Posted on 12/16/2011 9:21:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Since they voted for McCain. If you're going to use your own personal definition of "red state" when making claims, you need to let us know what that definition is.
“Yes, profit and loss is a better motivator than preventing death.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, businesses operate with greater efficiency than they would if their employees DIED if the business didn’t do well!
“The biggest gaping hole in your problem with your premise is that whereas a business goes bankrupt if it loses enough money, politicians and arms manufacturers keep on humming despite wars going badly.”
Yep! That is why the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, The Koreans attacked, and 911 - because of the military-industrial complex.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. You can feel free to push for drug to be legalized. You have Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to vote for if you are of that mind. I am not buying this pro drug garbage no matter how hard anyone argues it.
“Nope. Slavery was.”
Yes, but you can’t just leave it at that. Slavery how? Well, partly because one section of the country wanted slavery expanded westward and most of another section didn’t.
“EVERYONE wanted westward expansion”
Yes, but on their own terms. Southerners with slavery, Free Soilers without.
“Nope. 911 wasn’t caused by Israel”
Again, learn to read and notice I explicitly said I wasn’t arguing causation. If Israel has nothing to do with 9/11, Bin Laden wasted quite a lot of breath and ink. or was that misdirection, and he only wanted us to think support for Israel motivated him, while secretly...what?
“It was caused by Muslim extremists who hate non-Muslims.”
Oh, that’s it, was it? Real subtle reasoning, there.
“WW2 didn’t force Russia to want to expand.”
Did I say it did? Not exactly. I specified that they expanded with Germany at first, before they were attacked. The important thing is Germany’s aggression made Russian expansion to the porch of Western Europe possible. First as teammate, then as opponent. I don’t see it happening otherwise.
“Russia wanted to expand to increase Russia’s power at the expense of the freedom of everyone else.”
Yeah, I know. But would we have cared as much had we not just fought to liberate Western Europe and Asia? No. Or no more than we cared about Germany increasing its power at the expense of everyone else’s freedom in 1914 and 1939. We got over the hump and went to war with them back then, too. But the point is each time it gets easier.
“Paulbot nutjob!”
Please, next time leave this space open. It’ll have just as much meaning, with less clutter.
Yes.
Wow. At least you're consistent. What other self-harming activities should be illegal? Eating fatty food? Staying up too late?
I am not buying this pro drug garbage no matter how hard anyone argues it.
So which of the arguments in the link I posted do you think are wrong?
“Yeah, businesses operate with greater efficiency than they would if their employees DIED if the business didn’t do well!”
I’m sure by now you don’t understand economic calculation and are so blinded by the idea of the horrible spectre of death (people in the military die! I mean, death, man! With blood and everything!) that you can’t think rationally about it.
“Yep! That is why the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, The Koreans attacked, and 911 - because of the military-industrial complex.”
You jest, but think, if only for a moment. Were we attacked by Japan before we had a fleet in the Pacific and tried to dictate their policies through embargoes?
Who did Korea attack, again? Not us. South Korea. Why did we care so much about South Korea? The Truman Doctrine, or the policy of containment. Where did that come from? The Cold War, which itself came from WW2.
As for 9/11, they told us why they did it. You may not believe, and ascribe it instead to some simplistic formula like: muslims hate non-muslims. Only that’s about as enlightening as saying we went to Vietnam because Americans hate yellow people.
“Why? That’s the conservative position - as ending Prohibition was the conservative position.” (legalizing pot)
Hey, didn’t you see “Reefer Madness” and what happened to the youngsters in that “documentary”.
Actually, Goldwater in his later years endorsed legalizing pot but it could be argued that it is and that it is not a conservative position. If you believe it is, then how would being for abortion not be a conservative position. Show me some logic here. Don’t have a dog in the pot hunt, just asking.
“So which of the arguments in the link I posted do you think are wrong?”
Didn’t the previous poster say they weren’t buying pro-drug arguments, and that’s that? They don’t care about reasons. Drugs are bad, ‘nuff said.
National Review, the Weekly Standard, George Will, Karl Rove, Krauthammer, Coulter, Christie are phony conservatives. The American Spectator was real conservatism. Newsmax comes a close second.
I have literally never seen the pro-criminalization side get the better part of a debate with pro-legalization conservatism. The former ALWAYS ends up in namecalling or abandoning the field.
If you believe it is, then how would being for abortion not be a conservative position. Show me some logic here.
Abortion kills a nonconsenting person. Pot kills at most the consenting user - and usually not even him.
Of course, that was about 7 years ago, when we actually listened to his show.
He’s right , you are just as off the wall as your candidate. Paul has no chance, I wouldn’t even vote for him.
I’ve been reading some of the quotes from his old news letters, quite racist. If, God forbid, he becomes the republican candidate , the quotes will destroy him.
“We got over the hump and went to war with them back then, too”
Bearing in mind the Cold War wasn’t an actual war, though there were wars within it. The hump we got over, I guess, in this situation was overcoming the usual “return to normalcy” and disengagement following previous wars. Though our continued engagement did not amount immediately to war, it did keep potential for war unusually heightened.
RE: The American Spectator was real conservatism.
Why the use of the past tense?
You bet, and exactly why it was never used to protect and secure our own homeland/borders from this epic violent, costly invasion.
“He’s right , you are just as off the wall as your candidate.”
Not that it matters, but he’s not my candidate.
You don't have a point. After reading all your posts on this thread, you just don't have a point, just like Ron Paul.
“You don’t have a point. After reading all your posts on this thread, you just don’t have a point, just like Ron Paul.”
That’s nice, very responsive. Thanks for conversing.
“I’m sure by now you don’t understand economic calculation and are so blinded by the idea of the horrible spectre of death (people in the military die! I mean, death, man! With blood and everything!) that you can’t think rationally about it.”
I’ve gone to enough funerals to take it seriously - unlike you. That includes my father’s funeral. I’ve been shot at, which also tends to focus the mind.
Again, I prefer to fight the terrorists on foreign shores - but then, I HAVE fought the terrorists. So has my son, who has just returned this month. So has my oldest daughter. So has my son-in-law.
War isn’t a theory for me. It isn’t a book. It isn’t a RonPaul video. It isn’t amusing, and it isn’t something to mock.
Thankfully, very few people subscribe to RonPaul’s “Let them kill us here” philosophy. Only a few Paulbot nutjobs, like yourself.
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.