<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: The Senate Feud in Kentucky</title> <atom:link href="http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/</link> <description>&#34;One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up.&#34; -- Arthur Koestler</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:32:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Fallout From Sarah Palin&#8217;s Kentucky Senate Endorsement of Rand Paul : The Other McCain</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-3078</link> <dc:creator>Fallout From Sarah Palin&#8217;s Kentucky Senate Endorsement of Rand Paul : The Other McCain</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:40:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-3078</guid> <description>[...] with her. Be warned. Like Sarah Palin, I won&#8217;t pull any punches.Read rest of that. Having blogged about the bitterness of the Kentucky Senate primary, I was surprised that Palin made an endorsement in that race. She defended the endorsement in her [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] with her. Be warned. Like Sarah Palin, I won&#8217;t pull any punches.Read rest of that. Having blogged about the bitterness of the Kentucky Senate primary, I was surprised that Palin made an endorsement in that race. She defended the endorsement in her [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dr. David</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-2967</link> <dc:creator>Dr. David</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:16:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-2967</guid> <description>(Released today)
The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.
We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:
“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”
Trey Grayson        27%
Bill Johnson          23%
Rand Paul            21%
Undecided           29%
We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?
Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%
Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%
Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%
Margin of Error  4.5%</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Released today)</p><p>The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.</p><p>We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:</p><p>“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”</p><p>Trey Grayson        27%<br
/> Bill Johnson          23%<br
/> Rand Paul            21%<br
/> Undecided           29%</p><p>We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?</p><p>Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%<br
/> Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%<br
/> Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%</p><p>Margin of Error  4.5%</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dr. David</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-39302</link> <dc:creator>Dr. David</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-39302</guid> <description>(Released today)
The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.
We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:
“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”
Trey Grayson        27%
Bill Johnson          23%
Rand Paul            21%
Undecided           29%
We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?
Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%
Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%
Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%
Margin of Error  4.5%</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Released today)</p><p>The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.</p><p>We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:</p><p>“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”</p><p>Trey Grayson        27%<br
/> Bill Johnson          23%<br
/> Rand Paul            21%<br
/> Undecided           29%</p><p>We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?</p><p>Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%<br
/> Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%<br
/> Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%</p><p>Margin of Error  4.5%</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dr. David</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-39303</link> <dc:creator>Dr. David</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-39303</guid> <description>(Released today)
The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.
We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:
“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”
Trey Grayson        27%
Bill Johnson          23%
Rand Paul            21%
Undecided           29%
We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?
Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%
Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%
Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%
Margin of Error  4.5%</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Released today)</p><p>The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.</p><p>We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:</p><p>“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”</p><p>Trey Grayson        27%<br
/> Bill Johnson          23%<br
/> Rand Paul            21%<br
/> Undecided           29%</p><p>We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?</p><p>Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%<br
/> Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%<br
/> Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%</p><p>Margin of Error  4.5%</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Something tells me the Classic Liberal is happy about this &#171; The Daley Gator</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-2563</link> <dc:creator>Something tells me the Classic Liberal is happy about this &#171; The Daley Gator</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:16:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-2563</guid> <description>[...] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Sarah Palin Endorses Paul!</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-2536</link> <dc:creator>Sarah Palin Endorses Paul!</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:32:17 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-2536</guid> <description>[...] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Scott</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-2523</link> <dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:16:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-2523</guid> <description>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.
If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?
Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#039;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.
Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &quot;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&quot; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.
Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.
I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.
I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#039;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:
&quot;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&quot;
I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.
It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &quot;War is the health of the State.&quot;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government-- always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#039;t go away.
I&#039;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.</p><p>If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?</p><p>Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#8217;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.</p><p>Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &#8220;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&#8221; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.</p><p>Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.</p><p>I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.</p><p>I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#8217;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:</p><p>&#8220;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&#8221;</p><p>I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.</p><p>It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &#8220;War is the health of the State.&#8221;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government&#8211; always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#8217;t go away.</p><p>I&#8217;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Scott</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-39300</link> <dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-39300</guid> <description>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.
If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?
Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#039;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.
Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &quot;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&quot; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.
Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.
I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.
I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#039;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:
&quot;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&quot;
I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.
It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &quot;War is the health of the State.&quot;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government-- always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#039;t go away.
