60 Comments »

1. ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ What is that?

   Comment by Jaska — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 9:23 am

2. Phil–I share your sentiments about Republican presidents. Potentially, Ron Paul could reverse much of the damage that’s been done to Republicanism over the past few years. Unlike the current crew of party hijackers, he actually embodies the true ideals of fiscal conservatism. He also reflects American (and western world in general) thinking on some social issues—that is, it’s not government’s authority to legislate morality. And he’s a trained physician, so one might expect that he’d have a clue about the medical care situation.

   Good candidate, in my opinion. Does he have a twin brother—with likewise political leanings—that might be interested in moving to Finland?

   Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 9:30 am

3. “No Child Left Behind Act’ What is that?”

   If I remember correctly, it’s something about putting children on leashes…..
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind

   Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 9:33 am

4. He also voted AGAINST gay rights (such as adoption) and strictly voted AGAINST any abortion rights…sound conservative to me!
   just because you oppose taxes doesn’t make you a libertarian…sorry, i would not vote for him!!

   Comment by Max — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:31 am

5. From a tactical voting point of view it might be worthwhile for libertarian-minded Americans to register as Republicans for any state primaries.

   But does anyone think that this guy has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination?

   Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:35 am

6. Max: “He also voted AGAINST gay rights (such as adoption) and strictly voted AGAINST any abortion rights…sound conservative to me!
   …. i would not vote for him!!”

   Here’s what wikipedia states regarding abortion:

   “Paul is pro-life. However, Paul believes that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that abortion is “not a constitutional issue” and should be a decision left to the legislatures of the states.”

   Regarding gay marriage, he voted AGAINST a federal law that defined marriage to be only between man and woman. However, he voted FOR laws which divested the federal government’s power to force states to recognize each other’s definitions of marriage. In other words, he left it for the states to decide. Seems fair to me.

   I’d say he was very much in-line with Libertarian thinking on these. But, I’m not sure about his stance on the DC law. That might not have been very Libertarian.

   Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 11:00 am

7. What’s so special about this guy Obama?

   Comment by maissi — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

8. I am interested to see what Republican Senator Hagal will do he seems very honorable if you can say that about a politician. I can’t see Obama or Clinton winning it I can see people saying they will vote for them but in actuality I think they vote for what they know. I mean if it Mccain vs. Clinton, I see it going to Mccain. If its Mccain vs. Obama I see it going to Mccain. Now if its Mccain vs. Biden or even Edwards it may be a little unclear who could win. My dream candidates would be Hagal vs. Obama because then we would have a actual debate on the current political climate by real individuals on different sides of the spectrum. The chances of that being the tickets in ‘08 are slim but it would at least be good for the nation no matter what side one. As for Senator Paul he stands no chance so I hope he doesn’t waste his money.

   Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 2:41 pm

9. Hagel will have no serious future in the Republican party. He just threw the President and the US Military in Iraq under the bus with his Senate vote.

   As for Obama, he does not have the political baggage that the other Congressmen have. Even I am interested to see how his campaign plays out. I think he chances go as far as ending up in the Democrats VP slot for the next election.

   Looking at Mr. Paul’s for and against, you would think that he would be against the idea of paying a President money from the people. That would be a campaign pledge that would resonate. Practice what you preach. Doe he take a salary now? Then he is a hypicrate.

   Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

10. Hagel has a future because of what he did with his Senate vote. He didn’t say that he had no confidence in the solders just in the President with a low approval rating. He saying what everybody in the country is feeling. At the hearing he was the only one asking for accountability out of the Senate. I was happy to hear one person at the least speak from the heart.

    The Obama no baggage thing is that he has no experience which is not good when talking about the leader of a free world. He has it easy saying that he wouldn’t have voted for the war when he wasn’t in the Senate to even make that decision. I also have great doubts of him being a VP if Hilary get the nomination, really can you see a Clinton /Obama ticket taking the White house that is way to forward thinking for America. Maybe I can see it if Edwards or Biden gets it but I think Obama at this point could be the President on the ticket carrying either of them,based solely on name recognition.

    Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

11. Kourtney,

    Well the Democrats can blame a lack of accountability by the Republican Congress. In general all of congress was snoozing, including Hagel who voted for the war and then called it a mistake. Well Iraq is not a toy that you just toss aside because you don’t want to play with it anymore. Youe either fight it to win or you f around like Congress has and will continue to do. This is the same group that demanded more reports on Iraq and has been documented as failing to bother to read the reports. They are classified and congressmen must sign them out. They do not bother to. That is their job. That is what oversight is.

    Instead of doing the oversight themselves, they are calling for troops to be pulled out so that they will be no need to oversee anything. Instead they should be showing how accountability and oversight really works by overseeing the Iraq situation to victory. Instead they are going to hobble the operation with yet more restrictions. You can’t win a war like that when you enemy uses your own rules against you.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 5:07 pm

12. Fred,

    I blame both side on the accountability issue but I also realize it the price of politics to never accept blame and to past it on to the others. Democrats are as in it as much as the Rebuplicans, but I will say that Iraq was mishandled by everyone all the way to the intelligence community. I have always said would we have found WMD then we would not be arguing whether this was a just war or not but we didn’t so we are. I think so many people think that we were not right for going in because we said its about the weapons and even though the evidence wasn’t really good enough to commit to a war when the President of the United States says we have good information that they do I think most would think its safe to assume they do have weapons. Congress has it part in it though they should have payed close attention and the ones who did voted against it, just not enough. The point is though even if you made a mistake doesn’t mean you are absolved from correcting it, and that is what I see Hagel as doing trying to right a wrong he had a part in by now making so that they are accountable for all new actions. I don’t get the idea of bashing the Congress for doing what we wanted them to do in the beginning.

    I have one question when it comes to victory in Iraq. What is victory in Iraq. I mean if its democracy and a freely elected government don’t we have that with Iran and Palestine and don’t we have a problem with both of those nations. I mean we had a military victory awhile ago. We beat the old regime and we put in place a new one. Politically Iraq has had election and voter turn out and the Iraqi government is up and running. They tried, convicted, and executed the former leader and his sons. Sowhat is left? We are talking security well the geniuses that ran the war dismantled the Iraqi army so that means we need to make a new one. Ok so we made a new army but the problem is we are doing all the fighting for them. Remember they stand up we stand down but how will they know when to stand up if we are not sitting down. I am not saying back out completely but I would think that the best way to do this would be to give the Iraqis a chance to do this alone, we allow them the time to grow as a army, we trained them they have a working army they are not battle ready because they have never been in a battle alone. We can reduce and increase as the Iraqi government sees fit they want more troops we give them more troops they want less like how Maliki is saying now we give them less. We can not make them fight for there country but we can let them and help them when they ask for our help. That would help them feel more confident in having us as allies, and they would feel more empowered by the control they have over their own destiny.

    Before we send in more troops it is necessary to ask ourselves what is our expectations and what are the expectations of those we are trying to help, because you can’t save someone from drowning if they fight you every time you try to give them a hand.

    Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

13. Abolition of the Federal Reserve? Who would issue the money then? Or do you dislike fiat money?

    Comment by Ossi — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

14. Sowhat is left? We are talking security well the geniuses that ran the war dismantled the Iraqi army so that means we need to make a new one. Ok so we made a new army but the problem is we are doing all the fighting for them. Remember they stand up we stand down but how will they know when to stand up if we are not sitting down.

    You cannnot create an army overnight. It does take time and you don’t just appoint people into higher positions of authority, you do need to build them up. Take a look at the US occupation of both Japan and Germany after WWII. None of us were around for that, but they were no cakewalk either. As for what is left, we are being asked by the Iraqi Government not to leave. They are saying that they should be able to shoulder much more by the end of 2007, but there is no evaluation of that claim to even determine if it accurate or fantasy. It is not easy to grow an army and more difficult if you are trying to do while they are under fire.

    All of this talk is moot anyway as Congress is only concerned about the next election and any sort of success in Iraq does not help the Democrats. Sad but true. One basic fact is it matters not operationsally how we got to this point, but how do we get out. Yes out. Telling the world that we are moving out sends the wrong message but the very exact message they have been working for. We quit Somalia, we quit Lebanon, and they know that we will quit Iraq just like these other places.

    Before we send in more troops it is necessary to ask ourselves what is our expectations and what are the expectations of those we are trying to help, because you can’t save someone from drowning if they fight you every time you try to give them a hand.

    All good points. However, if you look deeper you might see that the guy is drowning because someone (like Iran) keeps throwing him into the deep end. We should keep Iran in mind. If for no other reason, we probably should put more troops in Iraq to keep the Iranians in check. You can bet for sure that a US troop pullback will result in more Iranian meddling, not less. Less see what comes out in a couple days time about that side of this whole issue.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 6:48 pm

15. Found WMD?

    Huh, last i looked the count was over 600. How high is it now?

    Comment by winter — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 8:15 pm

16. “you can save someone from drowning if they fight you every time you give them a hand”

    Huh, thats exactly what a drowning person does, see any film on a rescue at sea, and you will see the swimmer hit the drowning person, to keep that from happening.

    But then the real point here is you EU guys 1) don’t really care, and 2) would not offer your hand to a drowning person anyway. You like to offer the USA hand to save someone. So why even think we believe you would help.

    Comment by winter — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 8:20 pm

17. Completely unrelated, but as this is the latest post:

    Phil, you have seemingly ignored our favourite minister’s latest blunder completely. Considering that even the most die-hard social democrat would consider it absolutely outrageous, I am puzzled. Hasn’t it been covered in English language news? When, for once, you have a justified reason to bash the hell out of the SDP, you’re silent. What gives?

    Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

18. Huh, last i looked the count was over 600. How high is it now?

    Those 20-year old ex-sarin shells were every bit as WMD as cow dung is a biological weapon. Don’t believe me? Ask a USMC artillery officer:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

    Then again, an accomplished armchair general such as yourself probably knows better.

    Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 8:59 pm

19. Thats the point lifeguards are trained when a drowning victim is fighting you the best thing is for you to stop the rescue until they calm down because they will take you down with them if they continue the struggle.

    Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 9:47 pm

20. But then the real point here is you EU guys 1) don’t really care, and 2) would not offer your hand to a drowning person anyway. You like to offer the USA hand to save someone. So why even think we believe you would help.

    I am American and even I know that when we decided to go for this war we said that we would go it alone so I don’t blame the EU for not jumping in now. On top of that the coalition was comprised of many EU nations.

    Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

21. A week or so ago Hesari wrote about people fleeing Iraq to other countries. It quoted numbers and said that Sweden took this much in each month last year, while USA took tenth of the same amount over one year. I think USA took something like 20. Does someone have the newspaper? It might have been as recently as last Monday?

    Comment by iJusten — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:08 pm

22. He also voted AGAINST gay rights (such as adoption) and strictly voted AGAINST any abortion rights…sound conservative to me!
    just because you oppose taxes doesn’t make you a libertarian…sorry, i would not vote for him!!

    He’s from Texas. If doesn’t show a little conservatism, he’d never get elected. I think unfortunately that being a successful politician, sometimes you gotta go against your principles. Ron ran from Prez on the LP ticket in ‘88, I seriously doubt he was against abortion rights and gay rights back then.

    Comment by Phil — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

23. From a tactical voting point of view it might be worthwhile for libertarian-minded Americans to register as Republicans for any state primaries.

    I just might do that. (for real) I haven’t been happy with the LP lately, I have no loyalty to them.

    But does anyone think that this guy has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination?

    Absolutely. The Reps got their assed kickd a few months ago, they need a change of plan. Libertarian-ish Republicanism in the 80’s was very successful. It could make a comeback.

    Comment by Phil — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm

24. He looks like a drunk.

    Comment by Carl — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:43 pm

25. Thats the point lifeguards are trained when a drowning victim is fighting you the best thing is for you to stop the rescue until they calm down because they will take you down with them if they continue the struggle.

    Not exactly. I was taught that you put something between you and the victim, like the surfboard or the ‘torpedo’. (Beach training) That is why you always see them rushing to the water with that thing. That is what it is for. Question is, what do you put in the middle in Iraq? Unfortunately, the best option might be US troops.

    I am not blaming the EU for Iraq, but they deserve a boatload of blame for Afghanistan. Germany refuses to do anything there and France just up and left. And operations there were something they voted for. Thank God for the Brits, Canadians and others for taking Afghanistan seriously.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

26. One thing is for sure - Hillary has no chance in hell. Sorry, she’s too polarizing to win an election. She’s been trying to move closer to center, but voters haven’t forgot the 90’s Hillary.

    Obama is interesting. Young, charismatic, and like you said, little political baggage. But his middle name is “Hussein”. If I were him I’d go get that changed to “Harry”.

    John Edwards I think will win it out. The big three will definitely be Hillary-Obama-Edwards, all other Dems are wasting their time. It’ll be a really interesting primary, can’t wait. Maybe I’ll switch to Democrat so I can vote. I’d vote for Obama. I loathe Hillary and Edwards represents every tired ass Senator alive.

    The Republicans have no clear leaders at this point, which is kinda disturbing, cause by the end of this year, there needs to be some front runners. John McCain is will be 73 by the elections, wayyyy too old.

    Comment by Phil — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 10:48 pm

27. Hey folks,

    First time at your blog here but I got a kick out of the Ron Pual discussion expecially the remark about a twin brother for Finaland.

    I hope you don’t mind but I linked to this entry on my new blog devoted to Ron Paul’s candidacy. Feel free to stop by and comment.

    http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/

    >>The Republicans have no clear leaders at this point, which is kinda disturbing, cause by the end of this year, there needs to be some front runners.>>

    Much will change in the next few months.

    Comment by Dave — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 11:30 pm

28. I am no big fan of Hilary Clinton, but I simply cannot understand why she should grate the nerves of conservative-minded people more than any other Democrat. Or was it the crack about baking cookies in the 1992 campaign?

    Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 @ 11:36 pm

29. Oh Hilary, we wish you would win the Dem Convention.

    Why? We have the Bill, and all the Interns story. Remember the famous “I did not have sex with that woman”.

    then we have Hillary Care. Just looking at the Finnish system brings many reasons not to do that. Or looking at the policy of “Too Old” over 80, no care for you, we need the money for younger folks. Great, I really want that.

    Then we have her excellent hate Personality. The Bi%^h ruler of the world. Can’t wait for that one to show up.

    Finally we have her famous, flop flops on Iraq. Yea I voted for it, but now all those troops can FU&* off.

    This will be fun.

    Comment by winter — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 12:06 am

30. “The Republicans have no clear leaders at this point, which is kinda disturbing, cause by the end of this year, there needs to be some front runners. John McCain is will be 73 by the elections, wayyyy too old.”

    McCain is too old. The end of the year is so far away. The Republicans hopefully are still trying to figure out how they got their asses handed to them in the ‘06 Election, and that is a good thing if that is what they are up to. (And no, it’s not all about I.R.A.Q.)

    One think that will probably be effected in the short-term is the Democrat majority in the Senate. with so Many Democrat Senators running for President, they are sure to miss votes as they hunt around for votes for themselves.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 2:25 am

31. “Many Democrat Senators running for President”

    but is there any one who has actually done something?

    Like Senator Dod from Mass, who the Military nick-named a 2 Billion dollar submarine after. (Called it the Dod wolf, after he put the pork in the budget to buy a submarine the US Navy said it did not want).

    The Dem party = corruption unlimited in scope.

