Actually, that is Libertarians.
What a hornberger!
I happen to take individual responsibility as an extremely important thing .
Appy, there's Conservative Liberatarians, hello we're not talking about parties here .
Sheesh.
Cheese.
The calls for help from your bathroom are from Hillary Clintons reflection .
Another pantload of extremist fanaticism on behalf of drug legalization. Simply implying that there is an epidemic in the number "robberies and muggings" caused by the WOD doesn't make it true. Without qualified proof of such makes the claimant appear as a "Chicken Little."
"Today, when you ask conservatives whether they're willing to take responsibility for their beloved decades-long foreign-aid program and interventionist foreign policy that have produced so much enmity, hatred, and perverse consequences for our country,"
This is nothing more than a libertarian "blame game" going on by people who believe that abolishing borders would "cure" the scourge of terrorism. What foolishness!
While there have been errors in foreign affairs, to again imply that the U.S. is hated by the majority of nations without proof is a dishonest attempt at advancing a dangerous ideology of absolute selfishness.
Think Jacob Hornberger is mixing up his fruit bowl. . .
Would just want to back up and ask Jacob and every other Liberal who holds to this argument that 'America deserved this. . .or asked 'for it'; by 'virtue' of our foreign policies; just what do you mean?
If 'Western Civilization' walks in 'western shoes and dress' that may not be soooo bad, given the alternatives perhaps, of life in some parts of the world. . .and McDonald's does not create starving refugees.
Of course, Liberals do not say specifically what our sins are, or if they include as well, that of saving Muslims all over the planet and feeding those starving ones as well. . .and relocating many in our cities and towns across America. . .sending money to their families 'back home'. . .but maybe in time, the Liberals will address these sins of ours. . .allowing for the 'imperfect' of course.
In addition to their supposed justification of hate for America, what might the justification be for these people, hating their own countrymen. . .why are they practicing the worst atrocities of ethnic cleansing? Religious 'cleansing'?
Why are these 'spiritual' people, going around the world killing, maiming those who have had NOTHING to do with them? Why in the twenty-first century, are they insisting that EVERYone share their world of the first millenium? We HAVE BEEN THERE. DONE THAT. . .
Do think Liberals prefer to stay on this tack of our foreign policy being responsible. They surely do not want to look at the 'red flag's' that their own Liberalism has waved, which gave these zealots another manufactured 'justification' to hate and kill and destroy our country of 'infidels'.
But why nitpik over Welfare? Jacob is a little 'sensitive', over-reactive, perhaps; but a classic Liberal fellow who just does not 'get it'.
Think Jacob Hornberger is mixing up his fruit bowl. . .
Would just want to back up and ask Jacob and every other Liberal who holds to this argument that 'America deserved this. . .or asked 'for it'; by 'virtue' of our foreign policies; just what do you mean?
If 'Western Civilization' walks in 'western shoes and dress' that may not be soooo bad, given the alternatives perhaps, of life in some parts of the world. . .and McDonald's does not create starving refugees.
Of course, Liberals do not say specifically what our sins are, or if they include as well, that of saving Muslims all over the planet and feeding those starving ones as well. . .and relocating many in our cities and towns across America. . .sending money to their families 'back home'. . .but maybe in time, the Liberals will address these sins of ours. . .allowing for the 'imperfect' of course.
In addition to their supposed justification of hate for America, what might the justification be for these people, hating their own countrymen. . .why are they practicing the worst atrocities of ethnic cleansing? Religious 'cleansing'?
Why are these 'spiritual' people, going around the world killing, maiming those who have had NOTHING to do with them? Why in the twenty-first century, are they insisting that EVERYone share THEIR world of the first millenium? We HAVE BEEN THERE. DONE THAT. . .
Do think Liberals prefer to stay on this tack of our foreign policy being responsible. They surely do not want to look at the 'red flag's' that their own Liberalism has waved, which gave these zealots another manufactured 'justification' to hate and kill and destroy our country of 'infidels'.
. . .and why nitpik over Welfare? Jacob is a little 'sensitive', over-reactive, perhaps; but a classic 'Liberal' fellow .
Hey @$$hole, poverty is not illegal, and endangering to other individuals of society.
Another loser playing the same tired semantic trick:
Put words in other peoples's collective mouths and then wax poetic (in his mind, of course) about how wrong, or immoral, or inconsistent it is.
Do these people really think that most conscious people are not aware of the pathetic attempt at manufactured outrage?
Yes.. obviously.
"Only terrorists, with their lack of respect for liberty and private property, are responsible for their actions."
Hard to argue with that statement.
Question for conservatives: With respect to welfare programs, do you still feel that good intentions don't matter and that advocates of the decades-long war on poverty should take responsibility for its destructive consequences, or do you now feel that only the food-stamp mother in the grocery-store line is responsible for her actions and beliefs?
False analogy. Food Stamp mothers are not perpetrators of a crime. Muggers and terrorists are. Food Stamp mothers, and the rest of society, are the victims. The advocates of the failed and foolishly contrived decades-long war on poverty are the perpetrators of "a counter productive policy, which became an entrenched institution." Now, if there were no "war on poverty" would there be more Food Stamp Mothers? Already proven that this assumption is false. There is a powerful, effective, constructive, positive alternative to the political use of the welfare system to create dependency and thereby ensure the re-election of the benif of the goodies. It is called "personal responsibility." It works, try it.
If there were no war on drugs, i.e. prohibition, would there be less damage to society from drug use? The answer is MORE damage, as we see with the case of the "legal" drug- alcohol. We as a society are so unconsciously accepting of the titanic cost in social decline, damage to physical and mental health, crime, property damage, and lost productivity, that we hardly notice the hundreds of billions lost to this scourge of American life. The "legalization" of alcohol has led to no reduction, and in many ways increased the damage that drug does to our nation. Libertarians seem to be willing to accept long term, pervasive and corrosively damaging societal effects of "legalized" and therefore widespread and unchecked, hard, addicting drug use, in order to attempt to remove the incentive for street and organized crime involving the traffic in drugs. Unless Libertarians are willing to simply stop enforcing any relevant law of any kind, including tax and licensing laws, this crime will simply mutate and evolve, as organized crime did after the end of alcohol prohibition. After prohibition is ended, it can never be restored, a fact that even Libertarians should agree with. So...
Question for Libertarians: With respect to drug legalization, do you still feel that good intentions don't matter and that advocates of the legalization of all drugs should take responsibility for its destructive consequences, or do you now feel that only the drug addict's mother, wife, husband, children, neighbors, and society at large are responsible for the drug addict's self destruction, wasted life, and burden upon the nation?
Was it wrong to lend-lease to Britian? Was it wrong to support Israel?
By "interventionist" foreign policy, does Jacob mean that the USA should have NO "national interests" beyond our shores?
What I think is that this analysis is pigswill. The author is either (a) stupid or (b) a vile opportunist leaping to exploit an attack on our country to take cheap shots and try to get a little attention for his justly-ignored wacko views.
I don't like them putting words in our mouths. This is BS.