Fixing Uncle Sam’s Image Problem

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: wwwcbl @ 01/02/2009 12:37:08 PM

    The election of Barak Obama only proves that when the USA is in trouble or a portion of it is in decline it elects a black to be the first mayor, governor and now president. Barak by himnself does not prove the USA is not racist though this may now be a reason why many Whites voted for him, to throw back at those claims. The USA also has the legacy of the minstrel show, where comedy or tragedy is delivered in black face. However, South Africa did elect a Black man to be president long before the USA got around to it.

    The USA is racist but before it was racist it has always been sexist though many would like to accuse the Islamic nations of that. There is much to say that many people voted for a Black man to keep a White Woman or any Woman from being President. Again, the USA lags behind the world, even the Islamic world, on that issue.

    There is too much of this 'Jackie Robinson' mentality of the 'First Black' to do this while the overall masses are in deep trouble and show no signs of progress.

  • Posted By: rjones @ 12/31/2008 10:16:03 AM

    We've already taken the first steps in the eyes of the world to changing our image by electing Barrack Obama. That fact alone has restored a tiny bit of the respectability that the Bush administration has all but destroyed. Now it's up to the Obama administration to do the rest and try to salvage through the rubble of our economic devastation and military blunders to restore the propriety that our nation once stood for. I don???t envy the task that this man has ahead of him, but unlike the psychic prophets posting here who are predicting doom and gloom in the next four years, my crystal ball predicts a rosier future from a wiser and more levelheaded leader then the one who will be exiting the White House come January 20 in disgrace and ignominy.

    • Posted By: roofrocka88 @ 01/02/2009 6:56:12 AM

      Kudos to you! I totally agree. The fact that Obama was elected proves that our nation isn't as racist as one would think, especially when reading some of the appalling comments posted here....

  • Posted By: sixhandicap @ 12/31/2008 8:59:42 AM

    Typical article from a far left-wing, secular-progressive, anti-American publication. If you don't like this country leave for Cuba or France If you can't speak English you should be deported.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/31/2008 9:24:32 AM

      Given the number of grammatical and punctuation mistakes in that post, you qualify - by your own definition - for deportation. Pack your bags.

      • Posted By: roofrocka88 @ 01/02/2009 6:38:25 AM

        Horrible Bastard, you are a hilarious bastard. I honestly love your comments, keep them coming dude! YashBudini as well... I couldn't agree more with you two. ^_^

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 11:36:44 AM

      Ask a native American if you belong here, see what he says.

  • Posted By: lensta1971 @ 12/31/2008 12:09:33 PM

    Three words: one world government. We're all in this together as the HUMAN RACE, therefore we should all work together for the common good. The one issue that will solve most all issues facing this world is population controls. We need to have proliferation restrictions worldwide before we're staring at twelve billion mouths to feed by the year 2050.

    • Posted By: samuel97 @ 12/31/2008 12:20:22 PM

      If you were not a hypocrite, then you would have ended your own life years ago IF you believe your garbage. More people is a good thing. Stop worshiping death.

      • Posted By: lensta1971 @ 12/31/2008 12:45:43 PM

        Well, we have a license to drive, so why wouldn't we have a licence to give birth? I don't worship death. I just don't believe 'we the people' should bring into this world a starving child and then turn a blind eye to those who are starving; most middle class Americans are guilty of this.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/31/2008 1:08:47 PM

          I agree with you to an extent...I definitely think there needs to be some kind of control over who can and can't have children. Mostly people on welfare--if you are on public assistance, you should have to receive a birth control shot before you get your check. Problem solved--no more neglected, abused kids throw into an already over-burdened foster care and child protective services system.

          • Posted By: Swimmer79 @ 01/02/2009 3:55:38 AM

            My favorite solution to this problem is to offer free, long-term birth control to anyone who wants public assistance. In fact, for the people who are poorest and have the most children, you could even pay THEM a small amount of money to get it. I also think that in order to qualify for public assistance, the deal should be that you have to be enrolled in a job-training or degree program (they could even be online programs) to help you become employable. Also, once you finish the program, you have to find a job within 3 months of completing it. Even then, the assistance doesn't have to stop altogether, but it could be lessened considerably and be less of a drain on taxpayers.

      • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:49:36 PM

        Libertyman, anyone who believes that wasting a budget surplus on an incompetant military worships death.

        The members of our military can't tell friend from foe. They put us into an incredible debt-and YOU worship them.

  • Posted By: funkdome @ 12/31/2008 4:12:22 PM

    It might help when our hyper-partisan liberal media stop smearing America in the interests of destroying the President.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 4:20:34 PM

      Newsflash - W self destructed by himself.

      8 years of a puppet regime are just about over.

      Sign on W's desk:

      The buck stops here -
      <---------------------------->

      • Posted By: optomyst @ 12/31/2008 5:31:39 PM

        That was a sign on Harry Truman's desk, FYI.

        • Posted By: YashBudini @ 01/02/2009 12:23:11 AM

          He didn't have a double headed arrow with the phrase, ie you missed the point.

    • Posted By: DWPitts @ 12/31/2008 5:35:23 PM

      Let me fill in your blanks for you, ok?

      ...And relies solely on Rush, who is hellbent on the corrosion of America values for his own personal profit and unlimited supply of oxycontin. Now, I feel much better, the answer is so simple: In Rush We Trust.

      Yeah baby, screw the free expression of opinions, Rush has enough gas in his bag for everybody.

      ---

      Irrespective of the accuracy of their opinions or the inherent good or bad in their messages, I will defend the American Press' right to free expression, even given the disappointment they sometimes bring for not being right on the front line in recent years. In spite of their limitations and failings, they are OUR free press. It's not important that I agree or disagree with them, ONLY, that they are in place and responding to, and shaping, the topics that affect our world. I have the inherent ability to decide for myself what I believe, yet, I am benefitted by hearing dissenting and dissimilar views from my own. Otherwise, life in an echo chamber soon becomes boring, smaller, and somewhat colder.

      To propose the demise of the free press, is the beginning of the end of a free nation. Shame on you. Shame on Rush. Shame on Hannity, and all the other backdoor yahoos who are really proposing an anarchistic regime dominated by a select few of their buddies, all dressed up in red, white and blue, as they scream their bluster at increasingly higher decibel levels to compensate for their lack of realistic content, basic humanity, and common decency.

      Why do some people always try to save our liberties by destroying them? What's up with that?

  • Posted By: Gregorio @ 12/31/2008 8:35:31 PM

    The US acted unilaterally because no other country seemed to be doing anything significant.

    George Bush had and has the courage to do the right thing regardless of public opinion. Iraq is now a democracy, the 1st of the Arab countries. That is a good thing.

    The only way Mr. Obama can make the Muslims like us is if he makes concessions that are not in the US's best interests. I don't think he has the political courage to do the right thing.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 01/02/2009 12:21:36 AM

      You're in depserate need of a reality check. Bush a leader? He was "lead" to give Halliburton half a trillion dollars by the man in charge. This has been a puppet regime gor 8 years.

      Iraq is about oil. If human rights were a real issue we'd be looking at genocide in Sudan, but sorry, no oil, no help.

  • Posted By: RayG01 @ 01/01/2009 10:44:05 AM

    Two articles in a row, found randomly, flatly stating the inferiority of America.

    As children we're taught - in vain usually - to ignore peer pressure, and to do the right thing despite outside opinion. We recognize in such instances that opinions are just that, and are driven by the need for others to tear down, and otherwise devalue that with which they admire most.

    I taught high school for two years, and the prettiest girl may have seemed like the most popular, but she was also open to the most verbal abuse from other girls. The most popular guy had a couple of close friends, but otherwise, everything he did was never good enough.

  • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 1:28:14 PM

    The American media tells us that Osama was cast out. Then again, they told us that Arabs attacked the federal building at Oklahoma City.

    Our media lies.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/31/2008 2:06:14 PM

      Huh? Timothy McVeigh was an American.

      • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 01/01/2009 10:32:10 AM

        There was a lot of speculation right after the Oklahoma City bombing about who did it. I don't remember any of the major media saying that of a certainty Arabs were involved though.

  • Posted By: bushliar @ 01/01/2009 9:06:02 AM

    The US is no doubt the strongets country in the world. Its economy, military power, population and land mass are the measures of its status. But it is a failed super power indeed. The Us's inability to stop the massacres in Rawanda and Bosnia, and attack on the US for the first time in its history.

