody else. Note that most veterans of the revolutionary war were not eligible to vote in the elections they fought to create and sustain.
For an educated man...you now get credit for the most retarded post in the history of the internet. Freud was only wise in the era in which he lived? Descartes? Plato? Newton? Curie? Maybe...and I'm going out on a limb here...and if you wish...we can start a new thread to debate the bill of rights and it's wisdom, as it applies to human nature...but maybe you should try examining the marxist influences that have poisoned your tremendous intellect. I'll end this ass whipping with a single observation. The founding fathers empowered themselves? George Washington could have been a king. He turned it down. Secondarily...the pledge they made..."our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour" Was that all Public Relations? You're out of college...stop being sophomoric.
And fwiw...the simple truth is...net tax payers, not those voting for more free shit...should have suffrage. The voter rolls should be scrubbed via the welfare lines. The W2 should be your voter ID. Maybe you missed school the day they taught Civics.. .... Pssst..hint..2nd Amendment...
Biggest hint of all: slave owners enfranchised slavery in the Constitution at the same time Britain was abolishing slavery. If you don't understand the self interest that was at work in the American Revolution you don't really understand anything about it. If you don't understand what Manifest Destiny meant from the perspective of all the native peoples who endured it you don't really understand anything about it. It's not Marxism. It's decency and the Founding Fathers were only decent to the people they considered to be decent. That is a truth you have to understand if you understand anything at all.
So Iranians mocking an American soldier is OK. Look, nobody is saying declare a war against Iran. But don't be a facilitator to allow Iran reach millions of dollars even though it is their own money. Only reason I brough up Iran was to show how easy it is for them to mock America. "The picture I posted went viral in the world. The image Hollywood created(invincable American soldier) has been shattered by Iran." Above sentence was uttered many times. Look I am not imperialist. I don't say let's declare war left and right. But at the same time, USA is the worlds lone superpower and has moral obligation not to make deals with oppressive regimes. Yes that includes fucking Saudis. So only way of balancing Russia is to shoot down a few planes? Really Petro? Russia annexed Crimea and saw nothing happened. Then they practically invaded Eastern Ukraine and nothing happened. Now they are killing thousands of civilians in Aleppo just because they are against Assad. Forget about today. If these were happening when Reagan was president or Roosevelt president what would they do? What Putin is doing isn't a response to NATO missile systems. They are seeing a void in Middle East and they are filling it and killing mercilessly while doing that. USA has a moral obligation to people in Syria and Iraq after destabilizing the region with fake Mass Destruction Weapons story. See my response to Petro. Why did you fuck an entire region then? Why did you create a fake war? Why did you throw people in the arms of ISIS and Assad? Why are you letting Russia play war games in Syria while you do nothing to rectify the damage you caused all this time?
You know when someone talks about punching, it doesn't equal "balancing" in my mind, it equals "fighting." As for Reagan, he probably would have done what he did when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. It worked out well in the short term, as the USSR eventually pulled out. But if we look at the big picture, what Reagan did gave birth to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, ultimately leading to the death of almost 3,000 American citizens. Tell me it was worth it.
Before answering your post, I will ask one question. Why do Muslims hate America? In fact, I take it back. Before 9/11 why did Muslims hate America?
I don't think they hate just America. They hate the Western way of life in general. Most of them do not assimilate when they come here, wanting to live the way they did in Yemen, Pakistan, or wherever else, while enjoying all the benefits of the Western civilization.
