Previous 11 - 20 Next
The adamant "true" conservatives must be careful this election cycle as many nominal Republicans, independents, and disenchanted Democrats begin to realize that a movement to dislodge the entrenched, professional, crony politicians from Washington has to start somewhere, sometime, by somebody. Such a movement is too important to be held hostage by the "don't throw your vote away" crowd. Maybe the time is now. I am willing to lose an election or two if that is what it takes to get the voters to see and understand candidates that believe - not just act like they believe - in limited government according to the Constitution, with no ifs, ands, or buts.
I think he's still a little sensitive about the flak he caught for his five-terrorists-for-one-deserter exchange.
Correct, assuming that we all agree that the penumbra concept of the Constitution is just an excuse for mischief.
The US gains the right to send tourists to Cuba. The Castros will be unable to control the masses when there are a hundred thousand Bermuda-short-clad Nebraskans waving stacks of dollars around. So the Castro brothers, looking for an exit strategy, will sell Cuba to the Israelis. The Israelis will abandon their Arab hell-hole and bring democracy, technology, and capital to Cuba. Cuba will become the Singapore of the West as the Castros retire to Venezuela. Everybody wins.
Bush is irrelevant to the basic problem: Republicans (fiscal conservatives) are divided between social conservatives ("real" conservatives) and social agnostics (libertarians). The former have far less chance to recruit the swing voters needed to win a national election than do the latter.
In response to:

Libertarian Internationalism

Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 11:29 AM
I'm waiting to see if any of the usual TH libertarian-haters show up. I suspect they will be repelled by the clarity and content of the article.
In response to:

Tortured Reasoning

Stuart95 Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 11:26 AM
Is water-boarding really torture? At Gitmo, water-boarding was performed with a physician standing by, even though the worst outcome was probably the same as taking in a nose-full of water in the swimming pool. Those being water-boarded likely knew that the "torture" would last only a minute or so, that they would receive no physical damage, and that they'd be back in their cells in time for a nice lunch and the afternoon volleyball game. ISIS, on the other hand, reportedly drills holes in both knees of its torture victims, and the Taliban evidently machine-guns rooms full of school children. Does that justify our doing the same thing? I say we cut to the chase and vaporize them with drone bomb - probably cheaper, too.
Where, in that quote or otherwise, did you get the idea that not having a "militaristic foreign policy" somehow means leaving yourself open to those countries that do have a militaristic foreign policy"? We could have a dominant capability for defending ourselves and our friends if we were not spending trillions on Quixotic ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.
Better yet, join forces with Mexico. That collection of labor and natural resources (farmland and minerals) would soon be one of the world's leading economies if handled correctly (step one: offer socialists free bus fare to their favorite blue paradise).
It's pretty much the only thing attracting old people to conservatism these days, too.
So, we decriminalize drugs to put the Mexican cartels out of work. Then we hire the ex-cartel thugs to fight the fundamentalist terrorists. It would be the Islamic beheaders against the Mexican beheaders and we wouldn't even have to pay benefits. It's a win-win.
Previous 11 - 20 Next