“An exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.”
Oops . . . . sorry, wrong pic.
Posted on 06/27/2007 9:21:18 AM PDT by NHGOPer
The Honor of Ron Paul by Joe Sobran
"He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox."
(Excerpt) Read more at buchanan.org ...
“An exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.”
Oops . . . . sorry, wrong pic.
No, they were not. The Founders were thoroughly steeped in Lockean commowealth ideology, which is not nearly individualistic enough to qualify as "libertarianism" by any stretch of the term.
Besides, the Founders were Neo-Ciceronians....
Oddly enough, when you have a SCOTUS decision like Roe v. Wade which nationalises the abortion issue, and which is subsequently used to overturn any attempts at federalism on the issue, you sort of have to first get SCOTUS justices who will overturn the previous bad judicial interpretation before the issue can be returned back to the States. Get it?
That's why "social conservatives" have turned abortion into a general election platform?
Last I checked, an electoral platform was not law. An electoral platform is what a party uses as its guiding principles and which (generally) identify what a candidate from that party will tend to believe. And yes, if the social conservatives want to turn abortion into a general electoral point so as to see expansive and unconstitutional judicial activism (read Roe v. Wade) overturned, and returned to the States, then that's a point FOR federalism.
That's why "social conservatives" enacted law that takes my right to spend my money any way I please?
Without your being more specific, this point has absolutely no meaning.
That's why "social conservatives" have thrown out the separation of church and state by taxing me and giving my money to Pat Robertson?
If we want to be real technical about the Constitution, there IS no "separation of church and state". However, saying so does not make a person a "theocrat", it merely makes them a Constitutional literalist. As for "giving money to Pat Robertson", I'd have to ask for some eludication on this (linkie please?) because as it currently stands, this makes you sound like you are perilously close to being in "kook conspiracy theorist" country.....
Joe Sobran spoke at an Institute for Historical Review conference and had articles published in the Journal of Historical Review.
> I happen to disagree with the “constitutionalist” (ie. Ron Paul) concept that military isolationism is required until war is declared.
Especially since John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all used military force without a formal declaration of war.
Essentially your definition of a conservative is “someone who agrees with me.” Keep mixing that LP Kool-Aid, brother.
I read part of this book a while back, its accurate, from his perspective, I’ll leave it at that.
Burka’s not withstanding, I don’t think these guys will just be happy if we just pack up and move back into our boarders. I believe that is the naive stance. Beside that Jeanie has left the bottle, we can ill aford to maintain an isolationist stance in a modern world.
How the Muslim’s decide to respond to our presence and participation in regions they occupy was and is THEIR choice.
>>> no offense but look at one of the largest receivers.
it’s not who, or how much ...it’s why (or why they should not in some cases) BTW (speaking of one of the largest receivers) Egypt receives 2/3 of what Israel receives...I’m sure they have our back.
>>> Let’s attack Russia and China tomorrow....theoretically they could attack us one day
it’s not about the potential it’s about the likelihood ... maybe you don’t think we should spend any money on foreign intelligence, pull all our ships and planes within US boundaries, and have a picnic in the back yard until we find out that the Saudis weren’t able to stop Ahmanutjob from overtaking the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
You weigh the threat and its dangers to yourself and your ALLIES.
>>> the concept of Just War Theory.
“When enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, war conventions have rarely been applied. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people with whom one will do business in the following peace that tacit or explicit rules are formed”
>>> optimist: the Mideast (that we cannot allow to be dominated by a totalitarian, fascist or communist entity)
>>> billbears: Why can’t we? What is it our business how another nation runs its internal affairs?
The Mideast has a history of struggle for domination of its land (Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, British, Nazis, Soviets...). Why? It is a crossroads, it is the birthplace of western religion, and it sits on oil. But you’re right we have no interest in what happens there (like the Panama Canal or Suez Canal or Cuba or ...). International alliances are built generally among men who aren’t always in power, and not always with countries that are stable. But then if a suicide bomber gets hold of oil fields (or god forbid a nuclear weapon) with which to blackmail us we have nothing to worry about because thats their internal problem and they won’t inject themselves into our internal operations since that is against the Just War Theory. /sarc
Hell yes! Let’s attack Russia and China tomorrow. After all they have the largest stocks after us and theoretically they could attack us one day....I’d suggest you go back and read what the Framers had to say on the issue. Pre-emptively attacking other nations doesn’t even come close to falling under the concept of Just War Theory.
Time to get up to speed a bit friend. I am one to doubt that the Framers could every foresee the weapons we have now and the fact they they could easily fall into the hands of suicidal maniacs on a mission.
Remember that mutual assured destruction has worked for neigh on 50 years between us and other nations whose intrerest in self preservation superseds the desire for conquest. If that was not the case the USSR would have hit us in the late 70s when we were not at our best militarily.
Just war theory is all well and good when all things are equal and the is a desire on both sides to fight and the combatants on each side have equal desires to live. That is not the case now.
What you’re saying is little different than what lots of liberals say: the concept that things which may have once been true are suddenly obsolete because “everything’s different now” and “we can’t turn back the clock.” But conservatives are supposed to believe in eternal and universal truths and principles.
How can I trust anything from you when I catch you in such a bold face smear and lie? Why don’t you retract your lies, like a decent human being? It wasn’t funny, just plain sick.
Sobran: My Obsession with Jews [for all who mistakenly think he is a valuable contributor]
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.