For 70 years, we built an economy based on ever-increasing levels of debt. Now most everyone is fairly saturated with debt, from private individuals to sovereign nations. No one can increase debt anymore because lenders know the borrowers are pretty much empty shells.
Thus, jobs, pension plans, insurance plans based upon ever-increasing debt are doomed. The basis of our economy (debt) is a goner. If taxes are raised (because borrowing is over), the economy tanks. If social spending is cut, the economy tanks. Either way, the system is finished. States and municipalities are bankrupt and all the Fed can do is print paper napkins.
Finally, we have an empty shell for a ‘leader’. He is a great speaker, but nothing more. He has no ideas except Chicago-style politics. He is a highly educated gangster.
Our only hope, after the complete collapse, is in the form of General Petraeus. Only he commands enough respect to keep the country from tearing itself apart. Let’s hope that he answers the call when the time comes.
Army guys are trained to react when the plan goes all to hell. Even with absolute idiots and political schemers in and around the Oval Office, Petraeus delivered.
I also think that Sarah is too nice of a woman. She is moral and decent – wonderful things but we need someone who would be more likely to stand certain people up against a wall. Very regrettable if comes down to it, but the collapse of a ‘house of cards’ after 70 years isn’t going to be a nice scenario.
We can only hope that the Army/Military will simply restore to Federal gov’t its 3 rightful functions (national defense, federal police like FBI, and federal judiciary) and simply shitcan the rest.
They found out she’s a woman. Can’t be president, duh. [/quote]
LOL.
This is funny.
But ironically, I did just think about this today Headhunter. Not all the other horseshit you posted, of course, but the idea that Petraeus may be able to run for president.
I don’t know his political affiliation, and historically very good generals do not make very good presidents, but it’s an interesting idea.
What has to be understood is that the Military…while “messy” and political at times…is ruled by Codes of Conduct; Chains of Command; exacting regulations; protocols that define clearly (in most cases), the “whats, wheres and whys” of your daily Life. The list goes on and on.
When Lifetime Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, etc. are thrown into the messy, inexact, disrespectful, cutthroat and thick sewage of American Politics…not only do they often stumble…but they appear uncomfortable like the proverbial “fish out of water”.
And while they may know the Military and International Relations…or what it takes to win wars…they often are ill-prepared to address divisive issues like abortion.
I have the utmost respect for Petraeus also…but whether or not he is ready for the quagmire known as American Politics, based on Generals in the past, is at the very least, questionable.
The David Petraeus for president bandwagon has been put on hold by his acceptance of President Obama’s request that he replace ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the Afghan war boss. Now, his fans will have to wait until 2016.
Supporters of one unofficial Petraeus for President in 2012 effort tell Whispers that they are putting everything on hold because it is unlikely that he would have enough time to prepare for a bid in two years even if he only serves until the planned July 2011 beginning of the troop draw down promised by Obama.
Instead they are talking about a 2016 campaign now, even though the general has repeatedly dismissed talk of a political bid of any sort. Those who were working on a draft effort say that by 2016 Petraeus might be more open to a presidential campaign, especially if Obama wins a second term and the general doesn’t have to run, presumably as a Republican, against his commander-in-chief. If that happens, and Vice President Joe Biden doesn’t run, then both parties will have open primaries just like in 2008.
His fans say a lot depends on what happens in Afghanistan. “If he pulls Obama’s fat out of the fire in Afghanistan, he will go down as the greatest general since Dwight David Eisenhower,” says one.
There certainly are a lot of “ifs” with Petraeus (IF he decides to run; will it be GOP;when, etc.)
However, for discussion…IF he declares as a Republican…he certainly would be a much stronger candidate than any of the “up-and-comers”/those currently within their ranks.
Now…question…
How do you think the “Tea Party” would view Petraeus?
(Again…I think that getting behind a “main stream” candidate would pose some philosophical questions for them, even if it is Petraeus).
How do you think the “Tea Party” would view Petraeus?
Mufasa [/quote]
Who cares?[/quote]
Would it be safe to say …“Not you…”, FI?
Discuss it or don’t discuss it…hey…that’s up to you.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yea, safe to say.
