Posted on 09/06/2007 10:24:50 AM PDT by NapkinUser
I see now why I forgot it. ;o)
Regardless of whatever your point may be, the Spell button wants to be your friend. ;)
I doubt solo subsistence farming would make many people happy or be in their own rational self-interest. Once you get past that point and require division of labor, you are by definition “relying” on other people to freely trade the output of their labor for the output of yours. And of course if you’re interested in a second and subsequent generations of objectivists, at least one other person will be critically important to the process.
Heh...considering it involves Congress limiting their own pay, I’m surprised they managed to ratify it in “only” 202 years.
Hmmm . . . he opposes intervention in Iraq. He supports allowing Iran to set their own timetable for disclosure of their nuclear program and supports talks. Same for North Korea. He agrees with the hard left analysis of the US' involvement in the dismissal of Mossadegh in Iran. He opposes aid to our ally Israel. He opposes basically any war that does not involve foreign soldiers running around the streets of US cities.
the views were licensed from Ronald Reagan
The same Ronald Reagan who invaded Grenada? The same Ronald Reagan who bombed Libya? The same Ronald Reagan who wholeheartedly supported aiding Israel? The same Ronald Reagan who fought tooth and nail to aid the Contras of Nicaragua? The same Ronald Reagan who actively intervened in El Salvador?
Please, give me a break.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is indistinguishable from that of International A.N.S.W.E.R. and clearly at odds with Reagan's.
Paul, the only Republican running, who agrees with 70% of Americans that the USA troops should not be getting killed for nation building. Once we got Saddam and they voted, our job was finished.
I thought the war was about WMDs or something. Now it’s as if everyone has forgotten that, even Iraq war opponents, and the war was really all about getting rid of Hussein and freeing a bunch of ungrateful people.
Those are some healthy looking ... beer bottles.
|
You thought wrong.
At least with an (R) after their name ...
Translation: "America's security policy should be determined by random telephone polls."
Sad stuff.
No, I'm pretty sure you're just lying. Do I need to go find the quotes from Bush, Rumfeld and maybe Cheney too just before and after the Iraq invasion?
How is “regardless of whatever” redundant?
I capitalized the “s” in “Spell button” because the “s” is capitalized on the Spell button.
Better luck next time. ;)
He's not alone.
But he is out of his blinking mind.
There's nothing in the Constitution about earmarks, but my personal preference tells me I'm tired of hearing the lies that Ron Paul detractors make up about them. Accusing Dr. Paul of being pro-earmark is as reasonable as accusing the Pope of being pro-abortion.
BTW, 09-11-01 should of taught you that hiding under your bed wishing the bad men would just go away, like Clinton did all during the 1990’s, is an idiot’s dogma. That these bad men ARE willing to come in under the bed after you.
I'm glad we went into Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of those two state sponsors of terrorism. I'm glad we eliminated the governments that sponsored such, and in Iraq's case that we verified that they have no WMDs (for the record, I believe they're buried somewhere either in Iraq or in Syria, but in either case they're no longer a threat to the U.S.). Now that those nations as a whole are no longer a threat to us, I question why we continue to be their police force, when they are perfectly happy killing each other over their crazy religious differences, and when Pakistan and Saudi Arabia breed just as much violent, lunatic Islamism as Iraq or Afghanistan did, and when our borders are wide open to let any terrorist who can get as far as Guadalajara make an easy bus transfer to NY or DC. Maybe we should worry about the current source of threats, and the ways to prevent those threats.
Having said that, I'm more afraid of creeping socialism and government control than of any ten terrorist cells. But of course this thread has turned almost completely into a foreign policy discussion, so that can be saved for another time.
Please do. I would love to see a quote from any of those three that expresses the following sentiment:
"There is one and only one reason to remove Saddam Hussein from power: weapons of mass destruction. That is our only motivation and we have no other problems with the Hussein regime besides WMDs."
That would be interesting to read.
But most likely, you'll pull some quote from one or all of those three that says the possibility of Hussein having WMDs was a factor in going to war - which it undeniably was.
Of course, it was hardly the only factor and, of course, we found the necessary equipment for reconstituting Hussein's WMD program when we invaded.
Exactly. Which is why pure objectivism, at least as it's proponents formulate it, is an impossibility.
Then tell RoPaul to stop earmarking so much!
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.