Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
YouTube video via Drudge- Ron Paul quote this morning on Fox and Friends- "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. "
Both men are patriots.
Duncan Hunter is a combat veteran and has a son in Iraq. PaleoPaulie is a long time enemy of the American military.
And Ron Paul served honorably in the Air Force.
PaleoPaulie wants to commission modern day pirates with letters of marque and reprisal (perhaps armed with blunderbusses and flintlocks and sailing in spiffy new sailing sloops: Avast, Matey!!!) while Duncan Hunter has a marked preference for the use of the US military (including the Air Force although the Air Force is concededly not mentioned in the Constitution).
And Ron Paul wants to the United States to actually declare war when it sends troops into combat as per the Constitution.
And as for the 'Letters' we pay people all of the time to fight for us
Duncan Hunter beleves in DOING something to stop abortion on a federal level. PaleoPaulie does not. Dr. Demento poses for holy pictures only and then would abandon the issue to the states.
Ron Paul believes in stopping abortion would be more effective at the State level, since it is likely to happen quicker at the local level.
Just four major distinctions on three very major issues.
I see very little substantive distinction between both men, except in approach to a particular problem, not in desiring the same solution.
Wasn't paleoPaulie an Air Force physician? Maybe he's no constitutionalist virgin after all!
Yes he was an Air Force physician for 5 years.
No, 'Paleos' (Old Right), want to return to the Constitution and reject Leftism in all of its forms, including that which attempts to destroy U.S. sovereignty under the guise of patriotism by fighting wars it has not intention of winning, and wrapping itself in the flag while doing so.
Your thrashing hasn’t even broken the cellophane yet.
Real conservatives have never worried about or sought peace, because we know how this all comes out (we read the last chapter, and know that we win). Your obsession with those that are in the dark makes it look like they’ve got more light than you.
No, because no Constitutional convention was in progress.
Once the people of the States agreed to abide by the rules of the Constitution they were united forever as a common people.
I am waiting for you to explain the issuance of the Declaration of Independence as being an exercise of the rule of law as opposed to an act of revolution against the established order of British government. If the revolution was lost, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and a lot of their friends would have been hanged if they survived the loss. I am glad they won but puhleeze refrain from the manifestly ridiculous suggestion that the Declaration had anything whatsoever to do with the "rule of law."
Well, you need to actually go and read some history.
The American's cause was defended by the many in English Parilament (Son of Liberty) as being in defense of English liberties, and thus, they held that the Crown had violated the rights of the Americans and was in itself in violation of the 'rule of law'.
Thus, the Declaration was a document stating that one a nation's rulers stop ruling according the rule of law, the people are free to change their rulers and their form of Government.
So, the Declaration was in accordance of the rule of law, the law of God.
What is your CONSTITUTIONAL reference for the fantasy that a state, having joined these United States had exhausted its ability to withdraw? If I belong to an otherwise respectable club of gentlemen and it decides subsequently that members must present their teenagers to be sexually used by the members, I am withdrawing whether the club by-laws allow me to withdraw or not.
Read what Madison said on the subject.
He called secession a heresy.
Even Robert E. Lee didn't believe that the State could secede from the Union!
Four Confederate states were among the original thirteen. When they joined these United States, there was no Tenth Amendment to limit exercises of central government power. Shortly after they were admitted, the Bill of Rights was enacted (insofar as anything could be enacted) and the Tenth restrained central government powers to those SPECIFICALLY granted by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution EVER empowered the central government to wage war against those states choosing to leave simply for leaving. That was left to "the states and the people respectively." Lincoln and company were acting as federal officials and acting illegally when they invaded and conquered the Confederacy and still more so when the ratification of the Civil War amendments was achieved at gunpoint on the pretense that on the one hand the 11 states could not leave and OTOH they would not be "re-admitted" without ratification of XIII, XIV and XV. If Ron Paul agrees, that is nice to know but no reason to vote for him. If you disagree, with me and paleoPaulie on this, why should you be taken seriously on anything when the text of the constitution means nothing to you and you purport to speak for the "constitutionalist."
The 10th Amendment gives no right to secession.
It only allows the states to maintain what the Federal government did not assume, not the right to secede when they felt like it.
The President has a responsibility to uphold the laws of the land, and when you attack the federal government, you are in an act of rebellion.
No less then what Washington put down in the Whiskey Rebellion.
