So Obama threw on some republican clothes and declared war

[texan]

It must have killed him to have to lie to everyone and act like a republican to stop his slide in the polls. He must have said strategy a thousand times. Acting all war tough, gonna take the fight to them! Been his policy all along.

Other highlights

No coalition to announce.

Remember when he downplayed all those doctors, farmers and pharmacists as fighters? Now we are gonna arm them and call them our strategy. Lol, he knows the average American Is slow on these things.

Remember when he said there would be no bombing in Syria?

Remember when he lied about the status of forces agreement saying they wouldn't give me what I wanted? But rewinding to the debate in 12 he didn't want one?

feel free to add the rest as there are more.......

BTW still gonna eat those words on boots. First time someone gets killed over there.

[Ethereal]

I didn't realize the president had the authority to declare war. Must be somewhere in that special republican version of the constitution.

[Ethereal]

So after this neo-con "strategy" (and I use that term loosely) fails to defeat ISIS, and we've wasted billions of dollars and years of our time dropping bombs on Iraq and Syria, what will be the excuse? We didn't bomb them enough? We needed more "boots on the ground"? What's the excuse for the obvious failure of the "war on terror" to contain terrorist threats? How many times must we be subjected to the failure of neo-con foreign policy before we'll stop listening to these people?

[Ethereal]

I wish I were a bomb manufacturer these days. They're swimming in an ocean of cash while the ME swims in an ocean of blood.

[zelmo1234]

Like I said in the other Thread it was great to work with the folks still in the armed forces, they seem to think that if the Government will take the shackles off that they can actually make a difference.

They of course are right. and pretending that they are not at war with us, is not going to make them go away.

At least when the next attack here happens there will be the fighting men and women of our armed forced ready to avenge the dead.

But it will take the next attack to change public opinion once again.

History does repeat itself, but one would hope that next time it will take more than 15 years.

[Ethereal]

Like I said in the other Thread it was great to work with the folks still in the armed forces, they seem to think that if the Government will take the shackles off that they can actually make a difference.

Make a difference how?


They of course are right. and pretending that they are not at war with us, is not going to make them go away.

Who is pretending?


At least when the next attack here happens there will be the fighting men and women of our armed forced ready to avenge the dead.

Why should there be another attack?


But it will take the next attack to change public opinion once again.

History does repeat itself, but one would hope that next time it will take more than 15 years.

Yes, history does repeat itself. We've seen intervention after intervention fail and fail miserably to effectively contain, let alone defeat, Islamic terrorist networks. If anything, they've grown stronger and more extensive since the "war on terror" began in 2001. My question is, how much more of this abject, neocon-driven failure do we have to up with before someone with a realistic strategy is allowed to have a voice in DC? But we both know none of these interventions are actually designed to win, they are designed to enrich military contractors and empower secretive agencies who operate with impunity all over the globe. You know it's all a big scam, too, which makes your rhetoric all the more ridiculous.

[Captain Obvious]

I wish I were a bomb manufacturer these days. They're swimming in an ocean of cash while the ME swims in an ocean of blood.

How should this issue be dealt with then?

Saying we shouldn't be there in the first place isn't acceptable, we're already there. What now?

[Ransom]

I didn't realize the president had the authority to declare war. Must be somewhere in that special republican version of the constitution.

The President has already been given that authority. I did realize you didn't know that.

[Ransom]

Oh and look. We're calling this Obama policy now....a 'neocon strategy.' I enjoy the association games in here, better yet, those who play them believing they're transparent. Carry on.

[Codename Section]

Like I said in the other Thread it was great to work with the folks still in the armed forces, they seem to think that if the Government will take the shackles off that they can actually make a difference.

No offense but you were never "in uniform" you just trained us. When I was in uniform I said that I thought Barak Obama was doing a good job if anyone asked and I was "oorah" about going overseas.

The second I got my DD214 I told people that I thought our CIC was a useless piece of shit and what the fuck were we doing over there the entire time.

You are/were a training instructor, an outsider and no one will tell you what they think of the situation. Officers know what to say if they want to make bird someday and the enlisted ranks stick together and keep it frosty.

I don't know of a single person who was over there that thinks we should go back. We may say shit like IF we go back we need to go back hard, but we all pretty much think those assholes are crazy and that its a giant pile of quicksand.

[Codename Section]

The President has already been given that authority. I did realize you didn't know that.

By who?

[Ransom]

Make a difference how?



Who is pretending?



Why should there be another attack?



Yes, history does repeat itself. We've seen intervention after intervention fail and fail miserably to effectively contain, let alone defeat, Islamic terrorist networks. If anything, they've grown stronger and more extensive since the "war on terror" began in 2001. My question is, how much more of this abject, neocon-driven failure do we have to up with before someone with a realistic strategy is allowed to have a voice in DC? But we both know none of these interventions are actually designed to win, they are designed to enrich military contractors and empower secretive agencies who operate with impunity all over the globe. You know it's all a big scam, too, which makes your rhetoric all the more ridiculous.

What's your realistic strategy, E?

Watch this......this is gonna be good:happy5:

[Green Arrow]

Like I said in the other Thread it was great to work with the folks still in the armed forces, they seem to think that if the Government will take the shackles off that they can actually make a difference.

They of course are right. and pretending that they are not at war with us, is not going to make them go away.

At least when the next attack here happens there will be the fighting men and women of our armed forced ready to avenge the dead.

But it will take the next attack to change public opinion once again.

History does repeat itself, but one would hope that next time it will take more than 15 years.

Your problem is you believe relentless, endless war and intervention is our only recourse. It isn't.

[The Xl]

How should this issue be dealt with then?

Saying we shouldn't be there in the first place isn't acceptable, we're already there. What now?

Leave. Cut our ties with any country, end our wars, bombing all that shit.

[The Xl]

The President has already been given that authority. I did realize you didn't know that.

Where? By who? Show me where in the Constitution.

[The Xl]

Oh and look. We're calling this Obama policy now....a 'neocon strategy.' I enjoy the association games in here, better yet, those who play them believing they're transparent. Carry on.

Libertarians and honest liberals have been calling it what it is, a neocon strategy, since he got in. Probably because that's the foreign policy he engages in.

[Mainecoons]

It's more like he declared a half war. But really, what the heck else can he do but totally wash our hands of the place?

This is going to become another object lesson in how the west cannot win in that region and the proper response is quarantine of Muslims by no longer allowing any of them to immigrate into our countries.

Islam is a political and military movement. It needs to be encircled and prevented from expanding.

[Ransom]

Your problem is you believe relentless, endless war and intervention is our only recourse. It isn't.


No one has ever argued that, don't be disingenuous.

[Ransom]

Libertarians and honest liberals have been calling it what it is, a neocon strategy, since he got in. Probably because that's the foreign policy he engages in.

Libertarian means make it up as you go along, don't pick a dog in the fight...merely criticize both. They're fence sitters who rarely make history. And sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about there.....did you say honest liberal? What's that, a garage band name?

[The Xl]

Libertarian means make it up as you go along, don't pick a dog in the fight...merely criticize both. They're fence sitters who rarely make history. And sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about there.....did you say honest liberal? What's that, a garage band name?

Huh? Libertarians have a dog in the fight, the freedom, finances, and defense of the nation. We criticize both, because they have the same, dangerous, faulty, strategy.

[Ransom]

It's more like he declared a half war. But really, what the heck else can he do but totally wash our hands of the place?

But, even you are calling today for intervention, yes.....Maine?


This is going to become another object lesson in how the west cannot win in that region and the proper response is quarantine of Muslims by no longer allowing any of them to immigrate into our countries.

Darn that freedom of religion thing in that Constitution of ours, huh? What other amendments should we shred?


Islam is a political and military movement. It needs to be encircled and prevented from expanding.

Errrrrr.......uhhhhhhh.........wouldn't that take 'boots on the ground', I'm not feeling it, Maine.........you are suggesting what now?

[Ransom]

Huh? Libertarians have a dog in the fight, the freedom, finances, and defense of the nation. We criticize both, because they have the same, dangerous, faulty, strategy.

So....give us yours, Eeyore.

[The Xl]

So....give us yours, Eeyore.

