Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Thanato

When was America Great?

327 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Paranormal Panther
7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.  would save the US a lot of money.  

Trump won't get rid of those programs, as you well know. They are third rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
7 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I've heard of the Constitution. Have you read it? Maybe you should also borrow that copy after Trump's done with it.

That's a moot point. Obama's already done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
25 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Bush started the fire when he started the Iraq War. That disaster led to so much death and destruction. Would he get a pass from you if he was a Democrat? Would you go after the Clintons if they were Republicans. They're not the Crips and the Bloods. People, in both political parties, are part of the "fire problem". It's up to libertarians to extinguish the inferno. The old paradigm is just a distraction from achieving this.

Well said.

Will you vote for a third party?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
7 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

No, he didn't.  Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate?  Bush wasn't flying those aircraft.  And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country.

He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries.  Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards.

Get out of your partisan straitjacket! Yes, Clinton is part of the conflagration, so I'll start with him. Happy? He and Bush are two peas in a New World Order (maybe we should blame Daddy Bush for playing with matches) pod. What in Sam Hill did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Was it worth one life or one cent to destabilize a whole region to achieve ostensible hegemony for neoconservative eggheads who have no chance of facing guns in the front lines? I don't care if the arsonists are Democrats. I don't care if the fire bugs are Republicans, and you shouldn't, either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I think he might be referring to Bush #1 and the Soviet War in Afghanistan where we supported the Mujahedeen and Osama Bin Laden. 

That's a good point, but I referred to the tragic Iraq War after 9/11. It brought chaos to the whole world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
11 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Well said.

Will you vote for a third party?

I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
25 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Get out of your partisan straitjacket! Yes, Clinton is part of the conflagration, so I'll start with him. Happy? He and Bush are two peas in a New World Order (maybe we should blame Daddy Bush for playing with matches) pod. What in Sam Hill did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Was it worth one life or one cent to destabilize a whole region to achieve ostensible hegemony for neoconservative eggheads who have no chance of facing guns in the front lines? I don't care if the arsonists are Democrats. I don't care if the fire bugs are Republicans, and you shouldn't, either. 

Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet.

I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub.  However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
16 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth.

Ive personally heard "Wasted vote" or "ensuring the opposition gets elected" has been stated about 3rd party candidates at least as far back as Reagan /Carter. Perhaps with the never Trump republicans and Bernie supporters who now know that the Democratic party conspired against their candidate in favor of Clinton enough will decide to vote Libertarian/Green party to ensure that those parties get a sizable chunk of the vote which will be the only thing to scare the two big parties into any type of action resembling reform.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
11 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet.

I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub.  However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA.

While problems have existed there historically, colonizing empires leading to partitioning and later proxy battles between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only exacerbated the turmoil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
31 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't yet know. I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Trump, and I might vote for the latter by default because I agree with him on a few key issues. I like candidates like Rand Paul, but I know how things are right now, and I know that libertarians face huge challenges right now. A vote for a third party seems like a tilt at windmills, to tell the truth.

I'm only aware of US politics as an observer from afar, but listening to how people talk on here it seems that many will vote for the person they dislike the least. That seems a sorry state of affairs. I've read several posters who said that they were tempted to vote for a third party but wouldn't because it was a wasted vote. It occurs to me that if everyone who said this actually did vote third party it would be anything but a wasted vote. It may not affect the outcome this time round, but would be a grand gesture to the circus this election is becoming and make third parties a viable option for the future.

If anything, this pantomime of an election shows how much the two party monopoly needs to be challenged

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Instead of my partisan straightjacket, you should don your conspiracy theory helmet.

I don't care either, if it's Dem or Repub.  However, I don't ignore the fact that the problems in the ME existed long before any Bush or Clinton, hell before any USA.

There's no conspiracy or theory. It's a fact that the Iraq War made things much worse. I agree that the Middle East always has been a huge mess, though. That's why we should stay far away from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
1 hour ago, Jarocal said:

Ive personally heard "Wasted vote" or "ensuring the opposition gets elected" has been stated about 3rd party candidates at least as far back as Reagan /Carter. Perhaps with the never Trump republicans and Bernie supporters who now know that the Democratic party conspired against their candidate in favor of Clinton enough will decide to vote Libertarian/Green party to ensure that those parties get a sizable chunk of the vote which will be the only thing to scare the two big parties into any type of action resembling reform.

