. . .and they are interviewing an female journalist from Afghanistan. She quoted an Afghani woman saying "it feels like I have to choose between my freedom and my security, and I don't want to do that".
This is a choice we all have to make. This is what made America so great; their forefathers made the right choice, freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Unfortunately, the libertarians are in bed with the party that led the security-is-more-important-than-freedom charge to write and sign the Patriot Act.
That means they are complicit.
Certain individuals maybe, but just because I have "libertarian" thoughts, or may have had libertarian thought at the time, doesn't mean I would be or am complicit in such legislation as the Patriot Act.
"Certain individuals maybe, but just because I have "libertarian" thoughts, or may have had libertarian thought at the time, doesn't mean I would be or am complicit in such legislation as the Patriot Act."
True, but Ron Paul is and those who look to him as a leader are as well.
"True, but Ron Paul is and those who look to him as a leader are as well."
I don't follow. Everything Ron Paul does is in contradiction to the Patriot Act.
"I don't follow. Everything Ron Paul does is in contradiction to the Patriot Act."
He's part of the Republican party. He uses his positions to gain political support for bills that he supports. He is complicit.
"He's part of the Republican party. He uses his positions to gain political support for bills that he supports. He is complicit."
Complicit in what?
Complicit in the corruption of the republican party and complicit in the current crisis.
"it in the corruption of the republican party and complicit in the current crisis."
Those a large accusations, what is your proof?
Their custodianship of such regulation for the eight years they controlled the exective and Congress.
Or maybe the fact that their free market ideology made them blind to the possible downfalls of an unregulated market, something Peter Scniff doesnt want to address. He can predict, but he doesnt want to get into specific causes.
"Their custodianship of such regulation for the eight years they controlled the exective and Congress."
Now you're talking about "their" and "they". I thought we were talking about Ron Paul?
"Or maybe the fact that their free market ideology made them blind to the possible downfalls of an unregulated market, something Peter Scniff doesnt want to address. He can predict, but he doesnt want to get into specific causes."
Its Peter S-c-h-i-f-f. Anyhow, he does get into specific causes, artificially low interest rates by the fed, over regulation and intervention by the government.
"Now you're talking about "their" and "they". I thought we were talking about Ron Paul?"
I thought you understood that Ron Paul is part of the Republican party and that Ron Paul is against regulation?
"Its Peter S-c-h-i-f-f. Anyhow, he does get into specific causes, artificially low interest rates by the fed, over regulation and intervention by the government."
S-c-n-i-f-f is funnier.
No, he doesn't. The financial markets were de facto unregulated during the Bush era.
Low interests by the FED is one cause. Intervention is not. Scniff does not want to talk about the other cause, loss of jobs, downward push on wages in the trades.
"I thought you understood that Ron Paul is part of the Republican party and that Ron Paul is against regulation?"
Yes. He is.
"The financial markets were de facto unregulated during the Bush era."
Again, what deregulation legislation did Bush push through congress? The only difference I can think of is Sarbanes-Oxley which created MORE regulation.
"downward push on wages in the trades."
He's more concerned of the purchasing power of the wages.
"Yes. He is."
Well then, my point stands.
"Again, what deregulation legislation did Bush push through congress? The only difference I can think of is Sarbanes-Oxley which created MORE regulation."
He didn't have to. All he had to do was appointed a bunch of right wing wingnuts committed to deregulation, committed to not regulating.
"He's more concerned of the purchasing power of the wages."
BOTH NOMINAL AND REAL HAVE BEEN REDUCED BONEHEAD.
"He didn't have to. All he had to do was appointed a bunch of right wing wingnuts committed to deregulation, committed to not regulating."
So you can't give examples of the deregulation, yet you're going to continue railing against him for deregulation?
Post a Comment