Nope, just one in history. That gives me the knowledge why this will be a failure.
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House. Yes, that's much more your speed.
Not really. But when talking to the 'faithful' one has to go with simple and sometimes funny examples that possibly could make you see a simple comparison and keep your attention. Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House. No thinking on your own, just espousal of Republican talking points. And as I figured that movie was after 1950 (the limits of 'conservative' memories as shown time and again), I assumed you would know of the movie.
I had forgotten - the truly important thing is that money is being spent. We need to save that money for the jizya we'll have to pay after our foreordained defeat. As usual, you really have your priorities straight.
And as usual you don't. I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation, nor was it intended to be used to spread 'freedom' to that nation.
To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.
Lesson over. I can't carry on a conversation with someone that doesn't know the facts. It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.
Of course. Any responsible historian will gladly brag that he has the ability to unerringly predict the future.
Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House.
Have you ever actually posted an argument of substance? Or is it to be all petty sniping like this?
I would expect that a learned historian and a prophet of your stature would bring more to the table.
I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation
Interesting terminology. It implies that in your view, the Constitution is basically a low-premium insurance policy.
While I believe that the more free countries in the world there are, the more potential security assets the US has, my main concern isn't political freedom in Iraq but fighting terrorists abroad on a ground of our choosing.
It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.
Oh, I acknowledge that he talks the talk when TV cameras aren't on him - when the light is blinking he does seem to forget all that in favor of whining about Iraq, though.
But I ask again: can any Paul booster show me serious concrete legislative efforts he's undertaken to systematically reduce non-defense spending?
If people want to spend their substance to help improve another country's politics, that is their perogative, but sending our tax dollars abroad is another matter. The Constitution provides for the common defense of these United States, not the common defense of the United Nations or any other foreign entity.