Ron Paul attacks Sarah Palin as 'country club' Republican

Non-protectionist is a key word. It means that any such tariffs will not protect American jobs because the protection of American jobs is anathema to the libertarian set as in interference in markets.

I don't doubt for a moment that the American people are absolutely outraged by the special interest money gushing out of the federal reserve to the usual gang of ultra-materialist greedheads on Wall Street. What I doubt is that anyone is interested in wild-eyed conspiracy theories from Birchers, Objectivists or established lunatics like Ron Paul stuffing forty years of resentments and nutcase into the discussion. Like Gonzalez, Paul drones on for hours on end in Special Orders indulging his every fantasy in technical terms that make even the eyes of the outraged glass over.

If El Run is an "established authority" on anything, it is not the federal reserve. He is an "established authority" on thoroughly moonbat public policy, resisting the use of military force whenever that use is desirable in the interests of our nation, caving in to Al Qaeda and being its mouthpiece in American public life, and posing dishonestly for holy pictures to gull people who are actual conservatives. He claims to be pro-life while denying that the federal gummint has jurisdiction over the issue after more than three decades of having SCOTUS ram baby-killing down the collective American throat. When actual pro-lifers (activists and not wannabe philosopher kings notice his two-faced situation of supporting pro-life, while opposing legislation while saying it is the job of the states, Paulie files a federal pro-life bill. Of course, the fact that the Galveston moonbat filed the bill guarantees that it will not pass. To the pro-lifers, he is saying he is pro-life but to his soulless libertarian abortion supporters, it is wink, wink, don't worry, no one will slow the flow of abortions.

Okay, maybe he claims to be a "fiscal conservative." Now, fieldmarshaldj who I invite to repeat his arguments here, has a very good analysis of why there is no such thing as fiscal "conservative" while socially liberal. Suffice it to note that, again, paleoPaulie poses for holy pictures as one who resists public spending. What sort of massive spending cuts are represented by his stuffing of appropriations bills with Galveston earmarks. Shrimping subsidies??? Trolley subsidies??? Nursing scholarships for Galveston girls??? Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. MNehring has the fuller details on the porkbarreling habits of the paleosurrenderman. I invite him to give you a snootful of paleoPaulie's fiscal phoniness in the manner of earmarks of federal pork for Galveston. Oh, wait! PaleoPaulie voted against the appropriations bills that he stuffed with pork. Doesn't that count? No, because he stuffed the bill counting on his colleagues to pass the bills because they contained other critters' pork too. This is the paleoPaulie method of operation on issue after issue. It certainly does not reflect integrity.

If he is respected as an "elder statesman," we may concede that he is very old and that he has served in Congress. In that sense, William Conyers is also old and in Congress far too long. So was John Warner. So is Dick Lugar. So was Tip O'Neill. Not that any conservative would be caught alive or dead voting for such trash as treasonweasel Paul and the others.

Do you have a problem with our defense of Israel? What is your problem with continuing involvement in the Middle East? Should Chamberlain have walked away from Munich handing the Sudetenland to Hitler? Was it a good thing when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall ostensibly fell? Is Ron Paul right not to give a da*n about human freedom in other nations, about the rise of tyrannies determined to destroy the USA? Should we sit still for Iran or North Korea having deployable nuclear weapons? Do we discharge our duties by saying Tsk, Tsk to Ahmanutjob after the nuclear annihilation of our ally Israel or should we use our strength to prevent that annihilation? What if Ahmanutjob starts to develop intercontinental ballistic missile poised at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC and Detroit? Do we sit still until they are fired? Are we looking forward to fewer Demonratic voters with the destruction of our cities? Is the conservative movement to be defined by money uber alles?

An endorsement of Palin by the paleopeacecreep would be the destruction of Palin as a public figure unless she rejects such an endorsement.

I think we should drill here and drill now, keep the Red Chinese or anyone other than Canada and Mexico (within a fifty mile radius of their shores not overlapping our waters (which should be expanded to the 50 mile standard that others claim) from tapping American oil under the seas and oceans, but also try to see to it that we do not find ourselves at the mercy of others by tapping out all of our reserves or even a substantial portion. There are people more learned than I as to our oil reserves. I would defer to them and Pentagon officials on the need to drill Aerucan oil in large quantities and the probable consequences and I would have no hesitancy based on any environmental concerns whatsoever.

Have you proof of GOP leadership support for cap 'n' tax? Cap 'n' tax or anything vaguely similar is flat out unacceptable like most envirowhackoism.

The notion of intentional policy by the GOP to make America subservient to Mideast oil interests rather than enjoying independence seems unlikely to me but I will give you a fair shot to demonstrate your claim. On that one you may well know more than I.

OTOH, the delay in constructing the pipeline is likely another Demonrat scheme to prevent the preservation of a middle class way of life away from the gummint teat. Increasinly, since the McGovernization of the Demonrats, such a policy also seems likely to maximize non-elitist pain inflicted by upper income Demonrats on mere mortals.

So, in short, I do not accept any "green cover story on anything. If greens claim the sun rises in the east, that would require sensible people to double check.

Maybe, if Jimmuh Cahtuh, a Demonrat Paulie on foreign policy had not stuck his nose into Iranian affairs, the Shah of Shahs might have passed his crown to his college student son and namesake and the revolution against the crown by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini woukld have been crushed with maximum bloodshed of the Islamolunatics. Just as we will miss opportunities under treasonweasel Obama through January 2013, so we missed many under Cahtuh. If we retake Congress or come close in 2010, we minimize the damage until we can again have an American POTUS prepared to do what needs doing.

What would realy be in our interest is controllin much more of the world's oil reserves (say as reparations for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and any wars yet to come. World opinion be da*ned. Just do it.

It looks like it will fall to Bibi Netanyahu to keep Ahmanutjob and the Mullahs out of the nuke club. The US is out of action on that front during the duration of Hussein/Biden/Hillary.

We have survived the first eighth of Obamanation's regime. The general public is plenty pissed already. We have a lot longer to go but, if Ron Paul is the answer, it must be an uncommonly silly question. He is not the answer. He is finished on the national stage except as a national media marionette serving Obamanation's interests but there are alternatives and we, as conservatives and as Americans, will choose one, Sarah or otherwise. Whomever we choose, will NOT be a paleopeacecreep or a social liberal.

Who’s whining? I did my time, griped as much as anyone would who was tired, hot, cold, bug-bitten etc. The only things I complain about are people who send guys to die when they didn’t have the guts to go themselves. Did you not read what I said before? I was lucky and got out before the second war. My unit didn’t get activated till then. I can tell you what it was like during the first; EVERYONE was scared, no one wanted to go, but everyone was ready. Some guys volunteered and were taken; most of us weren’t. I disagreed at the time with the idea of killing anyone who I didn’t believe we were at war with, so I offered our medic leader to come over with them if they needed me. I was a Forward Observer. I would’ve been in front of the front lines regardless and never even considered not going or any nonsense like that. You don’t go out of bravery or call to duty but out of loyalty to your friends. And I didn’t short my enlistment or anything else. When my time was done (6 years), I had two jobs, the service and full time school so something had to give. I considered re-enlisting several times, especially after 9/11, but only as a medic. I wouldn’t be able to serve at the front though, as my hearing is well below the cutoff of what’s allowable now.

Now, you tell me how you know for whom I speak. Why won’t you tell me what you did in the service? I’m assuming you know scores of people who went, since you say I don’t speak for most soldiers. I don’t claim to though, but you do. I speak for some of them...lots of them. In fact, you claim to speak for the bad guys in Kosovo, Saddam, and everyone else who’s out to get us since you know their intentions from thousands of miles away. You speak for them to the point of being willing to sacrifice lots of (other peoples) lives because you know their intent.

And you know about big defense too, I guess. I worked for big defense, at a company making boat loads of money for a guy named John Murtha. Yeah, the Marine hater. He and his ilk make billions off the blood of soldiers from his own home town. That’s who big defense is. Do you have any idea how many defense companies there are in Murtha’s district? You think it’s all a bunch of Republicans at all the defense companies. Did it ever occur to you that the dems never seem to bring the troops home from anywhere, all the while talking about peace initiatives that they know will never work. Doesn’t that tell you something?

No, I’m not for big defense in the sense that you are - power to the DOD (Pelosi, Murtha, Boxer, Durbin, Byrd, et al). I believe in STRONG defense. Strong ICBM force (bigger than we have now), enough tactical nukes for a conflict in every nation, a strong anti-missile shield, and no gun laws. It’s a pretty simple philosophy. No American blood OR treasure for ANY foreign nation. Friendship and commerce with all nations. But scratch the United States and your armies vanish within minutes.

You call me a pacifist, but I enlisted and did my time as did practically every male in my huge extended Family and a hell of a lot of my friends. Please, PLEASE tell me what your roll was in our “military tradition”. We’d all like to know.

Who is whining? You are.

Remember that this thread has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my service, your service or any one else's. You are persisting in trying to divert the discussion to something less damaging to paleoPaulie than his own insolent mouth and those of his supporters who may agree with his attack on Sarah Palin's Republican supporters as "country club Republicans," when the paleopipsqueak is himself a member of a country club as she specifically and her supporters generally are not.

Now, follow the simplicity of the fact that, like you, paleoPaulie is desperate to change the terms of an argument he can NEVER win within the GOP since Sarah is as wildly popular among Republicans as Al Qaeda's mouthpiece is not. He has made a complete fool of himself on foreign and military policy and "constitutional" delusions and distortions. And that does not even deal with his track record as a two-faced (three-faced, many-faced?) fraud and phony on such issues as pro-life, family, pork-packing earmarks, voting for and against many issues for maximum political benefit. He almost makes the likes of Murtha or Blagojevich or "Cold Cash" Jefferson look honest and upright by comparison (an impossible task for almost anyone other than the paleosurrenderman).

By attacking Palin's supporters, paleoPaulie brings his own character into question. He is a public figure as you and I are not.

My service record, your service record or the man in the moon's service record have nothing whatever to do with this thread. Wanna discuss the respective qualities of various types of cheeses? I don't and that would also be irrelevant to this thread. If you got a Congressional Medal of Honor, your heroism would have no special impact whatever on whether or not Sarah Palin's supporters are "country club" Republicans. Paulie's problem is that the little treasonweasel will be closer to eighty than to seventy by 2012 and even he knows that time has run out. Sarah, by comparison, is young, far brighter than he, conventionally patriotic, conservative and Republican in the best and non-moonbat sense and, at all times a supporter of our troops AND their mission, has a son on active duty in the war zone rather than sitting around concocting faux "constitutionalist" excuses for shirking the effort of preserving not only the US but Western Civilization against the Islamofascist enemy.

Reading what you say and agreeing with what you say are clean different things.

I had not realized that your service was in the First Gulf War. That was the one where under Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf's leadership, our forces militarily crushed the forces of Saddam and lost about 100 dead (many of whom were killed by friendly fire). The basic military maneuver of the Iraqi Army was stripping their uniforms off down to their skivvies and coming up with hands raised in surrender.

Did you enter the military on the mistaken assumption that it was nothing more than a means of financing your education, a sort of uniformed scholarship plan without risk??? Did you miss the part where the existence of the military has something to do with visiting strange and exotic lands and people and killing them as necessary or desirable? So what if you "disagreed with the idea of killing anyone whom (you) didn't believe we were at war with?" No one died and left you to make such decisions after you enlisted. For the duration of your enlistment, you had written a blank check to the Pentagon. If the Pentagon extended terms of service beyond that to which the service member has agreed, such extensions should be illegal but that, and not your personal opinions, is the sole exception.

Where is it that you go "out of loyalty to your friends?" Into the military? To Iraq? That sounds a lot more like Barney the Purple Dinosaur, Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood than it sounds like military service.

When you say that "EVERYONE was scared" you purport to speak for everyone. This is not nuclear physics or wild speculation. Those are YOUR words and not my editorial.

I think we all know enough of the track records of the likes of communist Slobodan Milosevic and of Islamofascist Saddam Hussein (along with the rapist-murderers Uday and Kucay) to know their respective intents and the world is far better off without the four of them. The only thing I object to as to that group is that Milosevic was put on trial by some pretentious bunch of internationalist globaloney artists in the Hague rather than executed upon capture. Slobbo saved us further globaloneyist pretenses by dying in mid-process. Serbia was a no count satrapy under Slobbo and I was not enthusiastic for that particular war. OTOH, it was not up to the military rank and file to go or not go. That was a decision for legitimately constituted authority.

I will not tell you what I did in the service: a) because it is absolutely none of your business unless I wish to make it your business and you wish to hear; and b) because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with paleoPaulie insulting Sarah's supporters as "country club" Republicans when, all too typically, Paulie is a country club member and Sarah is not as many of her supporters are not. I will not subsidize the hijacking of this thread by libertarian delusion artists and anti-war snifflers.

Given your attitudes, big defense should have been careful lest you be a security risk. I spent most of my life in Connecticut which, I assure you, has a lot more defense plants than Murtha's little district. Do these names ring a bell? They are Connecticut defense contractors in recent decades or now: Sikorsky, Electric Boat, United Technologies HQ, Avco-Lycoming, Pratt & Whitney, Colt, Winchester, Sturm Ruger, Remington, Hamilton Standard and many, many feeder plants. Also the US Naval Submarine Base at New London, home base of many nuclear missile subs and fast attack subs. One nickname earned by Connecticut in its better era was "Arsenal of the Republic."

The anti-American slime John Murtha serves on the Defense Subcommittee of House Appropriations. If he did not bring some jobs home, he would be history. Nonetheless, that does not excuse his attacks on ultimately acquitted Marines charged with murder for doing their jobs and defending themselves when attacked. Murtha is also a member of the Blame America First, Last and Always crowd differing with the paleosurrenderman primarily in rhetoric.

Pelosi, Boxer, Durbin may as well be mullahs and are no part whatsoever of "big defense." If you are going to try to undermine this nation's efforts, try to be almost vaguely accurate. Byrd is old enough to have arrived in Washington when it was still possible to be a Democrat and a patriot. Former Klan Klegal Byrd is another sniveling "constitutional" delusionist and war resister, however, which hardly qualifies Bobby Pork Barrel as "big defense." He is no better than paleoPaulie on that score.

At least we agree on some things. I favor the same stockpile of nukes and nuke missiles you say you support. A strong missile shield like the Strategic Defense Initiative is also a necessity. Absolutely no gun laws is an absolute necessity as Obama's election vividly demonstrates. If we are going to be reduced as a nation to defending our homes and families from invaders who reach our shores because we do not destroy them in their countries of residence, then we had better be very well armed personally. It will be a distraction seeing our family members shot by invaders but, one way or the other, it will be the end of "American" pacifism and peacecreepism, whether leftist or "paleo."

No American blood or treasure for any foreign nation. Now you are getting down to it. Since the Confederacy was another nation, we should not have had the late unpleasantness of 1861 to 1865. I might actually agree with that since nations cannot declare war against themselves. No Spanish American War? No World War I? Most of all no World War II in Europe because Herr Hitler should have been able to commit genocide against Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc., safe in the knowledge that the only country that could defeat him would stay out, right??? Too bad for the Jews, Poles and Gypsies, I guess. Boy, am I glad you guys did not prevail on that one and I have no Jewish or Polish or Gypsy ancestors. I suppose you don't mind our defeat of Tojo and Imperial Japan but maybe I should not jump to conclusions. North Korea, backed by Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao invaded and overran Seoul but that was none of our business either, right? My former partner's wife and her very large family lived in Seoul then and I am very glad they were saved by American intervention and I only regret that we did not go on to stretch Kim Il Sung by the neck until dead or slaughter him and his ilk on sight. I also regret that we did not defeat the North Vietnamese by rolling over Hanoi and Haiphong and, as Reagan said during the war, turn North Vietnam into the world's largest paved parking lot with stripes. If we had gone to Baghdad and beyond in Gulf War I, killed the Family Hussein, seized the oil fields until the war was paid for, then the nervous Nellies would have whined about imperialism but the later Iraq War would have been quite unnecessary. What is objectionable is not being compensated for the cost and squandering large sums on nation building. If nation-building was necessary, as in MacArthur's governance of Japan, then we should have put the cost on Iraq's tab to be paid by Iraqi oil.

If you advocate peace at almost any price, you cannot very well avoid the tags of isolationist and pacifist in foreign policy and all that goes with it.

Instead of the Kumbaya (at least in our time) mantra of "Peace and commerce with all nations," how about: Peace on Earth to men of good will. That comes from an even more infallible source than the founders or paleoPaulie. Should we sell nuclear attack subs and nuclear missile subs to the Red Chinese to use against us and Taiwan? Should we sell missile technology to Iran??? or to Libya or to Gaza??? Xyklon B gas to the Nazis??? After all, a profit is a profit, right?

try to see to it that we do not find ourselves at the mercy of others by tapping out all of our reserves or even a substantial portion. There are people more learned than I as to our oil reserves.

We cannot know our reserves without exploration but that is now largely forbidden. Oil experts work for the internationalized oil companies that have plenty of work overseas. They are businessmen who would never challenge the establishment as Palin has done. New US oil fields could be explored and prepared during periods of high prices but the higher cost pumping stations would be preserved for for later use during periods of low cost imports.

Have you proof of GOP leadership support for cap 'n' tax?

Both the McCain and Obama campaigns officially supported the program. The leadership of both parties serve the same circle of large donors who give to both sides. It seems that an agenda is proposed and one of parties is designated to float a partial opposition that will be abandoned unless the public sharply reacts. In that case the agenda item is made a priority for propaganda outlets but shelved politically until reintroduction upon the next cycle. Despite their faults and differences, Palin and Paul appear to be cut from a different clothe and Palin is uniquely gifted.

So it would appear is has been "decided" that cap 'n' tax will go forward. There was even an attempt to say Palin flip-flopped because of here strong stand against. I look forward to seeing what other Republicans will do now that she has thrown down the gauntlet. Palin has a record of targeting the weakest positions of the elite to obtain maximum victory for the public.

I have no gnostic revelations, only empirical observations. There were protests of "No blood for oil" during Bush I's Iraq war and news releases that Bush II's war would be financed by oil. Alan Greenspan's autobiography claimed the war was motivated by oil. Oil served as the subtext or back-up justification in case anyone doubted the succession of top level reasons given.

OTOH, the delay in constructing the pipeline is likely another Demonrat scheme to prevent the preservation of a middle class way of life away from the gummint teat.

Alaska is more Republican than Democrat. I don't have a citation, but I remember Palin saying on some interview that the Republicans, Democrats, and oil companies themselves were to blame because they would rather import from properties overseas. An across-the-board tariff would increase the incentive.

So, in short, I do not accept any green cover story on anything. If greens claim the sun rises in the east, that would require sensible people to double check.

Yes, but my point is that the agenda-setting leadership does not believe its own press releases. They use the green fables for manipulation.

You would think. Prior to the twentieth century, war has always been inseparable from the principles of land acquisition and booty. The Crusades were motivated by a higher purpose, but never to the exclusion of spoils. Prior to WWI, every war we won resulted in some tangible acquisition for the national interest. Booty provides a light at the end of the tunnel motivating the stronger side to victoriously end the fighting, at least long enough to enjoy his spoils.

After the Spanish-American war, all our fighting has been in "altruistic" wars to end all war. Not do we fail to take spoils, but now we can't even win and come home anymore. Since 1950s, the government-media starts off a war with a hyper-patriotic, drumbeat but later switches to a mixed-emotions, guilt-trip which saps the will needed for victory. The principles of "spoils to the victor" and even "fight to win" are evidently gone from the agenda.

I am encouraged to see a leader on the horizon showing promise of going beyond the concept of a purely notional nation. Imagine redirecting US policy toward the interest of her citizens.

Pressed for time until late tonight but I will try a comprehensive response. It won't be literary quality but settle for substance.

We need to explore and evaluate the quality and quantity of what we find and the cost of recovering same so that we will know when it is practical. That makes perfect sense.

Plenty of, but not all, business big shots are internationalist whores but not all. Encourage the exceptions. Palin because of her service on a corrupt oil and gas commission, was so appalled at the corruption that she demanded that Governor Frank Murkowski fire the corrupt Republican crook he had appointed. He refused. Sarah declared for governor against Frank Murkowski and joined the GOP plurality in firing Murkowski. I think that's the attitude you and I are both looking for in our next POTUS.

It goes without saying that Comrade O would support cap 'n' trade 'n' tax 'n' tax some more to destroy middle class living standards and "teach us a lesson." As you suggest, we are not surprised that McLame (I confess that I favored him in 2000 and eventually after Fred Thompson in 2008. McLame is now just as old as Paulie and just as dead meat politically.

Campaigns are expensive but there are always rebel contributors prepared to give enough to give a superior candidate a fighting chance. In Reagan's case, I would bet that he was not supported by most GOP corporate whore contributors but he was kept afloat by Henry Salvatori (oil), Justin Dart (retail pharmaceuticals) Gordon Reed (Scott Paper Company and Amax Metals Mining, Charles Deeds (Travelers' Insurance), Holmes Tuttle (automobile retailer), Jeremiah Milbank and Stets Coleman (generous zillionaire of Virginia and a wonderful old gentleman). Feckless Ford personally called and threatened Gordon Reed when he had come up with $600 K for Reagan. The above-named group and many more stayed the course. Tom Reed, Gordon's son was eventually indicted and convicted by a liberal GOP Justice Department IIRC.

Palin is effective at targeting the weakest positions of the elite, etc. Absolutely. Agreed.

A major blunder by Bush II was his failure to see to it that Iraqi oil pay the cost of Iraq's liberation. Likewise Bush I's failure to force Saddam to pay the price of ousting him from Kuwait.

As to Greenspan, show me his wife (withered leftist MSNBC newsthing Comrade Andrea Mitchell) and I can tell you what he, his portable mattress, his portable red light and his portable sack of quarters are all about. Also Greenspan was part of Ayn Rand's inner circle which is a disqualifier all by itself. Whoops, you did not show me his wife but I told you anyway! Darn.

Paul is very different from GOP leaders good and bad and from occupants of planet Earth, for that matter. Palin is also different from the GOP leadership but in worthwhile ways and not to be confused with Paul's political heresies on foreign and military policy. She knows how to employ testosterone. He does not.

Why, on Earth would we tariff oil???? The tariff is just passed to the customer and diminishes the American way of life. Confiscate oil from Iraq, Iran any other complicit satrapy collectively known as Islamostan. Fine. That lowers prices and reimburses our folks for the cost of war. Tariffs??? Rewarding the gummint itself at the cost of our way of life??? No way!!!

It is long past time that we, as a movement, went on the attack against the "green" religion and all its evils. We need not intentionally trash the planet but people are far more important than the "greens."

In addition to the Islamofascists paying the costs of the wars, spoils are good!

The Crusades were noble but not well run and the knights themselves sometimes strayed from virtue and nobility along the way. Too bad they did not stick to business and nip Islam in the bud.

Fight to win or do not fight at all. Kill the maximum number of enemy ASAP at the verrry outset. See Israel vs. their enemies on several occasions. Inflict merciless and massive pain. Kill all of those who need killing then and there. Give twenty-four hour notice by flyers dropped in mass numbers and cities of the intent to make those cities mere radioactive memories. Anyone killed has only him/herself to blame. Fallujah, for example, should be flat, black and glowing in the dark.

Your analysis of military paralysis by media is on target. Exclude the media altogether and let them melt down in nuclear fury and frustration. Understand that the CONDUCT of war is an executive prerogative and tell the courts to fry ice if they try to interfere. Take the cannolis, the spoils and the gun.

Imagine there are no liberals! It's easy if you try. Imagine there are no paleos! Ditto. Drown them in spoiled wine before they screw up another war with their infernal whining. Above all, recognize and treat them as the pariahs that they are. I would bet that Sarah is perfectly capable of bringing down Al Qaeda leaders at a good distance and field dressing them to boot, sending them to the taxidermist as trophies and showing them off at a White House picnic.

Gotta go now. Sorry for the brevity and any errors of grammar, spelling, syntax.

God bless you and yours!

I had a whole bunch of stuff in my reply just to ping you, but I took it out. You consistently insult me and my fellow soldiers and I can’t abide your cavalier attitude towards their lives and sacrifice anymore. You have given me no evidence that you have one millionth the courage that they had, but you act as if you would personally take the U.S.’s enemies out with a pistol and a knife. You’re all talk, just like the U.N., Obama, et el.

Oh, you’re right again. I didn’t personally ask every single soldier in my outfit if they were scared when the war started. I only talked to most of them (I was at the Battalion level at the time so I knew almost everyone in the unit). So, there might have been a couple who had no fear.

I entered the military for the same reasons as most folks. duty to my country, get in shape, avid rifleman since I was a tot, a little bit of extra money (they did help a tiny bit with my student loans, but I mostly paid them off myself). We didn’t get enough of a G.I. bill to amount to anything more than fun money. And you’re right - no one died and left me in charge of who we were supposed to kill, when and where. That was in the oath we took.

Let me ask you something, because I know how you’ll respond to my point about my oath. If the president, as commander and chief of the armed forces, ordered me to fire on a boat full of Cuban refugees because he thought they’d vote republican when they got “citizen-ized”, should I do it? He’s the commander in chief, they’re not U.S. citizens, Cuba is considered a hostile nation (more so than Iraq), etc. I know you’ll say that they’re not Cuban soldiers and blah, blah, but where in the Constitution does it say we only fire on soldiers? I’m sure the Obommunist would say they’re enemies of the Constitution because they’ll vote against the “general welfare”.

That is why the Founding Fathers wanted it to be extremely difficult and extremely rare that we would take military action against an enemy. And to no uncertain motivation.

I certainly don't insult most soldiers. I have made clear that I have attacked any pretense that legitimately enlisted troops have a right to resist fighting wars that are authorized, approved and funded by Congress. If you call that an insult or a cavalier attitude, you are simply as far out there as the paleosurrenderman. As you well know, the military is not a democracy or an anarchy in which each soldier may act as a philosopher king wannabe rather than obeying orders.

You need not worry about being ordered to fire on boatloads of Cuban refugees who might be ready to vote Republican when the have become citizens. Even the slime running Congress since the Demonrat takeover would not authorize, approve and fund such activity or that would be the last Congress to be dominated by Demonrats. Secondly, our nation established its view that such misbehavior would constitute crimes against humanity. See the Nuremburg trials of the Nazis and the trial of the Japanese government leaders. I am not comfortable with international anything much less trial courts which determine and define "war crimes" after the fact. Within our nation, that would be an ex post facto law prohibited by the constitution. BUT, the constitution by its own terms stands on an equal footing with treaties (a major time bomb left by the non-infallible founders) and SCOTUS ruled in a Migratory Bird Treaty case in the 1930s that the later enactment (whatever treaty may have been applied at Nuremburg and as to Japan) would take priority over the former. I personally think that such hamstringing of our nation as to treaties that purport to overturn conflicting constitutional purposes ON ANY SUBJECT is insane since those who ratify the treaties are authorized to act only under the constitution itself. But, hey, that's just me.

It is certainly true that boatloads of Cuban soldiers entering our waters with hostile intent would justify slaughtering the lot of them and going after Cuba and its commissars on its own turf to the death.

In your last paragraph, you are purporting to channel the Founding Fathers again. And again u successfully. Just because paleos want to avoid wars and substitute yak-yak for ack-ack, does not mean that the Founders shared their views. We were a small and weak nation at the outset. The less we were noticed by other nations more powerful than we, the better. Commerce was not a bad method of encountering the world. We gladly took help from France, Spain and the Netherlands in the early days. Eventually we were no longer a child as a nation and became time to put aside the toys of the child and accept adult responsibility. Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory for $3 million in gold specie from Napoleon over outraged howls of "unconstitutionality" from the usual gang of crabbed Federalist suspects whose party died a quick death. The Federalists were replaced by the similarly money-obsessive materialists of the Whig Party which died soon enough because the Whigs were verrry badly damaged by the common sense of Jacksonian democracy. They were replaced by the early raving nutcase Republicans which party survived only because it became a common sense party under Rutherford Hayes, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding (except his weakness for arms control), and Calvin Coolidge.

On a thread about country club Ron Paul's attacks on Sarah Palin's supporters as "country club Republicans" which most are not, no one (including me) has any business or need helping you divert attention from the embarrassing paleopipsqueak's further humiliation of himself and of those foolish enough to support his Al Qaeda buttsmooching ways.

PaleoPaulie is HIMSELF a member of a country club to the extent that such is relevant. Sarah is not and most of her supporters are probably not.

What do talking a lot and acting tough have to do with playing golf? Nothing. Eisenhower spent a lot more time than Patton playing golf and cuddling hostile nations during WWII and afterwards. I'll take Patton.

The Alaskan oil reserves ought to be available to those who discovered them or drilled for them or their contract successors. I suspect that the oil became the "property" of the Alaskan government when Sarah was living in Idaho and was busy transiting from diapers to undies. How is this her responsibility again??? Was she supposed to give the oil away to cronies? Hold a lottery? Ugo NATIONALIZED oil reserves. Sarah did not seize anything from anyone. Ugo needs to be overthrown and executed. Sarah deserves to be supported and elected. There may be others who deserve to compete but none will be paleonobodies or other surrendermonkeys.

You or the paleosurrender artist can accuse Sarah of a few things but boring people to tears with endless monologues about the Federal Reserve System is not one of them. Not that there should be Federal Reserve Banking System, mind you, but no one gets excited over the continuing existence of the WW I era Federal Mohair Commission or Federal Tea-Tasting Commission either.

The "unconstitutional" and stupid war on drugs??? What is really stupid is the use of narcotics and hallucinogenic drugs. "Unconstitutional???" Have you ever heard of the interstate commerce clause??? You don't suppose that drugs move in interstate commerce or that opium derivatives and many other "recreational" drugs move into our nation from foreign countries??? This one is always the hallmark of the libertoonians and marks them as cheerleaders for the enemy within. Do you think that it is patriotic and pro-Western folks (or even just antimoral libertarians) who reap most of the profits from Afghan poppies, Latin American coca leaves, or even from Turkish Red and Acapulco Gold and other international party starters? Then there is the alleged lack of complaint by Sarah on "any intrusions on liberty." Such as??? I hope that you and Paulie are whining about something a lot more serious than a negligent wiretap under the Patriot Act that catches your Aunt Cunnigundus arranging Thursday night's bridge game with her old cronies.

If Sarah were running around making a fool of herself whining about "bringing the troops home" or keeping us "out of the affairs of other countries," you would not have anything to worry about since she would get her patoot kicked to the heavenly body formerly known as the planet Pluto as did the paleosurrenderman get kicked last year in his race for POTUS. Fortunately, Palin prefers patriotism over being a paleosurrender artist. There is no chance that lavender Justin(e) Raimondo will be moving his limp wrist from antiwar.com to Secretary of State under Sarah.

States' rights, properly employed, are good. This means state's rights under the 10th but no state right to abort, recognize lavender canoodling posing as "marriage" or sexual abuse of household pets, farm animals or common (non-human and non-paleo) vegetables.

“PaleoPaulie is HIMSELF a member of a country club to the extent that such is relevant. Sarah is not and most of her supporters are probably not.” – Oh, then you’re right. That settles the argument…get real!
Yeah, Patton was tough. Not exactly with his own flesh and blood, as I understand, but I wasn’t there so I can’t be sure (but you probably think he single-handedly defeated entire divisions)
No, Sarah could’ve let the companies that risked all the cash reap the rewards of their risks. That’s called CAPITALISM!!! Became property of the government!?! Holy ****!!! Is there anything that isn’t property of government to you??? Putting a windfall profits tax on a company’s legitimate earnings is seizure of wealth, for God’s sake! Then again, lefties are big on that sort of thing so I’m sure you approve.
Endless monologues on the Fed – Ha! They took most of your wealth, man! And if you have kids or grandkids, they’ll probably get ALL of it! Not matter - you feel tough ‘cause someone else is facing IED’s in Iraq so that makes it all worth it.
Ah, the famous interstate commerce clause. The lefties are going to use it to quash the gun rights of Texas, Montana, etc. Keep all your faith in that bunch in D.C. You’re one in the same! And the “War on Drugs” – get real! It’s a war on your wallet! It’s none of the govt’s damn business what someone does with their body. What difference does it make where they came from? Make ‘em here and let people profit from it. But that’s a freedom that you fear. You seem to fear lots of things, except fascism. You’re all for that when they have an “R” in front of their name.
Sarah and the war and you. War = patriotism, period. Just brilliant… Hard to argue with tough talk like that.
This is really getting boring because talking to you is like talking to Al Franken. Obnoxious and insulting, but with no evidence of “walking the walk”, or listening to anything that the chickenhawks don’t spew. I think I changed my mind about Sarah. If most of her supporters are tough-talking, government lovers, I’ll just vote for someone else, even if they have no chance of winning.

Again, Sarah was toilet training as an Idaho infant when the oil in Alaska became State of Alaska property. The only alternative theory would be that, since most of Alaska was owned by the federales when Alaska was a territory, the federales transferred oil rights with real property to Alaska.

Since Sarah became governor of Alaska in about 2007, she had several choices. First, just give the oil to oil wildcatters or companies, thereby illegally alienating property of Alaska without getting fair value in an arms' length transaction. We and the state of Alaska would call this larceny on a breathtaking scale and she would wind up in prison for life at least.

Second, she might have held (with legislative approval) a lottery or auction to place the oil in hands other than the State of Alaska (Red China??? When the property passes out of Alaska's control it is the nature of property rights that the owner may sell to anyone or even leave the oil in the ground to escalate drivers' misery artificially in the United States). Whether libertoonian Al Qaeda lovers like the reality or not, oil reserves must be available for warfare as well as driving our cars. We would be seeing what Libertoonians think of living under Sharia law soon enough.

Third, she might have researched giving the oil back to the Native American tribes of Alaska who probably had legitimate claim to oil and mineral rights before the arrival of the White Eyes or don't the Alaskan aboriginals have the same property rights as the White Eyes in libertoonian theory? Of course that might involve giving back a lot more than Alaskan oil. Nah, we don't want to start going in that direction. Think of Alaskan oil as the spoils of conquest. Whoops, there go the Paulistinians and other libertoonians.

What companies risked what cash??? Name the companies, the amounts and how they came to be allegedly dispossessed of the fruits of their efforts? Did they have contracts? Were they somehow cheated or defrauded? You don't even have the libertoonian rhetoric down pat. Nor, of course, have you any evidence to back up the suggestion that any company was dispossessed.

As a libertoonian, you must share a few conservative values. One of the shared values is opposition to taxes. Alaska (like many other states) takes a share of oil produced as "severance taxes" which allows the state to issue checks to residents of Alaska on the basis of seniority in residence. Alaska also has no state income tax. You are attacking the governor of one of the most libertarian states in the nation.

As to wealth, there would not have been much for the Fed to take but real wealth is not denominated in greenies. Gold, silver, real estate, recognizably valuable art, jewelry, intellectual property, et al. I have not disagreed with abolishing the Fed or the federal income tax. Neither of these causes has the same romantic appeal as smashing our nation's enemies, ending abortion, protecting marriage, maintaining the RTKBA, etc. Money is only money and not a gut cause. Trade is OK as a means of producing money but not at the expense of core causes and NEVER to empower our enemies or diminish our own people and their way of life.

What someone does with their (sic) own body??? When the something is abortion, the person kills another and innocent human being. That most certainly IS the government's business and, if the government will not prevent abortion, then the government needs to be replaced with a government that can and will. Suppressing prostitution is the government's business. I can live without vigorous enforcement but it is certainly a matter of legitimate government concern. Suppressing the narcotics trade (at the very least) is certainly the government's business. When I use highways as a citizen and driver, I would prefer that the drunks and the druggies in stupor be kept from driving other vehicles on the road. Call me reactionary, just the kind of boy, I am. A "freedom" to make and sell recreational drugs??? Look, people in my generation invented these horsedung arguments and they won't work on me now any more than they did years ago. Like most libertoonians, you confuse freedom with license.

The RTKBA is a personal constitutional right located in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendedment, ummmm, amended the constitution. It was a later enactment and to the extent that it differs from the original constitution's text (i.e. the interstate commerce clause), the RTKBA prevails. Also, they'll nevuh take Texas!!!

Oh, and all that pent up resentment of the fact that yours is an utterly inconsequential movement with neither political force nor rational argument, won't get you and yours any further than it has in any federal election since the constitution was imposed. George McGovern won't be voting for us either. Nor will Ramsay Clark, nor Code Pink, nor the widder Tiller, nor Kate Michelman nor Planned Barrenhood denizens, nor lavender queens, nor.......

While you guzzle that Madeira, ingest those "free market" pharmaceuticals, sitting around the old ostrich hole lamenting how unfair it all is, the conservatives will do the heavy lifting. We may win and we may lose but, it will at least be more emotionally satisfying to win or lose without you. AND remember that I was a state Libertarian Party officer before the libertarians became cartoon stick figures and Birchers. Even Birchers tend to oppose abortion. I won't ally with antiwar anything or antimilitary anything or anything else that I attack here.

Conservatism and libertarianism have become entirely different things. Unfortunately, the dream of Frank Meyer that fusionism was possible has failed. Libertarianism has degenerated into a spastic bundle of infantile demands that amount to worshiping the notion of "I gotta be me!!!!" as some sort of one true god.

Vote for whomever you please. No sensible person on the Right ever trusts or depends on Libertoonians to do anything rational. The left will choose the Demonrat candidates. The conservatives will generally choose the Republican candidate. The Libertoonians and peace creeps will delude themselves into making what they think is the "perfect" (always unattainable) substitute for the achievable good. If there is a Republican government, the libtoonards will benefit but reserve and use the right to bite the hand that feeds. If there is a Demonrat gummint, then the libtoonards whine and disclaim responsibility while posing for holy pictures as morally "superior" poseurs.

Go grab someone else's lapels.

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.