    Comment by winter — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 3:34 am

32. Phil: “But his middle name is “Hussein”. If I were him I’d go get that changed to “Harry”. ”

    Yes, and Obama rhymes with Osama. He should just change his name to ‘Harry Smith’ and forget the rest

    Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 6:45 am

33. Obama bin Laden for President ;P

    Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 6:53 am

34. The American conservatives’ hatred for Hillary Clinton can be a bit puzzling, considering that she is in actual fact a fairly moderate politician. I think it’s about cultural markers. They see her being all competent and assertive, and think to themselves, “DANGER! FEMINISM! INITIATE ANGRY RANT!”

    Truth be told, I wouldn’t vote for Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary, largely because I think she’s the most hawkish of the major Democratic candidates. John Edwards also voted for the Iraq debacle, but he repented sooner and with more gusto than Clinton. Barack Obama to his credit was against the war from the start and for that reason got my vote in the poll.

    On the Republican side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both have the potential to attack another country for no good reason, although to his credit McCain would at least respect the other side’s human rights. Mitt Romney is probably as good as it gets over there among the major candidates, as sad as that may sound.

    Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 8:59 am

35. “The American conservatives’ hatred for Hillary Clinton can be a bit puzzling, considering that she is in actual fact a fairly moderate politician.”

    Moderate? OK, she voted for the Iraq disaster. But I’m sure the potential opportunity to spread feminist ideology throughout the Middle East and elsewhere was more important to her, than a bunch of American soldiers getting their legs blown-off for nothing. I’m sure there were many Republicans who readily sold-themselves-out by acquiescing to her feminist wishes, in exchange for her support.

    So do conservatives dislike her because she’s a feminist? Hard to say…. I’m not a conservative, but I don’t like seeing extremists of any sort in politics. And yes, I do see her feminist ideology as extreme. Extreme politics tend to cause extreme backlashes—perhaps even more extreme. And that’s something even rancid feminists of her own ilk would not enjoy in the long run.

    Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 9:55 am

36. “I’m not a conservative, but I don’t like seeing extremists of any sort in politics.”

    HAHA
    Yet you support the libertarians?

    Comment by Passer-by — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:16 am

37. Yeah, Hillary Clinton is pretty moderate, even on domestic issues. She loves to undertake various save-the-children initiatives and often cooperates on them with with social conservatives like Sam Brownback. She’s fairly business-friendly; no candidate could raise as much money from business interests as she does otherwise. As a legislator she shows a moderate temper, preferring incrementalism to radical changes. She’s well within the mainstream on virtually every issue. Her political views are a lot less extreme than Ron Paul’s, for example.

    Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 10:36 am

38. “voted for the Iraq disaster.”

    and not for the Finland Vietnam disaster in lebanon?

    Who would think that supporting terrorists in Lebanon would actualy do some good? Who would think that way?

    Who?

    Comment by winter — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 11:54 pm

39. Who would think that supporting terrorists in Lebanon would actualy do some good? Who would think that way?

    I guess the same people who think that supporting Shi’ite terrorists in Iraq does a world of good.

    Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

40. “supporting Shi’ite terrorists”

    you mean the ones who just surrendered?

    Humm, did yours in Lebanon surrender yet?

    Having a Vietnam day?

    Comment by winter — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 4:05 am

41. “you mean the ones who just surrendered?”

    No, the ones who just captured 4 of your soldiers and killed them.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sneak_attack

    Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 11:24 am

42. Ah you mean those AP stories:

    “The Associated Press’s latest article on the downing of a Blackwater security contractors’ helicopter is beginning to back away from their possibly false report that four of the Americans were killed “execution style.”

    At least the USA does something, your little war in Lebanon is slowly comming apart.

    Good job Finland. You sure screwed that one up.

    Comment by winter — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

43. winter, a.k.a. IDIOT:

    “Good job Finland. You sure screwed that one up.”

    What the HELL does Finland have to do with ANYTHING going on in Iraq?

    Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 @ 6:36 pm

44. “Finland have to do with ANYTHING going on in Iraq?”

    lets see. Moron deployment to Lebanon as Human shields for iran. Thats your little vietnam, do not ask for help.

