To: traviskicks
His foreign policy sucks. People are already attacking us and he refuses to acknowledge that retaliatory force is almost a moral IMPERATIVE.
Other than that, he makes a ton of good points. Including getting going on cleaning out some of these Federal agencies that have no Constitutional purpose.
20 posted on
10/24/2007 12:15:22 PM PDT by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
"His foreign policy sucks. People are already attacking us and he refuses to acknowledge that retaliatory force is almost a moral IMPERATIVE"Then it would have been better if we were attacking the right source, Syria and Afghanistan, instead of Iraq the bulwark we needed against Iran.
25 posted on
10/24/2007 12:23:19 PM PDT by
ex-snook
("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
To: Dead Corpse
His foreign policy sucks. People are already attacking us and he refuses to acknowledge that retaliatory force is almost a moral IMPERATIVE. Other than that, he makes a ton of good points....Of course the author's case for Paul involves only foreign policy.
33 posted on
10/24/2007 12:28:05 PM PDT by
SJackson
(every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson