The Good Post Gallery

[SPC]

I think part of the reason these people might feel this way is because when you look at the fundamentals, Israel was a really really stupid idea. The premise that one group has a right to some land because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago is quite laughable. That's why I've always considered Zionism as absurd as the drivel written by Ayn Rand and about equal in what value it brings to public discourse.

And it doesn't help that Israel was founded by some pretty disgusting people, can anyone explain what makes the Irgun and Lehi in any way better than Hamas?

[SPC]

Desperate campaign is desperate.

ETA: Also, the idea of Mitt Romney as Commander in Chief is quickly moving from laughable to terrifying.

Remeber what I said about his inane comment on the number of ships in the US Navy?  I knew way back then this guy should not be given the nuclear button.  Private equity guys should not be in charge of the military.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Castro summed it up best...



I was concerned about Cain, Bachmann, or Palin getting the nuclear button but it appears they were just a distraction to keep us from realizing the true lunacy of Mitt Romney.

[SPC]

Alas such an otherwise great post had to have the erroneousness mention of Rod Grams, who lost in 2000.

Rod Grams did lose an election in 2006, just not a Senate election.

[SPC]

Antonio makes some good points in his initial post. One of the truly irritating things I found when I was doing work for Ron Paul in Northeast Iowa was the Founding Fathers fetish of most of his supporters showed. I have no issue with admiring a politician of old, being a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution or defending the rights of states as I myself am both a strict constructionist and believer in localism. However, simply invoking John Randolph of Roanoke or the 10th Amendment is hardly a decent argument for or against a policy.

The reason why most constitutionalists and state's rights advocates are annoying to debate with is because many do not feel that they need to justify their policy planks with facts or reason outside of, "The 10th Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution says so." I support a strict interpretation of the Constitution because it limits the power of the feds, not because George Mason and a document supported such things. State's rights should make sense to limited government conservatives because it breaks down the government into fifty squabbling groups as opposed to one, unified oppressive government. The founders did not support this and the fact that they overrode the articles to create a Constitution is proof of that.

The author of this thread really made some great points as have many of the posters in this thread. Constitutionalists should support state's rights because it is what makes sense in terms of their governmental theories not because a document or some dude from the 17th Century said they should. These things can stand as ONE reason for supporting state's rights but NOT the ONLY reason, which happens far too often. The Founding Fathers fetish is another example of intellectual laziness but it is one that can be cured by a hard look at why one really supports certain policies and philosophies of governance.    

[SPC]

A stopped clock is right twice a day:

Teddy, I guess, although any Republican will do.

Never a racist Southern Democrat, of course.

Well, Wilson was a racist Democrat who grew up in the South (albeit living in New Jersey at the time), so you're right.

[SPC]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/25/mccain-well-make-border-with-mexico-look-like-the-berlin-wall

What a sad, miserable, washed up joke of a man.