I conceded that we all make spelling errors here but the substitution of "facist" for "fascist" by you and several other paleoPaulie love slaves here is as much of a habit as your hero wanting to instantly surrender to our nation;'s enemies ASAP whenever possible.
No, sometimes a simple spelling error is a simple error, just as many of your posts show.
And the nation will be weaker for it.
But there seems to be alot of ranting and raving over a guy who has no chance of winning!
PaleoPaulie does not say that he will ask for a declaration of war if he is elected. He ius promising to flee in terror instead. If he so believes in declarations of war as necessary, why did he vote for a different sort of resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan???? Sorry, I forgot, paleoPaulie has a face on each side of many issues. That includes the necessity or non-necessity of declarations of war, and denouncing earmarks while stuffing Galveston earmarks into appropriations bills that he votes against knowing his colleagues will enact the bill and send the pork to Galveston (about four faces on that one).
Anyone capable of seeing knows enough not to give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda Paulie.
Really?
I haven't seen one yet!
So, why haven't we hit Iran for killing U.S. troops?
BTW: Isolationism=Organized surrendermonkeyism and cowardice.
And what do you call those who do not criticise our Commander and Chief (who I voted for twice) when he doesn't do what he promised, engage all those nations involved in world wide terrorism?
I call them hypocrites.
Globalism=League of Nations/United Nations multilateralism usually for the advancement of various evils including socialism and world-wide Kumbayaism and rejection of morality.
Just like Bush and the other major GOP candidates are pushing.
You remember Bush, he was the guy who wanted McCains amnesity bill to pass.
INTERVENTIONISM= Wage war where, when and as we (the US) pleases for US purposes whether the UN or other nations like it or not. It honors and recognizes traditional American exceptionalism and understands that we trust ourselves and very few who are not among us.
Well, that is very fine, but none of major GOP candidates are advocating that approach.
They will all beholden to the UN and its restrictions.
So, we are talking about the real world we are living in, not your fantasy world.
You praise the feckless wimp Eisenhower who was as much a multilateralist as our nation has ever tolerated in a POTUS much less in a general. His despicable kowtowing to the soviets as a general and as a POTUS was consistent with his (and your) nervous breakdown over the fact that the USA has an ongoing interest and need to be so very well-armed as to deter ALL opposition. You delude yourself into believing that Ike's campaign promise suggesting that he would end the Korean War was responsible for his election. Or that Nixon got elected in 1968 somehow as an antiwar candidate. Ask Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin but since both are dead, ask Jane Fonda or ask McGovern or ask Ted the Swimmer. It is true that Nixon dirtied his skirts by engaging in endless and generally useless diployak with the soviet bosses and, even worse, with chairman Mao and Chou-En Lai (who at least agreed not to have a conniption over US interdiction of rail lines through China by which the soviets were arming Ho Chi Minh).
I praise Ike for not getting U.S. troops commited to a war that he was not going to win.
Unlike the current President.
The simple principle is that when we choose to fight we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to win. Our presidents often fall short of that dedication to say nothing of the average Congressional quisling. Somalia and Lebanon are no more necessary to US interests than was Kosovo (another example of a POTUS Slick Willie on autosmooch as to Islamofascist patoot). We Americans drive automobiles. Oil is (until replaced technologically at reasonable cost) a vital interest of the US. Iraq has plenty of oil. If the locals in Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or similar countries cannot get their act together and guarantee a flow of oil, we have to do what we have to do even if it costs a bit of money for the guys in the back room at the Hometown Bank on Main Street.
More empty rhetoric.
We can do a more efficient job. We can smash the Islamofascist enemies better than we have. There is absolutely no reason to believe that paleo-ostriches and neo-Neville Chamberlains will do anything whatsoever much less more effectively or more efficiently. They are addicted to coma as usual.
I do not see any U.S. Bombers flying over Iran?
It isn't Ron Paul who is President, it is George Bush, who hasn't struck Iran in retailation for their actions against us in Iraq, even though U.S. troops are being killed.
So, while you rail against Ron Paul, it is the current President you should be attacking for his refusal to take on Islamic facism head on as he promised after 9/11.
But that would upset his neocon buddies.
All paleowhatevers do is blubber incoherently, claim they would fight whatever war we are not presently fighting, oppose any war that we do fight, obsess about their taxes, and ignore the fact that we have lost fewer soldiers killed in this war of more than four and one half years' duration than there were people killed on our highways in any MONTH of the 1960s when we were used to domestic highway casualties of 50,000 per year or 12K+ per month.
And tell that to the families of the soldiers who have died, I am sure they will take great solace in the fact that U.S. losses are quite low in comparsion to deaths on the highway.
Why not add in deaths by cancer and heart diease as well?
Perhaps most hilariously of all, you want to describe the paleowhatevers as noble populists fighting the elitist regulars. James Baker is no paleo but he is no warrior. He is the very essence of elitist. So few people of any social description would be caught dead accepting the idjit paleodelusions that the paleowhatevers will have a hard time selling themselves as "populists." Interventionists = populists. Globaloneyists or INTERNATIONALISTS = Elitists. Paleowhatevers = a small slice of mental patients dedicated to national extinction through paleopeacecreepism and general inaction. The rest of the peacecreeps = frank leftists bright enough to have a clue as to the nature of their foreign policy and their hatred of the USA.
James Baker is a neocon!
And that is who is controlling U.S. foreign policy.
The Old Right conservatives want to take back our foreign policy and fight for U.S. interests, not global ones.
So much of what you rant and rave about is really anti-neocon and pro-Old Right.
You are just too busy blowing hot air to notice.
Reagan Democrats vote as they please without regard to party. When the GOP has the spine to nominate a nominee with manhood who will reject the elitism of the country club, the polo club, the yacht club, the board room, the obsessive materialism and who will fight our nation's enemies to their death whenever US interests are at stake and will thumb his nose at the UN. They think of the GOP as the party of their boss but will support it when it is aggressive in cracking down on crime, terror, babykilling and social perversions. When the GOP is despised by members of the general public, it is over economic issues and fiscal elitism. Under Slick Willie, the Demonrats wanted to get a piece of the "fiscal conservatives" while insisting that they were helping the poor.
So stop nominating RINO Republicans.
American troops should NEVER be deployed under the UN commanders or as part of a UN force. The US should get out of the UN and kick it out of the US. (Even the Birchers are right twice a day).
Well that is a Paleo (Old Right) Ron Paul view!
Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Democrats. I had not realized that they were reds as you claim in saying that the Democrats always were reds. I doubt that Ann Coulter believes that either. In fact, I warrant that the Democrats were the conservative party in American politics until FDR although there were many good Republicans as well.
Well, since Communism didn't exist, as such, when they were around, I guess they can't be considered communists.
We were talking in context of the 20th century.
If you don't like my writing style, you are not the first and won't be the last. Ask me if I care. I am not writing to curry favor with you. You write your way and I shall write my way. At least I don't shame myself by adopting paleowhateverism in whatever writing style.
And I will regard that paragraph as yet another goofy rant.
Cutting and running (or fleeing in terror in the face of the enemy) are descriptions of "ending a conflict" without the unconditional surrender of our enemies. You say that Nixon kept us in VietNam 4 years longer than necessary and he could have gotten the same "terms" (American surrender at the expense of our Vietnamese allies) when he first took office. Surrender is always reasonably easy compared to victory but victory was what is always necessary. Of course, you believe that there are "limits to American power." Logically, that would seem to be true but those "limits" are and were a LOT further from us than you imagine then and now. General Giap, in his memoirs, conceded that we had beaten him and the NVA by the time of the Tet Offensive but that the reds wondered in amazement at the gullible American public swallowing the propaganda of the leftist MSM. Ronaldus Maximus observed in 1968 that it would take six months and no more to not only defeat North Vietnam but to turn it into the world's largest parking lot with stripes. He also turned out to be an infinitely better president than the likes of Eisenhower or Nixon, much less Ford. It is regrettable but true (and necessary) that soldiers are killed in wars. Each is precious as is such sacrifice but surrender to the evil being fought is an ultimate evil and an absolute dishonor to each dead and wounded American soldier. Something that paleos and other peacecreeps never quite grasp.
Nixon got the same terms four years later that he could have gotten when first elected, so more U.S. troops died for nothing.
We need and we shall have as many nuclear boomers and attack subs as we need or might ever employ in worst case scenarios. If Teheran misbehaves significantly, we might want to consider a practical demonstration of what one boomer could do to eliminate the problem of Islamofascism. If Saudi Arabia ever became a very severe problem, the names of Mecca and Medina come to mind.
LOL!
It will not be done by any neocon!
"Minding our own business" is paleoweaselspeak for downsizing our nation, turning it into an amoral five and dime, ignoring the rise of our enemies while they fatten themselves on lesser prey until they can challenge us and rendering it unwilling to act when action is morally called for. Sean Penn, Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Ted the Swimmer, UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones and the paleopipsqueak are NOT conservatives. They advocate cowardice as national policy as did John Sherman Cooper, Charles Mathias, Pete McCloskey and a handful of other treasonous weasels in the GOP during the Vietnam War.
No, minding our own business is just that, allowing each region to handle its own problems, just as we handle ours.
We cannot police the world.
I got a bellyful of peacecreeps and other traitors during the Vietnam War and I am not about to make believe that today's paleopeacecreeps have anything to do with patriotism much less with conservatism when they seek (like paleoPaulie) to ally themselves with America's enemies in times of shooting war.
And it should be the neocons that you are complaining about since they controlled policy during the Vietnam war (no victory) and are controlling it now (no victory).
I believe that if U.S. troops are fighting they should be given the chance to actually win, not fight to create a NWO and put on trial for war crimes whenever they kill the enemy.
And if we aren't going to fight for US interests then we ought to get them out of harms way and let someone else fight for the NWO.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/page/4/?
Actually I have a Bachelor's in History, magna cum laude, with a concentration in American History and several theses in Civil War History and a law degree thereafter. I am still waiting for your specific constitutional citation as to prohibition of secession. What this one or that one theorized is not the text of the constitution. What Lincoln or Billy Sherman imagined when committing their crimes is not the test of the constitution. We could also get into the violation of international law at the time which was represented by the "Union's" naval blockade of what it claimed was its own territory when blockades were legal only against foreign powers.
So you don't think that the basis for our nation was success in armed rebellion? Burke was admirable as a friend of the revolution but that did not make it anything other than a revolution. The Brits hanged Nathan Hale quite legally. If Cornwallis had succeeded, they would have hanged Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton (! they should have caught him early on instead of Nathan Hale) and a lot of their friends just as legally. I'll bet that Madison was speaking of the potential Federalist secession of New England represented by the efferts at the Hartford convention.
Oh, and was John Brown a grisly mass murderer and megalomaniac (Potowatomie Creek and Harper's Ferry) or do you justify him because he was allegedly upholding the "rights of man" by machete murders of farmers in Kansas and his planned arming of a slave rebellion in Virginia??? Personally, I think that Bobby Lee and J.E.B. Stuart in charge of U.S. Marines at Harper's Ferry did justice and carried out the rule of law by hanging the SOB. Do you regard him as a martyr?
Well, I guess we are going to have disband the Air Force and put it back under the Army, the way it originally was.
LOL!
PaleoPaulie does not say that he will ask for a declaration of war if he is elected. He ius promising to flee in terror instead. If he so believes in declarations of war as necessary, why did he vote for a different sort of resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan???? Sorry, I forgot, paleoPaulie has a face on each side of many issues. That includes the necessity or non-necessity of declarations of war, and denouncing earmarks while stuffing Galveston earmarks into appropriations bills that he votes against knowing his colleagues will enact the bill and send the pork to Galveston (about four faces on that one). Anyone capable of seeing knows enough not to give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda Paulie.
Ron Paul states that a declaration of war should have been declared if we were serious about actually fighting and winning one.
As President, Ron Paul wouldn't declare war, Congress would.
So, it is not Ron Paul who is giving aid and confort to the enemy, it is the neocons controlling the foreign policy of this nation who are more concerned about spreading their globalism then in winning the WOT.
Do you now want to discuss Reconstruction as well?
Actually I have a Bachelor's in History, magna cum laude, with a concentration in American History and several theses in Civil War History and a law degree thereafter. I am still waiting for your specific constitutional citation as to prohibition of secession.
I am waiting to see some statement that specifically allows it.
As for your education credentials, you would never know it by the intellectual quality of your posts.
What this one or that one theorized is not the text of the constitution. What Lincoln or Billy Sherman imagined when committing their crimes is not the test of the constitution. We could also get into the violation of international law at the time which was represented by the "Union's" naval blockade of what it claimed was its own territory when blockades were legal only against foreign powers.
Well, Madison didn't think secession was legal.
Jackson didn't.
Robert E. Lee didn't.
And if it were legal then, it should be still legal now, but it isn't.
The Constitution was to form a more perfect union between the people, not one that could be broken apart at whim.
So you don't think that the basis for our nation was success in armed rebellion? Burke was admirable as a friend of the revolution but that did not make it anything other than a revolution. The Brits hanged Nathan Hale quite legally. If Cornwallis had succeeded, they would have hanged Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton (! they should have caught him early on instead of Nathan Hale) and a lot of their friends just as legally. I'll bet that Madison was speaking of the potential Federalist secession of New England represented by the efferts at the Hartford convention.
The American Revolution was a revolution for the rule of law, not against it.
As the 'Sons of Liberty' correctly understood.
No, Madison was speaking of the writings coming out of South Carolina.
But what difference would that make anyway?
New England had no more right to secede then did the South.
That little attempt destroyed the Federalist Party, since they became known as the 'Party of treason', until the Democrats took over that honor after the Civil War.
Oh, and was John Brown a grisly mass murderer and megalomaniac (Potowatomie Creek and Harper's Ferry) or do you justify him because he was allegedly upholding the "rights of man" by machete murders of farmers in Kansas and his planned arming of a slave rebellion in Virginia??? Personally, I think that Bobby Lee and J.E.B. Stuart in charge of U.S. Marines at Harper's Ferry did justice and carried out the rule of law by hanging the SOB. Do you regard him as a martyr?
No, John Brown got what he deserved, but he did nothing that the Confederates did on a much grander scale,being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men by their treason.
I know what I believe and why I believe what I believe and what I believe long predates the relatively recent invention of paleo"conservative" by disappointed cowards and social eccentrics who figured out in 1986 that they were socially and intellectually unacceptable in actually conservative circles. Then after "neo-con" had long been used as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic slur against some (Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Alexander Bickel, Sidney Hook, Eugene and Walt Whitman Rostow and a handful of others who remained domestically liberal but were of Lyndon Johnson's circle who were fleeing the Democrat Party when the reds around McGovern were seizing it), the Nation and the New Republic redirected the term to be used against actual conservatives and on behalf of the eccentric little tribe of paleo"conservatives" whining in rage over their discovery that no one but conservatism's enemies ever considered racism or anti-semitism or cowardly isolationism or knee-jerk hatred of the military or that borders and "blood and soil" nostrums or Holocaust denial or resentment of Israel could ever be considered hallmarks of actual conservatism. The heresy was that conservatism could be redefined by its leftist enemies to include a bunch of social eccentrics with whom no one respectable wanted to associate politically.
I was active in the New Right and I bet you were not. We did not wallow in the works of Garrett Garrett or other superannuated eccentrics. We were committed to von Mises and von Hayek, to James Burnham and Frank Meyer, to John Chamberlain not Neville Chamberlain, to Bill Buckley. We understood that the Young People's Socialist League was wrong to be socialist but they were dependable allies in opposition to communism. The paleoeccentrics thought communism was someone else's problem and no big deal (unless maybe what they viewed as "communist" labor unions might cut the profits of their trust funds by forcing wage increases, benefits fair labor practices) compared to the ready and convenient availability of a case of port wine and some whiny post-World War I poetry (often by the lavender set ohhhh soooo heart-broken by what THEY saw as the lost social opportuniteies lying dead on Flanders Field and other battlegrounds) readings (sniffle, sniffle). It just wasn't FAIR the way those foreigners and papists and Hebrews and wogs were using collective bargaining and, not only that but the government was siding with THEM!!!!
I could go on, but Reagan was the worst nightmare of the paleos. His administration was the ultimate slap in their face. He refused to credential most of them. They were blockheaded enough to imagine otherwise until very late in his administration. They exploded in rage at some 1986 conference (Mont Pelerin Society? Philadelphia Society?) when they finally admitted to themselves that they were nobodies and that politically they were nowhere. I am no devotee of David Frum but he did a very nice article on this in National Review in April of about 2004 and he pinned the tail on the Tasmanian Devils of the so-called paleos.
As to Iran, when you start giving reflexive support to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may become a distant presence in the room. Where we want, and why we want and "we" does not include peacecreeps "paleo" or otherwise. If you want to support treasonous weasels like paleoPaulie in time of war, then you forfeit any place you might have had at the table. Ask UpChuck Hagel.
Conservatives are NOT people who whimper about the supposed impropriety of revealing their religious commitments in public. If Ben Franklin was not bashful about such things (and he was not exactly religious Right), why should we be bashful? Certainly not because the academy is overrepresented in paleo circles and the paleos don't want to upset their faculty colleagues! You don't have to be bashful on religion to be a paleo. If Tom Fleming and the Rockford Institute folks can be quite publicly religious (generally Catholic) so can you.
No one cares what you or any other "paleo" calls Dubya any more than we care what members of obscure cults on the left may call him. He means well, does reasonably well, could certainly improve but he needs make no apologies to Al Qaeda cheerleaders and anti-military antiAmerican nincompoops like paleoPaulie.
Those who do not whine, moan and groan like regular John Kerrys against Dubya, I would call "American patriots" those who understand that there is one POTUS at a time and, when he is a conservative POTUS, we back him and his policies. Dubya is a conservative POTUS.
The "peace at any price" crowd have no voice in any discussion of the war dead whom they undermined in life. Each dead soldier is an individual tragedy and a loss to friends, family and comrades at arms and to our nation as well. Each is one in a long grey, blue and khaki line of honor, an honor that "paleos" will never begin to appreciate or understand. Fewer than 4,000 deaths from all causes in a war lasting nearly five years and counting is an accomplishment whether you think so or not. All those IEDs and still fewer than 4,000 dead.
Isolationist is what the paleos are whether they like the name or not. As a respectable political cause (if it ever was) isolationism died on 12/7/41 and again on 9/11/01. It will not be allowed to rise again. The old diployak world died on the eve of WWI as the pampered privileged Eurodiployakkers sniffled in their perfumed beards in the full realization that their world was at an end.
Globalism, the natural born partner of the pacifist crowd made an effort at arms limitations in the 1920's and we saw how very practical THAT was along with that knee-slapping League of Nations and after WWII was over FDR took Alger Hiss in tow for another go at "peace in our time" this time in faux alliance with the soviets with whom Ike always sided lest there be, well, violence!!!!
So we find ourselves in our time mired in the UN. Dubya is not perfect but he certainly is a major improvement over his old man by calling our corrupt pacifist and unprincipled former European partners what they are: Old Europe and by letting the UN know that we are not putting our national manhood in trust to the socialist, communist, Islamofascist or generally barbarian UN diplodopes and would be world masters. He doesn't much care for their global warming treaty either. Well, there is progress and the future will give more progress toward nationalism and freedom until we dispose of the United Nations and abrogate the treaties it has spawned. "Paleos" won't be part of that because they are nobodies and no one cares what they think or want. Interventionism is the only solution to globaloney and to isolationism as well.
BTW, since you apparently think that we should "mind our own business," was Auschwitz our business? Treblinka? Bergen-Belsen? Wrangell Island? The Hanoi Hilton? The Iron Curtain? The Berlin Wall? Is genocide OK so long as it does not take place in Centralia, Kansas? If Ahmanutjob wants to nuke Israel, is that any of our business? When Islamolunatics blow up busloads of innocent Orthodox Jewish grammar school children, do we pose for holy pictures and say "tut, tut, bad Arab!", or just shut up or DO something about it?
What on earth does border immigration and "amnesty" bills have to do with the shameful paleo devotion to peacecreepism???? I must say that such obsessions certainly did lots of good for inhabitants of Central Europe in the 1930s when our domestic bunds, see no evil peacecreeps, nazis and reds as well (until Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland and the reds went pro-war, were trying to "keep us out of war."
If we are going to do Iran (I actually suspect that the Israelis want that one), let it be the boomers and not the pilots.
Let's translate: You praise Ike for being a feckless do nothing who wasted eight years in office characterized primarily by joining the reds in undermining Joe McCarthy and other similar Senators, avoiding wars at all costs regardless of the results of same, attacking our "military industrial complex", the lifeline of the nation. Good thing Ike never had anything to do with the military part! Oh, wait....! He did play a mean golf game. My factory worker father always asked why it was that every time Ike wiped Ike's backside we had to endure news coverage of the event.
What you call "empty rhetoric" is unvarnished truth but you should not have to be told that.
Of course, Ron Paul isn't president. We still have a country which is definitive proof that the feckless little wimp is not POTUS. Ron Paul and what you mistakenly call "The Old Right" which is actually the neo-surrender movement not only oppose the deployment of US troops under the UN, but also are downright horrified at the thought of deploying US troops under the US or of the idea that there should even be US troops at all, if we just sat around the camp fire, singing Kumbaya with Muhammed el Kaboomski and selling him whatever he might want to shove Sharia "Law" down our throats, the lions would surely lie down with the lambs (in their bellies in the form of lamb stew), right? If only we could see "peace" through paleoPaulie's blinders!!!!
I guess you mean that, in the context of the 20th century such Democrats as Al Smith and Cox and Davis and James Eastland and John Stennis and Spessard Holland and George Wallace and John McClellan and Edwin Hebert and Mendel Rivers and James Michael Curley and Jimmy Walker and Richard Daley the Elder and Paul Douglas and Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson and Tom Dodd and George Meany and William Green and.... must have all been communists since they were Democrats. I had never imagined that and neither, in all likelihood, had they.
What I "rant and rave" is conservatism, not the paleopacifist crapola that you call "the Old Right" and not the lunacy of Dr. Demento. Let the dead bury the dead. Your ideology died an inglorious and well-deserved death a verrrrrry long time ago and it has not been missed since.
If Nixon and even Dubya have not gone as far as they should, let us determine to ever harden the American military interventionism and do better in the future via the slaughter of our enemies and not by running home to hide 'neath Nana's skirts until the baaaaad men go away! The greatest dishonesty of your arguments lies in the suggestion that paleos EVER favor American victory when they want to hide in the basement.
As a Member of Congress, paleosurrenderman DID vote for a resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan WITHOUT declaring war. Haven't declarations of war been outlawed by the UN Charter? The supremacy clause in Article VI of the constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land on a par with the constitution itself accordfing to a 1930s SCOTUS decvision upholding a Migratory Bird Treaty over the 2nd Amendment RTKBA since the treaty was the later enactment. I did not see the constitutional rationalization for PaleoPaulie's vote for authorizing force but not war in Afghanistan. You must not have one. I don't think he needed one but he claims otherwise.
Otherwise, those must be good drugs you are using.
I just had to go back and read FTD’s posts and now I wish I hadn’t. I so wish you were a poster at another site I visit!
Fixed it for you
Jackson certainly opposed secession. On his last night in the White House, he was knocking back Old #7 with his youngest protege Sam Houston as his house guest. (This story is from a history of Texas called Lone Star) Jackson told Houston that he (Jackson) would not live to see the day when hotheads would demand civil war over slavery. He enjoined Houston, in the event that Houston were still alive at such a time, to run for POTUS and, if elected, declare war on the entire world as necessary to avoid civil war. Jackson confidently predicted that the nation would rally around the flag. He warned that the wounds of a civil war would never heal even in a century. Interestingly, Lincoln's Secretary of State Seward (the best man by far in that administration) advised Lincoln likewise without any knowledge of what Jackson told Houston). Lincoln ignored the advice.
Paleos who favor the Union's lawless invasion of the Confederacy and its horrendous gore limited to American victims only are in a poor position to pose for peacecreep holy pictures when they seem to favor only those wars which kill only Americans.
The plain terms of the Tenth Amendment restrain the federal government only and deny to it any non-enumerated powers, leaving those to the states and the people respectively. Unless the constitution itself empowers the federales, they have no power to act. There is no enumerated federal power to force unwilling states to remain under the knout of the "Union."
BTW, considering the source and your overall eccentric views, your insults are received as compliments. Keep 'em rolling.
The Federalists called the Hartford Convention because they were already finished as a political force (by 1815, the Federalists were as much of a laughing stock in executive and legislative branches as is paleoPaulie now), having only Chief Justice John Marshall as the dead hand of the past on SCOTUS to try to thwart the popular will. Hamilton was already dispatched by then as well. David McCullough, in his brilliant biography of John Adams, seems to suggest that Hamilton's radical authoritarianism as expressed in the hysteria of the Alien and Sedition Acts not only defeated Adams but also destroyed the Federalists.
Where, in the constitution, are the federales authorized to impose "reconstruction" as a consequence of their victory in a war they launched and fought illegally. Cite constitutional article and section not what you think someone may have thought.
Sleeper cell member?
“Also, do you really believe that the cross behind Huckabee wasn’t planned?”
It wasn’t a cross, it was a bookshelf.
“Ron Paul needs to get in his spaceship and go back to his home galaxy.”
When is the next time comet Hale-Bopp going to be around?
He can go join his fellow moonbats from Heaven’s Gate.
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.