When Ron Paul stated that "we could defend this country with two submarines", as a Libertarian, you know he was not talking about "Lupe the painter", he was talking about armed conflict with a foreign enemy. Yes, Ron Paul said just that, but no sane or rational person should be surprised.
Libertarians by nature support sanctuary cities and open borders. Maybe a few don't, but they are an exception. Like Illegal aliens, Paulhroids are more of a problem than help.
>foreign forces?
>
>When Ron Paul stated that “we could defend this country with two submarines”, as a Libertarian, you know he was not talking about “Lupe the painter”, he was talking about armed conflict with a foreign enemy. Yes, Ron Paul said just that, but no sane or rational person should be surprised.
Paul *also* proposed issuing Letters of Mark and Reprisal rather than embarking in a costly and by-its-nature-unwinnable* War on Terror.
It was quite an elegant solution, IMO, to several of the main selling-points used to justify the War on Terror.
Furthermore, having “a few ships and no real active-duty army” would be far more in-line with the Constitution; remember that the appropriations for the Army are limited to two years. Also, prior to WWII there was no active-army (”old west” armies were, in fact, drawn from the States and funded/commissioned for a specific purpose).
* Like the “War on Drugs” there is no ‘victory Condition’ and it is therefore NOT winnable.
>Libertarians by nature support sanctuary cities and open borders. Maybe a few don’t, but they are an exception.
Where do you hang out? I know several libertarians and of them all when the subject of illegal aliens comes up they’re certainly *not* for non-enforcement of the laws regarding immigration.
>Like Illegal aliens, Paulhroids are more of a problem than help.
Really?
Do you *really* believe that?
Because I certainly don’t; I think what the problem is can be illustrated by the general non-comment of the 9/12 gathering, the NY-23 fiasco, and the signs on courthouses that say “no weapons allowed.” {ie the “public-servants” not listening when their masters speak, the “public-servants” showing an elitist disdan for the people their job is to represent, and the general “the law doesn’t apply to me” attitude that judges have.}