Those occupations contributed to the current Federal debt. They also represent foregone domestic production.

Tell the dead that Afghanistan is just like Haiti.

Why are there Marines in Haiti? How is policing that backwater in the national interest? If it is wrong to take from one American for the purpose of charity to another American (welfare), it must be at least as wrong to take from an American to benefit a Haitian.

How did we manage to occupy Germany and Japan for 60 years (and we’re still there!) without bankrupting ourselves? And the situation in Afghanistan is more akin to the occupation of Haiti by the US Marines (19 years!) than to an actual war.

Beware of arguing a strawman–not that you are–sending the Marines after pirates who threaten US-flag vessels is of a much different character than a 10-year occupation in support of UN objectives.

We seem to agree that his 2nd term will not favor him with any more transformational changes. That’s why I don’t fear him, and I can no longer sustain any hate for him. I don’t fear the dead.

I don’t think he will be passing any of his legislative agenda, but he can still halt reform and he will write toxic EOs. He will also appoint awfull judges. We need another Thomas on the Court, not another Sotamayor.

I agree that Barry will make mistakes in foreign policy situations where there is no Bush model to follow. I am reading that the FedGov is talking about putting Taliban into the gov’t in Afghanistan, for example. If we’re going to have an interventionist foreign policy, the neocon version is pretty good. But it will bankrupt the FedGov. Political Islam is doing to us what Reagan did to the Soviets.

I see his foreign policy as toxic. As an example, Clinton’s weak foreign policy netted us a NK with nukes and a Saddam who was convinced we were a paper tiger. Carter’s netted us radical Iran.

The option of no intervention isn’t realistic. That was clear by the time of the Barbary Pirate Wars, and has become more significant since the decline of the Royal Navy.

And, in any case, our military isn’t going to banckrupt us. Our entitlements will.

I tend to prefer less intervention, but some will be needed.

I contended that the Progs make a respectable argument about Obama governing as a moderate-R.

I don’t agree. His major agenda item was . . . Obamacare. Cap and trade and cardcheck were two of the items up next on his list, and they didn’t happen only because he lost the ability to push them. His energy policy is horrid.

What they fail to grasp is that the POTUS is trapped to some extent, and can’t just create the reality he may want. He couldn’t push the full spectrum of leftist goals and succeed. That’s way gun control, to name one, has been hardly mentioned.

The mirror image happened with the right and Bush. But no POTUS can live up the the expectations of the base.

I contended that the Progs make a respectable argument about Obama governing as a moderate-R. Of course he has done stuff a righty would not do. And I did give him a -100 on rhetoric. The guy is a fascist at heart; it is the Chicago way.

We seem to agree that his 2nd term will not favor him with any more transformational changes. That’s why I don’t fear him, and I can no longer sustain any hate for him. I don’t fear the dead.

I agree that Barry will make mistakes in foreign policy situations where there is no Bush model to follow. I am reading that the FedGov is talking about putting Taliban into the gov’t in Afghanistan, for example. If we’re going to have an interventionist foreign policy, the neocon version is pretty good. But it will bankrupt the FedGov. Political Islam is doing to us what Reagan did to the Soviets.

My comment in neo’s post calls for a catastrophic defeat of Obamacare. We sound like we should be on the same team.

Are you so psychologically dependent on the Federal Government that you cannot conceive of its failure? Are you unable to grasp the basic math on debt and deficit spending? Help me out, show me a path that leads FedGov back to respect for law, a path that avoids multilevel financial collapse of governments, a path that reconciles the OWS entitlement factions with the TEA independence factions.

Instead of spitting about my purported combination ignorance and ego, sketch out the next decade if we proceed with the current Bi-factional Bankster Party government. Show me how President GOP will produce outcomes much different than President Obama.

What percentage of Obama voters see a catastrophe but see themselves as being part of the nomenklatura?

The ones I know have been detached from unfolding events, and typically rely upon the TV to tell them what to think. They are still saying “give the guy a chance, he inhereted a real bad problem”.

It may be similar to the way FDR maintained support despite his horrid economic performance.