    No support to get the real terrorists, just some waiving the French white flag of surrender. After all you were the supreme rulers of the world for 6 months. Did you do anything? Other than throw support to terrorists?

    Do we have to list more? Letting 600 000 die in Darfur, as you ran the world for 6 months.

    More?

    Comment by winter — Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 @ 3:23 am

45. winter:
    “supporting Shi’ite terrorists”
    you mean the ones who just surrendered?

    No, the ones you put in government.

    Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

46. “No, the ones you put in government.”

    Ah, a complaint against 12 Million purple fingers? And just what does your deployment to protect Hezbollah, do?

    Comment by winter — Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

47. John Edwards is the Wesley Crusher of candidates.

    Hillary is a radical leftist. Moderates do not propose anything on the order of HillaryCare (which she comasterminded with aide Ira Magaziner).

    Moderates also don’t display such attitudes regarding education and parental autonomy:

    ‘In “Hell to Pay,” Barbara Olson cites many of her earlier articles that reflect this same utopian, quasi-socialist vision. Mrs. Clinton rejects the belief, for example, that “families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children.” She recommends intervening in “family … decisions [involving minors] that could have long-term … effects….” “Decisions,” she writes, “about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetics [sic] surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others … should not be made unilaterally by parents.”‘

    http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/31/230623.txt

    Comment by Alan K. Henderson — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 10:07 am

48. “just what does your deployment to protect Hezbollah, do?”

    Well we are there because the USA and Israel wants us there (to protect Lebanons civilians and I know how you think that every civilian is an Hizbollah terrorist but thats just your screwed up point of view) so go and complain to them not to us.

    Honestly whats up with winter. He is the dumbest little ass-hole that has ever crossed my path, seriously nobody can be that dumb as winter. And what happened to Finnpundit? Did he get committed (as I seriously suspect that he is a mental case, with the fantasies of massacered children and Finns and all) again? or was he already committed and they just took away his internet privileges? Or is he still out there (a troll perhaps like winter, I hope)?

    Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 7:41 pm

49. #13 We managed to survive WITHOUT a Federal Reserve (read Central Bank) until President Woodrow Wilson signed them into law. (He later admitted that he did a great disservice to his country by doing so. Within twenty years after the creation of the US Central Bank, we were well within the morass of the Great Depression.)

    Ron Paul is one of those truly maverick politicians (whom we certainly don’t hear much about in the American press). For the MSM in America to stick that label on John McCain is a paradox. McCain is a capitulator at best, and out for himself at worst. Five years in an NVA prison camp should have convinced him that sticking with the military should have been as far as he should have gone. (For any of you Finns out there, he retired as a Navy Captain back in the early ’80’s.)

    As far as the rest of the politicos trying to become the next POTUS, let them knock themselves silly! I don’t like any of them, and I certainly don’t trust them — regardless if they’re Republicans or Democrats. I voted for Michael Peroutka from the Constitution Party the last time, and I will probably vote for the CP’s candidate for President this next time as well.

    Comment by Jason — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 10:42 pm

50. She recommends intervening in “family … decisions [involving minors] that could have long-term … effects

    Well, when daddy and uncle take turns raping an eight year old girl, I believe that the state should intervene. I’m a radical leftist that way.

    Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 12:11 am

51. Damn it, I posted a long response to Alan Henderson’s comment, but it isn’t showing up. It’s too late to retype the whole thing, so I’ll summarize.

    1.) The idea that the government should make sure all Americans have health care coverage is something that a majority of Americans support. Opponents of the Clinton plan claimed that it would take away choice, which is genuinely unpopular, but those opponents were dishonest.

    2.) Based on some light googling, it appears that the late Barbara Olson’s quotes come from articles Hillary wrote in the 1970s. The second quote has been mutilated beyond recognition, but apparently the young Hillary’s point was that “Children should have a right to be permitted to decide their own future if they are competent.” Yeah, I know - what a Trotskyite!

