In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 9:50 AM
As a libertarian, I would gladly support a conservative Republican candidate, if he or she met certain minimal policy standards. Such a candidate would have to: Advocate auditing and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Advocate phasing out the unconstitutional Social Security and Medicare programs (as well as Obamacare). Advocate a policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs, with "defense" department cutbacks to actual defense of the nation. Advocate a policy of abolishing the unconstitutional War on Selected Drugs (I say "selected", because America is the most drugged-up country in the history of man). Heck, I'd even consider a candidate who only took two of the four positions. But today, we don't get even one.
sdoonan Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:25 AM
Very good comments and thoughts in your original posting and as responses. Thanks.
Capt-Call Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:01 AM
I screwed up I could have voted for Johnson and did not , instead I voted for the perceived lesser evil and elected the greater one instead
DRUMSnAZ Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:45 AM
Yeah, me too. Your in good company. GOP NEVER AGAIN!
LastStand Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:00 AM
As a conservative, I'd support a candidate that would deport every single illegal alien, end chain migration, and defend our borders.

The chances of you getting what you want are about the same as me getting what I want. And now that Obama's been re-elected, it won't matter anymore since he'll be granting amnesty, thus tipping the scales permanently in the Dem's favor.
RG_THP_Website Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 9:58 AM
What is your definition of "actual defense of the nation"?
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:14 AM
Actual defense of the nation means exactly that: having the ability to repel any foreign invaders. Actual defense of the nation would be along the lines of the Swiss approach of well-armed and well-drilled militias. You will notice that both Napoleon and Hitler bypassed Switzerland, realizing that, although they probably COULD defeat this tiny nation in the heart of Europe, the COSTS would simply be too high. Attacking Russia, with a hundred times the territory and population, seemed much easier. The Founding Fathers endorsed this approach, and drew much of their inspiration from the Swiss example.
But "actual defense of the nation" does NOT entail fighting in Vietnam, or Korea, or Iran. Those third-world countries are NOT threats.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:18 AM
Aggressive dictatorships act in much the same manner as aggressive criminals: they look for the easiest targets. This is why they mug little old ladies, rather than football players. This is why they flourish in gun-free zones like NYC and Washington, DC, but not in states that allow concealed carry. Applying the same principle to nations, this is why the Hitlers of the world don't attack Switzerland, but instead choose countries with disarmed populations.
LastStand Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:20 AM
"Those third-world countries are NOT threats. "

Yes, I'm sure those 3,000 people that died on 9/11 didn't feel threatened at all.
Neither did those soldiers that died on Ft. Hood, or the ones that would have died at the hands of the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, in Times Square, etc, etc, etc.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:26 AM
You have to be willing to ask yourself WHY people commit suicide by flying airplanes into buildings (actions which, though horrendous, do NOT threaten invasion and conquering of our country). The answer is our own invasions, occupations, and support for satraps in THEIR part of the world.

The answer is NOT "they hate us for our freedom."
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:28 AM
Adopt the illustrious FOUNDING FATHERS' policy of non-intervention, and such terror incidents would disappear overnight. Observe that Muslims did not attack American cities in the 19th century, and don't attack Switzerland now.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:29 AM
In fact, if the motivating factor behind terror were "hatred of freedom," then attacks WOULD be occurring in Switzerland, which is arguably much freer than the USA.
LastStand Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:36 AM
They hate us because their "prophet" tells them to hate us. Period.

Until you accept the fact they they are COMMANDED to convert, subjugate or kill ANYONE who is not a muslim, you will NEVER understand what we are up against.

We can do as you say, and ignore them. We might buy time, but that is all. Their goal is and always has been the global domination of Islam.
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:10 AM
Wrong. They hate us because their kings and masters tell them to hate us. The kings and masters hate us because we keep interfering in their countries. The people that caused 9-11 did so for a reason. No one does anything for no reason. Even crazy people have a crazy reason and these people may be fanatics but they are not crazy. Paulus may be a bit of a fanatic as well but he has a point. We need to go back to our roots, the Constitution.
midfielder2 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:24 AM
They did attack American ships in the 18th century and Switzerland is on the list, just not at the top.

Wait until next year -- 2016, that is.

That’s what disappointed Republican spinners kept saying Tuesday night as they watched Mitt Romney’s hopes crash and burn in swing state after swing state.

How many times did I hear a Republican talk about how their party’s deep bench of future all-stars will return it to power in Washington in four years?

But all the Ryans, Rubios, Bushes, Haleys and Christies in America can’t put the GOP -- or the country -- back together again.

The GOP is a wreck -- and not just in California, where the party’s registration is now...