Belated happy Thanksgiving!

We’re at halftime of the LSU/Arkansas game.  Most of you probably aren’t big college football fans, but the current situation is unprecedented.  The top three teams in the nation are all in the same conference, same division.  My team, Alabama, is ranked in between LSU and Ark.  So naturally me, bro, and the German Science Babe spent the whole half (is that an oxymoron?) wondering how things will fall out.  Our best hope is that ‘Bama keeps the #2 ranking through the coming conference finals.  We’ve still got an outside chance at the national title.

Oh, and I just noticed xpat’s comment about Ron Paul consideration.  Domestically, he’s been closest to my beliefs this whole time.  But his philosophy on foreign policy is so dangerous I don’t think I could vote for him.  My support of strong national defense (and Israel) would cause me to opt out and let my fellow citizens decide.  I believe a vote for “the lesser of two evils” is still a vote for evil.

(Not that I’m saying Ron Paul is evil.  But his policies would probably allow for more of it.)

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Whoops.

  1. SDH says:

    One argument for Ron Paul is that if you don’t your domestic spending under control strong National Defense and Foreign policy won’t matter a damn, ’cause you won’t be able to pay for them anyway.

    Just sayin’…

    Roll Tide.

  2. Xpat says:

    Well, it’s certainly something to weigh carefully.

    About the national defense, I remember thinking after Obama got elected, “Well, at least the left will prosecute the War on Terror for a change, and then they’ll have to own it, at least to some extent.” This turned out to be truer than I imagined. Obama is out-neoconing the neocons in terms of interventionism, and with no fifth column to undermine everything he does! So, if Ron Paul got the nomination and is unelectable in a general election, at least a vote for him then would not undermine national defense . . .

    Anyway, I guess it’s Ron or Rom, or a write in candidate. I don’t see any other GOPers as being viable at this point. (I’m not as anti-Romney as everyone else seemed to be. I was for strongly for him over McCain in 2008.)

    However, I think it would not be good to just sit out the vote because, for the most part, the future will be determined by the results a lot of state and local elections rolling through the land.

  3. Edohiguma says:

    There is no indifference or neutraity on Iran with nukes. We had plenty of “neutral” people in Germany and Austria, who were indifferent, under Hitler. See how that worked out.

    And well, as I was saying some time ago, the US will get the government it deserves. Just like the rest of us. Welcome to the ship of the damned, yanks. Enjoy your stay with the rest of us.

  4. Xpat says:

    Barack Obama is probably the candidate most likely to launch strikes against Iran, and with the least outcry about it.

    The nazi parallel works with the current Iran regime, but not I think with Iran as a whole, and there’s a serious question about how strong and enduring this particular regime is. I also remember that the incipient nazi argument was invoked in the run-up to Iraq. In retrospect (just speaking in terms of cynical Realpolitik) Saddam was a useful buffer against Iran. (Also, Christians in Iraq were not run out of the country en masse like they have been now . . .)

    • Edohiguma says:

      Agreed, Old Saddam was a useful tool. He was a military dictator, not a religious, so yes, his religious “tolerance” worked as long as nobody challengened him (which the Christians never did, but the Shiites certainly did, which is why he crushed them.) With the “liberation” of Iraq we will eventually see how Iraq will turn into Iran 2.0. Egypt is already on the way there. I give Iraq 10-20 years post-pull-out to become another islamic theocracy.

      The thing with the current Iranian regime will be, once it’s removed, it will be replaced with another. There will not be democracy and freedom as long as they have islam. Democracy and islam exclude each other mutually. Democracy is built around the idea that every vote is equal. That would mean that the vote of a mohammedan and an infidel are equal and that violates sharia law, which is one of the most important parts of islam.

      It worked in Turkey, at least for a while, because Ataturk turned Turkey secular. With Führer Erdogan and his “islamist” friends that trend is reverting at extremely fast pace.

      But you can’t say things like that because they might offend mohammedans. And the last thing one wants to do is offend mohammedans. Cause they kill you. That, too, is something nobody wants to admit. Our so called leaders, both political and religious, hide behind tolerance and are too scared to admit that they’re frightened. Instead people telling the truth end up on trial, as seen with Wilders and a few others, or get murdered, as seen with van Gogh. The EU makes laws that outright prohibit being critical of islam. Freedom of speech is dead in Europe. Oh I know, don’t say things that are offensive. Right… that excuse is always used to shut down proper discussion about islam, because stating facts is offensive.

      And remember. both Hitler and Himmler really liked islam. Hitler is very popular in the pan-islamic terror sphere, even today. Mein Kampf is still a top seller there. Why? Oh, he murdered the Jews. That’s why.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s