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 01/01/2009 4:08:10 AM

    1. You are repeating the same old stories. 2. You are talking to deaf ears. 3. The US knows better than you 4. It is the US policy to create trouble in this world and then find opportunities; similar to divide and rule doctrine.

  • Posted By: Tan Boon Tee @ 01/01/2009 1:09:52 AM

    The US does not have an image problem, certainly not in this New Year of 2009. Its image as a superpower has long diminished if not vanished ever since the onslaught of Baghdad in 2003.

    In fact, the problem is one of credibility and trustworthiness; The US role as the world policeman (so well played in the later half of the 20th century) is fast dwindling, it has gradually lost whatever respect it once possessed.

    Come to think of it, the most immediate task for the next administration is to put its domestic quandary in order first before venturing into foreign intervention. Fix the nation???s floundering economy, reduce the consumerism mindset, litigate the wrongdoers, cut down the national debt and target a new paradigm of management.

    Meantime, be more friendly and show due respect to all other people and nations.
    (Tan Boon Tee)

  • Posted By: gobbledegook @ 12/31/2008 9:49:21 PM

    Image problems get massage and spin doctoring.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 12/31/2008 8:16:30 PM

    America's reputation in the world can only be improved when America is no longer the biggest threat to other countries security.

    That can be achieved by stop bombing other nations, stop overthrowing other countries elected governments, stop the encirclement of Russia etc

  • Posted By: underdog @ 12/31/2008 6:15:08 PM

    I believe our world relations will get a lot better when Bush leaves, and I voted for this clown the first time around. His single vision in Iraq has destroyed our credibility around the world. The world agreed with our position on Afghanistan. We lost that world opinion when we invaded Iraq. Unlike a bad dream, we will not be able to wake up from the nightmare in Jan. when Obama takes office, and pretend the past did not happen. There will be a huge hurdle to leap in world affairs for the next administration .

  • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 5:57:25 PM

    We have a president right now that doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that for every innocent Iraqi he kills he creates an entire extended family of actual US haters, if not full fledged terrorists.

    And you're worried about the image issue?

  • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:03:11 PM

    One of the best ways to fix repair our image to condemn our soldiers for the atrocities they committed in Iraq.
    Freeze military spending and leave them to their own devices if they wish to return to the U.S.

    Why should I pay their PTSD problem? I had enough sense than to sign up for the military.

    • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 12:13:03 PM

      Totally out of line, you complete and utter fool. You may not like the policies of the country, but putting the burden of bad policy on the backs of the men and women who serve in the military is wrong. You are an intellectual child, and like a child you deserve to be disciplined for stupid statements like that.

      <<WHACK on the rear end>>

      There, now go to your room, little moron.

      • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:28:45 PM

        OF COURSE I'm going to blame those in uniform! Who has the guns pointed at civilians? Not me!

        • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 5:48:02 PM

          Uh, for some strange reason I don't think the enemy is wearing army uniforms. Perhaps you did not notice?

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 12/31/2008 4:19:03 PM

          honestly thats a pretty weak defense, you should blame the people giving the orders not the soldiers most of which are just scared out of their minds

      • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:24:59 PM

        Those who follow orders are as guilty as those who make them. To call me a moron validates me and weakens your own viewpoint.

        Remember that those at Nuremburg tried that excuse.

        Following orders only gives you an appointment with the hangman.

        • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 4:47:52 PM

          "Those who follow orders are as guilty as those who make them. "

          It's not that simple and you know it. There are many that are being thanked for the Iraqis newfound freedom, despite the fact that one powerzealous leader has been trampled on by another one. A lot of them are probably just fighting to stay alive. Not every last foot soldier is guilty because of the commander, not in WW II and certainly not now. Your viewpoint is as invalid as those that spit on Vietnam vets and called them babykillers.

          "To call me a moron validates me and weakens your own viewpoint."

          Emotionally over the top, but inflamatory remarks bring out the worst in people. Even so more than a grain of truth in what he said. I would not hold 99.99% on the common Joes out there responsible for what's happening. Recall how this adminstration said it was suppose to be a quick and easy war and we would be met with open arms. Then note how many signed on for perhaps one tour of duty and not have to complete how many? 3? More?

