Video: Ron Paul knocks paper money, Afghanistan surge at CPAC
posted at 8:19 pm on February 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Skip ahead to 13:35 for the start of the foreign-policy passage — a few minutes in, he recycles the bogus Lancet statistic of a million Iraqi deaths from the war — or to 16:20 for a history lesson that culminates with Afghanistan and begins with the claim that our entry into World War I somehow led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century. This, of course, is why the left appreciates him even though his economic philosophy’s anathema: There’s no violence anywhere in the world that he can’t blame on American policy. As long as we have troops stationed abroad and favor some nations over others, we’re guilty of original sin; he’s that fanatic an isolationist. Except, that is, when his political future’s on the line, as it was after 9/11 when the country supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan overwhelmingly and Paul quietly went along. Didn’t he “know anything about history”?
Watching this, I thought of Limbaugh’s point about wanting The One to fail. Rush assumes, at least tacitly, that Obama’s loss will be mainstream Republicans’ gain. I’m not so sure. The more desperate things get economically, the more appeal Paul’s paleocon message will have and the more legitimized isolationism will become by extension. Be careful what you wish for.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Is he just rabble rousing or sleek?
How often at the results of his mischief does he come to take a peek?
I hear he’s steely as you please
I hear he’s really Japanese
He may be shrewd
He may be crude
Ah well, it’s hard to tell
Who is Allahpundit and why is he causing all this hell?
PercyB on February 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Libertarianism only works if men’s intentions are always good.
More paleocon talk of not spilling blood for ignorant savages. Why am I not surprised. Related from watching CPAC: Am I the only conservative who doesn’t have a case of BDS, or what? Using him as a scapegoat to win elections is childish & foolhardy.
youngTXcon on February 27, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Big government doesnt even work when there are good intentions behind it. How exactly does libertarianism rely on good intentions?
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Madison once said that “if men were angels, there would be no need for government”. My point is that while men are capable of doing good, their hearts are evil. A laissez-faire system is built on trust between men, & a naive view that man will always make the best decisions. This is why we must have semi-regulated capitalism.
As far as interventionism is concerned, Niebuhr makes the best argument as to why that is a necessity. Historically, the Founding Fathers & others did intervene internationally when necessary–see Tripoli, Mexico, etc. Unfortunately, in an increasingly globalized world, we have no choice but to intervene when it is vital to our security.
I understand libertarian’s appeal, I really do; but I’m afraid that it’s naive & fails to take human nature into account. Besides, overreacting to the evils of socialism & communism are dangerous, too. We must not overreach. That’s my 2 cents, anyhow…
youngTXcon on February 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
So economic freedom and personal liberty doesn’t work? What does Socialism? ROFLMAO!
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I am familiar with that quote, and like it. But I really think you are using it in the wrong way. It’s when you have a state run economy that those running it must be angels (or even a mixed economy.) They have to act in a selfless manner, always with others interests at heart. Unfortunately, this just isn’t going to happen – and if you consider that jobs which come with power attract, well, people who want power, the prospect is rather grim.
Because people aren’t angels, you need a system that works even taking this into consideration. This is one of commmunisms largest failings, as well as this mixed system we have going today. It’s also why the free market works. You can, on your own volition, choose to help others. But even if you are the most selfish person ever, in order to further yourself you will inadvertedly further others along the way. Whether its by having your company be as innovative as possible in order to help your bottom line (inadvertedly delivering better products for the consumer) or have an efficient work force capable of doing the job in a timely, quality manner (inadvertedly delivering better work conditions, pay.) When, in order to succeed, you need to be responsible, efficient, and competitive, improvements will come even if those aren’t your goals. And if you cant do these things, your company fails, clearing the way for one that can.
When the government intervenes in the market, as it does today with bailouts, the necessity of responsibility and efficiency get muddled. You can be a bad company and still get money even if people arent buying your bad products. A system of government intervention requires good will, the free market does not (it doesnt hurt when its there, mind you.)
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM
+1,000,000,000,000 (a trillion)
aengus on February 27, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Wow, you are economically illiterate. Regulations don’t work! Two words: Bernie Madoff
You cannot really be this stupid. Libertarianism does not take into account human nature? Really? That is why their economic theory is founded on Human Action? ROFLMAO!
If you don’t understand Libertarians, please don’t pretend to.
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Ron Paul is right and a true conservative. The Republican Party has lost its way, and Michael Steele, albeit an admirable person, doesn’t have the right ideas to steer it back on course.
MedSchoolCatholic on February 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Cowardice?!?!
Ron Paul isn’t the one seeing Islamic terrorists around every corner, leading our nation into no-win wars, and cheering on a President while his messianic vision of democratizing the most backward region of the world out of a sense of overwhelming fear.
Yea, I said it. Fear, and fear alone, has brought this country to where it is now. A bunch of Wahabbist clowns got the best of this country a few times, and you got scared… so scared, that you were willing to give your political leadership carte blanche to do whatever they told you was necessary.
We need to build a democracy in Afghanistan, or the world will end, and you say “Yessah boss, whatever you say!”
Iraq is going to set off a mushroom cloud over Anytown USA, and you say “Iraq?!?! Whas we gonna do?” Oh, don’t you worry about it… we have a plan “Youse has a plan… Lawdy, Lawdy, thanks you Missuh Bush!”
Well, guess what? They didn’t have a plan, and Afghanistan is a basket case and always will be. But you couldn’t question their wisdom, because you were too scared to. Even while the GOP lost the power it had fought decades to gain, with nothing to show for it but the largest expansion of government in the post-war period, you couldn’t question the war, because you were afraid of… what??? Of Islamic terrorists taking over tghe world? You’ve got to be s***ting me, Pyle! These people live in caves and ride camels, and you’re afraid they will topple Western Civilization?
