GunnyFreedom
12-24-2009, 12:03 AM
I'm on my way to the sack, but in case anybody is interested, it is on facebook here:
http://www.facebook.com/glenbradley
It appears now that he is re-posturing it as a test, but in any case this may become a former Neo-Con that may see the light. anybody weighing in, it appears that a door has been opened a crack, so non-offensive education may be a good thing....
The foreign policy debate got itself attached to the "Glen Bradley ₢ 'Is Senator Max Baucus Drunk on the Senate floor?'" link to YouTube.
tremendoustie
12-24-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm on my way to the sack, but in case anybody is interested, it is on facebook here:
http://www.facebook.com/glenbradley (http://www.facebook.com/glenbradley)
It appears now that he is re-posturing it as a test, but in any case this may become a former Neo-Con that may see the light. anybody weighing in, it appears that a door has been opened a crack, so non-offensive education may be a good thing....
The foreign policy debate got itself attached to the "Glen Bradley ₢ 'Is Senator Max Baucus Drunk on the Senate floor?'" link to YouTube.
I think you did a great job.
GunnyFreedom
12-24-2009, 12:25 AM
I think you did a great job.
Thanks, reaching Neocons with a rational foreign policy is probably my weakest point -- I get easily outraged on that issue, which can cloud my judgement. Plus, I haven't really worked on that part, since foreign policy really plays no role in a State House bid.
GunnyFreedom's on my ignore list, if he posted a yootoob, I'd be interested.
Well, you know what they say, if you haven't made any enemies, then it must be because you haven't stood for anything. Thanks for confirming the fact that I stand for something!
OK, melatonin kicking in with a vengeance and the land of Nod awaits...
tremendoustie
12-24-2009, 05:27 PM
Thanks, reaching Neocons with a rational foreign policy is probably my weakest point -- I get easily outraged on that issue, which can cloud my judgement. Plus, I haven't really worked on that part, since foreign policy really plays no role in a State House bid.
Sometimes outrage can be helpful in debate, I find, if instead of letting it cloud your judgment, you think about the reasons for your outrage, and articulate those.
As I say, though, I think you're doing a fine job here.
GunnyFreedom
12-24-2009, 07:37 PM
Could you please post what ever you put on your FB to the forum. I would rather not sign up for FB just to read what already has me interested.
I'm pretty sure you shouldn't need an account to see my profile, as I have it set to public/public. Mind you, public/public may not mean what I though it did, and an account may be required. However, I will be more than glad to copy/paste it here:
Glen Bradley ₢ Is Senator Max Baucus Drunk on the Senate floor?
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
*******************************************
Michael Maresco likes this.
*******************************************
Jeannette Hodges He looks like it. If it's not ETOH it is probably POWER. I'm having to focus on the reason for the season or I would REALLY be upset.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne most of them are drunk on power! I pray to God the Ron Paulers do not split the Republican party and keep the Dems in power. I hate anyone who abuses our rights but we can change the Republican party back to its roots and not split it.
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ If anybody divides the Republican vote, it will be Republicans. Kinda like Trey Grayson & Mitch McConnell in KY doing a scorched earth on Rand Paul because he's the front-runner, or Scozzafava endorsing the Dem in NY-23. Ron Paulers have done nothing but worl WITH the GOP for 2 years now, it's the GOP (in some circles) who are kicking and screaming. This is why the latest polls show that a generic "Tea Party" takes more votes than the GOP or the DNC.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne If I have a choice between a Ron Pauler and a moderate rep. I will take the Ron Pauler everytime, but I refuse to agree with him on the war with I am more than happy to have my Tax dolllars spent on Iraq. In fact I would cut welfare to spend more on war.
*******************************************
Patricia Armstrong Kevin, the whole bottom line on the war is...is it constitutional? If it isn't, well we shouldn't be doing it.
Bottom Line.
If we have sufficient bonifides to go to war, we should petition Congress for an Act of War (or whatever the actual name is, you get the point I hope) So far all wars since WW2 have been unconstitutional.
As a Vietnam War Veteran and an Oathkeeper, I believe in a strong milatary defense. I do not believe in what is happening to our military and our country NOW.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne First and foremost thank you for your service. Bottom line the Radical Musliums that are attacking us and have been for years do not give a crap about our Constitution. There for in my eyes we kick the crap out of them whenever and wherever we find them.
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ The only attack we ever suffered in the US on the part of militant Muslims was on 9/11 and they were all from Saudi Arabia. We are not even considering going into Saudi Arabia, where 99% of Bin Laden's support and funding comes from. We are currently in Afghanistan and expanding into Pakistan, and ALL of Al Qaieda have fled the AfPak region according to our own CIA.
The same Military Industrial Complex which General and President Dwight D Eisenhower warned us about, has bought up all of our media and programmed Americans to accept perpetual war for their profit, just as General and President Eisenhower warned us that they would do.
America has been, and is being lied to. This is making America weak, and leaving us defenseless. As you know, I am a former US Marine Intelligence analyst, and I fervently believe in maintaining the strongest military defense that is possible to have, but our current foreign policy is exactly what is making us vulnerable.
I oppose our current foreign military policy precisely because I believe that we need to be the strongest nation on earth, and our current policies are making us weak and vulnerable. We are invading nations who have never harmed us, chasing specters of Al Qaieda in regions where they have all fled from years ago, and spending blood and treasure for the profit of a few industrialists who are laughing all the way to the bank.
By attacking the wrong targets and killing innocents indiscriminately (including civilian Christian populations in Pakistan, mind you) we are creating more enemies than we destroy every day.
Furthermore, what our potential enemies think about the Constitution does not matter. What WE think about the Constitution DOES, and if we are willing to violate and abrogate the Constitution whenever 'it feels right' to do so, then we are no better than Obama and his minions.
The Constitution either matters, or it doesn't. If we are willing to abrogate it FOR ANY REASON, then it is worthless. I, for one, am not willing to abrogate it for ANY reason, period. If something which the Constitution does not authorize is important enough to be done, then it is important enough to amend the Constitution. If there is not enough support to amend the Constitution, then tough.
We either honor an obey the Constitution completely, or we have no place to complain while Obama enslaves the nation. After all, they certainly feel it is "important" enough to violate the Constitution. This is the same garbage that has brought our Republic to it's knees this last century. I, for one, want a strong Republic, our our feet in freedom and integrity, and that is what I will fight for to my dying breath.
*******************************************
Leslie Bishop Paul YA!!! exactly Glen
*******************************************
Brandon Williamson Ted Kennedy 2.0
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne Please dont make me list how many times we have been hit, I will give you a easy one--USS COLE. I could give a damn where we find them and kick their butts.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne So is your proposal as a leader to ignore 9-11 ?
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ *ignore* 9/11? What in the world gives you *that* nonsense idea? That sounds just like the lies the media tells about us. OH YEAH we Constitutionalists all just want to roll over and DIE while the rest of the world kills us. In what universe does THAT make sense?
If you aren't going to *listen* to what I am saying and are just going to parrot MSNBC and Sean Hannity then why should I bother to try and tell you any different? After all, your mind is already made up and it is clear that you prefer to believe the lies rather than understand the TRUTH.
If it were up to Ron Paul and myself, then the perpetrators of 9/11 would have been rounded up, imprisoned and executed YEARS ago, but NOOOO, that would not have cost the taxpayers NEARLY as much, and the owners of GE, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas would not have made billions at the expense of the blood of my brothers in arms.
You have made it clear in this post and others that you do not like the way I do business, and that you prefer perpetual war over the idea of fighting and winning our battles. If killing thousands of my brothers to profit a handful of CEO's and make our nation weaker and more vulnerable to attack is your idea of 'leadership' then I suggest you vote for someone else.
I, for one, will NOT roll over and send my brothers into a meat-grinder just so the CEO of Boeing can purchase a 4th Ferrari. Nor will I bomb a random aspirin factory and pretend that this satisfies the requirements of justice for the bombing of my shipmates on the USS Cole.
In what universe does it make sense to attack Zimbabwe because Argentina attacks us? I'm sorry, but that does not make sense in the rational universe in which I live. We as a nation must pursue JUSTICE against those who attack us.
It is when we ignore those who attack us, and then go destroy people who have NEVER attacked us, when we create more and more enemies. If this is the kind of thing you support, then I suggest that you do not support me. I for one, will NOT ignore those who attack us, I will pursue them ruthlessly until they are all destroyed. I for one will NOT attack people who have never harmed us.
We have more enemies on the planet today, than we have ever had at any time in WORLD HISTORY and it is specifically BECAUSE of our ignorant and insane foreign policy! If tomorrow, France were to attack Norway, and in response Norway bombs your house and kills your entire family except for you, then you, who didn't give a spit about Norway before, are now Norway's mortal enemy.
If Mexico decided to launch a hundred missiles into Brazil, and in response, Brazil carpet-bombed Vance County NC, then you who could not have cared less about Brazil, will suddenly become Brazil's enemy.
How is this not common sense?
We should be capturing and destroying those who attack US. Specifically! When group A attacks us, and in response wo go nuts killing group B, then we CREATE enemies out of group B where they were never our enemies before.
Today, we have an order of magnitude MORE enemies on this planet than we did on September 10th, 2001. Today, we are in significantly MORE danger of attack than we were on September 12th, 2001. Is THAT what you want? Then I suggest you vote for the Democrat, or the next liberal Republican.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne sorry I dont watch MSNBC or Hannity and I am always trying to learn where you guys are on stuff. But I really hope you do not think 9-11 was the first time we have been hit as its been going on longer than you or I have been alive.
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne I cant wait to see you crush Lucy in a debate , but you will need to shorten your rebuttal
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ You are right, our hostages were taken to Iran in the 1970's specifically because WE deposed THEIR democratically elected President and installed the bloodthirsty and murderous Shah in 1953. Actions have consequences. We started enraging all these nations which now hate us, immediately following WW2.
If our object is to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, then we should stick with what we KNOW works. After 20+ years of war in Vietnam drove that country deep into the pits of despotic Communism, it was after less than a decade of TRADE that the Vietnamese are now a free and capitalistic society.
First and foremost, following the 9/11 attacks, our Congress should have issued letters of Marque and Reprisal against their organization as international criminals at war. A SOCOM brigade could have been attached to private contractors and local assets under the color of authority from these letters of Marque, and a much lower profile operation could have brought these criminals to justice WHEREVER they fled.
Just because our actions have consequences, does not mean that we roll over and die when we are attacked, or we just sit there and let them attack us. What we SHOULD be doing, is pursuing JUSTICE against those who attack us, while avoiding the creation of legions of new enemies that will attack us 20 years down the road.
What we are doing now, has nothing to do with justice for 9/11. There IS NO Al Qaieda in the AfPak region anymore, so what are we doing there? There was no Al Qaieda in Iraq until AFTER we attacked, and they are no longer there today. Al Qaieda was only in Iraq long enough to radicalize segments of their population against us, and then they all left or died off.
If we were really interested in pursuing Al Qaieda, then we should have a SOF squad, a team of contractors, and a platoon of Indonesian bounty hunters pursuing Al Qaieda in Indonesia with a $5,000,000 each reward for capture. The SOF squad acts as liasion and intell and recon, the contractors act as support, and the locals act as the capture force. This is how the CONSTITUTIONAL device of letters of Marque and reprisal works, and local bounty hunters will be able to get into far more places than we will, without causing our quarry to flee.
The Constitution is NOT quaint or outdated. We already defeated this menace once, during the Barbary Pirates War, which was fought by President Thomas Jefferson almost exclusively through Marque and Reprisal...and guess what? IT ACTUALLY WORKED! And in the end, we were left with more friends than enemies.
If we were out to stop Al Qaieda and those terrorists who meant us harm, then why not go back and look at what has worked to defeat them once already in the early 1800's?
What we are doing TODAY, is not trying to 'win' any kind of war. We are creating a perpetual war, creating new enemies every day, for the profit of a few billionaire bankers and industrialists, at the expense of our finest soldiers and Marines, and at the expense of the security of our Republic.
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ text-based debate is a different animal than vocal debate. Besides, the only debate Lucy will permit will be one of battling media. Lucy does /not/ debate. Anybody. :-(
*******************************************
Kevin Osborne Holy crap, I will be getting off Facebook and going to do some research. We should get somebody to get her into a debate, also she will be at VGCC for a thing her and Berger put on, its a great time .LOL
*******************************************
Glen Bradley ₢ Debate is a skill I have in spades, and yes, in an in person debate my responses are far more concise. You, I had no intention of offending -- and I apologize if I did, but this is one of my most passionate issues.
Part of what really boils my blood is this sick nasty media-originated lie that says Ron Paul would just roll over and do nothing. For goodness sakes, he voted FOR the original action to go into Afghanistan after Bin Laden!
It is just outside-possible that with enough media pressure we can force a debate. We'd need to have a venue and a moderator in reserve -- one that she would believe advantageous -- and then slam the local papers and radio with calls to debate.
*******************************************
Scott Wassmer Glen takes the utilitarian approach. I take the moral approach. Is our current foreign policy in concert with the Christian Just War Theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
It certainly doesn't. Secondly does our foreign policy align with the Non-Aggression Axiom?
"It holds that "aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense."
Well nope, it doesn't abide by that either. So, what exactly are we achieving by our Foreign Policy. It is argued from a utilitarian stand-point that perpetual war, is perpetual peace. Tell that to all those who have died in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. While I differ slightly from Glen, in that I believe that we should have targeted Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and not Afghanistan and pursue justice. What we are doing now is not keeping us safe. For one, its bankrupting us. Secondly, its destroying our liberties, which all wars do.
"War is the health of the State."
So, if you are a limited-Government conservative, and understand how big/unlimited Government is inherently harmful and destructive, why would you then support Big-Government overseas or in Foreign Policy? It doesn't work domestically, and it doesn't work overseas.
Now, I put to you. Imagine if Chinese soldiers were occupying America. They had bases in Vance, NC. They routinely undermined your Government, and carried out criminal acts on your soil. Would you not get upset, or angry at the "occupiers"? I would. This is the exact policy we are advocating throughout the world. We have over 750+ bases in 130+ countries. Not only does it bleed our wealth, but it turns the countries against us. We love to purport our support for Sovereignty, yet, at the same time, we trample on others Sovereignty, and wonder why they don't like us anymore.
So, we need to hold to a non-interventionist foreign policy which espouses, diplomacy with all, trade with all, honest relations with all, and peace with all. If we truly want to spread our ideals to the world, we can only do so by trade and example, and never through guns or bribes.
*******************************************
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.