[LUconn]

We're not the "World's Cop". If we were, we'd be in Africa half the time. But nobody cares about Africa. We make things happen where it's advantageous for us to have things happen or to prevent rivals from doing the same. Keeping to ourselves didn't work for Jefferson who is the advocate we all look to for that strategy.

[ALUmnus]

And I do believe I am more of a free thinker than most people on here who just follow the same old talking points and just fall in party line. Doesn't mean I'm more "correct"...

You and every other poster on the internet. Take your blinders off and you'll realize you're not alone. And being a contrarian does not equate to being a free thinker.

[RubberMallet]

I'm surprised we have so many Ron Paul fans. He's pro-life but he's got a mixed voting record on abortion (NRLC gave him a 56%), and he's against a marriage amendment. 2 things "our group" normally places pretty high on their agenda.

not very high on my agenda.

[RubberMallet]

Staying out of other people's business is stomach turning?

pretending that staying out of other people's business won't affect us is.

congress would pull his foreign policy more towards the center. which while its frikking kooky, what we are doing now ain't working.

[RubberMallet]

We're not the "World's Cop". If we were, we'd be in Africa half the time. But nobody cares about Africa. We make things happen where it's advantageous for us to have things happen or to prevent rivals from doing the same. Keeping to ourselves didn't work for Jefferson who is the advocate we all look to for that strategy.

we are only world's cop in places that are important to us economically.

[RubberMallet]

And I do believe I am more of a free thinker than most people on here who just follow the same old talking points and just fall in party line. Doesn't mean I'm more "correct"...

You and every other poster on the internet. Take your blinders off and you'll realize you're not alone. And being a contrarian does not equate to being a free thinker.

haha..so true.

[Rooster Cogburn]

I only like politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in no matter what, don't take bribe money, don't toe the party line, aren't corrupt, only serve 1 term, have actually worked a real job, and got dragged into running kicking and screaming and would rather be working (or fishing). Since there are ZERO politicians who fit that bill, I like NONE!

[ToTheLeft]

I'm not being a contrarian, I think for myself. There is a difference. I'm not just being different for different's sake. I'm saying what I feel based on the conclusions I have arrived at. Is that impossible to accept?

But way to be the cool guy in the majority who looks down on those who don't agree. I knew, between you (ALUnumus) and LUconn, I'd get a good mix of Internet tough guy responses combined with right wing crap. Which is why I stayed away from these discussions on here for a while, and I'll probably stay away (which is fodder for internet cool guys to question my toughness, I know, and frankly you can go ahead and make your joke).

"We make things happen where it's advantageous for us to have things happen or to prevent rivals from doing the same"

So basically you support any war that brings us an advantage? Why don't we take over Canada, or Mexico, or both. More land, more resources. What is a Biblical war, and what are the wars that are usually supported by the "Religious Right".... I think we've lost sight of how we should use the power we've been blessed with.

[ATrain]

Personally I wouldn't mind a takeover of Mexico. More oil, less immigration problems. Works for me.

As far as war and being the world's cop, we clearly are not the world's cop. However, I support any action taken by our government to liberate oppressed peoples PROVIDED their is a contingency and an exit plan in place. I still believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, not sure if the plan for the war and its after effects was the best one we had or could come up with.

[LUconn]

I respond to an opinionated comment and I'm an internet tough guy. Whatever. History has shown that neutrality is nearly impossible and is rarely beneficial.

[Green Monkey]

I only like politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in no matter what, don't take bribe money, don't toe the party line, aren't corrupt, only serve 1 term, have actually worked a real job, and got dragged into running kicking and screaming and would rather be working (or fishing). Since there are ZERO politicians who fit that bill, I like NONE!

You realize that kind of stuff only happens in movies, right? You're welcome to offer an example, but I can't think of any politician who has been dragged "kicking and screaming" into office. If somebody does not want the job, there are plenty of others petitioning the party bosses to support them.

The rest of your criteria are okay except serving only one term, which is debatable. If somebody you like is in office, why would you want them to only serve one term provided that they are still being effective and true to their beliefs? As long as he is still fulfilling his duties well, wouldn't you rather stick with him instead of some new guy that you're less sure on?

[ToTheLeft]

I respond to an opinionated comment and I'm an internet tough guy. Whatever. History has shown that neutrality is nearly impossible and is rarely beneficial.

No, ALUmnus is the internet tough guy. You actually presented something beyond a cool phrase to try and make me look dumb. Which I appreciate. I don't agree with it, but you at least said something, and I responded to it. You were the "right wing crap" in that earlier post, not the internet tough guy. And I'm not trying to play victim, just pointing out that being cooler than the other person does nothing but make a discussion/debate more personal than it should be. Which is what ALUmnus did.

[Hold My Own]

J.C. Watts

[Rooster Cogburn]

I only like politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in no matter what, don't take bribe money, don't toe the party line, aren't corrupt, only serve 1 term, have actually worked a real job, and got dragged into running kicking and screaming and would rather be working (or fishing). Since there are ZERO politicians who fit that bill, I like NONE!

You realize that kind of stuff only happens in movies, right? You're welcome to offer an example, but I can't think of any politician who has been dragged "kicking and screaming" into office. If somebody does not want the job, there are plenty of others petitioning the party bosses to support them.

The rest of your criteria are okay except serving only one term, which is debatable. If somebody you like is in office, why would you want them to only serve one term provided that they are still being effective and true to their beliefs? As long as he is still fulfilling his duties well, wouldn't you rather stick with him instead of some new guy that you're less sure on?

1) George Washington did not want to be President. He was begged to take the job.
2) All politicians become corrupted very quickly. Limiting them to one term would minimize this as an issue and bring in fresh blood.
3) what is a green Monkey? are you from Pokemon?

I said that this mythical person did not exist in my original post.

[Schfourteenteen]

Not Pokemon.

Chinpokomon. My personal favorite chinpokomon is Shoe.

[Rooster Cogburn]

ER...

[ALUmnus]

I'll say it again, EVERYONE thinks they're right and everyone else is just falling in line. That's what I was commenting on. If that makes me "internet tough guy", okay. And spouting off phrases like "right wing crap" is very productive and brings out just about all your biases in three words.

[LUconn]

1 term? That's not really enough to get anything accomplished. Well, maybe for a senator.

[ToTheLeft]

I'll say it again, EVERYONE thinks they're right and everyone else is just falling in line. That's what I was commenting on. If that makes me "internet tough guy", okay. And spouting off phrases like "right wing crap" is very productive and brings out just about all your biases in three words.

You didn't address a single thing I said, you addressed me. So since you brought it to that level, so I feel like I should tell you that I think it's crap. Don't act like you don't say the same thing (I'm sure if I look through your posts I can find similar phrases about Obama/Pelosi/other liberals).

You made it personal when it wasn't. That's immature, uncalled for, and proof that you're trying to bully your way around and not have a discussion. But I should expect nothing less in politics.

[ALUmnus]

I'll say it again, EVERYONE thinks they're right and everyone else is just falling in line. That's what I was commenting on. If that makes me "internet tough guy", okay. And spouting off phrases like "right wing crap" is very productive and brings out just about all your biases in three words.

You didn't address a single thing I said, you addressed me. So since you brought it to that level, so I feel like I should tell you that I think it's crap. Don't act like you don't say the same thing (I'm sure if I look through your posts I can find similar phrases about Obama/Pelosi/other liberals).

You made it personal when it wasn't. That's immature, uncalled for, and proof that you're trying to bully your way around and not have a discussion. But I should expect nothing less in politics.

are you not the one who said you were a more "free thinker" than everyone else on here? That's not personal?

[Rooster Cogburn]

1 term? That's not really enough to get anything accomplished. Well, maybe for a senator.

DING DING DING! We have a winner. Less time to dream up crazy stuff = less stupid laws!

[ToTheLeft]

And I do believe I am more of a free thinker than most people on here who just follow the same old talking points and just fall in party line. Doesn't mean I'm more "correct"...

I never said I was better. I said I was more of a free thinker, not falling into party lines. I never said that made me better or more right, in fact, I conceded that I wasn't more correct. So that was maybe a grazing bullet of a personal attack (despite it not being personal, but rather a generalization). But if that's all it takes to call me, personally, a contrarian for contrarian's sake, and blind to see what's going on, then I guess that's fair.

[LUconn]

1 term? That's not really enough to get anything accomplished. Well, maybe for a senator.

DING DING DING! We have a winner. Less time to dream up crazy stuff = less stupid laws!

But stuff needs to get done. Such as repealing stupid laws.

[RubberMallet]

1 term would be worse than what it is now. the only reason i support term limits for congress both federal and in the state is because of gerrymandering. it runs so rampant that its ridiculous.

set term limits or institute gerrymandering laws.

[Covert Hawk]

Keeping to ourselves didn't work for Jefferson who is the advocate we all look to for that strategy.

Jefferson avoided wars that the U.S. was unprepared to fight. He did put an embargo on all U.S. foreign trade which was a disaster for the U.S. However, no current politician is advocating restricting trade overseas, so why invoke Jefferson?