          Are the troops given what need to win or is the war being protracted by those that want more funding for Halliburton? Take a look at the Vietnam play book for possible answers to that question.

    • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:16:55 PM

      Everytime I saw a soldier, I thanked him for allowing me to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline. Our soldiers did this and we should not let them forget it.

      • Posted By: libertyman @ 12/31/2008 12:36:57 PM

        thank the democrats and the environmental wackos

        • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 1:05:48 PM

          If you don't like clean air move to China. Most people are on their death bed before they realize what's important in life and what isn't. Whacko's are the ones that puts corporations ahead of people.

          • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 2:06:59 PM

            Even as a conservative, I completely agree with YashBudini. Somewhere along the line, the Republican Party got itself tangled up with this idea that everything good for corporations is good for the country. That's a pretty narrow view, and in my opinion it's wrong. To a considerable extent, corporations exist to externalize their costs with the goal of growing larger and more influential. Held in check, this is a good thing... it is the engine which produces jobs and economic health for a country -- companies become more efficient over time, and use the efficiencies to hire more workers. However, at some place there comes a tipping point where externalizing costs becomes stepping on someone else's rights. That's where we are with many issues related to large corporations these days -- the environment, outsourcing, government kickbacks and lobbying, excessive greed and accounting scandals.... these are all issues which challenge the traditional Republican perspective. It's time the Republicans Party expel the neo-con ideal... it is morally and now fiscally bankrupt, and has clearly run its course. It's back to basics for conservatives.

            • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 4:34:50 PM

              I'm routinely mistaken, or easily dismissed, as a liberal, when all I do is point out what's wrong with what's going on. You don't need to be partisan to see injustice, but you do need to be a thinking person to freely admit there's something wrong with your party - when there is.

              I voted for real change - less than 2% of the population did that. I hope we get real and positive change, but my expectations are low. I am afraid it will be like The Who said; Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

              Lobbying should be a capital crime. What should the politicians do after they leave office? Well perhaps they should get real jobs with responsibilities that won't be outsourced out of sight or bought off. Take a business ethics class or 2, assuming that such a class doesn't cause them to burst into spontaneous combustion, followed by a sigh of relief by others and some applause as well.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/31/2008 1:09:38 PM

          What did they have to do with gas prices? They're still around--gas is falling to PRE-BUSH levels. Looks like the Republicans are at it in this case.

          • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 12/31/2008 4:17:53 PM

            falling global demand due to a recession caused by republicans i doubt that was your line of reasoning but i guess it works

    • Posted By: libertyman @ 12/31/2008 12:12:48 PM

      WHAT atrocities????... you mean IED'S . what did you do in the military... a supply hack in the US..

      • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 12:26:31 PM

        Abu Grhib, Haditha....stop me any time.

        Our soldiers have done nothing but ruin MY country.

        • Posted By: medaniupal @ 12/31/2008 12:50:22 PM

          It's not YOUR country. It's OUR country. Blaming soldiers for following the orders of the president and protecting you is something you don't deserve. None of us do. It's not a right to be protected by those brave enough to serve - it's a GIFT. You ungrateful jackass. If you have such a problem with what the soldiers have done, why don't you go to the warzones and try to make nice with those we're fighting. We'll see how well your way works. I agree with acuview - you're a moron.

          • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 2:03:33 PM

            Only the BLIND serve the Stormtroopers of Death in Washington, D.C.

          • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 1:03:57 PM

            Sorry, pal.

            The Germans said the same thing at the war crimes trial and only ended up wearing ropes around their respective necks for their trouble.

            Only an idiot follows orders-especially when he knows it's wrong to shoot unarmed civilians.

            • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 1:39:58 PM

              I'm sorry, but you're just wrong, and probably too much of an intellectual coward to go read a little and learn how wrong you really are.

              Enlisted soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and low ranking officers were NOT held accountable at Nuremberg. As stated earlier, civilian authorities and high ranking officers are responsible for policy making (and that's PRECISELY who was held accountable at Nuremberg -- so the rule is not "no one can say I was following orders", the rule is "no one who makes policy can say I was following orders" -- HUGE DIFFERENCE).

