Which is worse, a nanny state or a militaristic empire?

A

Adrift in Time

New member
Democrats = nanny state
Republicans = Militaristic empire ruling the world

Is one truly better than the other?
SCE- why are there over 800 foreign mmilitary bases if we aren't an empire>? You're the fool that can't see through the bs.
 
Adrift, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Democrats do want the nanny state as far as I can tell. Republicans just want the government to shrink. The only thing we want the military for is to defend the US and our allies.

Ruling the world? Are you kidding? Why would we even bother, the rest of the world isn't worth the effort. Cuts down on our profit margin.

"SCE- why are there over 800 foreign mmilitary bases if we aren't an empire"

BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN INVITED THERE, EINSTEIN. You may have also noticed, git, that we are not running the countries that we are in. You see, fool, the countries in which we have bases have full sovereignty.
 
A nanny state. Because spending all that money on pantie waisted Nancy boys is unproductive and keeps Amerika in self absorbed utopia while the world burns around them.

Instead of sitting around smoking their weeds and chewin on their crack cocaine, they should be rising in the morning, polish off 5 klics, a round of arobics, anarobics and cleaning their surrounding areas all before Breakfast at 08:00 hours.
 
Oh but don't being apart of a "militaristic empire" sound like so much more fun!

We should change our name from the United States of America to "The Imperial Empire of North America", has a nice ring too it. Dang, where did I put my storm trooper outfit?
 
The only reason you can freely ask that question is because
we have the nuclear bombs and Osama dose not.....at least not yet.

Do I really have to tell you I'm to the right of Genghis Khan?...:-)
 
Back
Top