Fear is a method of leadership worthy only of children and leftists. Free men should be made of sterner stuff. Don’t project cowardice on a brave man, simply because you are too scared to live free or die.
JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Uh-huh. I see. Someone says something you disagree with, and they are unworthy of debate. Got it.
That is a tactic often used by members of the left. I guess we know where your sympathies lie.
JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM
So why did he join the crowd after 9/11, hmmm?
MadisonConservative on February 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM
“JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM”
when someone says something THAT FRAKKING STUPID AND UNSERIOUS related to the topic at hand, then yes, they are unworthy of debate. if you’d put down the joint long enough, you might notice that actually got proven by it in subsequent posts …
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
How do you sleep at night knowing the US is being played a patsy to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year by countries wealthy enough to defend themselves, while we stare into a black hole of bankruptcy?
I suggest it is you that should STFU, as your ignorance of both foreign policy and economics is glaring. Do yourself a fovar, and stop demonstrating your foolishness.
JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I was never a Ron Paul supporter but he was dead on about the economy. So I’ll stop wishing for more economic freedom and personal liberty? The funny thing is with Ron Paul you would have MORE freedom than you have now. There is nothing wrong with an isolationist policy, which really would not be “isolationist” since he believes in global free trade. We would not be “alone” we would be engaging in friendly trade with everyone.
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
btw M.C., thx. for the props on the earlier post — i know we don’t always see eye to eye but I appreciate when we can smile together at the head in the sand crowd …
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Dude, that’s like Bush’s fault n-stuff. Like if Bush wasn’t this dictator who wouldn’t leave office and was about to draft all you chickenhawks, the markets wouldn’t drop every time Obama talks about his plans to spend all your money.
I read it on DKos so it must be true.
18-1 on February 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
youngTXcon on February 27, 2009 at 11:51 PM
“JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM”
who’s resorting to lefty name calling?
/do they have good pot at galt’s gulch?
:-)
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Watch people jumping from the World Trade Center and explain why border control is not the core issue. The 9/11 hijackers didn’t smuggle themselves into America in crates or swim over from Mexico. They strolled in through customs and even after the awful deed had been done their visas were approved (posthumous).
aengus on February 27, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Yes Bush helped cause the problem Obama is making worse.
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster (The Wall Street Journal)
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Did he? He voted against the Patriot Act remember – but supported the use of force to get those responsible for 9-11. If you read the legislation, you would find it includes nothing about nation building.
Non-intervention does not rule out acting in self defense, which going into Afghanistan constituted – while staying in, and nation building Afghanistan does not.
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
MC, that’s actually a fair question. Fortunately, I’ve had the opportunity to ask the same question in person.
First of all, Dr. Paul was the member of Congress to introduce the idea of using Letters of Marque. That is, we didn’t need to overthrow the Taliban in order to achieve our goal, which was bringing the AQ leadership to justice (or conversely, bringing justice to them). In fact, we demonstrated that ourselves as a nation, when we gave the Taliban an ultimatum… to wit, turn over bin Laden, or we’re coming in. If we had relied on Letters of Marque, rather than invasion, we wouldn’t be in a position of having to nation-build a democracy in Afghanistan, the modern IR equivalent of building the Tower of Babel.
Second, Dr. Paul relied on GWB’s campaign promise of “no nation-building”. We should have gone into Afghanistan, done what we needed to do, and GTFO. This nation has a history of setting up strong men in countries we have overthrown. There are those in the community who would tell you that is a cornerstone of realism (and I don’t necessarily disagree with them). It causes its own set of problems, but it’s a helluve lot cheaper and considerably more effective than chasing the dragon of democracy through the mountains of a country that, if you are honest with yourself, you will admit is simply not ready for it.
And lastly, although he has never told me himself, I suspect Dr. Paul, in private, knows he made a mistake. Nothing wrong with that. The key is, when you find yourself going the wrong direction down a road, the first thing you have to do is stop, and then turn around.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:00 AM
As far as I can tell, I didn’t call you any names. I said you were foolish. Truth hurts, doesn’t it.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:02 AM
“JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:02 AM”
read the post moron, you called me “ignorant”
/bong need a refill?
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Therefore what? The U.S. Armed Forces still have to hold onto the territory they’ve acquired in Afghanistan unless they’re willing to cede it to the Taliban.
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I think it works both ways, as anarchy & tyranny eventually meet on the circle of government. I agree about having a system that recognizes reality. My point is that government intervention is sometimes necessary. For instance, I feel that TARP [short-term invention] was necessary to staunch the hemorrhaging but that all of Obama’s ‘interventions’ [long-term] are not.
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Regulations work when enforced. The SEC failed to do their job. Also, I think our definitions of human nature are different. Also, I am merely commenting on the arguments that my libertarian friends make to me regarding their political philosophy.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:07 AM
There is a difference between BDS and holding strong to conservative principles. Yes, Bush has been unfairly torn apart by some on the left; however, conservatives should have and should take a close look at the Bush fiscal policy (something the left didn’t seem to whine about as much). Further, how conservative is nation building?
Upstater85 on February 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Good quote. A lot of people get sore at Europeans because they’re no longer sufficiently grateful for being liberated sixty-five years ago. Yet if you’re an Afghani who was liberated seven years ago (2002) and choose to express your gratitude by lobbing a pipe bomb at a company of American soldiers that’s just a communications error. How dare anyone suggest that the Afghani people are not pro-American!
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Stop it! – Diana West
U.S. forces should not ordinarily be engaged in
nation-building — sorry, nation-stabilizing — nor should
they ever be engaged in Sharia-nation-stabilizing, which
is my core problem with our overall strategy in
constitutionally Sharia-supreme Iraq as well as
constitutionally Sharia-supreme Afghanistan (not to mention
the constitutionally Sharia-supreme Palestinian Authority),
but that’s another column.
