So, I'm endorsing Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the World. I don't really give a shit about Hillary but it's clear that without really fucking up somewhere, she's gonna trounce Obama in the primaries. In a recent trip to the UK, Clinton said he thought his best role in a Hillary administration would be to be "ambassador to the world." I like the sound of that.Clinton said "I'd be of most use to [Hillary] doing something to try to help restore America's standing in the world and build more allies and get us to work together again." Amen. I guess when it comes down to it, the things I care most about are:
1. Getting US troops home as fast as possible (that includes from places like South Korea, Japan, and wherever the fuck else we happen to have them).
2. Improving our relationship with the rest of planet Earth, who, right now, happen to hate us.
3. Reducing the size and scope of the government.
4. Promoting very liberal social values.
5. Finding a cheap flight to Japan.
Bill and Hillary can promote that liberal social agenda, as well as improve our relationship with the rest of the world. Hillary isn't pulling those troops out of Iraq anytime soon and she's probably gonna increase what the government can do (Hillarycare 2.0?). But, I'm only really endorsing Bill right now, not Hillary. I think in light of a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq, a tactical air strike by Israel inside of Syria, a Putin visit to Iran where he said they should watch each other's backs, a Taiwanese bid to join the UN as an independent country, a nuclear and untrustworthy North Korea, the current war in Iraq, a planned invasion of Iran (is that going to happen or what?), and a planned anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, someone needs to handle our international affairs a little bit better.
Woooo dude, since when are you a libertarian? I mean sure, I'm down with civil rights and liberties, but Paul is for the most part conservative. Would you really vote for someone who was pro-life? And a xenophobe?
ReplyDeleteAnd how is less government and no income tax possibly better? The less something is regulated and taxed, the more greedy people get to exploit the labor and resources of the world....you should read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins, good stuff. Michael Moore's movie Sicko is also good for seeing the benefits of socialized health care.
If I didn't interpret you're like Paul correctly, scratch all that.
Well, I'm definitely pro-less government. I don't agree with Ron Paul on the social issues (I'm not pro-life although in a perfect world people should be responsible enough to not need abortions; also a wall with Mexico is beyond retarded)
ReplyDeleteHow is no income tax NOT better? Ron Paul said if we can reduce our current spending to year 2000 levels, then we could eliminate the income tax altogether. I'm pro-reducing our spending since most of the increases since 2000 have been war expenses.
Who do you like for prez and why?
When the government taxes and regulates something, there's no lessening of exploitation and greed. It's just the government who set themselves up in a position to collect.
ReplyDeleteAlso, dude, Sicko? Michael Moore can't be trusted. Entertaining? Yes. Informative? No.