1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Will the GOP Capitulate Again?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 20, 2015 10:30 AM
There are two problems with Buchanan's position. First, many of the so called free trade agreements, are nothing more than deals allocating a share of the market to foreign manufacturers (both ours and theirs). Second, Buchanan is wrong to support protectionist trade restrictions - it's nothing more than crony crapitalism whereby the 1% rich owners of US manufacturing firms avoid competition from abroad and politicians gain campaign cash from them, at the expense of higher prices for US consumers. Even if foreign countries sell us goods below their cost of production, US consumers benefit at their expense. Sure some local firms might go out of business, but it won't last because they can't continue losing money indefinitely and most voters don't like it either (Pat being an example of someone who supports government forcing the burden of higher prices on citizens for the benefit of 1% rich manufacturing firm owners). If you believe that it's better for you to pay a higher cost for an American car than to purchase a foreign one, you are still free to do so.
It's not jobs that are needed in the Middle East, it's freedom. But Obama doesn't support freedom, so they spew liberal nonsense to confuse the issue. Consider Mohamed Bouazizi: a Tunisian street produce vendor, who set himself on fire in protest of government officials confiscating his produce. He had a job, but with government taking his wares, scales and cart, he couldn't make a living. His act sparked the Arab Spring. Government employees in Middle Eastern countries use their positions to make a living at the expense of their citizens in myriad ways. They are like leeches sucking the blood of honest people.
In response to:

A Failure to Confront Evil

MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 20, 2015 8:14 AM
Erickson is right that we are failing to confront evil, but he misses it. ISIS didn't exist when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, but formed after the US allowed the Shia in Iraq to create an unfree and corrupt government, that oppressed the Sunnis (Hussein being one) who used to run the country. Killing ISIS doesn't remove the reason ISIS came into existence. In fact, Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, are among the least free countries in the world. And we're supporting them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere. Iran's government came about from oppression that the Shah of Iran (installed by the CIA) showered on his citizens. Fighting ISIS, is just propping up corrupt and oppressive governments. Consider, is Syria or ISIS worse, and why did Obama want to get authorization to go to war against Syria, but now the government wants to go to war against ISIS when they are fighting each other? If we're not taking over the country and running it, then whose side are we on? That is failure to confront the evils we are supporting. But if you make money from war, then you don't want to confront that evil.
Any Republican that would attack corrupt Republicans, as she did in Alaska, is exactly what the GOP needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_political_corruption_probe It seems instead, that most GOP politicians (and all the Democrats) don't want that, considering how they've ganged up to trash her reputation.
I don't believe the RNC regarding their reasons to keep Rubio from running for President. I think it's all about campaign cash, and where the big 1% donors and PAC managers will "invest" their money. Put yourself in the position of one of these guys, and consider whether your investment before the primaries will net a return if your candidate doesn't win the primary. With GOP establishment candidates Rubio, Bush, Christie, Perry, Santorum, and Huckabee all running, any major campaign cash "investment" is likely to be a loser. One could wait until after the primary, but big spending establishment politicians need the money now, and will reward those who support them early. Thus, the real reason they want Rubio out, is to narrow the field, improve their campaign cash investment returns, and keep Rubio for a future presidential run. Keeping him in the Senate now (their stated reason) is a minor plus. Rubio has shown he's for sale, by voting for Big Sugar subsidies, to get campaign cash from a few 1% rich sugar growers in FL such as the Fanjul brothers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers. Checking opensecrets.org for the four brothers, you'll find they are huge contributors to candidates of both parties. They know the value of those subsidies, as it has made them billionaires, at our expense.
In response to:

GOP Double-Crossing Traitors

MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 19, 2015 7:18 PM
"To win requires compromise ...." We "won" with Bush, and got big government budgets, Homeland Security/TSA, an IRS Comissioner who was a Democrat and started the Tea Party harassment, an "unpatriotic" contribution to the debt, and Barrack Obama thanks to Bush. That's not winning, that's shooting oneself in the foot.
In response to:

No Gatekeepers

MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 18, 2015 9:16 PM
This road example shows how well government works. And the fact that someone can build a road and collect a $3 toll and pay for it in a short period of time, shows how much government overcharges and gets in the way of what people want. That is, unless you are a politician in bed with a road construction company, and then it results in campaign cash or other favors in one's pocket, and overpriced construction for taxpayers.
When a big government RINO that supports spying on people without a warrant starts using the government to do the same thing to them that Holder has done. As far as I know, most of the GOP candidates support the NSA. That way they know who to harrass, and what government employess that are talking to them, who'll be prosecuted for revealing government secrets. Of course, by then it'll be too late to stop.
I agree the enemy isn't us, but it appears the governments we created in the Middle East, and some of the governments we supported or still support in the Middle East, are the enemy to ISIS. After all, ISIS arose as a result of the Shites taking over the Hussein/Sunni run government in Iraq. They've taken a democratic vote, with 2 Shites and a Sunni deciding who'll work for the government, who'll get the money, and who can earn a living in Iraq.
Well, it's not an "inalienable right" to them, and is a right Muslims would like government to abolish. And you know what, they can't handle the criticism either which shows how fragile their religion is: words can hurt it so they respond with protests and violence. Islam means submission to God (relying on the people in charge to decide what God wants). I bet they'd object to submission to my idea of God, but still support forcing me to submit to their idea of God. Hypocrites and liars.
1 - 10 Next