Bottom line? History shows that the conditions that drove
the model transformation of Japan do not exist today with
regard to the Islamic Middle East. We’re going to need
another strategy — for starters, an immigration policy and
new laws to halt the creep of Sharia — to ward off the
Islamization of the West.
MB4 on February 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Poptech on February 27, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Endorsing a semi-regulated market is not the same as endorsing socialism or communism. Both are great evils and a menace to the American way of life. Obama’s adherence to Marx is destroying the nation. Shall I repeat that?
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Condi is a dangerous incompetent
Considering her remarks about America’s “birth defect” — an egregious term for any secretary of state to use about a nation that has brought more liberty to more races, colors and creeds than any in history — I am struck anew how deeply Rice’s vision of race in America, or, perhaps, in segregated Birmingham, affects her vision of America in the wider world. It is as if Rice sees American influence as a means by which to address what she perceives as disparities of race or Third World heritage on the international level.
This would help explain her ahistorical habit of linking the civil rights movement to the Bush administration’s effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, in a 2003 speech to the National Association of Black Journalists, she argued that blacks, more than others, should “reject” the “condescending” argument that some are not “ready” for freedom. “That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it’s wrong in 2003 in Baghdad,” she said. In 2006, she made a similar point. “When I look around the world and I hear people say, `Well, you know, they’re just not ready for democracy,’ it really does resonate,” Rice told CBS’s Katie Couric. “It makes me so angry because I think there are those echoes of what people once thought about black Americans.”
There’s something shockingly provincial at work here. In seeing so much of the world through an American prism of race, Rice has effectively blinded herself to historical and cultural and religious differences between Islam and the West. To put it simply, neither Baghdad nor Gaza is Birmingham. And nothing in all of history quite compares to Philadelphia.
MB4 on February 28, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I disagree. Barack Obama is in the position he is in because of one man, and one reason. That man is George W. Bush, and that resaon is the invasion of Iraq.
The GOP had it all, and then we decided to invade Iraq. It was never popular. It gave the Left something to galvanize around. It has been hideously expensive. GWB had to cut God knows how many backroom deals over God knows what type of anti-conservative issues to keep it going. All the while, leaving important stuff, like entitlement reform and balanced budgets on the cutting room floor, because all his political capital was spent.
And where are we now? Not only is Congress in the worst (read: most left) condition of my lifetime, but the White House is in the hands of a neo-socialist. Even if the Dems were destined to win the WH this time around, we got one of the furthest left candidates available, because of his distance from the Iraq War.
Supporters of the Iraq War… Barack Obama thanks you, I am sure.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Ron Paul, a Conservative? Give me a freakin’ break! Ron Paul is a fraud of the WORST kind!
Ron Paul, the 911 conspiracy fruitcake poster child who said the U.S. had NEVER been attacked in its history? I guess the War of 1812, the Mexican War, World Wars 1 and 2 didn’t happen did they? Ron Paul who said States didn’t have jurisdiction of murder and violent crime.
Ron Paul who took 65 earmarks for over $400 MILLION!
Ron Paul needs to go back to gynocology, (if a woman would actually let a nutbag like Ron Paul actually touch her!) maybe back to 7th grade for some American history lessons.
nelsonknows on February 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Once again, that’s not name calling. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. Calling you ignorant isn’t name calling… it’s a statement of fact.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Article 90.2 of the Constitution of Iraq:
The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and how they are selected will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Ah yes. Let’s bash the only canidate with an ounce of sense because the halfwitted RINO put forth by the Republican party was soundly trounced by a slick-talking Marxist.
Our paper money is this close to collapse, the insurgents have actually won back some ground in Bumf–kistan, and all we can do is nitpick.
Dark-Star on February 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM
“JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM”
YOU are the ignorant one to actualy posit that the iraq war is why zero sits in the white house today AND that it’s W’s “fault” …
/note you have not responded to any of the pothead comments, which almost surely proves u r one, and, as stated before, wholly unqulified to speak about foreign affairs — or, frankly, much else …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Upstater85 on February 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
The US, GB, & their allies had 6 reasons for invading Iraq. I supported Iraq not because of nation-building, but because of the proxy-war idea. You have a failed state, spiraling out of control, surrounded by neighbors who want said territory [see David Kay's report]. Also, fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is difficult b/c of the terrain. So, if you want to draw the terrorists to a central location with easier terrain *and* fight a proxy-war against Jordanian & Lebanese terrorists & the states of Syria & Iran, it makes sense to invade Iraq. [Wish I could draw an online-diagram of this...]
I would assume you were equally against Reagan’s wars in Central & South America?
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:24 AM
“Dark-Star on February 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM”
my gods, the weed smokers have even thinner skin than the current occupant of the w.h. …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:24 AM
No they don’t. All they do is hurt the economy and make things more expensive. The SEC failed because regulations fail, they always have. You cannot regulate morality. This is so common with those who do not understand economics, they always believe that government control did not work because the right guy was not making the right decisions and only if they put that smarter guy in, it will work this time. Wrong.
Human Action is Human Nature, it is the basic understanding that Human’s will always do what is in their own self-interest, not only is that a good thing it is beneficial to you.
No it is endorsing Socialism. Government control over the economy is socialist. There is no socialism light. You need to study economics.
The Concise Guide to Economics (Jim Cox, Professor of Economics)
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:26 AM
There certainly needs to be government – but a government that defends individual liberties and rights. If someone steals from you, thats a violation of your rights. If someone violates a contract with you, so too is that. But if a company is going under, thats not a matter of violated rights. There is no reason for the government to get involved in propping up a failing company.
Not only is it beyond the mission of defending liberty, but by propping up a bad company you, again, muddle the incentive to be responsible and efficient by removing the necessity of these things to stay afloat. Therefore quality across the board will suffer. And when companies can hemorrhage money, build terrible products noone in their right mind would spend money on, and still get money because the government has their back and will take money from people and give it to them anyways, you have a problem.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
“Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:26 AM”
y’all should just call yerselves anarchists then — the tiniest bit of truth in advertising MIGHT help …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
I believe there’s an old saw about the superiority of keeping one’s piehole shut and being thought an idiot than opening it and removing any doubt.
(psst: drug-free for life, dumbass.)
Dark-Star on February 28, 2009 at 12:32 AM
He voted against the earmarks. It isn’t his job to reject funding from the federal government – that would fall, presumably, to the governor, or state legislature.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Everything you say would make sense if (and it’s a big if) the U.S. and its allies were not allowing the very same terrorists who threaten us over there to emigrate to the West with impunity.
Foreign interventionism against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East might be a credible policy if it weren’t for the fact that they very same fellows who fight against the U.S. Armed Forces on the other side of the world can apply for a visa and breeze into Minnesota anytime they feel like it.
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I slightly disagree. While it is true that the Iraq War helped cost the GOP in 2006, it was not the war itself but how Donald Dumsfeld was fighting it. If they had went in with the original 400,000 troops and wiped the floor with Saddamn and prevented any insurgency from taking root it would have been a much different election. But there were contributing factors to the losses in 2006 and 2008. The unConstitutional WireTapping – yes it was illegal, no it was not what the MSM made it out to be. And finally Bush and the GOP spending up a storm and expanding government. There are MANY more libertarians in both parties that do not even know they are. I had Democrats telling me they could never vote Republican because they do not believe in big government. The GOP has gotten that bad, mainly by pandering to Social Conservatives.
The universal message of economic freedom and personal liberty is one that resonates with members of both parties and independents.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I don’t reply to ad hominem attacks… I welcome them, because it reveals the desperation of the attacker. I’ve called you an ignorant fool, and all you can reply with is that I smoke pot. Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t refute the idea that your ideas (or rather lack of them) are foolish and ignorant.
Now, as far as my FP cred, why don’t you recount for us the tenets of realism, and where GWB’s policy deviated from them, and why those deviations are superior to what has been the operating philosophy of FP in this country since WWII. It’s a snap for me… why don’t you demonstrate your prowess for the board.
Or are you afraid of being exposed as an ignorant blowhard?
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM
“Dark-Star on February 28, 2009 at 12:32 AM”
what about the contact high from any meeting involving 5 or more fellow ronulans?
/and u might want to keep in mind, douche, that U were the one who, when various key elements of the wackjob in question’s platform are shown to be complete foolishness, called it “nitpicking”
//eyeroll
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Please stop confusing the brain damaged Pot heads who call themselves Libertarian simply in the hopes that Pot will become legal with those that believe in economic freedom and personal liberty.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM
What was shown to be completely foolish?
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
“JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM”
oh, i’d hate to horn in on the ignorant pothead blowhard market — you pretty much have that one cornered tonite …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:26 AM
I believe in a form of monetarism. I’m sure it will surprise you that I read ‘Investors Business Daily’ & I was raised to believe that investing in the stock market is a good thing.
Seriously, just because someone isn’t an advocate of classical political economy doesn’t make them a radical Keynesian.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
“Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM”
when you can start rhetorically separating the 2 i might consider it …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Poptech, I think you are missing how the points you made are interconnected.
Yes, the big spending and the degradation of civil liberties cost us. And yes, the incompetence with which the war was waged cost the GOP. But these things do not exist in a vacuum.
It’s possible that going in with half a million troops would have made the difference. I’m not convinced of that, but I’ll at least concede the possibility. But had we done that, can you imagine how much that would have cost? Instead of a trillion dollars, 2 or 3 trillion? And still no guarantee of success.
Likewise, all the spending GWB approved was, at the end of the day, a result of Executive-Congressional relations. Bush could have used the hammer on the drunken sailors in Congress, but at the end of the day he needed them because of an unpopular war. If he starts saying “No” to them, bet your buns they were going to say “No” right back.
And what were they going to say “No” to? Well, what was the signature policy of his Administration? SS reform? Balanced budgets? No, it was the Iraq War. He had to fight the war, and, in the words of Sonny Corleone, if that means business has to suffer, than business will just have to suffer.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:46 AM
I’m not sure if you meant this ironically or not, but the whole premise of libertarian economics and politics is that there is no original sin (even though many of its advocates, including Dr. Paul, are Christians).
Yet in denying original sin, all of their logic with regard to whose to blame for this war or that economic debacle, inevitably leads back (if we follow the logic) to the Garden and the fall of man.
Piled on top of this is the heresy that man is an economic animal at root (a purely Marxist notion). The idea to them is that if man were merely left to himself, without the wicked environment — political or social — restraining him, all would be sweetness and light, just so long as he can buy and sell freely.
It’s a no win game because it is an ideology based on unreality, and ideology is the antithesis of conservatism.
And so, for all the truth and understanding about economics that Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, et al, have, many of them forget that man is at base flawed and sinful, and a pure free market is not possible because of this.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 12:48 AM
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
We have been enforcing immigration laws to a certain extent–but the problem is a complex one. The fence has now been built all the way to El Paso. Do I want illegal aliens living off the federal dole? No–but I don’t know how tossing them across the border every day is a practical policy, either. We must devise a new approach. Do you have suggestions?
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Monetarists don’t support regulations. Monetarism AKA Chicago School Economics AKA Milton Friedman is very close to Classical and Austrian Economics except when dealing with money.
Milton Friedman Economics – Free To Choose
That is an ignorant statement.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Okay, Drum makes the point better than I do because I was talking about original sin as it relates to human nature.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM
I agree it would have cost more initially but I would beg to wager that overall it might have cost less by ending it sooner. Politically it would have been a victory regardless of the cost.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Uh-huh. Unwilling to demonstrate some measure of knowledge about the topic at hand. I think we can all assume that is because you have no knowledge. To wit… you just didn’t do the reading assignment did you buckaroo?
It’s called ignorance, buckaroo, and the unwillingness to rise to a challenge of expertise is intellectual cowardice. And that’s not name-calling. That’s fact.
But just to show you how easy it really is:
Realism, marked by (at least) four tenets:
1) States are the penultimate authority in Int’l Relations, that is, they exist within an anarchic system
2) States are primarily guided by balance-of-power concerns
3) States are concerned only with their own self-interest
4) Foreign policy is guided only by high political (war/peace) concerns
Just that easy, for those of us who aren’t FP ignorant.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM
No regulations whatsoever? Besides, I said a FORM. Anyway, to what School do you think the writers at Investor’s Business Daily belong?
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Would you consider the idea that there are “states” that transcend what we normally consider to be states? That is, there is every indication now that we are into a period that is post-state — call it “globalism,” “the international order,” or “one world” — where the prime consideration is no longer America’s best interest, but rather the world system’s best interest.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:05 AM
So economic freedom and personal liberty is anarchy? Really? So are you admitting you are too stupid to make your own decisions? Maybe the government can make them for you. Again while their are brain damaged pot heads who are libertarian, there are also anarchists and then there are those who believe in limited constitutional government, economic freedom and personal liberty.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 1:07 AM
I believe that Mr. Paul’s view of the Constitution may be found here
Given that basis, we have these areas where I find fault:
a) “Bring Government Back Home”. As we discovered in the run-up to the Civil War, the Constitution with its Commerce Clauses and its sanctioning of Slavery meant that any regional control was alien to the Constition. The only thing which the Constitution allowed locally was denial of the civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, since those were only levied upon the Federal Government. It took the Republicans and the Fourteenth Amendment to bind the states and municipalities to honor those Rights. Now that this has been done, it is the Federal Government which is the guarantor of our rights, not the States, nor the cities, It’s the Feds who had to integrate the schools, it’s the Feds who’ve had to curtail graft and bribery in the States.
Similarly, moving down past the feel good planks to the “Congressional Reform” plank, we find that the 17th Amendment is bad and should be repealed, and the election of Senators placed back into the Legislatures. I live in California, gerrymandered California, where there’s no possibility of anyone other than a Democrat being a Senator if the 17th is repealed. As a United States Citizen first, and a citizen of California a distant second, I’d much prefer a direct hand in the election of my representation in our Nation’s capital.
Conscription. I disagree completely with the concept that involuntary service to the government is an abrogation of my rights. It’s obvious that the Constitution regards all people able to bear arms as part of the militia, and the militia is allowed to be called up under the same circumstances under which we have had conscription in the past. Again, bad thinking on Paul’s part.
Constitutional Convention. Allowed by the Constitution itself. Bad plank.
Patents and Inventions. As an inventor, I’m quite happy that Congress, in its OTHER role as approver of treaties, has ratified the Bern Conventions. It means greater protections for me.
Costs of Government. Sell Yosemite? Sell Yellowstone? I DON”T THINK SO. Abrogating the Civil Service System means that employees of the Government must play politics. Bad bad bad thinking. War. Which war have we been involved in since the Mexican American War where someone didn’t attack us first?
Crime? Jury nullification is a fiction in my mind. If you can’t agree that the laws are correct, you have no right — and, indeed, an obligation not, to be on a jury.
Defense. Under the wording of this, Paul seems to say that the Japanese should not have been shot at as they attacked Pearl Harbor. We have many situations where we are not at war and we fire upon others — the go fast boats carrying drugs from South America to our shores, the pirates in Somalia — just tons of situations where action is required.
Domestic Federal Aid. Again, the original 13 States may have created the Federal Government, but the 14th Amendment gives that Federal Government utter and unmistakable primacy over the states. The Federal Government should be required to provide to those States needing monies to fulfil their obligations under the 14th.
Education. The Constitution grants NOBODY authority over education, but the Preamble certainly sets the stage for the Federal, State, and Local governments, to assist those who need an education in getting one. Paul himself attended public schools (Pittsburgh’s Dormont High School), and he seems to have used what was gifted to him; it’s hypocritical on his part to deny that same right to others.
Election Reform. The various Voting Rights Acts are all that stand in the way of the States preventing people who are Citizens of the United States from voting. Consistant election law and its toothy enforcement is in the best interests of the People, and is Constitutional.
Executive Orders. I view executive orders as a statement by the President as to the interpretation of existing law. ‘nuf said.
Family. Here’s a place where I think the Federal Government has no business dictating who should or should not get married. The Constitution is completely mute on the right to marry. I’m against gay marriage, just as I’m against burning the flag, but if others decide to do these things and do not harm me or others, all the more power to them. After going off at length on individual rights, Mr.Paul backtracks significantly here.
I’m going to stop here, half way through. There are some things in the platform I like, but most of them raise my hackles. I find more to like in the Democratic Party Platform than I do in the Constitution Party Platform, and that’s saying quite a bit, given my detestation for the Democrats.
unclesmrgol on February 28, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Sorry to butt in, but IBD would fall into the school of traditional Americanism: what is best for America and Americans. The economics are traditional — sound money (though not necessarily a gold standard), balanced budgets, savings, etc. IBD would not end up with a Ron Paul idea of foreign policy, e.g. fanatical Islam is caused by prior western policies towards Islamic nations or peoples, aka “blowback.” It would instead side with traditional conservative ideas of prudence and vigilance, i.e., not needlessly seeking dragons to slay, but also not falling for the Marxist lie that the only dragons are either imaginary or of our own making.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Drum, I consider that idea, much in the same way I consider the idea that there are violent criminals in the world. I lock my doors at night, and stay well armed, and employ men willing to do violence to defeat them.