              The extent that a soldier is responsible for war crimes is circumscribed by his/her scope of command. If an enlisted soldier shoots an innocent child, he/she is responsible for a war crime and should (and in the US military WILL) be prosecuted. It is within an enlisted soldier's scope of command to protect the innocent if at all possible. However, that same soldier CANNOT be held responsible for the decision to invade a foreign country and start hostilities. That is decided OUTSIDE his/her scope of command.

              rousch15: This is only a suggestion, because luckily this is still a free country (thanks to those folks you're maligning right now)... You might want to take a bit of that obvious intellect and passion and direct it toward honest, thoughtful, and researched debate. The world needs far more learned "idea folks" right now, and far fewer opinionated and unresearched bastards. We've got too many of those... hell, we just survived 8 years of an administration LOADED with those. My suggestion, which you can take or leave, is to try to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem... and being part of the solution demands that each of us apply our gifts to their capacity.... not shout slogans and half-bakery at one another.

          • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 1:04:50 PM

            You mean STUPID enough to serve.

            I'm PROUD to say I'VE NEVER SHARED IN THE GUILT OF OUR MILITARY.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/31/2008 1:12:45 PM

          Here's a newsflash--we ruined our OWN country. Greed, corrupt, unchecked spending on all fronts (not just the wars) and little oversight. We have no one to blame but ourselves. I may not agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but those soldiers are 100 times braver than I am and I'm glad they're there if we need them. If you think all those 'civilians' you see in the media are innocent you are sorely mistaken. They cheered our arrival now curse us. Typical reaction by foreigners.

  • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 3:33:35 PM

    I think the way the rest of the world feels about the United States is kind of summed up in W.R. Inge's famous quote: "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

    In many ways, the US looks like "the wolf" these days.... actually maybe worse, maybe a wounded wolf. My opinion though is that focusing on "our image" is the wrong route. Our image isn't the issue, but is rather a logical consequence of some bigger issues. US military spending equals the sum of the next 15 countries combined. That's seriously screwed up folks, and it breeds resentment. We need to start asking ourselves: why? This is all within our control, but we seem not to have the will to deal with it... or rather, we say "it's something for Congress to deal with"... Congress will serve itself in the absence of any influence from the outside, as it has proven over and over again.

    Why not pass legislation that limits military spending to equal say just the top 5 other countries? Eisenhower was right when he warned us of the emerging power of the military industrial complex. We're out of control, and we've declared anyone who disagrees a coward. The resolution starts with a recognition at home that military spending is out of control, and that no amount of money guarantees safety. The out of control military spending is what allows our President to pursue questionable policies like force feeding democracy to the Middle East.

    If we start there, with modest, but reasonable cuts to military spending, I think "our image problem" will begin to solve itself. I'm sure some neo-con will declare me a coward, but war mongering does not equal patriotism, and in the final analysis failure to stem this tide might end up bankrupting this country... sort of like the USSR 20 years ago.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 5:40:16 PM

      How could not expect military spending to run wil with the CEO of Halliburton calling the shots? Can you imagine such a conflict of interest in the private sector? The politicians would have gone nuts, but with Cheney, hey it's quite OK.

      Maybe we should waterboard him for the truth, after all by his own admission it's not torture.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/31/2008 3:55:15 PM

      While you present an interesting argument, and I definitely agree military spending needs to be put in check, the situation is too complex to be summed up in that regard. First, you must consider that America's economy dwarfs most other countries' economies, so limiting spending to other economies isn't a valid reasoning. You have to compare apples to apples. Perhaps limit military spending to an overall percentage of the American economy. Also, the American military is relied on worldwide for a vast number of duties beyond war mongering, although I know it's hard to see with Iraq and Afghanistan looming.

      • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 4:29:08 PM

        I see your point, but I'm not sure that the proposed solution makes sense. It's actually what neo-cons propose. By their accounting, we're actually too low on military spending, because our military spending right now is a historically low 4% of GDP (as opposed to say 9% in the early 1970s, or a whopping 35% during WWII).

        The question that is begged is: What does GDP have to do with how much you should be spending on weapons and war infrastructure? Maybe you could make the case that there's a generic need to have more weapons if you have more wealth, but what's the proper ratio? If I own a home and a hand gun, and then I get a 10% raise, do I need to purchase a rocket propelled grenade launcher to protect my higher "GLP" (Gross Local Product?). It also sort of begs the question about wealth in general. If I got a 10% raise, but I already owed 50 years of salary for the mortgage on my house (by analogy, interest on national debt), am I even wealthy in the first place? What am I protecting?

