Michael Stuart Kelly

One of the Things I Love About Sarah

Recommended Posts

Sarah just came out squarely for Rand Paul:

Sarah Palin Slams Chris Christie: "I’m On Team Rand"
by Andrew Kaczynski
August 10, 2013
BuzzFeed

From the article:

Former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Saturday she sided with Rand Paul in the on-going feud between the Kentucky Senator and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Palin was appearing on Fox New’s Cashin’ In.

“I’m on team Rand. Rand Paul understands. He gets the whole notion of don’t tread on me government. Whereas Chris Christie is for big government and trying to go-along-to-get along in so many respects,” Palin said.
. . .

Christie and Paul’s feud began when, at a forum in Colorado, Christie cautioned against the increasing influence of libertarianism in the Republican party.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.


Here's the video. It's the same as the one in the article, but that one doesn't embed. I got this from a YouTube search, so it might not last.

I would love to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin run on the same ticket.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin run on the same ticket.

Michael

Totally agree. However, without a grass roots effort to gain complete control of Congress and the Senate, they would be slowed down and neither of them would use extra-Constitutional methods to gain what they want.

However, on another thread I posted about Mark Levin's book coming out next week...The Liberty Amendments, together with that effort we might have an outside chance of slowing down and breaking up this marxist juggernaut.

A..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we should bomb Germany because Germany is killing German Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals and.....

It wasn't so Heh in 1941

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

You know better than that.

Those are not the reasons the USA entered WWII.

I find the time-travel presentism of those who adhere the Progressive core storyline fascinating when they look at history. It's such a clash with my approach, which is to start by looking at what people actually believed and did at the time, and only then evaluating it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - On Sarah, she concluded with the following comment, which is just as stinging:

As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting ‘Allah Akbar’ at each other, then let Allah sort it out.


I would totally support the USA running an underground railroad to get innocent people out of Syria. I think it is sick for the USA to support one butcher over another when all sides in the Syrian conflict are butchers.


I agree with Sarah. Let Allah sort it out.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I know full well that that was not the reason you entered the war, yet it was the best moral result of having entered it,, that the Allies saved a remnant of those whom the Nazis were bent on murdering. The West resolutely closed its eyes and ears to the evidence of the genocides until politics forced them to act; Britain sooner and you later.

Should we not all know better than that now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not at all. I was not thinking about Sarah, just the isolationist historical thing, and your heh.

Of course this is what the UN is for, but if they do not act someone should and if the US does Canada should join you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

OK. Two questions.

1. Are you convinced the Assad regime did the poison gas, or was it the rebels trying to frame the Assad regime? Obama seems a bit funky on proof one way or the other--albeit, he does have his druthers of who he wants to bomb. Should we just go along with him?

2. Which butcher to you prefer? A bloody strongman dictator or bloody fanatical Islamists? Which one should Canada back?

Of course, I have a third option, but nobody would like it. If the USA goes in (I'm not in favor of that, but "if"), why not make it a war of conquest and just fuck up the bloody monsters on both sides real bad?

How's them apples? :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Don't know,

2. You know better than to ask that question of me

3. As I said in post above, it should be the UN. If they won't go, the US and Canada should go, and hand over to the reluctant UN after conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is what the UN is for, but if they do not act someone should and if the US does Canada should join you.

Carol:

Can you cite where the UN has successfully ended any primitive tribal savagery anywhere on the globe since it's inception post WW II?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ending the mass murders of primitive tribal savagery is all it can hope to do. Kosovo, Rwanda -- too little and too late but at least some lives saved, that would have been lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that Obama is only following the paradigm established by his predecessor:

Before Bush II launched the $2.2 trillion juggernaut on Iraq, he lamented, "Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people, willing to use weapons of mass destruction against Iraq citizens."

The upward estimate of those killed in the 1988 Halabja poison gas attack is 5,000.

By comparison, the number of people killed in the conflict initiated by the U.S. president who wept for the victims at Halabja is 190,000. Other estimates are higher.

Of course, some may argue that with Saddam gone the world is now a safer place, that war is hell, and that a few hundred thousand lives are a small price for making sure that no dictator will ever use chemical weapons again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me. Did fighting Saddam Hussein even unto his death in Iraq put an end to poison gas use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did fighting Saddam Hussein even unto his death in Iraq put an end to poison gas use?

No, but in countries where glory is defined in terms of human sacrifice, the higher the cost in lives, the more hallowed the cause. Thus the War to Discover the Holy Grail of Hidden WMDs was much like the great Crusades or the War to Free Southern Slaves.

We will be kneeling in front of the monuments to the Americans who died in Iraq long after we've forgotten why they were sent there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To one who is old enough to have been directly threatened by the maw of the Vietnam War, the placards in the photos above are eerily reminiscent of a key anti-war argument of the 1960s: the conflict raging between north and south in Vietnam was essentially a civil war in which the U.S. should not be a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expressing a contrary opinion is not any form of treason. It might be insubordination, but never treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ending the mass murders of primitive tribal savagery is all it can hope to do. Kosovo, Rwanda -- too little and too late but at least some lives saved, that would have been lost.

So you did not read about the Blue helmets that participted in rapes of women, men and boys in Rwanda?

Or, in other "deployments" of the Blue Helmets who stood by in their little vehicles and billets and watched murders, rapes and tortures and did nothing.

The world would be better off if the UN, just like the League of Nations had never existed. It is a cesspool of corruption, inefficiency and a psychotic anti-American world view.

We should cut off all funding of the UN, impound the limo's of every embassy that owes tens of thousand of parking ticets and expel the UN to Geneva while turning the building into a condo.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guologo.jpg

Too bad this Bircher campaign never got much traction.

Yep.

Think how many billions of dollars would not have been extorted from the American taxpyer.

Think how many millions of children need not have died a slow, painful death from malaria because of the UN's vicious imposition of the ban on DDT. Estimates are 50,000,000/per year globally.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...