The idea of globalism carries some serious cachet in FP circles, and I spend a lot of time fighting the idea. I will not cede the moral and utilitarian high ground the US has achieved so we can be better connected to the people of Gabon, Myanmar and Haiti. States exist, and IMHO, should continue to do so, and it is the duty of patriots to ensure that this state, the United States, continues to exist and not submit to some global governance system.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Sorry, I meant economic school. Note to self: never post while taking cold medicine…
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Your honesty is comendable in that A) You admit that you think the original founding was backwards and mistaken in its primary emphasis upon the values of localism and regionalism, and B) Whether or not the founders’ intentions were wise for their time, their notions have no place today.
That is what you’re saying, right?
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Without them saying, I would have no way to know.
The various competing economic philosophies: Austrian, Classical, Keynesian, Objectivist (Ayn Rand), Monetarist (Chicago School) and Supply-Side (Reaganomics)
There is a good chance they likely favor Supply-Side Economics.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Ahhh I have some signs in my basement. Ron Paul for President. And by 2010 we may all be screaming, that is, if you have worked and achieved in this BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY WE OWN by 2010 you will be on the bus. You will assume responsibility. Ignorant blowhard? Right back at you my friend. It’s all about liberty, the Constitution and the legality of the Federal Reserve. Let them be transparent. Not with this Admin. Oh please. The problem is the masses are watching American Idol. I digress, grow my own food and prepare to lose my executive manufacturing job in the Great State of Alabama. Goat Milk Soap? I don’t know but I will survive.
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 1:27 AM
That’s what I thought you thought. I just wanted to know whether or not you approve of the way thing are. Clearly you don’t. Nor do I, though I’ve learned (if only for reasons of health) to reconcile myself to the very obvious fact that America no longer exists — at least not the way we were brought up to think that it exists.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:28 AM
The masses aren’t watching American Idol because they’re stupid or uninterested. They’re watching it because it’s one of the few occasions during the week where they get the sense that their elites aren’t betraying or screwing them (though I gotta admit, this season’s AI is pretty pathetic, and some good singers have been undeservedly kicked off). The same explains the massive attraction to sports, where the rule of law is adhered to (excepting a couple Chargers games), the playing field is truly level, and merit matters.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:34 AM
Huh? The inclusion of Slavery in a document guaranteeing its citizens freedom is certainly a “birth defect”, which required the spillage of much blood and the modification of the Constitution itself to repair.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, speaking at the 1995 Rand Graduate Institute Commencement:
It’s all about nuance. Rice is right. Those who think the rest of the world doesn’t need democracy are sadly misinformed.
I give Rice the right to bring her personal story into things where it fits. This is one place where it certainly fits — Micheal Yon’s photo of the soldier carrying the child dovetails nicely with Rice’s memories of her schoolhood friend Denise McNair, killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Both died at the hands of terrorists intent on destroying democracy.
unclesmrgol on February 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM
…sports, reality TV, text messaging on their cell phones, gaining thousands of “friends” on myspace and facebook, watching John Stewart and voting for Obama!!!!
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Ron Paul is not a member of the Constitution Party, nor did he write their platform. Not to mention, rarely do politicians fully support even the platform of their own party.
As for his actual view of the Constitution, which was the issue at hand, one has to look no further than the 10th Amendment which says any powers not given to the Federal government, remain with the states or the people. Thats a central concept – you are right the constitution does not explicitly state who handles education. But by virtue of the 10th amendment, that means it falls to the states, or in the absence of state laws, to the people. Similarly, issues such as abortion, marriage, drug legalization – all state issues, or individual issues.
For the record, he wants government at all levels out of marriage, a place he definitely differs from the Constitution Party on. Not only would this be a constitutional issue (feds have no right to handle it) but also an issue of principle, as even though states could handle it, he does not want them to either. He would leave it to the individual.
As for defense, of course Pearl Harbor being attacked could be responded to. That’s acting in self defense. It’s way different from launching a full scale invasion of another nation, which you wouldn’t do in a split second decision reacting to an attacker.
This is by no means a comprehensive view, but I think is a good general summary of his viewpoint on the constitution (and then some.) And certainly a better representation than the rather strawmanny Constitution Party Platform.
Rangeley on February 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 1:25 AM
I know of all those, and I know there are many secondary & interwoven schools, as well. Overall, I was just more curious as to whether you read it.
I pick-and-choose, which is why I said I’m not completely one-way-or-the-other. I adhere to supply-side as well, and I don’t think they’re *wholly* mutually exclusive. They agree on some issues, they disagree on some issues.
youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I have not said they have no place. My idea of the place is different from Paul’s. I believe that the Constitution can no longer be interpreted solely by the intent of the Founding Fathers, but must be reinterpreted at least partly by each Amendment and by the intent of those making the Amendments. That’s why I mention the 14th Amendment over and over — it’s the one that changed the entire structure of the Constitution and required the States to follow the Bill of Rights to their relations with their own citizens, and made the Federal Government the ultimate guarantor of those rights. The debates on the 14th are instructive. I recommend this book.
unclesmrgol on February 28, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Nothing has ever been achieved by escaping. TV American Idol and all the assorted crap has dumbed everyone down.