Leave the Middle East militarily, end all aid and alliances.

[Mac-7]

Leave the Middle East militarily, end all aid and alliances.

What about the oil?

[The Xl]

What about the oil?

Trade with any country that voluntarily wants to, and drill for oil here.

[Bob]

So after this neo-con "strategy" (and I use that term loosely) fails to defeat ISIS, and we've wasted billions of dollars and years of our time dropping bombs on Iraq and Syria, what will be the excuse? We didn't bomb them enough? We needed more "boots on the ground"? What's the excuse for the obvious failure of the "war on terror" to contain terrorist threats? How many times must we be subjected to the failure of neo-con foreign policy before we'll stop listening to these people?

I invite those using the term neocon as if it explains something to carefully take advantage of the father of neoconservative philosophy to explain it to us all.

part 1 of 6 follows.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9kGFUfm8rU

[Mainecoons]

What about the oil?

There is plenty of oil here in the western hemisphere. There is no reason at all to buy from the Muslims.

[Mac-7]

There is plenty of oil here in the western hemisphere. There is no reason at all to buy from the Muslims.

Yes, but most of our friends and allies are dependent on oil from the Middle East.

If America isolates ourselves from the rest of the world our enemies will fill the vaacume we leave behind.

[Mainecoons]

It's their problem and they need to deal with it. America is broke, it is time for Europe to fight its own wars.

[Mac-7]

It's their problem and they need to deal with it. America is broke, it is time for Europe to fight its own wars.

Their problems affect us too.

It would not be good for America to become politically and economically isolated.

[Peter1469]

Their problems affect us too.

It would not be good for America to become politically and economically isolated.

It sure would hurt the welfare states in Europe if they had to pay for their own defense.

F-em.

[Matty]

Their problems affect us too.

It would not be good for America to become politically and economically isolated.
Get a grip. All we get from Europe is their middle finger!

[Green Arrow]

It would actually be a very good thing for the world and for America if we spent some time as isolationists. The world is out of balance. America is really the sole superpower that has any real responsibility to handle all the world's problems. It is unsustainable and will ultimately collapse our country. If America collapses with things as they are, there will be no country left to help keep the peace. The world will descend into global chaos.

No, the balance has to be restored. Our "allies" need to strengthen themselves and learn to handle their own problems.

[Mainecoons]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post of the day.

[Mac-7]

Get a grip. All we get from Europe is their middle finger!

I don't care what happens to euorpe except that it affects us too.

if euorpe had fallen to the Soviet Union after WWII we would be speaking Russian in America today.

The commies lost the Cold War but we have a new threat today from the Chinese, the Russians and Islam.

Fortress America isolated from the rest of the world is not a winning policy.

[Mac-7]

It would actually be a very good thing for the world and for America if we spent some time as isolationists. The world is out of balance. America is really the sole superpower that has any real responsibility to handle all the world's problems. It is unsustainable and will ultimately collapse our country. If America collapses with things as they are, there will be no country left to help keep the peace. The world will descend into global chaos.

No, the balance has to be restored. Our "allies" need to strengthen themselves and learn to handle their own problems.

The wipe-every-nose lib welfare state costs more than national defense.

[Ransom]

It would actually be a very good thing for the world and for America if we spent some time as isolationists. The world is out of balance. America is really the sole superpower that has any real responsibility to handle all the world's problems. It is unsustainable and will ultimately collapse our country. If America collapses with things as they are, there will be no country left to help keep the peace. The world will descend into global chaos.

No, the balance has to be restored. Our "allies" need to strengthen themselves and learn to handle their own problems.

And if our allies don't strengthen themselves rather descend into socialist oblivion and cannot handle their own problems as has proven true time and time and time and time and time and time again......what then? Who steps up then?

[Ransom]

The wipe-every-nose lib welfare state costs more than national defense.

In fact, way f'n more. Social Security and Medicare nearing 2 trillion.....a year.

[Ransom]

Get a grip. All we get from Europe is their middle finger!
Fiat!

[Mainecoons]

The wipe-every-nose lib welfare state costs more than national defense.

Yup, both need to be drastically cut and we need to return to the idea of defense. What we have now is an offense budget.

[Animal Mother]

I don't care what happens to euorpe except that it affects us too.

if euorpe had fallen to the Soviet Union after WWII we would be speaking Russian in America today.

The commies lost the Cold War but we have a new threat today from the Chinese, the Russians and Islam.

Fortress America isolated from the rest of the world is not a winning policy.


The US was a virtual island back then. Russian couldn't have taken the US. The US was more self-sufficient, more of a gun culture, etc.

[Peter1469]

The US was a virtual island back then. Russian couldn't have taken the US. The US was more self-sufficient, more of a gun culture, etc.

Logistics confuse most people to the extent that they don't consider it. No nation on earth has the ability to project military power to the US and sustain it for any length of time. Not today, and not after WWII.

[Matty]

And if our allies don't strengthen themselves rather descend into socialist oblivion and cannot handle their own problems as has proven true time and time and time and time and time and time again......what then? Who steps up then?
No one. They can just bend over and kiss their cowardly asses goodbye. No more dying for uncommitted assholes.

[Mac-7]

Yup, both need to be drastically cut and we need to return to the idea of defense. What we have now is an offense budget.

They are both the same.

what you are proposing is that we fight all future wars on American soil .

i would rather fight the enemy where they are not where we are.

[Animal Mother]

They are both the same.

what you are proposing is that we fight all future wars on American soil .

i would rather fight the enemy where they are not where we are.

Have you ever seen Michigan? You might as well think you're living in Iran. Wake up. The barbarians are in the city. Forget about there and plan for what you'll do here when someone walks into a shopping mall with a bomb strapped or IEDs in your roads.

Distributed defense is what we need and what we won't get because people keep screaming, "But in WWII..."

It's 2014.

[Mac-7]

Have you ever seen Michigan? You might as well think you're living in Iran. Wake up. The barbarians are in the city. Forget about there and plan for what you'll do here when someone walks into a shopping mall with a bomb strapped or IEDs in your roads.

Distributed defense is what we need and what we won't get because people keep screaming, "But in WWII..."

It's 2014.

The topic was foreign intervention not immigration.

I understand that there are enemies within as well as the ones in the Middle East.

[Animal Mother]

The topic was foreign intervention not immigration.

I understand that there are enemies within as well as the ones in the Middle East.

The topic is what to do about Americans being threatened and how to keep us safe, I thought.

[Mac-7]

The topic is what to do about Americans being threatened and how to keep us safe, I thought.

Specifically the situation with Isis.

[PolWatch]

I don't care what happens to euorpe except that it affects us too.

if euorpe had fallen to the Soviet Union after WWII we would be speaking Russian in America today. Irony!

The commies lost the Cold War but we have a new threat today from the Chinese, the Russians and Islam.

Fortress America isolated from the rest of the world is not a winning policy.

Lend Lease? over 11 billion of 1941 $$$ to the USSR to keep them alive during WWII??

[Mainecoons]

What BS Mac. Every damned expansionist imperialistic power has failed because they get too big and diverse to manage and control the populations. Smaller and MYOB is better.

[Carlsen]

It must have killed him to have to lie to everyone and act like a republican to stop his slide in the polls. He must have said strategy a thousand times. Acting all war tough, gonna take the fight to them! Been his policy all along.

Other highlights

No coalition to announce.

Remember when he downplayed all those doctors, farmers and pharmacists as fighters? Now we are gonna arm them and call them our strategy. Lol, he knows the average American Is slow on these things.

Remember when he said there would be no bombing in Syria?

Remember when he lied about the status of forces agreement saying they wouldn't give me what I wanted? But rewinding to the debate in 12 he didn't want one?

feel free to add the rest as there are more.......

BTW still gonna eat those words on boots. First time someone gets killed over there.


You are wrong. They are not Republican clothes. They are golf clothes


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5CfI2P7_2Gg/TrqXdhVzewI/AAAAAAAAAQc/45Knoh3urgM/s320/dec22_obama00_299x239.jpg


.

[Mac-7]

What BS Mac. Every damned expansionist imperialistic power has failed because they get too big and diverse to manage and control the populations. Smaller and MYOB is better.

I would not describe America as an expansionist imperialist power.

But whatever you call it our military is expensive.

[The Xl]

I would not describe America as an expansionist imperialist power.

But whatever you call it our military is expensive.

Huh? We have our footprints damn near everywhere.

[GrassrootsConservative]

"Republican" clothes? Nah, he's being a stupid fucking Liberal that doesn't respect the country, constitution, or steps needed to go to war.

Republicans that do that are called "Liberals." Dumb thread fails.

[GrassrootsConservative]

No wonder my activity on this forum is going down, you guys get more ignorant by the day.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I didn't realize the president had the authority to declare war. Must be somewhere in that special republican version of the constitution.

This post actually got thanks? Pathetic. What a joke this place is becoming. Look lets all joke about Republicans because we're all ignorant about politics. Har har.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Here's the definition of "Liberal" for those of you who think "Republican" fits this activity:


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=liberal+definition

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective


1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.






So he shits on the constitution (traditional values) by going around it and you guys just want to invent attacks on Republicans... why?... Because you don't know any better. Because you're ignorant. I don't like it.

[Mac-7]

Huh? We have our footprints damn near everywhere.

The accusation was that America is an imperial power.

We have national interests and are engaged all over the world but we're not imperialists.

[The Xl]

This post actually got thanks? Pathetic. What a joke this place is becoming. Look lets all joke about Republicans because we're all ignorant about politics. Har har.

Liberals engage in it too, obviously, but Republican Presidents and the constituents play by those rules and generally salivate and the thought of war by any means, for any reason.

[The Xl]

The accusation was an imperial power.

We have national interests and are engaged all over the world but we're not imperialists.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: imperialism
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.






Sure sounds like it to me.

[Mac-7]

im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: imperialism
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.






Sure sounds like it to me.

in that case almost every nation on earth qualifies as an imperialist power to on extent or another.

[Codename Section]

"Republican" clothes? Nah, he's being a stupid fucking Liberal that doesn't respect the country, constitution, or steps needed to go to war.

Republicans that do that are called "Liberals." Dumb thread fails.


What was Bush? A liberal?

[GrassrootsConservative]

What was Bush? A liberal?

Yes. Fucking duh. I've shown this many times. Haven't you been paying attention? Look at the Patriot Act. Look at No Child Left Behind. Look at all the other big government bullshit he did. The problem is the party that's supposed to be about Conservatism becoming inundated with Liberals and you people are absolutely blind to it.

[Codename Section]

Yes. Fucking duh. I've shown this many times. Haven't you been paying attention? Look at the Patriot Act. Look at No Child Left Behind. Look at all the other big government bullshit he did. The problem is the party that's supposed to be about Conservatism becoming inundated with Liberals and you people are absolutely blind to it.

I had to count to ten over that "fucking duh". Sometimes Grassroots you have a shit fucking attitude that you display to people who are mannerly to you.

I'm sure that will get you far only it won't get you far into a conversation with me. We're done as of right now.

[Mainecoons]

Yes Code, Bush is and was a liberal. Remember, liberals can get us in stupid wars too. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

The years 2001 to the end of 2006 were the most vivid and graphic demonstration of just how liberal Republicratism is. I will grant you that these Republicrats preferred borrow and spend versus Democrat tax and spend, but that was about the only difference.

When you saw a "Republican" doing deals with Ted Kennedy, that should have told you something.

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly but, yeah, it has been shown time and time again here just how liberal the Bush whackers are.

And Code, if you are going to lecture, threaten and moderate people you probably should set a higher standard for yourself. Unlike some rules here, the one about abusive language is written.

[The Xl]

in that case almost every nation on earth qualifies as an imperialist power to on extent or another.

A lot of European countries, yes, but not nearly to the extent of the United States.

[The Xl]

Yes Code, Bush is and was a liberal. Remember, liberals can get us in stupid wars too. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

The years 2001 to the end of 2006 were the most vivid and graphic demonstration of just how liberal Republicratism is. I will grant you that these Republicrats preferred borrow and spend versus Democrat tax and spend, but that was about the only difference.

When you saw a "Republican" doing deals with Ted Kennedy, that should have told you something.

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly but, yeah, it has been shown time and time again here just how liberal the Bush whackers are.

And Code, if you are going to lecture, threaten and moderate people you probably should set a higher standard for yourself. Unlike some rules here, that one is written.

Our modern day politicians are not really "liberal" or "conservative" in the tradition sense, they're corporatists. One side(Republicans) want mass wealth redistribution to the rich with austerity and social programs cut for the lower classes, the other wants mass wealth redistribution to the rich while throwing the other classes crumbs in the form of welfare and other programs.

[Green Arrow]

And if our allies don't strengthen themselves rather descend into socialist oblivion and cannot handle their own problems as has proven true time and time and time and time and time and time again......what then? Who steps up then?

They will learn. Every region of the world has had its powerhouse nations step up to the plate at some point in history. They can do it again. It's no coincidence that it was after WWII that the other nations of the world became incapable of standing on their own, because it was during and after WWII that we made it clear we would always be there to bail them out.

[Green Arrow]

Here's the definition of "Liberal" for those of you who think "Republican" fits this activity:

[/FONT]
[/LIST][/FONT]

So he shits on the constitution (traditional values) by going around it and you guys just want to invent attacks on Republicans... why?... Because you don't know any better. Because you're ignorant. I don't like it.

Because Republicans are the ones that have been helping Obama subvert Congress. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) says the President has to ask Congress to take any action against ISIL, as per the CONSTITUTION, and REPUBLICANS John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Peter King tell the President to avoid Congress and act.

Save your partisanship and your dick attitude for someone who cares.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Because Republicans are the ones that have been helping Obama subvert Congress. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) says the President has to ask Congress to take any action against ISIL, as per the CONSTITUTION, and REPUBLICANS John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Peter King tell the President to avoid Congress and act.

Save your partisanship and your dick attitude for someone who cares.

Again, those people are obviously Liberals, if you don't think so then you need to read the post where I defined "Liberal" again. It's right there in the definition. Republican is just a subjective label people subscribe to, it means nothing without defining a person further based on their actual beliefs.

[Green Arrow]

Again, those people are obviously Liberals, if you don't think so then you need to read the post where I defined "Liberal" again. It's right there in the definition. Republican is just a subjective label people subscribe to, it means nothing without defining a person further based on their actual beliefs.

They aren't liberals, they are an amalgam.

[GrassrootsConservative]

They aren't liberals, they are an amalgam.

They're Liberals, again, based on the definition given to the term "Liberals" as seen in the following, and you can't do anything about it:


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Liberal%20definition

lib·er·alˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective


1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.






ANYBODY wishing to discard traditional values like the Constitution is a LIBERAL, and they're idiots. Again, you don't get to define things, they're already defined, you just don't know it for some reason.

[donttread]

It must have killed him to have to lie to everyone and act like a republican to stop his slide in the polls. He must have said strategy a thousand times. Acting all war tough, gonna take the fight to them! Been his policy all along.

Other highlights

No coalition to announce.

Remember when he downplayed all those doctors, farmers and pharmacists as fighters? Now we are gonna arm them and call them our strategy. Lol, he knows the average American Is slow on these things.

Remember when he said there would be no bombing in Syria?

Remember when he lied about the status of forces agreement saying they wouldn't give me what I wanted? But rewinding to the debate in 12 he didn't want one?

feel free to add the rest as there are more.......

BTW still gonna eat those words on boots. First time someone gets killed over there.

There is no difference

[Mac-7]

Our modern day politicians are not really "liberal" or "conservative" in the tradition sense, they're corporatists. One side(Republicans) want mass wealth redistribution to the rich with austerity and social programs cut for the lower classes, the other wants mass wealth redistribution to the rich while throwing the other classes crumbs in the form of welfare and other programs.

Most politicians in Washington are corporatist which is just a more polite word for fascists.

but that does not mean they aren't libs because most of them are.

they support "progressive" social policy which means big government.

and that includes many republicans although they are less willing to say so publicly.

the dirty little secret is that liberalism is at the root of many of our economic problems.