Yet you and Paul apparently can't read it with comprehension.
And yes, I know - you will respond that you have a degree in Constitutional Law now.
I suppose Mr. Buckley must not be a 'serious interlocutor' either.
He can be serious when he wants to be - he can also be the most gossamer socialite imaginable.
But more on point: what precisely is his argument here? That we lost Vietnam because the enemy was so well organized and that we will lose Iraq because the enemy is not well organized?
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House
Yes, that's much more your speed.
And yet El Presidente continues to throw my money down the pit.
I had forgotten - the truly important thing is that money is being spent.
We need to save that money for the jizya we'll have to pay after our foreordained defeat.
As usual, you really have your priorities straight.
At least you've moved away from the Ron Paul 'lied' rhetoric.
When did I do that?
Ron "Term Limits" Paul is a confirmed liar.
That certainly hasn't changed.
Face it, Paul is the only fiscal conservative running.
To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.
Ron Paul: Penny wise, pound foolish.
You have not listened.
Nope, just one in history. That gives me the knowledge why this will be a failure.
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House. Yes, that's much more your speed.
Not really. But when talking to the 'faithful' one has to go with simple and sometimes funny examples that possibly could make you see a simple comparison and keep your attention. Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House. No thinking on your own, just espousal of Republican talking points. And as I figured that movie was after 1950 (the limits of 'conservative' memories as shown time and again), I assumed you would know of the movie.
I had forgotten - the truly important thing is that money is being spent. We need to save that money for the jizya we'll have to pay after our foreordained defeat. As usual, you really have your priorities straight.
And as usual you don't. I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation, nor was it intended to be used to spread 'freedom' to that nation.
To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.
Lesson over. I can't carry on a conversation with someone that doesn't know the facts. It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.