I hope that happens. I also hope that the protest voters don't put Clinton in the White House like the Perot voters put her wife in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

I'm only aware of US politics as an observer from afar, but listening to how people talk on here it seems that many will vote for the person they dislike the least. That seems a sorry state of affairs. I've read several posters who said that they were tempted to vote for a third party but wouldn't because it was a wasted vote. It occurs to me that if everyone who said this actually did vote third party it would be anything but a wasted vote. It may not affect the outcome this time round, but would be a grand gesture to the circus this election is becoming and make third parties a viable option for the future.

If anything, this pantomime of an election shows how much the two party monopoly needs to be challenged

We're on the same page. Unlike many clueless people who pretend to know what my country is like, you hit the nail on the head. I'm sick and tired of the lesser-of-two-evils option each four years, and you likely know the old saying about that. I also hate the fact that votes, for third choices, are wasted votes. I wish that we could have four or more parties to break the gridlocks and the logjams. It's just that people don't vote for alternatives, even when they say that they will. It's likely best to start at local levels since the congressional composition is frozen in time. Go from the bottom to the top.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
19 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I hope that happens. I also hope that the protest voters don't put Clinton in the White House like the Perot voters put her wife in the White House.

Perot voters did not put Clinton in no matter what the media says. That is an assumption based on every vote for Perot would have went to Bush. The same happens now with people who "feel theBern" and it is not a given they would have voted without a energizing candidate like Ross or Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Prior to 1776, it was Great Britain, so that works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
51 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

Perot voters did not put Clinton in no matter what the media says. That is an assumption based on every vote for Perot would have went to Bush. The same happens now with people who "feel theBern" and it is not a given they would have voted without a energizing candidate like Ross or Bernie.

The media was right in this case. Perot was an economic conservative. He supported financial downsizing. He was for economic accountability and responsibility. Clinton voters weren't known to follow his fiscal philosophy. Maybe some of them did, but they weren't the majority of the Democratic base. Bush voters and Perot voters were closer on this particular issue. I doubt that Perot appealed to most Clinton fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
8 hours ago, pbarosso said:

you seem not have read machiavelli...

You seem to believe Machiavelli. Just because it was written doesn't make it right or true.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On July 30, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Leonardo said:

That would make Trump more patriotic than Hillary, because he would want war to "Make America Great Again", not just to have a war.

You don't think Hilary wants war?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I'd like to see a time where a man could provide for his whole family again with one job. When we were a industrial nation that actually made things. Or when we didn't have huge sections of the population in welfare. Or when congress was the only people who could declare war. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I'd like to see a time where a man could provide for his whole family again with one job. When we were a industrial nation that actually made things. Or when we didn't have huge sections of the population in welfare. Or when congress was the only people who could declare war. 

Did not know that somebody but Congress can declare war nowadays either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmbiguousInsight

I would say America was great (if it ever was) post WWII. By the time Nam' was going on, it had fallen from grace. Blame the television :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
3 minutes ago, AmbiguousInsight said:

I would say America was great (if it ever was) post WWII. By the time Nam' was going on, it had fallen from grace. Blame the television :tu:

Rather blame those who wanted to "reign in" a philosophy aimed to fail anyway... and that got Vietnam too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmbiguousInsight
8 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Rather blame those who wanted to "reign in" a philosophy aimed to fail anyway... and that got Vietnam too.

 

Are you reffering to communism? Communism sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, AmbiguousInsight said:

Are you reffering to communism? Communism sucks.

Well, yes, and therefore it failed without needing a war. But tell that to our Chicken Hawks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmbiguousInsight
Just now, questionmark said:

Well, yes, and therefore it failed without needing a war. But tell that to our Chicken Hawks.

 

... Communism NEVER works. My opinion on the main topic, at least part of it, is that when the war was televised, it  "opened" the eyes of the masses. Suddenly no one supporter our troops or wars, another all pride we took in being Americans vanished. Then the smelly hippies who protested the war became educators in many universities throughout the country and essentially brainwash kids. I don't know. I am gorilla. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.