Palin - Be afraid?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

he's also for increasing troops in Afghanistan to actually go after Al-Queda, something this adminstration has pretty much put on the back burner

Afghani-who?
C'mon man, the right can only keep track of one war at a time.
You're confusing the poor old man and the school mom.

[buckman]

The problem we are having in Afghanastan, and I may be wrong is that the areas we secure are fine. But the areas that are being secured by other nations are a problem. Pakastan is also the problem because we can't go in there. I'm not sure it's as simple as just sending over a few thousand more troops and problem solved. Jeez, this Obama sounds like he's a war munger.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by MAC

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism

This is the extreme. But right up about where Obama wants US. I feel he is a believer in the "people of the world crap". And wants US to fall into step with the UN on everything. But to do so would have to gut some of the things in our Constitution.

Mac, your right. The Obama administration would have to gut the constitution. However, the constitution cannot be gutted, at least that is not how it was intended under the compromises of our founding fathers. Unfortunately, the application of the constitutional principle of due process has been bled a bit. Hopefully, this will be reconciled, but if not, then we should indeed worry about the powers of the government for we will all be hemophiliacs, cut off from the blood transfusions of disent. A powerful all knowing- no holds barred centralized authority is a prerequisite of socialism on one end of the spectrum and royalism on the other.

Now all that aside (about the constitutional bloodletting of the current administration) I would not worry to much about the socialism predictions underscoring the mantra of Obama opponents. Federalism, as mandated by constitution, places exceptional limitations on any sweeping changes in the direction of socialism/communism in America. Socialism has always been fringe ideology on the political spectrum and even FDR faced considerable opposition to his New Deal Policies which at the time were viewed not as economic jumpstarters but rank socialist expansionism by some on the Supreme Court. With 80,000 governments of varying size and scope in this country coupled with a majority stacked textualist supreme court bench, the likelihood of socialism in it extremes acquiring any serious foothold is next to nothing.

I do think social programs and incentives for reinvigorating math, science and the engineering disciplines are on the horizon, as well as curbing some of this free trade undercutting american made products. This type of government expansion, aimed at strengthening education and the economy are not all that distasteful in my opinion, but again this all in theory.

For reality far more complicated, unpredicatable and variable than what the books & experts say...

[buckman]

He could just change the face of the supreme court and undercut the Constitution and the will of the people that way.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The problem we are having in Afghanastan, and I may be wrong is that the areas we secure are fine. But the areas that are being secured by other nations are a problem. Pakastan is also the problem because we can't go in there. I'm not sure it's as simple as just sending over a few thousand more troops and problem solved. Jeez, this Obama sounds like he's a war munger.

The problem we're having in Afghanistan is that it's a tribal country where everybody is out for their own interest. Take a few hundred thou from the CIA then laugh while you sell opium and let the Taliban run through your back yard.

We can't be everywhere at once, it's why they call Karzi the Mayor of Kabul!

-spence

[doc]

and w ran against the idea of 'nation building'...now we have 2 of these such projects going on...

[spence]

Originally Posted by doc

and w ran against the idea of 'nation building'...now we have 2 of these such projects going on...

I think he specifically said that US troops would never be used for nation building.

Hence another reason why I don't trust a think Palin says.

It looks like McCain's first pick for VP was Joe Liberman, which set the far right into a tizzy. Instead he went 180 degrees and chose a social conservative...simple to please the BASE.

This indicates her presence is to get votes rather than add substance to the Administration. Why should she practice anything she preaches?

Bush sure as heck sold us a bill of goods, then flipped on most of it.

-spence

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

He could just change the face of the supreme court and undercut the Constitution and the will of the people that way.

Judges are nominated by the president, which has to be affirmed by Senate. So "He" can't change the face of Court by sheer will. There records are intensively scrutinized as we saw with Alito. Judges can also be impeached.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by doc

and w ran against the idea of 'nation building'...now we have 2 of these such projects going on...

The issue with Afghanistan was we DIDN'T do this and left them in shambles and allowed the Taliban to run buck wild through the country.