Posted on 09/07/2013 5:21:25 AM PDT by maggief
Edited on 09/07/2013 7:47:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
On Friday, a man attending a town hall hosted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Prescott confronted the senator and told him he should be arrested and charged with treason for supporting al Qaeda in Syria.
"We the people want you to be representative of the people and for this great nation, but for far too long now on the rest of Congress, including the executive branch of government, along with the judicial and legislative have turned your back on the American people and their core values and principles. I can say with great confidence and speak on behalf of all Americans that your actions against this country are treasonous. All of you -- against the will of the American people -- have aided and abetted the enemy," said the town hall attendee.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Yes, McCain can’t respond to those charges because it is beneath him to do so.
In my heart, I want to see the pompous ass struck down with lightning, but I know that I will have to take it to my God, repent of my hatred of the man, and trust Him to deal with him, and all of the evil-doers, just as He promises to do (Romans 12:17-19).
McCain does have a savage temper, and it will be interesting to see if he regards this man as just “one of the little people whose opinions don’t matter”, or somebody that he, McCain, will have to have destroyed.
What an arrogant turd.
John Fonda?
McCain – A Treasonous Enemy Within
Last Friday, a man in Prescott, AZ said what all of us have been thinking and saying —John McCain has morphed into a treasonous lapdog for Barack Obama and is licking the fascist boots of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who comprise the barbaric Rebels in the Syrian conflict.
Yes, they do.
From W. Cleon Skousen's famous list of Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963:
There you go.
Its too bad he was so nervous in reading a prepared statement. If he had spoken from his heart it wouldn't have allowed McCain to be so smug and condescending.
Why? Those booing were exercising their “1st amendment right.” I don’t agree with them, but they have the right (and it doesn’t come from the 1st amendment - so your comment is doubly wrong).
I’d settle for just putting him in a home.
Shooter - Great Movie - Mark Wahlberg
Since McCain got the last word in, and a sheeple is not allowed in those meetings to get back up and say anything, I don’t think he had any control over McCain’s response. Even though he was nervous (wouldn’t we all be?), I thought what he said was right on, every bit of it, and bravely stated, and McCain just showed his cowardness and lowness as a person.
Marx liked free trade because he thought it was destructive. So basically the Commies often like it, but for misguided reasons. I consider Marx’s view that it is destructive to permit free trade as an endorsement of free trade to sane people.
I’m sure McCain went ballistic as soon as he was out sight of the camera. Those guys are all alike. You better not challenge them or they’ll get even.
IOW, you are dishonest. Thank you. You are neither sane nor well informed.
So basically the Commies often like it, but for misguided reasons.
"Free Trade" is subsidized trade, because it negates the sovereignty of a nation to manage the externalities of trade, whether damage to military infrastructure, pathogens, or introductions of exotic pests, all of which are massive costs and risks that fall upon non-participants in the transaction.
Examples? We have lost the chestnut tree, the American elm, and are now losing the economic value of numerous hardwoods. In Florida, Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) threatens destrution of the entire citrus industry. Goodness knows how much American farmers must pay for herbicides and pesticides to deal with exotic plants and pests, while thistles and cheat grass run rampant in America's National Parks.
Representation in sovereign nations is in part dedicated to managing such intangibles because the risks attendant to contaminated purchases are often difficult to quantify. You would negate that ability.
McPain’s start of his response was very telling. Guy tells the truth and McPain hides behind his “feelings”. Too bad we had the SRM pick this @$$hole as our candidate in 2008. I voted for Gov Palin, not this jerk. He needs to be in an assisted living institution by now.
Yet you would negate the freedom to private property, one of the freedoms that America was built upon. The commies were/are by no means unanimous when it comes to free trade as the commies have spent many years debating the subject.
But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand. But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.
But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.
Poppycock. I didn't specify HOW nations would manage such risks; you simply presumed the heavy hand of regulation. Congress could just as easily specify conduct of markets in offsets, mitigation, and validation can do that job just fine. In fact, I own a patent in such a business method.
You "free" traders are a bunch of lightweight ideologues, oversimplifying "comparative advantage" in an economy to the point of suicide. It was one of von Mises' biggest flaws. Without completely harmonized legislation, comparative advantage cannot function; it is a negation of representative government.
But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand.
That's because true communist ideologues do not believe in nations. That effectively precludes representative government.
But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.
No, they don't. Treating corporations as equivalent to natural persons negates natural law competition among states in corporate governance, giving a structural advantage to replacing labor with capital, as abetted by fractional reserve banking. It was a crooked deal snuck into the 14th Amendment by Bingham and Conkling.
As I said, "lightweights."
But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.
I suspect so. The local jurisdiction would suffer in some respects and prosper in others. You would preclude them that freedom to discover their accountability for foolish protectionism. OTOH, they might just survive a natural disaster or other non-uniform event because they chose to pay higher prices in order to retain critical local industrial infrastructure (for example). You would preclude them that option.
The mistake you make is to presume "all other things being equal" in a non-uniform world. It is the unfortunate requirement to oversimplify reality in order to construct a model by which to describe it. It looks optimal in the purely economic sense, and can even perform that way in the short run, but there are also hazards that go unaccounted by the necessity of simplifying the model.
The power of hormones and catalysts in chemical reactions or biological systems as elements that are otherwise negated for purposes of the model is a good example of such oversimplification. That is why natural law competition among jurisdictions is a better system for managing uncertainties in an unpredictable world.
The smaller is the jurisdiction the smaller is the mistake. In a uniform world full of uncertainties, mistakes can grow to the point of global catastrophe. Hence, allowing for local sovereignty is a way of confining such mistakes which might even promote by competition the principles you prefer. This was the underlying argument for Federalism in the first place.
Although you have created the illusion that you are a sophisticated protectionist, as opposed to the regular kind of protectionist, you are all equally misguided. You all are essentially statists. You believe the individual is subservient to the state. Protectionism denies freedom when it is an act of the state. Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.
More power to him. If more people confronted McCain everywhere he went, we could hopefully look forward to his retiring to some Arizona country club and never hearing from him or of him again.
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.