    3.) Given that Senator Clinton wrote a book on the topic of child care in the ’90s, it’s kind of telling that right-wingers need to go back to the ’70s to find scare quotes on the topic and even then they come up with stuff that’s quite milquetoast. It’s almost as if her current opinions are, well, moderate…

    Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 1:28 am

52. The majority of Americans do nto support nationalization of the health insurance industry which “Hillarycare” constituted. Otherwise it would have passed into law. “Making sure that people have coverage” can describe policies that don’t go the socialist or social democrat route. Going after abusive lawsuits woudl accomlish the goal (and wouldn’t get Democrat votes).

    Her 1970s writings were not high-school theses written by a neophyte who barely had any time to develop a political philosophy. I don’t expect to see much ideological difference between the Watergate-era Hillary and the Hillary of today.

    (Didn’t the Left come down on Bork’s ancient writings?)

    A cursory search hasn’t turned up any specifics on what reclassifying minors as “child citizens” is supposed to accomplish. Much more recent writings tell us her vision on another child issue - child care. Her 1996 book “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us” paints a picture of hyperactive government involvement in child development. Here’s a useful review:

    http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1184

    Comment by Alan K. Henderson — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 7:14 am

53. Alan K. Henderson wrote: The majority of Americans do nto support nationalization of the health insurance industry which “Hillarycare” constituted.

    No, it didn’t. The plan would have established tightly regulated health management organizations to compete with the existing health insurance industry. It’s far from a single-payer model, like the one proposed by the late Paul Wellstone.

    By the way, if Clinton is “radical”, what the hell was Wellstone? Are there enough revolutionary socialists in Minnesota to vote someone into statewide office?

    Going after abusive lawsuits woudl accomlish the goal (and wouldn’t get Democrat votes).

    No, it wouldn’t, no matter what Bush claims. (”[Congressional Budget Office] found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.”)

    And why wouldn’t going after “abusive” lawsuits get Democrats votes? Republicans seem to think it gets them votes, which is why they keep yammering on about it.

    Here’s a useful review:

    Here’s a much more useful one. Neither of them tries to argue that she’s a radical, though.

    Now, to inject some data into the discussion, see National Journal’s 2005 Senate vote ratings that lists Senators in order of their “liberal score”. You’ll find Senator Clinton between those well-known anarcho-syndicalist radicals, Senator Biden of Delaware and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia.

    Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

54. “to protect Lebanons civilians”

    damm thats nice of you, except its letting the thugs and killers go up North and take over a country.

    Thanks. But you guys suck at this Nation building business. Now go home.

    Comment by winter — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 5:14 am

55. #54

    grow a brain

    Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 12:43 pm

56. “grow a brain” tried that. But every stupid move to help thugs and killers by France and Finland makes me want to puke it up.

    Comment by winter — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

57. #56

    So you are glad to be a ignorant stupid little fart, eh?

    Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 7:49 pm

58. “ignorant stupid little fart,” that can see all the stupid things you EU guys stand for: Killing in DARFUR, and Human Shields for thugs.

    Its interesting that you all think the world likes you. The world thinks your foreign policy sucks, and your so called help, is well, less than helpful.

    Can you go home please?

    Comment by winter — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

59. #57

    I take it that you do.

    Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 12:19 pm

60. And why wouldn’t going after “abusive” lawsuits get Democrats votes?

    For clarification, by “abusive” I mean “frivolous.” Lawsuits like the woman who sued McDonald’s because she spilled a McDonald’s coffee on herself while sitting in a McDonald’s restaurant.

    Trial lawyers overwhelmingly back the Democratic Party. The Dems oppose lawsuit reform that takes an axe to frivolous lawsuits.

    By the way, if Clinton is “radical”, what the hell was Wellstone?

    His American Conservative Union lifetime score is 3 (out of 100). He was hardly a moderate. Minnesota *is* a pretty leftist state.

    Hillary’s lifetime ACU score is 9.

    Comment by Alan K. Henderson — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Mini Phillip

Get your own WidSets Pet