Hot off the AZ Presses

[Frosty]

Gov. Jan Brewer just signed into law that AZ public schools will not teach ethnic studies that target one race (La Raza targeting whites) nor will any there be any studies that teach the over throw of our GOV.  Yes it happens in our public schools by the left wingnuts.
I am so overcome with pride for that lady  Finally there is a politician that has a backbone and willing to stand up for our Great Nation!!!!! 
I might move to AZ if they keep it up!

[McGyver]

Perfect example to show BHO how to GROW A SET!     

[fightingquaker13]

I knew zero about her except her stance on guns and illegall immigration. Now this. If she is pro-choice, or at least not hard core pro-lfe, and a realist, not a neo-con on FP, I think I might have found a Republican I can vote for in 2012.
FQ13 who is a lot more optimistic than he was yesterday and will move AZ up on the vacation calender.

[Hazcat]

Perfect example to show BHO how to GROW A SET!     

+1!

[McGyver]

neo-con on FP?  I know what a neo-con is(that would be a Fred Thompson type, and THAT I like!)
 But WTF is FP?

[Sponsor]

[Timothy]

neo-con on FP?  I know what a neo-con is(that would be a Fred Thompson type, and THAT I like!)
 But WTF is FP?

Fiscal Policy?

[Big Frank]

Figgy pudding. Heehee

[fightingquaker13]

FP= foriegn policy
DP=domestic policy
A neoconservative believes in an ideologically based foriegn policy. Promoting democracies and if necessay undermining and over throwing tyrants to do so. It puts moral goals as a coequal value with self interest.
A realist believes in securing the national interest and not worrying about the internal policies of other nations. To quote Kissenger "The purpose of foriegn  policy is to change the external behavior of nations, not to determine their national policies". In other words, behavior change, not regime change should be the primary goal.
This has been the traditional conservative  and libertarian position. The liberals worried about ideology. We didn't much care.  Then in the 1960s, guys like Bill Kristol came to Jesus (figuratively in his case  ), and abandoned liberalism in the face of the Soviet threat. They kept the idealism though.  They started the neo-con movement. This is the difference is between Bush I and BushII (and I shall call him mini-me ). The elder and smarter Bush just wanted Saddam out of Kuwait and didn't give a damn about the Kurds or Shiites. We don't live there, not our problem. Bush II, he wanted Saddam gone, but also wanted a Wilsonian/Carteresque transformation of Iraqi society into a multi-ethnic, pluralistic democracy. A noble goal, but it  sure made the mission a lot harder than just putting some general in charge and going home in 6 months. Daddy Bush wouldn't have given a f..k. Junior did and here we sit. I think we should listen to our fathers.
FQ13

[Solus]

Some times a behavioral change might only be possible with a regime change.  If that becomes necessary, perhaps we should do it with as few bullets as possible next time?

 

[fightingquaker13]

Some times a behavioral change might only be possible with a regime change.  If that becomes necessary, perhaps we should do it with as few bullets as possible next time?

 

Thats the difference between a neo-con and a realist. A neo-con will fight noble wars for noble ends and find themselves stuck in other people's messes. Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq leap to mind. A realist will fight neccessary wars for limited ends and then go home. Here I offer the first Gulf War. The more you want as a condition of "victory", the more it will cost. The neo-cons don't seem to get that, and they also are too focused on their ideals to ask themselves "How many dead Marines is this sh!t hole country worth in the first place?". Just my .02.
FQ13