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 1:49 AM
That’s a good summary of Ron Paul’s views. He gets screwed up with regard to foreign policy. Indeed, he and others find common cause with the “old right” who fretted and worried that the US would get involved in the fight to stop Hitler. The problem with them wasn’t that their arguments about how the war and the rise of Hitler could have been avoided (they could have been), or that the war might destroy us morally and economically (it could have) — those were all sound arguments.
The problem was that Hitler was conquering Europe and had to be stopped or else Europe (and the world?) would go Nazi.
Ron Paul and all the other admirable paleos are doing the same today. It’s not that fault doesn’t lie in part with the western nations as to how and why Islam is spreading like wildfire (read Eurabia if you doubt this). But the bottom line is that Islam is spreading, and will continue to spread unless it is forcefully and morally stopped. Pulling back, as RP wants us to do, and expecting this to change Islam’s mind and goals is as foolish as to think that Hitler would have stopped with Czechoslovakia or Poland.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:52 AM
I think the problem is that Ron Paul can speak is logical, albeit a little radical sense. But he stands true to the American Ideal and true to the Constitution. A little hard to chew. But not to me. Makes perfect sense. And urges a sense of danger to what is before us. Listen. And research. It’s not that hard nor too complicated.
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM
No, you’re absolutely right about the 14th Amendment, though I don’t know if I agree with you about its goodness. Indeed, at times I wonder if its passing wasn’t the beginning of the end of America. Surely, of all the subsequent amendments to the original ten, this one is the most contrary to the original intentions of the founders.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 1:56 AM
The rest of the world needs democracy like it needs a hole in the head. In Gaza, democracy translates into Hamas. If every demos were willing and capable of ushering in responsible government then America would have no enemies.
aengus on February 28, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Graft Ron Paul’s domestic policy with John Bolton’s foreign policy and you’d have a man I’d enthusiastically support.
Sorax on February 28, 2009 at 2:08 AM
“those who believe in limited constitutional government, economic freedom and personal liberty.”
and that’s the rub — just what are those limits? sadly, rupaul and his fellow travlers pound the table with puffed up arrogance [witness the posts on this thread] that they diminish themselves right out of the gate, annnd in the few areas where they are clear, they are off-the-frakking-wall stupid about it — E.G. legalization of pot [plus gods knows what else] ALWAYS shows up in their top 10, so until y’all drop it, i’m gonna keep rubbing yer noses in it …
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 2:09 AM
I know what you’re saying and even agree up to a point. But every time I find myself believing that the non-interventionist, free-market, live and let live, narrative is achievable, I inevitably find myself mugged by reality: the world does not work that way, and particularly America does not and has never worked that way. It’s not that RP doesn’t hold up an excellent model to keep before us, but it’s just unrealistic in my opinion to expect us to be able to become that, and at times it is probably even dangerous to assume we can.
It’s like Christianity and the Christian life: it’s one thing as a Christian to hold before you the model and example of Christ; and it’s good to try to become better and more “like Him.” But it’s when you start to force yourself to be like Him that you become morally intolerable and worse than you were prior to your conversion.
It’s kind of ironic, but laissez faire may actually mean allowing ourselves not to live up to our ideals of liberty, if that makes any sense.
Drum on February 28, 2009 at 2:10 AM
It’s not that complicated and I appreciate your view Drum. It’s called personal responsibility, respect, honor and integrity. Things you can’t borrow on or disavow and ones I teach my poor children. Oh. and … what this Country was built on. I LIVE ON MY LIBERTY AND THANK GOD FOR IT EVERY DAY
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 2:22 AM
reach, expound and surpass. We will be exorcised for it shortly, but the will of the people will never die.
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Is that ever an option anymore? When you want to hunt down an organization like Al Qaeda or the Taliban, especially as entrenched in the local government as they were, it’s not something that can be accomplished through a basic military incursion. It simply can’t be done. Had we killed a few top leaders, more would have simply popped up minutes after we left. If we were interested in annihilating this bunch of pricks, and we were, it was going to be partially a mission to logistically remove their influence from the country, same as when we moved to remove the Baathists from Iraq.
As I said, in this new geopolitical world, that we’ve only had for about 30-40 years, it’s no longer a matter of going “over there” and killing them and going home. These are developed troupes of people who have set up an entire infrastructure to support their holy way. Nation building may be something we don’t want to deal with, but it’s just as necessary as it was in 1945, in Germany and Japan. Did we spend less time on it then? Not really, it just wasn’t as involved and difficult to get the populace compliant. Hitler bombing the crap out of his own people kind of made it easy for us. Al Qaeda didn’t really start wiping people out in Iraq until we killed enough of them. Soon after, Iraq was the success it is now. Afghanistan will be harder, no question. However, if we want to be rid of the threat of people flying f***ing planes into buildings, we have to be firm in our convictions of “Never Again”.
This is largely a response to:
…as well. I would simply add to your response, that if Bush had accepted that Iraq was a mistake in 2006, when everyone was telling him to leave, what state would Iraq be in now? The same chaos as it was then.
Instead, the people there are now free. We have the option of leaving. Baghdad and Fallujah now are safer cities than f***ing Chicago. I’m glad Bush stuck it out. Congressman Paul might have an issue with that, but it did turn out for the best. Sometimes, that kind of determination is necessary.
MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 2:27 AM
I fail to see why we, as a nation, should be concerned about the spread of Islam. Turkey is Islamic. If Turkish style Islam was spreading, I dare say at least some of the nominally Christian nations of Europe would be no worse off, and possibly better off.
I have to presume then that you are worried about the spread of radical Islam, and more specifically, Wahabbist Islam.
And therein lies the difference… Hitler was actually a real threat to Europe. Wahhabi Islam isn’t.
