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

**Adrift in Time** · 04-08-2011, 02:49 PM

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.

**Johnny Sokko** · 04-08-2011, 07:05 PM

Nanny state is worse.

**City of the Blind** · 04-08-2011, 07:18 PM

I think I would fair better in a military state. In a nanny I would be vegged out and with an IV for the rest of my life making money for the rothechilds.

**Avocado** · 04-09-2011, 10:44 AM

Nanny state. F*ck the army.

**SCE2AUX2** · 04-09-2011, 10:49 AM

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.

**American Pride** · 04-09-2011, 10:49 AM

what is the difference to the average citizen?

**vekket** · 04-09-2011, 08:47 PM

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.