Posted on 11/17/2012 4:52:03 PM PST by Olog-hai
Nothing says “Dem win” like a Clintonian plurality.
Perot showed with unlimited funds and a lot of MSM support you could get to 20%.
The tut-tutting about "targeted assassination" is sheer silliness. The guy who orders the murder of your people should not have the luxury of sleeping sound in his bed.
In fact, it makes little sense to go after the low-level triggermen while ignoring the men who pay them, train them, and command them. The commanders and the suits should be at the top of your list. Sure, slap back at the sock puppet but save special attention for the man who's got his hand up the sock puppet's backside.
The real answer, once you’ve taken out the triggermen and their commanders and the guys who pay them, is to seize and annex the property where the attack was launched from.
If the owner of the property is an innocent, then compensate him for his loss. Then bulldoze any structures, move the fence and claim it permanently.
Killing a few deluded terrorists transmits no pain since no one cares about the lives of these people except possibly the Israelis themselves. The only thing that transmits pain to the men at the top, besides making them a target too, is the loss of territory and the accompanying humiliation.
The only peace in the middle east is the peace within Israel’s borders, so the best way to increase peace is to increase the territory under their control.
Objective, rational thought processes are an early casualty of progressive politics. Mrs. Corrie I can understand but everybody else??
I am ALL IN for a Third Party.
Frankly I may fall in with most, but not all, of the Libertarian explosion, because Ron Paul is no celebrity; he’s not pretty and he’s not charismatic, no platitude parrot, but an old warrior who knows the system, the players and the ropes. He never hides, hesitates or ponders his navel, but goes out there and puts it all on the line. Even arch conservatives balk and jerk at his painfully honest and strict interpretation of the Constitution, but he is the one real friend to the intentions of the Founders. (And he is a genius, actually.)
His movement is waiting for a replacement. We are still trying to just patch together a first clue. No more silver tongue wannabees for me. This is war.
Seems like, this time, the Good Germans are on the Marxist/Socialist Left. Hmm. Might explain the “Socialist” in the “National Socialist Party” of dear Adolph.
Birds of a feather kill Jews together.
Seems like old times.
We did not make a national revolution in the sense of a barren, outdated hyper-patriotism, but rather this revolution is, in the truest sense of the word, a National Socialist revolution. Previously, the two fought each other, divided by hatred and unfortunate enmity. Nationalism and Socialism stood opposed: the bourgeoisie supported nationalism, the Marxists socialism. The bourgeoisie fell into a barren hyper-patriotism, lost in pacifistic cowardice. On the other side, a Marxist layer of the people, a Marxist class, wanted nothing to do with the Reich or a people. There was no bridge between them.He goes on to slander the “Jewish press” and make hollow platitudes about “German unity” and so on. But obviously, anything based on socialistic tenets of any shade comes to ruin.
Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Both concepts, therefore, must be cleansed and shown to the people anew, in a crystal-clear form. The nationalism of our worldview arrived at the right moment. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German National Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist. …
Sorry, but his anti-Israelism and apparent rejection of “private morality” (something the Founding Fathers were adamant about insofar as preserving the USA), and no mention of strong families, not only makes me reject him but also libertarianism, which is liberalism that incorporates fiscal conservatism.
They thought the bombing of Dresden was wrong too...
I know what you mean on the Paul policy distance on social behaviors. I haven’t really heard him get to speak in depth on some of these things, but I’m thinking after we lose our liberties concerning everything, and and lose our religious rights, then Paul’s point in personal freedom may look a whole lot better, and be pretty well received by then. And of course he is attempting to break the pot runners as well.
But, yes, I understand your opinion. I don’t like his position, from what little I’ve been able to hear, on Israel, but he always seems to get cut off or interrupted before it sinks in what he is saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.