It may very well be that we have Sean Penn evolved our way past a point in which we don’t have to have the leverage to secure all things we need should another conflict of a large scale nature arise, but I can see the impetus for his argument. It is, in a way, a variation of the argument that we need energy independence.

I’d love to see them ALL do that. The level of discourse would calm significantly.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Agreed.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:28 PM

I’d love to see them ALL do that. The level of discourse would calm significantly.

Thanks for that link. Interesting.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 9:10 PM

I’m not here to defend or argue Hunter’s positions, but I do like things argued on their merits. I don’t think it’s obsessive to state your beliefs if they are interconnected.

I’m fairly certain his view on trade is a function of his view on manufacturing. And I think his view on manufacturing is a product of his view on defense. He gets labeled as a protectionist by some here, but I think he probably believes the relationship between all three would open up more money if we had more manufacturing jobs in the US.

Whatever the merits (or lack depending on your view) it is worth noting the integrity of his view point. The reason that the aggressor nations in both WWI and WWII eventually succumbed to the Allies was lack of manufacturing and lack of raw materials. Also true of the South in the Civil War, ie there is a historical pattern here.

It may very well be that we have Sean Penn evolved our way past a point in which we don’t have the leverage to secure all things we need should another conflict of a large scale nature arise, but I can see the impetus for his argument. It is, in a way, a variation of the argument that we need energy independence.

Sure, but what MSM may or may not do doesn’t effect the credence I give to an argument. Nor do I give much credence to repeated assertions without support (for example r2b calling Mitt a dodger or you calling Hunter obsessed).

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Given how much time Hunter spent in the debates on trade- especially and absurdly in response to a question about fixing Social Security- I’m not sure that it’s unreasonable to say he’s obsessed with the issue. An exaggeration perhaps, but if so a slight one.

Classy guy. Good for him.

Still, you can be certain that the MSM would “investigate” the draft dodger charge against Rudy or Mitt, though there’s a stronger case to be made against Rudy.
Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Sure, but what MSM may or may not do doesn’t effect the credence I give to an argument. Nor do I give much credence to repeated assertions without support (for example r2b calling Mitt a dodger or you calling Hunter obsessed).

Mitt loses a key evangelical endorsement.

As bad as this is for Mitt, I have a lot of respect for this gentleman. He didn’t switch to another candidate and he didn’t say that Mitt did anything to change his mind. He simply prioritized his role as a man of the cloth. They should ALL do the same. Hats off to him.

Disagree – great. Calling him a draft dodger? Less than great.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Still, you can be certain that the MSM would “investigate” the draft dodger charge against Rudy or Mitt, though there’s a stronger case to be made against Rudy.

You can disagree without being a bigot.

Disagree – great. Calling him a draft dodger? Less than great.

It (the Mormon ‘thing’) is an issue though. In one of the Spencer Koran thread there was some happily bantered comparisons between Islamists and Mormons. I am neither, but neither are either the other.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:34 PM

The other guy, who is love with Mitt, knows exactly what I am talking about. Not surprised you don’t understand. Everytime someone disses Mitt, his lover on HA begins with the Mormon bigot card.
Sulla gets it, Mitts other lover doesn’t. You can disagree without being a bigot.

I would comment, but any negative comment against Mitt is deemed a bigoted comment. He is protected by the “Mormon Card”.

I’m Mormon, but I don’t take criticism of Romney on issues as anti-Mormon bigotry. I’m still undecided for the nomination, so all information about Mitt – good, bad, and ugly (like that Keebler Fudge Shoppe photo…ewww) is helpful.

After all, I have very few kind things to say about Harry Reid that have nothing to do with where he goes to church on Sundays. Dingy Harry has no religious immunity in my book, and neither does Mitt.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Riiiiight. We certainly know where “What’s a dollar?” stands. He lobbies for scum and gives legal advice to terrorists and funnels campaign cash to his son. The guy is the least conservative candidate on the rep side.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I suspect pilot error…

Probably. But he’s telling us up front that he’s going to spend $50 Billion dollars on it (or there about), which I suppose includes the $30 Billion Bush has planned just for Africa. That doesn’t fit very well with the claim he just made in the ad at the top of this post to “cut spending”.
jaime on October 24, 2007 at 4:00 PM

And that’s another example; forgot about that one. He sure does have a lot of new and creative ideas for spending money for someone who’s supposedly going to cut spending.

How about his stance on stem cell research while he was the Governor of MA?
Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:34 PM

IIRC (too lazy to check at the moment), his position on that “evolved” as well.

Look, I’m not suggesting that he was an absolutely horrible governor with no redeeming qualities at all- he wasn’t. However, given the philisophical crisis the Republican party is in, it’s not a time to be taking chances on someone once listed by Human Events as being one of the Top 10 RINOs.

Plus his message just hasn’t been consistant on the campaign trail- he’s for strict constructionist judges, but he’s against challenging unconsitutional laws; he’s pro-gun but in favor of a federal assault weapon ban, he’s for low spending but for subsidies and big government programs like Medicare reform, etc, etc, etc.

He’s just not solidified a political philosophy and thus one really can’t know what his politics really are. The flip-flops combined with the slick pandering just doesn’t inspire confidence.

Don’t you think Romney is talking about ways that we can win over hearts and minds?

Probably. But he’s telling us up front that he’s going to spend $50 Billion dollars on it (or there about), which I suppose includes the $30 Billion Bush has planned just for Africa. That doesn’t fit very well with the claim he just made in the ad at the top of this post to “cut spending”. Or maybe he’ll cut Social Security, or the military budget as an offset. I don’t know.

Anyway, cutting back on some of the unAmerican “entertainment” that we export would probably be more effective at winning hearts and minds overseas.

Mitt Romney’s positions on immigration belies your claim that he is in favor of anything like the Dream Act.

Right. But I was drawing a parallel between the type of spending he proposes in his Iowa video and the Dream act. Free education, free medical care, etc., for non-citizens.

Don’t you think Romney is talking about ways that we can win over hearts and minds? Like what we did in Thailand after the tsunami, which was funded by private donations along with government stewardship?

Mitt Romney’s positions on immigration belies your claim that he is in favor of anything like the Dream Act.

He’s going to give free education, health care, and legal services to the developing world. I think he should start in Mexico. Then, at least some of them won’t have a reason to come here. Just this morning we were successful in defeating the Dream Act. Romney wants to export it as a government service.

If you can stand going into the sewer that is Crooks And Liars, check out the link. Watch the video there.

How about his stance on stem cell research while he was the Governor of MA? How about the fact that he vetoed 250 bills that the liberal Democrat legislature pushed?

Romney as been consistent in his move to conservative positions, as have many of us, and as I noted earlier he certainly leads his life as a conservative.

I would comment, but any negative comment against Mitt is deemed a bigoted comment. He is protected by the “Mormon Card”.
right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Sayeth r2b who then goes on to comment at length (for what it’s worth, considering the emptiness of the content).

Reagan, a pro-choice Democrat, evolved into a Reagan Conservative.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM

True, but he evolved over the course of decades- not in the months preceeding a particular campaign.

If he served in a position in which he campaigned and ran as a conservative since his term in MA, I’d find him much more credible as a conservative. Now? Not very credible at all, given his campaign strategy of trying to please everybody all the time on all issues.

Reagan, a pro-choice Democrat, evolved into a Reagan Conservative.