        The way I see it is this: military spending equals money spent in preparation to kill people (brutal, but true). So maybe the proper way to gauge military spending is somehow related to the number people you would reasonably need to kill in order to protect your country. Based on that you'd presume that military spending should be tied somehow to global population and some fuzzy notion of how well you were getting along with other countries. I'm not sure how you'd account for that, but clearly spending more than the next 15 countries combined is out of control.

        The bottom line is that there needs to be something more than political whim driving these kinds of expenditure decisions.... and maybe there is, but I'm certainly not aware of it. I'm willing to listen and give support to any politician who agrees that military spending is out of control.

  • Posted By: John B - Texas @ 12/31/2008 5:03:33 PM

    I'm of the frame of mind, that the HOLY OBONZO will go back to kissing @$$ and asking other sh1th3ads for permission to protect the American people. Yeah - that will go a long way to helping the American image. Most of those countries who hate us, will continue to hate us because of the fundamental differences in our societies, our beliefs, and our ideals. Our country is great because of many reasons, and many people hate us out of jealousy. Bush has always derided and looked down at the UN because of its corruption, and uselessness. Now that the HOLY OBONZO will go back to groveling and begging for permission to defend ourselves, like Oliver asking for more food, our image will go way up! Bush NEVER asked for anyones "permission" to kill our enemies.

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 5:35:58 PM

      And here we see why 49 US states would like Texas to run off and become its own country.

  • Posted By: rousch15@hotmail.com @ 12/31/2008 1:50:09 PM

    I guess you'll be sporting a hammer and sickle tattoo to compliment the cross around your neck, eh, Liberty? Might as well, because your Savior IS a Communist.

    • Posted By: optomyst @ 12/31/2008 5:33:38 PM

      And what does all this jabberwocky have to do with Uncle Sam's image?

    • Posted By: libertyman @ 12/31/2008 1:53:58 PM

      your critisism undermines you position.....where did i read that.........check your blogs LOL

  • Posted By: samuel97 @ 12/31/2008 11:55:18 AM

    The way to regain America's FULL GLOBAL RESPECT is to show strength again, lead the world again, boot the U.N. off its shores, destroy Iran with nuclear technology instead of a protracted war, aid Israel in the immediate destruction of Hamas, cease all aid to the Palestinians, build major US-owned and staffed military bases in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf, begin drilling in Alaska and off-shore where the American greenies have blocked before, close the porous borders, eliminate all corporate welfare, eliminate all religious faith-based initiatives welfare, eliminate all social welfare, return all domestic weapons-related gun laws to their far safer 1910 status, stop all farm subsidies, reduce the income tax to 9% universal for all brackets without exception or breaks of any kind, eliminate all other taxes in existence, eliminate the EPA, eliminate the Energy Department, separate the F from the FDA to allow for proper checks and balances instead of letting them create their own customers, cut all ties to the Federal Reserve, eliminate all regulatory agencies, cease all outdated Indian assistance programs (which means all of them), erase all hate-crimes laws from the books (murder and battery are equally bad no matter who is being attacked, stop pandering to and giving false pity to minorities), and institute a true death penalty for convicted murderers and rapists and kidnappers and arsonists (to reduce those crimes by factors of hundreds of percentage points).

    • Posted By: acuview @ 12/31/2008 12:18:40 PM

      Welcome to the discussion, Herr Fuhrer... Think any of that might be a bit extreme? WW3 anybody?

      • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 5:25:07 PM

        "WW3 anybody?"

        It's inevitable. Just look at all the crazy extremists on both sides of every issue.

    • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 12/31/2008 4:22:05 PM

      amazing i couldn't disagree with a person on any subject more than you. your a fool and sound like the kind of kid who bullied people because he didnt get hugged

    • Posted By: YashBudini @ 12/31/2008 1:07:16 PM

      YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!! is not strength. And strength without intelligence is not respected either.

    • Posted By: samuel97 @ 12/31/2008 12:17:40 PM

      Please forgive me for posting this twice.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse