The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, January 31, 2008
None of the Above?
That's the question the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is asking on its online poll.
So far, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are neck and neck.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on January 31, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference None of the Above?:
No option to vote for Ron Paul?
According to Peter Jaworski's exclusive WS article, he's popular with Canadians:
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-31 11:07:28 AM
Popular with Canadian nutbars you meant to say.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 11:17:13 AM
Popular with the National Post, NRO and Glenn Beck.
Popular with Reagan in 1978.
Popular with Barry Goldwater Jr.
Popular enough to beat Republican front runners in many primaries.
And, "yes", popular with a few nutbars as well. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-31 11:28:00 AM
How about "All of the Above"? None of these candidates has an explicit "get Canada" policy. As president, each one would be generally good for Canada because there's nothing to be gain by changing the status quo. Yes they do take Canada for granted but is there anything truly wrong with that? So long as they keep buying Canadian goods, little can go wrong. Remember: the US ambassador to Canada is always a close associate of the President, so contrary to popular belief the president does hear what Canada has to say from one of his friends, not a bureaucrat. Instead of whining like the nutbars always do, I prefer to be grateful for what is - the best bilateral international arrangement in the history of the world.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-31 11:56:26 AM
Military conflicts always create alliances of necessity. In the current geopolitical situation, Canada's interests are aligned with the Anglosphere. Therefore the best US president from Canada's perspective is the same as the best US president from the American perspective.
The best will not be a Dem, not will it be Ron Paul. Paul as Fed Chairman - now there is a novel idea. Hmmmm.
We are being asked to choose because the choices before us on the Republican side are not convincing at the present time. My choice - a combination of Duncan Hunter and Rick Santorum - is not a possibility.
As I suggested in a post a few weeks ago to Matthew Johnson, I will wait until after Feb 5 to continue this discussion.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-31 12:10:33 PM
Brent: I have enjoyed reading many of your previous posts, but the one above regarding Santorum and Hunter is my favorite! 2 good men there.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-31 12:15:00 PM
Popular with the National Post! What a joke! Maybe popular with a nutbar opinion writer for the NP. As if the Librano Aspers are Ron Paul supporters!
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 12:15:10 PM
MJ: Popular with Glenn Beck? Not likely, liking a couple of his policies does not equal liking the candidate. Beck understands Paul's froeign policy is retarded.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-31 12:17:35 PM
MJ: Popular with Glenn Beck? Not likely, liking a couple of his policies does not equal liking the candidate. Beck understands Paul's foreign policy is retarded.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-31 12:17:47 PM
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-31 12:23:01 PM
Without no hesitation,
I would take the only one who's not a CFR and Federal Bank' puppet. the only one the MSM (that's Neocons medias in real life) do everything to hide. The only one working for the people and freedom. The only one who always voted for freedom. The only one working against the NWO. The only one who would get the US back to what it was when I was younger. The only one who's saying he dosent want to control the lives of Americans and actually have the record to prove it. The only one getting the "neo" out of neoconservatives. The only one able to beat any of the democratic candidate who all work for the NWO anyway.
That one is the only decent candiadate but you won't heard from him and the Patriot Act is working hard on it.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 12:42:51 PM
I have an acquaintance who's local campaign chair of the Ron Paul campaign in Georgia.
Apparently, Paul want to dismantle the IRS.
And, he'd like off to cut off all foreign aid as part of an overall policy that the US stop accepting a role as policeman for the world.
Basically, what I hear Paul saying is that the US will earn more respect in the world if it takes care of its own house.
It sounds like a return to the US isolationism that worked well for it in the past as the Europeans pounded themselves and their economies into submission.
Apparently, Paul also questions why the US needs military bases in such places as South Korea, Japan and Germany and maintains the more economic benefit would accrue to the US if their military bases were actually in the US.
My associate, who happens to be of Palestinian orgin, is convinced Paul is an honourable man who has not had a fair hearing from the US media.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-31 1:02:48 PM
"Basically, what I hear Paul saying is that the US will earn more respect in the world if it takes care of its own house."
That's only a secondary effect.
Paul says he wishes the US stop policing the world because they are broke and cannot sustain in this direction without going strait into more dangerous economic problems at home.
His yesterday's example about the US too broke to rebuilt their own infrastructures but doing so in Iraq was a pretty good exemple of all the mess.
He want to dismantle the IRS because it's illegal, it profit only to a few and it's runing lives of honest and hard working citizens.
And so on and so on...
You can be not in favor of everything he says but, you people should stop saying you're conservatives - it's not even funny anymore.
When every medias in the US try to hide this man from getting coverage, getting access to debates and try to tarnish his reputation, you know somethings wrong. Since when the medias decide who fits and who dont ? If he's such a looser, why hiding him when showing more of him and giving him more coverage would, normally, destroy his campain...? You are promoting the idea that Americans are in Irak to "restore democracy" but you're making a feu de joie when THEIR OWN medias don't follow the rules of Democracy at home.
Nah dont answer, everybody knows the real reasons.
You guys are crying out loud about the Ezra thing, the CBC and so on but applauses when the US MSM censor him.
What a pathetic bunch of false conservatives you make.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 1:31:27 PM
Hi, Brent. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you looking for a Western Standard online poll on the Republican race? I like the idea and we’re working on creating a permanent online poll sector on the Western Standard website. Ron Paul as Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Brilliant! I love the idea.
Epsi, the National Post published a positive, un-signed editorial on Ron Paul. Of course they don’t like everything he stands for, but he’s is popular enough among the editorial board to get their qualified support.
Markalta, Glenn Beck was so effusive with his praise for Paul that at one put he said he wanted to “French kiss” him. I haven’t seen him like that with any other candidate, although he has given Romney his endorsement. (He says it’s not an actual endorsement and that he won’t vote, but it’s clear his preference is Romney.)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-31 1:44:16 PM
No, Epsi, the NP editorial board came out, without actually endorsing him, in favour of giving Ron Paul more attention, and editorialized that more people should listen to him. That's as close to an endorsement as you can get without actually saying, "we endorse Ron Paul."
Glenn Beck has said many times that he both likes and admires Ron Paul, and that he wishes Paul's ideas would get a fairer hearing.
John Derbyshire at the National Review has endorsed Ron Paul, and recently said he will be contributing to his campaign on the 51st anniversary of Ron and Carol Paul's wedding.
Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" in "Roe v. Wade" who has since become a pro-life advocate) has endorsed Ron Paul.
So has former governor Gary "veto" Johnson.
So has Barry Goldwater Jr., who says Paul, and only Paul, can lay claim to being a Goldwater Republican.
So has Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News talking head.
I could continue listing these things, but why bother. Your criticism rings hollow.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 1:48:53 PM
IMO, Ron Paul would be a very good President for Americans. Ron Paul would ensure that America took care of Americans FIRST. That would mean that Canada might have to build it's own defense team.
The Demos are not big on Free Trade and they are really BIG on subsidies.
The UN and the third worlds would be left on their own too - much less aid and protection for citizens at risk and less emergency relief for things like the Ice storm in E. Canada, Red River flooding, Earthquakes, Tsunamis etc. America would adopt an isolation stance much like it did after the Civil War (the United States had to be drug kicking and screaming into WWI - it was the Bolshevik treat that made the US join the allies; WWII was not popular in US and only the Communist threat took the American people into Korea and to take over the failed mission of France in Viet Nam). Ron Paul would be the worst President for all free loaders (including Canada) in the world but he would be great for American people.
I think the President that would be best for Canada would be Mitt Romeny because he is a 'new' Republican and would probably be easier to do business with that McCain and/or the Democrats who would shut down the borders and free trade.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-31 1:51:52 PM
The US cannot afford to be Conservative and Libertarian/isolationsist when the forces of fascism and Islam are on the march on every continenet except North American (for now). We need Conservatism balanced by western authoritarianism to protect and fight against the enemies of freedom that will most certainly advance on any American retreat. Basically you are conceding control of the world's resources to the dark forces of communist and totalitarian control.
I know you do not want that.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 1:59:32 PM
Who the hell cares what Canadians think.
A good many Canadians, perhaps even a majority, have supported, and still support the most dysfunctional, inept, embarrassment called the Liberal party the modern world has ever seen.
Until the political fog a good many Canadians seem mired in is lifted, and we get out own affairs in order, our opinion just does not matter.
The only reason the Post, and most of the "bats" support Paul is his anti war stance. The man has some valid points and views, but these people could care less about those.
They support anyone who would turn tail and run, thus embarrassing Bush and the US.
That is also why Obama has support.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-31 2:00:26 PM
I find this to be pretty funny:
"We need Conservatism balanced by western authoritarianism to protect and fight against the enemies of freedom that will most certainly advance on any American retreat."
So we need authoritarianism to fight for freedom?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 2:04:13 PM
Interestingly, I sent them an email to let them know about the Ron Paul article here on the Standard, and to ask them to include Ron Paul. They did so about five minutes ago, saying that it was an oversight (which I think everyone can understand). Ron Paul was added to the vote, and is in the lead. All within about five minutes.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 2:06:14 PM
I received a number of emails complaining that Ron Paul was not included in our online poll.
All I can say is oops! I take full responsibility as I was the one who gave the names to our webmaster. The oversight has now been corrected and since his name was added a little while ago, he has already jumped into the lead.
There's a lesson in this. As a bit of a political animal myself, I like to think that I..well, that I actually think about issues before commenting and that I am relatively informed. I still believe that this is the case, but with all the talk of both the Republican and Democratic contests being "two horse" races with Huckabee the sole candidate running for VP, even I was snookered. (Is that an actual word?)
It just goes to show how susceptible we all are to the spin the mainstream media puts on things.
Thanks to you all for keeping us on our toes.
Joseph C. Ben-Ami
Canadian Centre for Policy Studies
Posted by: Joseph C. Ben-Ami | 2008-01-31 2:14:30 PM
Welcome to our blog, Joseph. I hope you visit often.
The oversight is perfectly understandable, especially since, in most coverage of the debates, the primaries, and the caucuses, the media has given very short shrift to Ron Paul.
That you would correct it so quickly is commendable.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 2:18:33 PM
Thank goodness a maniac like Ron Paul will never be president. The world needs America - it's the only country with the ability to change things and make it stick. At the very, very least, Canada must maintain its relationship with the US.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-31 2:19:12 PM
"much less aid and protection for citizens at risk and less emergency relief for things like the Ice storm in E. Canada, Red River flooding, Earthquakes, Tsunamis etc."
Is this a joke ? They were and still are unable to deal with Katrina.
"That would mean that Canada might have to build it's own defense team."
And what's wrong with that idea ?
What business ? The Americans are going broke and now it's China who pimp there ass. Romney have 0 chance to win against the Dems; but you and I knows that but I also know that's exatcly what you're looking for.
"The only reason the Post, and most of the "bats" support Paul is his anti war stance. The man has some valid points and views, but these people could care less about those."
What a negative point of vue.
I beleive that Canadians would be more inclined to take a conservative avenue with a decent* conservative administration in the US.
Also, nothing in Romney or McCain would help giving conservatisme a good name in Canada and you know it.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 2:25:23 PM
Shame on you!
Of course we need authoritarianism to fight for freedom. Think of it from its true definition not emotionally loaded with connotations as you are doing. The military is not a democracy (but it is accountable to one) and we must sacrifice some freedoms in times of need to protect what we treasure the most.
Taxation is enforced confiscation of income on threat of incarceration. That is authoritarian. But it is still accountable to a democratic institution. Conscription, another necessary evil during times of threat is another.
You do not fight evil with kind words and diplomacy as the Dion/Layton wusses would have us think. You fight evil with whatever means it takes to defeat them. And sometimes it is not pretty.
"You theeenk it is easy to make proriteeeees"
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 2:33:08 PM
The best candidate for the U.S. presidency is whomever the U.S. electorate decides the best candidate is. If Canadians want a say in who sits in the Oval Office, let them accept statehood and vote. Canadians really do need to get over themselves where the U.S. is concerned--and I say that as a Canadian citizen living in Canada.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 2:43:46 PM
Ron Paul 58.8%
John McCain 29.4%
Barack Obama 11.8%
Hillary Clinton 0%
Mike Huckabee 0%
Mitt Romney 0%
But in the real world McCain will win, beating either Clinton or Obama easily.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-01-31 2:44:13 PM
It is too bad Paul is silenced by MSM, also in the USA (such as in the debate last night).
Overall, he is the only one with a some what "classical liberal" agenda (I suppose, kinda like Goldwater).
But in a choice between Hillary/Barak vs McCain, I would vote McCain, although McCain could also become quite dangerous. Global warming statism, militaristic tendencies, only vague support for privacy and individual rights...
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-01-31 2:54:22 PM
Joseph C Ben-Ami:
You poll is flawed for technical reasons. I just took your poll and your site asked me to enable cookies. I did that and after taking the poll went and deleted cookies from my browser. After deleting the cookies, I retook your poll. It accepted the second entry. I suppose I could do this all day long if I wanted to. If I really wanted to manipulate your poll, I could write some software to delete cookies. Therefore, your poll indicates to me something that I already knew - that Ron Paul supporters are at least a little Web savvy.
I recommend a more advanced method of tracking the participants in your poll such as capturing the IP address. There are several ways of recording this information - I often use Java servlets to do this when writing the Web sites I write.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-31 2:57:05 PM
I appreciate your opinion, Epsi, but I am in profound disagreement with you.
For one, it looks like you're conflating democracy with freedom. They are not the same thing.
For two, conscription is tantamount to slavery (I hope that doesn't sound too radical, and I mean it analytically, not emotionally). I also don't believe it's ever a necessary evil (not in practice), although I can see hypothetical scenarios where, in theory, I would think it might be better than the alternative.
For three, agreed that (income and property) taxation is just as you describe it. Which is why I oppose it. Sales taxes are a more complicated matter.
For four, the question isn't whether or not we should "fight evil," the question is about strategy. What strategy will best limit or eradicate evil. We agree on goals, and disagree on means. That is all.
And, for five, I don't see why you reference my emotions, since all I did was ask a question, and not even offer an opinion. You can't call someone's comment emotional unless there are good cues to think that it's true. Mine was hardly emotional. It was merely pointing out what I thought was in stark philosophical tension in your post--how do you square "authoritarianism" (i.e. the denial of individual liberty), with freedom?
(Let's see if this works...)Present facts, not emotions, Epsi! We don't need to be debating what "feels good," but what is right!
(I'll try to append that to every one of my comments, since it doesn't require even a hint of emotion in a commenters post, apparently, to accuse them of being emotional. And it's such a good tactic!)
(I mean all of the above in a good-humoured fashion. I hope that comes across too.)
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 2:57:25 PM
"Hi, Brent. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you looking for a Western Standard online poll on the Republican race?"
No, not really. I was simply referring to an earlier conversation between the two of us about Huckabee's win in Iowa. I had offerred an opinion on why he had won and you had wanted to pursue the conversation.
I had simply declined because my interests are more in the individual policies of the candidates and the US process itself. I understand that it is quite important to others to try to predict early on in the race the outcomes - I am patient and will wait until the results are displayed. Until Feb 5, I intend to limit my comments to what I think of a candidate's policies - or to why the electorate chose the way they did as I did in Iowa.
Thanks for asking, though.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-31 3:19:37 PM
I am not confusing democracy with freedom for heaven's sake.
Conscription is far, far from slavery. Geezuz Jaws! Don't be so friggin melodramatic! There are many democracies that include several years of either compulsory military service OR compulsory public service. These are democracies Jaws and it is NOT slavery! This is moot anyway because you basically agreed that it may be necessary in extreme situations WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!
We are fighting EVIL for God's sake. Use whatever strategy it takes to win that gets the best result and consumes the least resources. You make no point here Jaws.
I fight with emotion all the time. It is my right. People make decisions based on "how they feel". Political campaigns, sales pitches, religious institutions, corporate prospectii, annual reports, editorial columns, news articles, books and magazines and all matter of advertising ALL use emotion to inspire, persuade and convince. The "don't use emotion" argument is a complete non-starter! LOL!
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 3:22:42 PM
If we are, indeed, fighting evil then the answer surely can be found in a religious context.
On the other hand, bitchiness does not equal intelligence.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-31 3:30:44 PM
Who's your favorite Set ?
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 3:36:33 PM
Shane is probaly right...
Let their medias decide how their freedom and democracy will end.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 3:44:03 PM
Not sure right now between Romney and McCain.
McCain seems to be strong on both foreign policy issues and also understands economic issues. Age may be a negative.
Romney is pretty presentable, but I'm not too familiar with his stances on enough issues.
Paul is an interesting figure, but no chance.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-31 3:59:37 PM
Epsi, epsi, epsi...
I didn't disavow the use of emotion. My tongue was firmly in my cheek, which should have been clear because I prefaced what I wrote with "(Let's see if this works...)"
I also said that I meant the 'conscription is tantamount to slavery' claim as an analytic, and not emotional claim. If slavery has any meaning, it surely includes conscription. How else would you describe it? I'm forced to work by another human being regardless of whether or not I want to work. Isn't that the definition of the word? Mandatory military conscription, mandatory public service, mandatory going out into the fields to pick cotton. While I don't want to equate the extreme barbarism of certain forms of slavery with the less-extreme barbarism of conscription or the minimally barbaric mandatory service, I want to make clear that the same definition applies. Do you see some nuance here that allows conscription to be something other than (partial) slavery? I don't, but I'm happy to hear it.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 4:01:07 PM
The best US President for Canada would be Mitt Romney, hands down. He was born and raised in a border state and his father was Governor of Michigan for many years. He understands the particular relationship that the US has with Canada ( mainly through the auto industry ) and would be predisposed to considering Canadian interests favourably.
Obama probably doesn't even know what trade is and probably could care less. He's too focused on providing universal health care and forming a Nanny state.
Ron Paul is an intelligent person. He is also mentally disturbed, in my opinion. That is a dangerous combination. I sincerely hope and trust
the American people will write him off at their earliest possible convenience.
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-31 4:02:47 PM
"Mandatory military conscription, mandatory public service, mandatory going out into the fields to pick cotton. While I don't want to equate the extreme barbarism of certain forms of slavery with the less-extreme barbarism of conscription or the minimally barbaric mandatory service, I want to make clear that the same definition applies."
"Do you see some nuance here that allows conscription to be something other than (partial) slavery? I don't, but I'm happy to hear it."
Lemme see. Jaworski is saying, if X is compelled to do something, then X is (at least partially) a slave.
Let's assume that the compulsion here described is a kind of physical compulsion, akin to saying to X, "If you don't do this, I will hit you over the head," even though I'm not sure legal penalties and consequences can all adequately be reduced to a smack on the head.
At least, virtually every law operates through compulsion in some way: obey the law, or suffer harsh physical circumstances. Does Jaworski really think the _law_ is tantamount to (partial?) slavery? That a legal system is just a big ol' plantation upon which each of us is enslaved (to whom? ourselves?)
It doesn't really matter if he thinks that (some libertarians do), because most real people don't define slavery in this way. To be honest, they probably would have a hard time distinguishing between the force of law and the force the master wields against his slave -- just as they would have a hard time distinguishing a pile of sand from a desert, or a forest from a few trees.
Nevertheless, a forest is not a few trees, nor is a pile of sand a desert. And this isn't to say that slavery isn't slavery when it's backed up by force of law (as it usually is: slavery might never have lasted in the U.S. if states hadn't taken up the task of preserving it.) But law being _identical_ to slavery, with obedience to the law being _identical_ to enslavement?
Most people find the comparison unlikely: the force of law and the compulsion of slavery are similar in some ways, different than others. The philosopher H.L.A. tried to explain this -- why legal systems cannot be reduced "simply" to a system of orders backed up by threats, and why most people don't experience the legal system in this way, or only in this way.
It's a good explanation, too, in my opinion.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-01-31 4:44:52 PM
Oops. H.L.A Hart was who I was referring to.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-01-31 4:46:50 PM
I offered the following definition: "I'm forced to work by another human being regardless of whether or not I want to work."
You changed my definition into: "if X is compelled to do something, then X is (at least partially) a slave."
One error is in failing to include "by Y" in your definition. I'm compelled to eat, under threat of death. But slavery is a relationship between persons, where one person is doing the compelling against another.
Another error is in equating "compelling X to do something" with "work." I mean for "work" to carry more content than merely "doing something." For slavery to be slavery, it has to encompass a range of actions, probably a significant amount of time, and probably some other things as well. Slavery must be, in a sense, comprehensive. Military conscription fits this, and so do (at least some instances of) mandatory public service.
What definition of slavery do you have, that allows a distinction between conscription and slavery?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 4:54:48 PM
Oh, and note I said "you," and not "Watson believes that..." I'm reading the comments. You can address your criticism directly to me, and not to third parties.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 4:56:48 PM
Sorry, I said "If X is compelled to do something," then went on to describe the kind in which someone says to X that if he doesn't do it, the person saying this will hit X over the head.
I could have been more precise, but this elucidation does stop one from including hunger as a kind of compulsion, at least within this context.
"I'm forced to work by another human being regardless of whether or not I want to work." This describes me every time my grandmother asks me to shovel the driveway. It would certainly be inaccurate to say that shoveling out the driveway is what I want to do.
Is it work in your comprehensive sense? Well, no. I'm not sure why that matters, though. Surely, if a real, honest-to-goodness slave master in the American south, demands only one thing from his slave (say, sex) and only demands it two days a week, twice a month (Saturday and Sunday), the slave has not ceased to be a slave.
The error here is trying to extract an institution from its historical context and define it in the abstract. This can't be done.
Consider indentured servitude. All texts I'm aware of distinguish white, indentured servitude in the United States from black slavery. Why? Indentured servitude fits your description of slavery just as well as "real" slavery, but history records them as separate practices. Likely, the practices exist along a continuum of "unfreedom." But there's no justification for picking on point on the continuum and using the word for that point to describe the whole thing.
What you find commonly is that slavery is something one population _does_ to another population. And although slavery finds support in paternalistic rhetoric, in fact the enslaved population is used entirely as a means to the benefit of the population doing the enslaving.
Although this may describe conscription in some unjust regimes, I doubt you could find a way to fit the Israeli model of compulsory military service into it.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-01-31 5:22:44 PM
Jaws sounds like a closet socialist to me. I think he is actually Fact Check! So I guess all the West Germans practise slavery because youth are required by law to do 2 years of compulsory military service (with defaults to public service where applicable). Same with the Slave-trading Swiss, revered for their belwether implementation of democratic institutions. And how about those fascist Singaporeans. Some new democracy they are. Hah! With their compulsory military service.
Jaws, your cushy North American lifestyle has made you soft and turned you into a navel-gazing contemplatist who resolves nothing but ever finer and irrelevant points of argument and nuance.
And Set, if you want to go at it, then be my guest farmer-boy!
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-31 6:11:32 PM
Bitchiness still does not equal intelligence.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-31 8:30:12 PM
wtf is your problem set?
Grow up please.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-31 8:45:53 PM
In the limited democracy that was ancient Athens. full citizenship carried the requirement of military service in defense of the city-state. I have no problem with the concept. However, as a retired member of the Canadian Forces I would not have wanted someone required to support me in action unless that member wanted to be there. I could never rely on his support.
Posted by: DML | 2008-01-31 9:14:36 PM
"McCain seems to be strong on both foreign policy issues and also understands economic issues. Age may be a negative."
"Romney is pretty presentable, but I'm not too familiar with his stances on enough issues."
Come on Set; none of the above would be able to fight against Clinton nor Obama and you know it.
What you are presenting is only, like Dr. Paul says, "technicalities". Just like PM Jarowski up here trying to teach a facist woman the beauties of freedom. If you let the medias operate, orchestrate and DECIDE just like it's happening since the begining, McCain will win this Repuplican shit AND everybody knows he gets his ecomomic teachings from Paul. Just look at his speeches adjusting after every debates - I'm sure he's asking Ron Paul by emails "what was this thing about China you were talking about the other night?". I would bet Paul is such a good person he would answer him.
His "technicalities" you're describing like if it was a must will never match against the Dems machine. More so after the interminable mess this Bush decenie was.
So, present this warmonger against any of the two Democrats (Who are very well sold by the MSM) - and you'll get a lot more spendings in socialism, more silly spendings in Irak (the undeclared war) and it's suroundings, a more liberal vision on immigration, a more liberal vision on abortion and same sex mariage, even more borrowing from China, The Federal Reserve going nuts and out of control, more taxes and even new ones, etc etc...
...and for desert, the complete enslavement of the American people.
>Oh! and of course, your candy, Iran. (As well as if it was McCain himself.)
So, for neocons it's: The Foreing policy before anything!
You are ready to sell you conservative soul, the Amercian people and Freedom in favour of only one thing: Policing the world and, hehehehehhehehehe, bring DEMOCRACY to others.
Tell me, as "Conservatives", can you be more dumb ?
You wonder why I have no simpathy for "Neos"...
"Paul is an interesting figure, but no chance."
I know !!!! Aint that a shame ?
Even so that the Neocons are doing the Dems' job of trying to discredit this gentlman and lover of Amercica and Freedom.
Worst, they trick democracy to get to their goals and they choose FOR the people what's "best for them".
Ron Paul will not win the nomination.
But Ron Paul has already won in the waking up of too much people. When you lie to the citizens of a nation for so long but they figure it out - and you keep on lying...OOOOoooooooooooh - it will not be comfortable for Neocons and the Establishment sooner than you think.
When the people are starting to be soooo fed up and annoyed by all this - it won't matter if we're talking about Dems or Cons - only their madness against the Establishment that is surfacing will count.
Hey, that's just my point of view.
A Québécois where revolting against the Establishment is a national sport.
...But never we have been lyied to like it's happening today on the Amercican people and that my friend, is a dangerous game.
That's also why Canadian politicians are better and more carefull than at our neighbours' congress. They know we are looking to most of their moves and we are ready to kick them out on every issues.
Giving lessons to the world about Freedom and Democracy. Yeah...right. Maybe when I was a kid but today it sounds like an unfunny joke.
Such a sad story when you think of it.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-31 10:01:34 PM
***** shrug *****
Posted by: Trudeau's Ghost | 2008-01-31 10:32:28 PM
This discussion about conscription as slavery reminds me of this story Milton Friedman related in his book "Two Lucky People" in which he was arguing against the draft:
"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."
- Milton and Rose Friedman, Two Lucky People, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 380.
Towards the end of his life Professor Friedman frequently cited as his proudest achievement his critical role in getting rid of the draft in the USA.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-01-31 11:01:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.