Asking what the Tea Party will think about 2016 is like asking what the Bull Moose Party thought about FDR- by the time he gets up there, that “party” will be long since dead.
How do you think the “Tea Party” would view Petraeus?
Mufasa [/quote]
Who cares?[/quote]
Would it be safe to say …“Not you…”, FI?
Discuss it or don’t discuss it…hey…that’s up to you.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yea, safe to say.
Asking what the Tea Party will think about 2016 is like asking what the Bull Moose Party thought about FDR- by the time he gets up there, that “party” will be long since dead.
[/quote]
THAT’S what I’m taking about, FI…D-I-S-C-U-S-S-I-0-N!
I would really be appreciative if you would expound on that…really!
How do you think the “Tea Party” would view Petraeus?
Mufasa [/quote]
Who cares?[/quote]
Would it be safe to say …“Not you…”, FI?
Discuss it or don’t discuss it…hey…that’s up to you.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yea, safe to say.
Asking what the Tea Party will think about 2016 is like asking what the Bull Moose Party thought about FDR- by the time he gets up there, that “party” will be long since dead.
[/quote]
FI, do you think then that the tea party will be more of an influential movement rather than establishing itself as a viable political party? I’m not sure. I often wonder if the republican party will continue to diminish itself by being “democrat light” vs being a party where real conservatives feel at home. When the Whigs stopped representing the values of the party majority, it gave birth to the Republican party. This could happen again IMHO.
How do you think the “Tea Party” would view Petraeus?
Mufasa [/quote]
Who cares?[/quote]
Would it be safe to say …“Not you…”, FI?
Discuss it or don’t discuss it…hey…that’s up to you.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yea, safe to say.
Asking what the Tea Party will think about 2016 is like asking what the Bull Moose Party thought about FDR- by the time he gets up there, that “party” will be long since dead.
[/quote]
FI, do you think then that the tea party will be more of an influential movement rather than establishing itself as a viable political party? I’m not sure. I often wonder if the republican party will continue to diminish itself by being “democrat light” vs being a party where real conservatives feel at home. When the Whigs stopped representing the values of the party majority, it gave birth to the Republican party. This could happen again IMHO.
[/quote]
Then the more moderate Democrats will start calling themselves Republicans, and we might have a 3 party system. I personally do not think this will happen, but who knows. I would put the Republicans of today more in the class of politics as the Democrats were 40-60 years ago. The Liberal Democrats I would put in the Communist Party 40-60 years ago.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Then the more moderate Democrats will start calling themselves Republicans, and we might have a 3 party system. I personally do not think this will happen, but who knows. I would put the Republicans of today more in the class of politics as the Democrats were 40-60 years ago. The Liberal Democrats I would put in the Communist Party 40-60 years ago. [/quote]
That’s obscenely false. American politics has moved to the right heavily in the past 20 years.
Liberal democrats today were called “Republicans” back in the 60s bud.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Then the more moderate Democrats will start calling themselves Republicans, and we might have a 3 party system. I personally do not think this will happen, but who knows. I would put the Republicans of today more in the class of politics as the Democrats were 40-60 years ago. The Liberal Democrats I would put in the Communist Party 40-60 years ago. [/quote]
That’s obscenely false. American politics has moved to the right heavily in the past 20 years.
Liberal democrats today were called “Republicans” back in the 60s bud.
[/quote]
What planet are you from? We have added more Social Programs or added to past Social programs in the past 10-20 years than ever before. This is obvious in the amount of debt we have taken on. Yes I will conceed that the debt first started rising because of Reagan’s willingness to spend on military, but that was a necessary evil because Carter let the military turn into a crap heap as scene in the debacle to rescue the captives in Iran. Bush added to Social Programs by adding the prescription drug coverage to Medicare. Now you have Obama spending his way into American oblivion, too many points to address here.
I will say that the the mood of the people has been moving more conservative over the years but mostly because we are fed up with Washington. We the People are starting to voice our opinion. Dr. Arthur Laffer, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, stated before Obama took office that Obama would set back the Liberal Agenda by 20 years if not more than that. Come November his prophecy will be fulfilled. The People are fed up with over taxation and over spending. All of these Obama laws will be over turned in the next 2-6 years. Obamacare will be gone.
