Posted on 09/04/2007 11:50:38 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Scroll down to where it says "Constitutional Authority".
“I find nothing objectionable about nation-building in the least. We have no choice in the 21st century to do just that, otherwise we will have to endlessly fight wars or have our borders invaded by people fleeing said countries.”
If we don’t fight endless wars, we’re faced with having to fight endless wars?
Regarding the second categorical statement, which I read to mean that if we don’t engage in nation-building our borders will be invaded . . . well you’re on your own with that gem, FRiend.
Nothing to see here, move along, no `rubber-necking’ . . .
Who's hiding behind what, here? You want the end to justify the means.
“That’s why you’re against the war on terrorism... The press told you to be... Maybe this is why you think these guys are neocons, the press told you so...”
First of all, don’t put words in my mouth. I am not against the war on terror nor have I ever given any indication that I am. Second, I believe little if anything I hear from the MSM and only view it as a source of ammusement. Your comments are completely unfounded and frankly, PlainOleStupid.
That was the dumbest thing in a long time.
Goes back to my vacuum theory...
And anyone who's read the Federalist Papers and other supporting documents wrt the Commerce Clause knows what a steaming pile of socialist sophistry it is.
Because you don’t agree with him...
Well that proves it.
I wonder what Reagan would say TODAY...
Things are a tick different now...
I thought it was “liberal.”
I have carefully analyzed the usage of the word "neocon" and have concluded that a "neocon" is virtually anyone who disagrees with a liberal position.
And as Thomas Sowell so accurately observed about liberals:
Some people say it is "name-calling" if you refer to someone as a liberal. There is nothing inherently negative about the word "liberal." If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that followed.
Details, details...
Open borders??? there are 20 million "illegals" here according to most estimates. You might be able to close the borders to more (highly doubtful just as a practical goal given the resources necessary to achieve that goal). You will never send the overwhelming majority of those already here back to Mexico or wherever. The anchor babies are staying since they are citizens by birth. We are not going to pay for knocks on 10 to 20 million doors at 3 AM. The legal hearings would eliminate all other court functions. We would have a law enforcement establishment whose cost would swallow everything else. The issue is over. You lost. They are replacing 50+ million sliced, diced and hamburgerized babies killed by Roe vs. Wade. The "illegals" will be much more likely to help end the holocaust of Roe vs. Wade than will be Muffie of the Junior League or Skipper of the Polo Club, however white shoe their ancestry.
Wanna venture a guess as to the percentage likelihood of "strict interpretation" of the constitution???? If you mean by strict interpretation that the courts should read the document and apply it literally, the answer is zero. Read the federal budget, lie by line. I understand that that would take a lot of time and that you have only one life to live. Nonetheless, what percentage of the expenditures are constitutional, in terms particularly of the restraints of the Tenth Amendment which limits federal central government power to those items and only those items specifically enumerated in the federal constitution? 10%, 5%, 2% maybe???
Suppose that a party launched a presidential candidacy and 435 House candidacies and 35 or so Senate candidacies predicated on "strict interpretation" of the constitution. You will elect as many candidates as the Libertoonians do. They cannot recruit that many candidates but that makes no difference since none, repeat: none, will be elected. Many people who regard themselves as "conservatives" on law and order, on military manhood,on manly foreign policy, on protecting the babies, on protecting marriage as ONLY the union of one man and one woman do NOT favor "strict construction" on a slew of economic programs. The want concededly unconstitutional programs as part of what Ronaldus Maximus called the "safety net." In paleo terms, he must not have been conservative. Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Workers' Compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, higher education tuition subsidies, agricultural subsidies and a wide expanse of other expensive social programs preclude any political success being attached to "strict construction."
Even one congresscritter from Galveston who claims to be the uberconstitutionalist favors earmarks for shrimping' subsidies, Galveston trolleys and Galveston buses to be included in an appropriations bill to be passed by everyone else as he poses for holy pictures by voting no while bringing home the tons of pork anyhow. Can he spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y????? Or even paleohypocrisy????
Not sure, can’t get the tube here. But if Reagan was against Nation Building, what the hell was Iran Contra all about...
Not sure, can’t get the tube here. But if Reagan was against Nation Building, what the hell was Iran Contra all about...
Ain't that the truth. Joe Lieberman, who may just well be the most liberal US Senator...at least on the issues of taxes, affirmative action, gay rights, abortion rights, radical environmentalism and gun control, is a favorite of many so-called "conservatives" today.
The deaths of 50 million unborn is the result of federal executives, of both parties, enforcing an illegitimate Supreme Court ruling for the last 35 years. Instead, we have gotten lip service ("I support strict constructionism"..."I'm opposed to abortion")...then Adminstration after Adminstration submits to the Court's ruling instead of declaring the holding in Roe to be the fraud that it is.
And one constant from both parties is that the government continues to grow...unconstitutional federal programs continue to expand...and new ones are always being created.
If your argument is that you need to abandon your principles to win elections...then I say...save your money and don't bother running.
What is the use of being elected or reelected, unless you stand for something?
--the original uberconstitutionalist Grover Cleveland
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.