I&#039;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.</p><p>If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?</p><p>Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#8217;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.</p><p>Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &#8220;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&#8221; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.</p><p>Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.</p><p>I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.</p><p>I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#8217;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:</p><p>&#8220;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&#8221;</p><p>I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.</p><p>It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &#8220;War is the health of the State.&#8221;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government&#8211; always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#8217;t go away.</p><p>I&#8217;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Scott</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-39301</link> <dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-39301</guid> <description>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.
If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?
Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#039;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.
Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &quot;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&quot; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.
Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.
I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.
I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#039;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:
&quot;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&quot;
I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.
It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &quot;War is the health of the State.&quot;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government-- always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#039;t go away.
I&#039;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enough vitriol. I have never understood how one can be pro-liberty on the Economic side, yet be so Pro-Tyranny on the social and foreign side.</p><p>If one is so gung-ho on the Drug War, one must logically be pro-criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and Tobacco kill and addict more people each year than all the other drugs combined. This is a fact. I find it telling that you support the legality of these, and yet lament those who wish to make legal other substances. Besides, as a wholly moral point is it not my body? Is it not my choice? Why is it your choice to tell me what I can put in my body?</p><p>Follow from there, if you believe in this, how come you do not believe that you can tell me what I can or cannot spend my money on? Why can&#8217;t you tell me who I have to give my money to? Why are you against Welfarism on one hand (Which is increase of State power), yet on the other are Pro-Police State (Increase of State power)? It seems logically contradictory.</p><p>Was it not Ronald Reagan himself who said &#8220;the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.&#8221; Why yes, it was. I also find it telling that the so-called religious shun the Christian Just War Theory in fear of some mythical security apparatus which is none other than a large and powerful Police and Nanny State with omnipotent power to detain, torture, and arrest anyone without warrant. See: Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act.</p><p>Indeed, the GOP used to be libertarian. The Old Right were libertarians. The Howard Buffets, Robert Tafts, and Charles A. Lindberghs. They were conservatives. They fought Imperialism, Welfare, Prohibition, and the rest of the State apparatus gamut.</p><p>I am staunchly libertarian and much more so than Rand. I can tell you right now, Rand is not that much of a libertarian. He takes lukewarm positions on our Foreign Policy, and on Immigration his policy is anti-liberty.</p><p>I think a lot of Neo-Cons don&#8217;t understand that our Foreign Policy is a direct corollary of our Fiscal Policy. Our Foreign Policy costs us trillions a year. If you are indeed a Fiscal Conservative then you must be Anti-Imperialism. You must shun these Un-Constitutional expenditures and expeditions. It was Benjamin Harrison our 23rd President who said:</p><p>&#8220;We Americans have no commission from God to police the world&#8221;</p><p>I also find it telling those who wear their military badges on their sleeves as a point of authority. I am AD USCG and I find that those who do so espouse Military-Junta-esque views. It is a dangerous and perilous view.</p><p>It is also concerting to me that conservatives have yet to wake up to the fact that &#8220;War is the health of the State.&#8221;. If you are a limited-Government conservative (Re: Not a Neo-Con), you must be Anti-War for War gives rise to the largest expansions of the Government&#8211; always. And as you and I know, once something is enacted in DC it doesn&#8217;t go away.</p><p>I&#8217;m sorry, but what your social conservatism gotten us? A rabid Police State which annihilated the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Congratulations.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Kentucky GOP Senate Primary : The Other McCain</title><link>http://theothermccain.com/2010/01/26/the-senate-feud-in-kentucky/comment-page-3/#comment-2509</link> <dc:creator>You Betcha: Palin Endorses Rand Paul in Kentucky GOP Senate Primary : The Other McCain</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:59:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://theothermccain.com/?p=1379#comment-2509</guid> <description>[...] has received a generous donation from Governor Palin&#8217;s PAC.Palinistas + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] has received a generous donation from Governor Palin&#8217;s PAC.Palinistas + Paulistas = Wow. The Kentucky primary is extremely bitter (53 comments on that thread) and the last thing I expect was for Palin to get herself involved in [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: theothermccain.com @ 2012-02-11 23:48:57 by W3 Total Cache -->
