hugo

Your Type is INTJ Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging Strength of the preferences % 56 12 100 61

Better start attacking Obama, Hitlary is history.

2thejungle is a fascist site. They also banned Elvis and happybee.

ee cummings you ain't.

Pretty much every attack is provoked at some level. The primary goal of foreign policy is to protect our citizens from attacks. Certainly our presence in an area full of nutcases will provoke hatred among some of these nutcases. Arguing an attack was provoked does not justify the attack, or the attackers. Neutrality is often the best option on the world stage. The old way of staging coups and assassinating opposition leaders was cheaper, in lives and money, than full scale invasions.

The fact is the primary role of the federal government is to protect us from foreign aggressors. They failed on September 11, 2001.

Paul is not saying the terrorists are justified in their attacks. I have a responsibility to protect my home and family. If some thug comes through a door that I forgot to lock then my negligence is partly to blame for any harm the thug causes. How Paul would protect the US; from wikipedia: Let us worry about our own borders, restrict immigration from Muslim countries until moderate Islam defeats radical Islam and let us stop running around the world spending 100's of billions of dollars and precious American lives forcing democracy down the throats of those incapable of receiving it. If we were gonna take out Saddam we should have quickly replaced him with a tinpot dictator and gone home.

Who is more secure us or Canada? Not sure why we should be fighting Europe and Britain's war when they already surrendurred. I am a bit tired of being taxed to defend the ing world. Let us worry about our own borders.

Jackass. Stupid quiz.

35..............

The incumbant has a greater chance due to name recognition and congressional mail privileges. Incumbents already win more than 95% of the time. Ya think they are that good? Bush’s Broken Promise He once pledged to veto Shays-Meehan. February 21, 2002 8:20 a.m. s

First from Ron Paul: George Washington: Mr. Republican, Robert Taft Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, May 2000: Ain't nothing conservative about neoconservatism, it is liberal Wilsonian idealism.

Paul's views are really a combination of Robert Taft's and Barry Goldwater's views. Both once leaders of the Republican Party when it stood for limited government and America first.

The incumbents have a natural advantage. The more they limit campaign spending the better their chances of reelection are. More importantly, it is an infringement on political speech,. The primary purpose of the 1st was to protect political speech. Thankfully, parts of McCain/Feingold have already been ruled unconstitutional Supreme Court allows issue ads in federal elections - CNN.com, McCain is no friend of the Constitution.

True intelligence is rarer than idiocy.

Back to debating. From Scalia's dissenting opinion on McCain?Feingold Rush was right when he labeled it the Incumbant protection Act.

Notice that the USSC vote on the constitutionality was 5-4 and that the three conservative judges Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas were in the minority. Gotta go now. Will go in depth on McCain/Feingold later.

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights (now group rights)and equality of opportunity (unless you are white or asian). Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3] It looks like ya posted the pre FDR definition.

Our Constitution is a contract. When the meaning of parts of a contract are in question what should be done is to attempt to find out the original intent of the parties to the contract were. The Federalist Papers were written during the ratifying process. The Federalist Papers are not mere opinions. If they are false our constitution was ratified under false pretenses.

McCain showed his disrespect for the Constitution with McCain/Feingold the greatest attack on the 1st Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It will take a crisis to return this nation to the ideas of our founders. Funding the medical bills of the ageing baby boom generation may be that crisis. The socialists stole the liberal mantra in the US. Classical liberals had to adopt the term libertarian.

Great news. More business coming to America.

Yes, once you give people power they will abuse it. That is why there were many safeguards in the constitution against federal power. Most specifically Article I Section 8 which documented the only powers the federal government woulkd possess. I suggest you study the ratification process of the constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been viciously assaulted by both the right and left is no reason for us lovers of liberty to not fight to get the original constitution back. Of course, that would mean swimming against the tide, not simply putting up mild resistance. From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative": All we need id two or three more USSC judges on our side. Sadly, I doubt McCain appoints the judges we truly need. Justice Scalia on "The Living Constitution" BS

You really need to read #41 again. It specifically states that the general welfare duties are limited to those proscribed in ARTICLE I SECTION 8. The Amendment process is what allows for change. Let me repaet these quotes: From FP41: But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The only way to change it is to go back to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist Paper #41 was not just any man's opinion. The paper was written during the ratifying process by the man labeled the Father of our Constitution. As long as we accept judicial activism and turn our heads to the gross abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses we will continue to allow Washington to gain more power.. There is a proper way for the constitution to change with the times: amendments. We have two Supreme Court judges, Scalia and Thomas, who give hope that there is a possibility at some time of returning to the founder's intent of a limited federal government.

I would think kids would be more likely to go to hard drugs now when they can often get marijuana and harder drugs from the same source. Legalizing marijuana would isolate further kids from hard drug dealers. This would also allow additional police enforcement aimed at dealers in hard drugs.