When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
justme95
11 years ago
These are wonderful lectures and I’m happy to see this one here.
I’m wondering what people think of what he says here:
“The Founders’ stance towards other nations, however bad those other nation’s governments might be, was to hold them enemies in war, in peace friends, quoting the Declaration of Independence. The Laws of Nature, says the Declaration, give to every people a right to a separate and equal station among the nations of the earth. That means no imperialistic foreign policy, no nation building, unless clearly necessary for national defense. The United States was created by a compact to secure the rights of its own people. It is not the government’s job to secure the rights of the rest of the world. ”
When do we determine when a nation is an enemy? Do mere threats establish a reason to attack? Isn’t our use of santions a threat to sovereign nations regardless of “however bad those other nation’s governments might be”?
There is no doubt in my mind that the RINOs and neocons are progressives and that it is egregious that many here agree with their pro-active warmongering. It’s one of the reasons, if not the major reason why Ron Paul was rejected by many here, yet as I listened to this lecture I could marry much of what was said to Ron Paul’s policies.
Perhaps this is why no one has commented yet, because of the blatant disregard for our Founding foreign policy which so few accept now?
I truly and honestly believe that had Ron Paul been allowed by the GOP to be the nominee he would be the incumbent President and NOT Obama. Ron Paul’s determination to stop American Imperialism, end the wars, bring our troops home and stop the warmongering would have amassed a huge swath of the electorate from all party factions. By allowing the huge progressive stranglehold inside the GOP to determine the nominee the fate of 4 more years of BO was sealed. I knew that. It is a pity and a shame that so few here, if any, recognized that, too.
When will you abandoned your progressive nature, sweep the RINOs and neocons from the GOP, and return to our founding principles? Because after America falls, and she will, to NOT return to our founding principles of peace, prosperity, fair trade with all and entangled alliances with none will mean we will NEVER recover.
Hard Right
11 years ago
Sounds like you are seeing what isn’t there. That is why we reject you and your phony messiah ron paul.
We also reject you because you and other ron paul fanatics seem to have a liberalesque hatred of America. Patriots don’t side with anonymous and wikileaks. America haters do. So spare us your propganda. We see thru it so well.
Liberal1 (Objectivity)
11 years ago
Most of the readers of this blog don’t agree with anything that isn’t consistent with their own opinion (even when there is ample evidence for the contrary); and can’t see through much of the propagandistic opinions contained herein.
You have, in fact, described yourself. Precisely. Down to a ‘tee’.
The hilarity is that you insist on calling yourself ‘objective’, when you are anything but that.
It is nice, though, that someone more closely related to the posters over at DU, Huffpo and DailyKos is able to come here and post their inanities. It relieves everyone else from having to go to one of those places, just to see what the insane liberal/progressives are saying, and taking the risk of getting a headache in doing so. So, thanks for that, I guess.
That carries sooooo much weight comng from a radical left bigot like you. (roll eyes)
justme95
11 years ago
@Hard Right:
You are as bad as Liberal1 for making a comment like that. You offer your opinion as if it were fact. You know nothing about me yet lump me into your preconceived notion as to what a Ron Paul supporter is.
It may be that you are supportive of the TSA as Romney proved he is by making Michael Chertoff one of his security advisors, or supportive of the unPatriot Act, NDAA, drones over America, the ever-increasing surveillance of sovereign individuals just like Romney, but I am not. And there are plenty who read this blog who would agree with me even if they don’t comment.
It may be that you are aghast at the thought of actually cutting the defense budget, but then you would not only be out of step with me, but also Rep Coburn.
Maybe you believe the Department of Education has been great for our children just like Romney, but I don’t share that view.
Perhaps you’re all for snipping away bits from our 2nd Amendment like what Romney did in Massachusetts, but I am not.
And maybe you do believe that ‘globull warming’ is a threat to the planet and we need legislation passed to protect Mother Earth just like what Romney did while govenor, but I do not.
I don’t take people solely at their word but look at what actions they take – actions DO speak louder than words! And Romney’s actions told me he would not defend my civil liberties and would not roll back legislation that denied me my God-given rights.
You may not mind living the life of a slave, but give me Liberty or give me death. Or do you believe Patrick Henry to be just another fanatic, too?
Hard Right
RON PAUL HAD ALSO THE YOUTH WITH HIM,
I wonder how he would have done if he would have been nominated,
I got to learn of many goodies he had in his pocket, they where attracting the youth,
and OBAMA was attracting the youth, with campaign rhetoric,
what if the RON PAUL YOUTH WOULD HAVE TAKEN FROM MAJORITY OF OBAMA
IT CAME IN MIND THAT THERE WAS THE POWER OF THE YOUTH AT WORK FULL PIN FOR OBAMA
HE HAD THE MONEY TO GIVE THEM, BUT THE OTHER YOUNG FOR PAUL HAD A LOT TO GIVE FOR THE CONSERVATIVES, all WHO WHERE DESERVING THE SEAT, but only one could take it, and he did a good job,
he did not win, because of other facts not because he was not good enough, the OBAMA MACHINE
DID WIN, FOR MANY REASONS
ALL THE CONSERVATIVES CANDIDATES where good and deserving to get the seat, COMPARE TO THE OTHER SIDE
THEY WHERE TOP OF THE CHAIN.
These are wonderful lectures and I’m happy to see this one here.
I’m wondering what people think of what he says here:
“The Founders’ stance towards other nations, however bad those other nation’s governments might be, was to hold them enemies in war, in peace friends, quoting the Declaration of Independence. The Laws of Nature, says the Declaration, give to every people a right to a separate and equal station among the nations of the earth. That means no imperialistic foreign policy, no nation building, unless clearly necessary for national defense. The United States was created by a compact to secure the rights of its own people. It is not the government’s job to secure the rights of the rest of the world. ”
When do we determine when a nation is an enemy? Do mere threats establish a reason to attack? Isn’t our use of santions a threat to sovereign nations regardless of “however bad those other nation’s governments might be”?
There is no doubt in my mind that the RINOs and neocons are progressives and that it is egregious that many here agree with their pro-active warmongering. It’s one of the reasons, if not the major reason why Ron Paul was rejected by many here, yet as I listened to this lecture I could marry much of what was said to Ron Paul’s policies.
Perhaps this is why no one has commented yet, because of the blatant disregard for our Founding foreign policy which so few accept now?
I truly and honestly believe that had Ron Paul been allowed by the GOP to be the nominee he would be the incumbent President and NOT Obama. Ron Paul’s determination to stop American Imperialism, end the wars, bring our troops home and stop the warmongering would have amassed a huge swath of the electorate from all party factions. By allowing the huge progressive stranglehold inside the GOP to determine the nominee the fate of 4 more years of BO was sealed. I knew that. It is a pity and a shame that so few here, if any, recognized that, too.
When will you abandoned your progressive nature, sweep the RINOs and neocons from the GOP, and return to our founding principles? Because after America falls, and she will, to NOT return to our founding principles of peace, prosperity, fair trade with all and entangled alliances with none will mean we will NEVER recover.
Sounds like you are seeing what isn’t there. That is why we reject you and your phony messiah ron paul.
We also reject you because you and other ron paul fanatics seem to have a liberalesque hatred of America. Patriots don’t side with anonymous and wikileaks. America haters do. So spare us your propganda. We see thru it so well.
Most of the readers of this blog don’t agree with anything that isn’t consistent with their own opinion (even when there is ample evidence for the contrary); and can’t see through much of the propagandistic opinions contained herein.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
You have, in fact, described yourself. Precisely. Down to a ‘tee’.
The hilarity is that you insist on calling yourself ‘objective’, when you are anything but that.
It is nice, though, that someone more closely related to the posters over at DU, Huffpo and DailyKos is able to come here and post their inanities. It relieves everyone else from having to go to one of those places, just to see what the insane liberal/progressives are saying, and taking the risk of getting a headache in doing so. So, thanks for that, I guess.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
That carries sooooo much weight comng from a radical left bigot like you. (roll eyes)
@Hard Right:
You are as bad as Liberal1 for making a comment like that. You offer your opinion as if it were fact. You know nothing about me yet lump me into your preconceived notion as to what a Ron Paul supporter is.
It may be that you are supportive of the TSA as Romney proved he is by making Michael Chertoff one of his security advisors, or supportive of the unPatriot Act, NDAA, drones over America, the ever-increasing surveillance of sovereign individuals just like Romney, but I am not. And there are plenty who read this blog who would agree with me even if they don’t comment.
It may be that you are aghast at the thought of actually cutting the defense budget, but then you would not only be out of step with me, but also Rep Coburn.
Maybe you believe the Department of Education has been great for our children just like Romney, but I don’t share that view.
Perhaps you’re all for snipping away bits from our 2nd Amendment like what Romney did in Massachusetts, but I am not.
And maybe you do believe that ‘globull warming’ is a threat to the planet and we need legislation passed to protect Mother Earth just like what Romney did while govenor, but I do not.
I don’t take people solely at their word but look at what actions they take – actions DO speak louder than words! And Romney’s actions told me he would not defend my civil liberties and would not roll back legislation that denied me my God-given rights.
You may not mind living the life of a slave, but give me Liberty or give me death. Or do you believe Patrick Henry to be just another fanatic, too?
Hard Right
RON PAUL HAD ALSO THE YOUTH WITH HIM,
I wonder how he would have done if he would have been nominated,
I got to learn of many goodies he had in his pocket, they where attracting the youth,
and OBAMA was attracting the youth, with campaign rhetoric,
what if the RON PAUL YOUTH WOULD HAVE TAKEN FROM MAJORITY OF OBAMA
IT CAME IN MIND THAT THERE WAS THE POWER OF THE YOUTH AT WORK FULL PIN FOR OBAMA
HE HAD THE MONEY TO GIVE THEM, BUT THE OTHER YOUNG FOR PAUL HAD A LOT TO GIVE FOR THE CONSERVATIVES, all WHO WHERE DESERVING THE SEAT, but only one could take it, and he did a good job,
he did not win, because of other facts not because he was not good enough, the OBAMA MACHINE
DID WIN, FOR MANY REASONS
ALL THE CONSERVATIVES CANDIDATES where good and deserving to get the seat, COMPARE TO THE OTHER SIDE
THEY WHERE TOP OF THE CHAIN.