Posted on 03/26/2009 7:07:18 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
How could he, when the “leadership” of the IL GOP is full of people like you?
I saw a few minutes ago on HLN with anchor Rochelle - a giggly bimbo with glasses named Nicole mocked Palin. Also, it sounded like she said Palin opposed paying the medical bill of a soldier wounded in Iraq - I was not paying much attention in view of her unprofessional manner.
No I didn't. I said paleocons backed him. That's the impression I got around here anyway. Paleos didn't support Ron Paul--libertarians did.
when the “leadership” of the IL GOP is full of people like you?
Guilty. I am a Conservative Reagan - Palin Republican.
Actualy worked for Reagan in his first campaign for Gov.
Palin’s no Reagan. He believed that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the lives of unborn persons. All of them, in every state. She, unfortunately, like McCain, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Michael Steele, et al, takes the indefensible Gerald R. Ford position that the states have the “right” to alienate the unalienable right to life if they so “choose.”
You are reaching so far but can’t touch it and never will
I have no idea what that means.
Paleo aka Libertarian.
That's not correct. Paleos come from a much stronger religious background than libertarians. Paleos derive from Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk. In the old days they were the staunch anti-communists. Anti-federalists. They believe in a structured social order.
That's not really the same as libertarianism, which is much more ardently individualistic, and much more socially liberal. Paleos would align much more closely with the Constitution Party, for example, which is overtly religious in its platform. Libertarians would find that anathema. Pat Buchanan is probably the most well known modern example of a paleocon.
You are correct, however, that both paleocons and libertarians favor a less engaged foreign policy. Both groups would probably deride the role of the US as "policeman of the world." It's only in more recent years that conservatism, via the neocons, that Wilsonian foreign policy has become any part of conservatism.
If you feel like it, check my #129 and see if I got anything wrong.
*You are correct, however, that both paleocons and libertarians favor a less engaged foreign policy.*
This was my point re Hunter. Both he and his son believe in taking it to the enemy especially when they strike us first and declare war on us.
Possibly so.
However, I note that you use "####" to delineate the post you are quoting from your own words instead of italics or bold or other HTML tags.
Is this not also lazy and uniformed?
I'm pretty sure both paleos and libertarians believe in fighting Al Quaeda. I assume that's who you are referring to? Osama and his org?
Some won’t even go that far.
Many don’t even believe we should have fought WWII
I have several relatives who have served and still serving in Iraq and Afgh.
This is all the same war, just as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we also fought in North Africa. All the same.
What a stupid comment.
What is your point ignoramus?
In order for the next GOP national office candidate to prevail they must address this about the media like she is doing.
Drive it home.
Make them defensive.
I think you got my point, Chumley.
I’ve had a Palin McCain sticker on my truck since before the election with the McCain part removed. LOL
Lay it out, Sargeant at Arms.
Your oddly skewed perspective and abject lack of logic, has confused a debatable political point with an unwillingness, or lack of knowledge of HTML (you really don’t which), to dress up and format a post to your liking.
Her perception is accurate.
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.