Posted on 05/15/2011 11:34:54 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
LOL!
OK I just decided.
If Palin doesn't run, Paul has my vote.
You are stuck on an ideology that does not comprehend the unintended consequences of your proposed actions and stuck in a time that has long passed.
It would also be a tax increase to every American and you’re absolutely liberal naive to think it wouldn’t depress sales and economic activity in many sectors thereby causing the loss of other jobs.
It would also punish all hard working Americans who have opened up businesses that depend on imports and exports as it would surely cause retaliatory tariffs and tariff increases.
If you want more American jobs, the way to do it is to reduce the cost of producing here by rolling back the IRS, OSHA, the EPA and the EEOC and all kinds of government bureaucracy that makes us non competitive - in addition to corporate taxes. Then businesses would glady repatriate here.
All you are doing is trading the jobs you think are “good” for jobs you don’t realize exist. And you are toeing the union talking points to do it.
Welcome to the SEIU, the AFL CIO, Richard Trumka’s house and all kinds of other folks who want what you want.
Since when is Chris Wallace a liberal???? Lol....ok
read my tagline
Did you follow the link?
The ISAF created the rules of engagement. It was created after the Bonn Conference in 2001 by the United Nations.
You can view the participants of the ISAF, which includes Gen. Betrayus as the troops have called him.
Actually I’d most like to see a Palin / Rice ticket.
I was just enthused by Paul’s interview today.
Palin / Rice would crush Obama. Trump as trade representative. Duncan Hunter as Defense Secretary.
Beyond Reagan. It will be an American renaissance.
Paul’s currently my plan b though. :)
He's toned down his rants a bit, but every time you hear him mention Israel you know he's still got that old fire in his belly.
Obama is also an anti-semite.
Neither one of these guys are fit to be our President.
A lot of people don’t like the use of our citizen soldiers as globalist assassins. Some Americans still believe in the American creed of justice delivered by trial under the rule of law.
True.
Others support the idea of defending our liberty by taking out our enemies with extreme prejudice, and making the distinction between battlefield enemies and "alleged" criminals in a law enforcement action (who are presumed innocent until proven guilty).
They see the killing of the enemy (who has sworn to kill as many of our number as is possible, and actually ACTED on the threat by killing over 3,000 innocent people, mostly Americans) as the most effective way to actually prevent more innocents from being killed, as opposed to merely prosecuting them in a court of law. Stated simply, it was "kill him or be killed-or give up your liberty by subjecting yourself to radical islamic teachings".
By the way, if you think the capture/imprisonment of Osama would stop his active influence on other Jihadists from his prison cell, think again. No, he would have to be executed to stop his active influence. We just skipped the process that would have given him a world stage from which to speak and he forfeited such "accomodation" when he ordered the attack on this country. The only bad thing about the killing of Osam Bin Laden is that it took too long to get it done.
Patrick Henry once said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death". Implicit in that forceful statement was the sentiment that although "you" may kill me, it will only be after I've taken out as many of "you" as I can first".
By the way, what's with the "citizen soldiers" reference? Would you be okay with using foreign mercenaries? You apparently don't like the idea of "assasination" as a tactic. Does that mean that you would be okay with our dropping a laser-guided missle on the top of his head?
We are not at war with Pakistan and that house was not a battlefield in any shape or form.
And Patrick Henry fought for the ideas of justice and the rule of law. The idea that our citizens can be ordered by marxist int he white house to assassinate people in a country we are not at war with is repulsive to the American creed.
Exactly. The man is weak as water. It's okay with him if others attack and kill our citizens. We shouldn't retaliate? Ron Paul does not live in the real world. Even in his speech patterns, he sounds like a 3rd grade nasal whiner on the playground. No thanks to Ron the wet noodle. The FIRST job of a President is to protect the nation against foreign threats. The gold standard, abolishing the Fed, and making heroin easily available can come later.
And for what it's worth, most of the taxes imposed by the Brits were IMPORT duties and therefore were no different in kind than what Hamilton advocated, only heavier. Whether in foreign policy, taxation, or the role of religion, or public financing of education (which the Founders all favored), Ron Paul would not be on the same side as almost any of them.
We did not attack Pakistan, we attacked bin Laden's refuge. If we wanted to attack Pakistan, we would have bombed the police station and military facilities in the area, and maybe taken out the nukes....but we did not. Not a hair on their head was touched, nor was there any property damage of any Pakistani's property, not one brick.
You do realize that “All” is a particular poster, and not just everyone on the thread, right?
We don’t have to be at war with Pakistan. Frankly, let me say this about that, death to Osama Bin Laden and his running dog lackeys.
RuPaul wouldn’t have approved the bin Laden raid.
Actually I think he would have. Many libertarians do, for they do kill to preserve freedom.
I am thinking of Maybury here.
Wow!! Someone on this thread finally got it right. You even included the EEOC. I am extremely proud of you and agree 100 percent.
We are not at war with Pakistan and that house was not a battlefield in any shape or form.
...The idea that our citizens can be ordered by marxist in the white house to assassinate people in a country we are not at war with is repulsive to the American creed.
While I agree with your sentiment regarding the radical ideology of the current Commander in Chief, the principle of holding to account the mass murderer by handing out swift justice is not affected by the occupant of the White House when the culprit is finally located. Obviously, the meting out of justice was not swift, but it was indeed appropriate. Lady Justice screamed out for it, most of the families of the souls who were indiscrimately murdered on 9-11 required it, and the innocents who were in the crosshairs of the perpetrator of evil demanded it.
>>> Taxes on foreign countries. No taxes on US citizens >>>
This proves you are an economic ignoramus (hey, you started the name calling with your ever clever “free traitor” stuff). The taxes would be in the form of higher cost of goods and services to the American consumer - all 300 million of them — meaning they wouldn’t buy as much and the job boon you think you would create would go pfft and not happen.
Please, take your Richard Trumka argument elsewhere and your out of context revisionist history with you. Because you are clearly on the side of organized labor with your argument whether you like it or not. Facts are stubborn things.
We have a foreign born Marxist liar in the Whitehouse, yet this week he has actually come out in favor of domestic drilling.
Hussein the lying ba****d.
You and I are alone on this thread with the pro union thug trolls I’m afraid.
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.