There are real arguments to be made as to US responsibility for defending Europe, even from Hitler. To say that we have an absolute responsibility ot defend Europe is to make the assumption that Europe would expend its blood and treasure to defend us, a proposition that I have real trouble believing.
But let us assume that such a responsibility exists. Hitler was in fact a threat to Europe, and proved it very quickly. He had an economy and technology base that made him a real threat even to great European powers.
Wahabbi Islam poses no such threat. They live in caves and ride camels. They are incapable of forming Hitlerian armies prepared to march from Siberia to the Sahara. Yes, they are capable of terrorism, and at some point that may include nuclear terrorism. But that does not equate to Wahabbi takeover of Europe.
Now, if you are talking about Europe crumbling from Islamic immigration/birthrates, then any idea of “forcefully” supporting Europe is insufficient on its face. Marching armies into the ME isn’t going to prevent lax immigration policies, or cause Europeans to procreate more frequently.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Diversion. Maybe trolls. It’s about America. Do I give a shit about about Europe? Are we going enough to keep hat out of America? Hell we have enough of our own. Do you want me to say c’mon let all the haters in?
They want to make this an International Economy. No thanks. I would like to keep my America thank you very much.
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 2:33 AM
No that actually makes no sense.
Poptech on February 28, 2009 at 2:43 AM
It does to me.
Wait, no it doesn’t.
I’m that confused. Laissez faire means letting the open and free market make its own rules, and its essence and core is liberty. The minute you remove liberty from the equation, laissez faire is no longer operating. Adam Smith cleared that up pretty well.
MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 2:52 AM
It’s really not even paleocon, it’s far crazier than that
Brains on February 28, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Ron Paul could crap gold bricks directly into my bank account and I still wouldn’t vote for him. I have no use for cowards.
Don’t ask or I’ll tell you how I really feel.
Limerick on February 28, 2009 at 3:03 AM
ROFL. If Glen Beck sucks up to this guy one more time on the air I’m gonna barf blood.
I guess we’d be so much better off if we had let the nazis take over the entire planet in WWI yeah?
How did this guy get an office in Washington DC?
Um….I take that back in light of Pelosi, Reid, and the socialist in chief; sock puppet supreme. Ron Paul fits right in there.
Spiritk9 on February 28, 2009 at 3:05 AM
I don’t think it can even be accomplished with a complex military incursion.
You used, I think the proper term: hunt down. We didn’t “hunt down” AQ in Afghanistan, and especially not in Iraq. We swatted flies with a sledgehammer.
If we wanted AQ, we could have done as I mentioned above, issued Letters of Marque. If that makes you uncomfortable, we could have used the military equivalent, i.e. Special Forces assasination teams. It’s cheap, effective, and quiet. No war porn for CNN, but by the same token, nothing for the globaloney crowd to complain about.
And there’s a reason it was easier then, actually a couple of reasons. First, Germans and Japanese were civilized people, prepared for an advanced political concept like liberal democracy. Iraqis, and particularly Afghanis, are people who aren’t. They’ve had no exposure to the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Their political philosophy peaked six centuries ago, if that recent. It is tiliting at windmills, in a region where doing so is extremely dangerous.
Secondly, we were able to make the population comply because we had bombed their respective countries flat, especially Germany. It was comply or starve. We are simply unwilling, as a nation to do that to Iraq or Afghanistan. And frankly, I think the reason we are unwilling to do so is the collective sense of the population tells us they just aren’t that big of a threat. If they were the threat Japan and Germany were, we’d level them, and then be able to remake them from the ground up.
You don’t rid the world of the threat of terror by invading and occupying countries. First of all, there is a very real possibility that by doing so, you create more terrorists. Wahabbi Islam has existed for hundreds of years, but didn’t become a terror threat to America until America became an interventionist world power. That may be coincidence, but it may not be. Rich and powerful countries that don’t meddle in the ME (Switzerland, China, etc.) seem to have no problem with people blowing up their trains or flying planes into their buildings.
Secondly, you could wage a war so vicious that you killed 99.9% of the people in Arabia, and you’d still have enough people to wage horrific terror attacks on this country. In short, you can’t kill your way out of this problem.
You want to rid the world of the threat of Wahabbi Islamic terror? You’d better be prepared to defeat their ideology, and that has nothing to do with armies or invasion.
I’m not taking about 2006… I’m saying in 2002, Ron Paul had the foresight to say that this war would be a disaster, that Iraq wasn’t a threat to our national security, and we should stay away. Well, they weren’t a threat to our national security. They didn’t have WMD’s, they really weren’t all that close with AQ, and in fact when the rubber hit the road, they folded faster than Superman on laundry day. And it was a disaster. It has put the GOP in the worst position of my lifetime, and that includes post-Watergate. Politically, we got crushed because of Iraq.
And you may call me cold, but why should I, or any other American care? Their freedom is their concern. Our national interest is not affected one bit by their freedom or their enslavement.
And for this, we spent a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives, and handed political power in this country over to a party even more irresponsible than the GOP has proven to be. You’ll forgive me if I don’t stand and applaud.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:08 AM
Liberty is the right to self determination. Period. I sleep well and teach my children the core values. Again. Respect (history,family), Responsibility (debt, promises) and Consequences from deviance from the above, add to that a CONSCIENCE VALUE OF OUR BLESSED OPPORTUNITIES OF LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No Civics in Schools people. Teach your kids well. Any arguments?
seesalrun on February 28, 2009 at 3:08 AM
If the Nazis were prepared to conquer the world in WWI, we’d be in real trouble. That would have meant that they invented time travel first, and that pretty much means Game Over.
JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2009 at 3:20 AM
“They didn’t have WMD’s, they really weren’t all that close with AQ”
u just swallowed those lies whole, huh?
/beyond hope
Buckaroo on February 28, 2009 at 3:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »