...and the only reason you care now is because The Antichrist Obama is doing it. You're still just a tool of an ideology that others invented to keep you obedient. No one wanted to hear you replay your greatest hits on a reunion tour after you've turned old and crippled. No one is in favor of innocent deaths. You know that, but your sole purpose here is to demonize people who don't want to vote for Mitt Romney.
Pretty much. I would love to hear Romney's solution to stopping this if he even had one but I haven't heard anything from him regarding this issue. Sounds like he's okay with doing more of the same or potentially worse. Looks like I'm stuck tackling other issues I side with Obama on over Mitt instead.
If war is easy to engage in, more wars will be engaged, so wars should be costly, so costly that no nation will actively pursue a policy of saber rattling and hegemony. Wasn't that what the war pigs told us during the cold war? Now they sing a different tune. And Glenn Greenwald should be required reading. He's the single greatest asset we have against the fascist who want to turn us into a police state.
Actually I would rather Obama reelected than Romney become president. I'd rather Obama continue to ruin the country than Romney do it, under a fake conservative flag. That way the mess couldn't be blamed for conservatism / free markets etc. (when there would be so such thing under Romney either). And there would be a chance for a true liberty-oriented conservative candidate in 2016. But that won't stop me from pointing out how absolutely horrible Obama is. So you can stop now.
Your poor, naive fool. If only that were true... As for permanent warfare, you have to say that this "War on Terror" is the perfect way to achieve it. No real declared enemy so anyone can be labeled an enemy at any time. And no way to know if the war will ever actually be won, or what winning the war would even look like. Eh, time to read some Randolph Bourne and be depressed.
That's because it's the underlying foundation of his entire argument - the 18th century process of formal declaration of war and looting villages and raping survivors is infinitely superior to any other use of force, because something something founders federalist no. 4.
For someone who says he's a conservative, rtsy seems to rely on a lot of progressive media for his articles. Seems like most conservatives haven't had a problem with droning since Bush started it, and only progressives have made an issue of it. Yet, rtsy is a conservative? Cognitive dissonance is a b****.
Well, he's someone who's been around here for a very long time, unless I'm mistaken, just under a different moniker. Sort of a Buddhist Libertarian, if it's the guy I'm thinking of. Hope that helps.
I guess you missed this post http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7258969&postcount=2 Check out Reason Magazine, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Jack Hunter, Adam Kokesh - plenty of conservatives/libertarians care, and they cared when it was done under Bush.
Given the irrational, ridiculously overblown fear by Americans of terrorists due to a certain past president, I'm surprised we haven't done much more in terms of sending troops everywhere. By presidential standard, Obama's a downright pacifist. All American presidents unfortunately have to fight some stupid, overpriced war during presidency in order to not look like a p*ssy. It's a stupid world we live in where diplomacy and respect of other countries makes you a bad leader.
Much of this mess can justifiably be laid at the feet of "free markets." And a genuine free market would lead to genuine slavery for the majority of us.
Wrong. And yeah... your government-led utopia is working out just grand, isn't it. You and your ideology are a complete failure.
It's indicative of the level of your thinking that you can't distinguish any other options but a communist state or a total "free market." You don't know my ideology, because I don't have one. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing here?
Yes, because reality always clings to precise definitions of ideological principles. If you define it well enough, then it will work perfectly.
The same could be said for letting loose the hell hounds of an unfettered free market corporate world.
Yeah - the free market and strong private property rights has created a permanent kill and capture list, and "institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing". You are insane.
I can respect this -- you want a libertarian president that would actually respect rights of due process. Romney doesn't look likely to be the one. The only problem is I don't expect the 2016 candidate to be any better, but I suppose that's not a reason to not try. I think many people would rather have a president who didn't assassinate people; but I also think people are afraid of a president who won't assassinate people. We're afraid our security will be compromised quibbling over ethics.
