Well, that explains it. Of course, the Paulistinians prefer to pay protection money to our nation's enemies. Doing so is so craven, so spineless, so utterly Left Bank!!! Their Randian element joins La Rand in regarding charity as "cruelty" because it prolongs what they regard as the unworthy lives of the recipients. La Rand shared this endearing view with Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Barrenhood. Whatever those two and El Run may be, it is not describable as conservative.
We need not favor foreign aid schemes (admittedly unconstitutional), to recognize that "these colors do not run" and neither shall we as a nation much less as a conservative movement. If we provide MILITARY hardware to an ally like Israel when it has to wear the pants in Western Civilization during interregna such as Obozo's temporary regime, that is simply an extension of our constitutional right to defend against those enemies that Israel may cruch with those weapons. As Santorum observed to the surrenderman in recent debate: Iran is NOT Iceland.
Your conservative critics have EARNED the right to have condescending attitudes about the, ummm, "foreign policy" of Ramsay Clarke, George McGovern, Code Pink, SDS, the New Mobe, any older Mobes, Bertrand Russell, America Firsters and paleoPaulie, the new Neville Chamberlain. If you support Paulie on these controversies, you must expect to be flayed here since this IS a CONSERVATIVE website. You will need to receive your butt smooches from Reason, Cato, Pat Buchanan's magazine or from Justin(e) Raimondo of that Paulistinian-style website antiwar.com.
csense: Keep up the good work and take no guff from the peanut gallery. May God bless you and yours.
Thanks for the pings, and thanks for the kind words.
>>>Well, that explains it<<<
Your writing is incomprehensible enough without nonsense like that.
>>>Of course, the [Ron Paul Followers] prefer to pay protection money to our nation’s enemies.<<<
I’ve never heard that before, but I’m sure you have a reference or two you can post links to. Let’s see those references. In the mean time I will take his word that he doesn’t believe in Foreign Aid, and I am certain he does not believe in Tribute. (I’ll bet you got that crazy notion from my debate with csense, didn’t you?)
>>>Doing so is so craven, so spineless, so utterly Left Bank!!! Their Randian element joins La Rand in regarding charity as “cruelty” because it prolongs what they regard as the unworthy lives of the recipients. La Rand shared this endearing view with Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Barrenhood. Whatever those two and El Run may be, it is not describable as conservative.<<<
Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?
>>>We need not favor foreign aid schemes (admittedly unconstitutional), to recognize that “these colors do not run” and neither shall we as a nation much less as a conservative movement.<<<
You got it right on the unconstitutionality of foreign aid. Who could we possibly run from in this day and age? We are not in Vietnam anymore. Who is chasing us?
For the record, these colors did run, in my lifetime, under Nixon and Clinton—not the soldiers, but the politicians. I was in service when Nixon pulled the rug out from under us in Vietnam.
>>>If we provide MILITARY hardware to an ally like Israel when it has to wear the pants in Western Civilization during interregna such as Obozo’s temporary regime, that is simply an extension of our constitutional right to defend against those enemies that Israel may cruch with those weapons.<<<
Do you not think Israel can defend itself? Do you not think Israel has the wealth to purchase weapons from us? You think we should borrow money and give it to Israel? To anyone? We are broke! We are worse than broke! And you want us to borrow money and give it away?
>>>As Santorum observed to the surrenderman in recent debate: Iran is NOT Iceland.<<<
What’s your point?
>>>Your conservative critics have EARNED the right to have condescending attitudes about the, ummm, “foreign policy” of Ramsay Clarke, George McGovern, Code Pink, SDS, the New Mobe, any older Mobes, Bertrand Russell, America Firsters and paleoPaulie, the new Neville Chamberlain.<<<
Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, most likely. Even if he was not, he had no military to back up any tough stance he may have wanted to take. Ron Paul is no appeaser. If you cannot see that then you are blinded by hatred.
>>If you support [Ron Paul] on these controversies, you must expect to be flayed here since this IS a CONSERVATIVE website.<<<
Bring it on, but you try to take a writing course so I don’t have to waste so much time trying to comprehend your mess.
>>>You will need to receive your butt smooches from Reason, Cato, Pat Buchanan’s magazine or from Justin(e) Raimondo of that [Ron Paul]-style website antiwar.com.<<<
I’ll get mine from Ron Paul’s website and his interviews with the news media.
In a previous post I replied:
"For the record, these colors did run, in my lifetime, under Nixon and Clinton—not the soldiers, but the politicians. I was in service when Nixon pulled the rug out from under us in Vietnam."
I forgot to mention that Reagan cut-and-run in Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks. I should have remembered earlier because a neighbor (a Marine) was stationed in Lebanon about that time.
Anyway, that is three recent presidents that cut-and-run: Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, for the record.