I threw him a benjamin as well... I <3 this guy ;D
constitution ---> :rtfm: <---Ron Paul
constitution ---> :rtfm: <---Ron Paul
He is not anti-war in principle. He simply believes that it should be up to the Congress (and thus the people) instead of one man (the President). The difference between the President going into war and Congress is that Congress has a responsibility to define what the war is about and what specific outcomes are expected. The President can send troops in without really any concrete goals - this is what we have today.I respect his opinion but not a Ron Paul fan. His anti-war stance rubs me the wrong way.
The rhetoric may sound the same but the underlying reasoning is different. The only reason the left/Democrats are against the war is not because they have logically thought about it, no, they are against it because they had to find something to complain about so that they could promote their own party. The war was a convenient conversation piece.With all due respect ~ all I hear is the same anti-war / anti-Bush retoric.
If Hillary becomes president she will turn America into Canada with its social healthcare system and gun bans. You won't have to go to Canada.well... worst case scenario, we run off to Canada after Hilary wins office. They have XCRs there... can't be that bad.![]()
I agree that we are going down the same path as the Roman Empire. I don't think it's the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism that is going to brake us. It will be all these domestic programs and subsidies. But yes if we do find ourselves fighting too many wars at once, it will brake us.
If Hillary becomes president she will turn America into Canada with its social healthcare system and gun bans. You won't have to go to Canada.well... worst case scenario, we run off to Canada after Hilary wins office. They have XCRs there... can't be that bad.![]()
>_< True.... we'll just have to outlast the cow.