A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

[rickv404]

Can Conservatism ever, truly stand for absolute freedom or laissez-faire? I think not, regardless of which Conservatism we are talking about. They are religious, these conservatives, and as such, regard mankind as sinful by nature. Mankind thus can't be permitted to be free. Buckley was merely being consistent with his religious beliefs, as even Pat Buchanan is and would be. The Neo-Conservatives, they are the same, though not overtly religious.

[joe00727]

for those that dont know bill buckley was in the C.I.A. nuff said,

[chukmaty]

Fail video is fail.

[greenoffspring]

Woodrow Wilson and fdr were never ever liberals they were progressives and those are not the same things. Even Woodrow Wilson and fdr campaigned on small govt and promised "to keep us out of war." It is they who betrayed the old left and the old right is where it has always been on the left. That's kind of confusing though so I preffer not to get caught up in the left right trap like conservatives want us to be.

[carkrueger]

This video is a fairytale.

[Patavinity]

If you dislike "making the world safe for democracy", why do you care about "defeating the Soviet empire"?

[SPFerrie]

I actually argue that the Soviet Union would have self-destructed and that the Cold War was a complete waste of resources. The Cold War was a New Right invention that the Old Right completely opposed.

[AnonymousBChurch]

When I heard the terms "big government" and "socialism" used by someone calling themselves a conservative, I laugh. The Constitution itself was a big-government reaction against the real limited government of the Articles of Confederation. The so-called limited government Federalists wanted a bigger government than their rivals, and the conservatives Whigs explicitly wanted big government and big business to work together.

Limited government conservatism has always been a lie.

[kailynleto]

I think I'm more a right-libertarian than a paleo-conservative. The only difference is that I tend to be an objectivist on some issues where paleo-conservatives are not. Then again, the difference between paleocons and right-libertarians is laughably petty.

[d3p3ch3mod3]

Funny how now if you're a constitutionalist you're the closest thing we have to an anarchist here.

[Thrashfan21]

What the Southern Avenger fails to recognize is that Paleocons and supposed "neocons" line up pretty much the same when it comes to taxes,abortion,judges and the list is probably even longer than that.

[Silvsilvchan]

Yes, because if a few things are similar they must be identical? Right? MY GOD! Both the democrats and the communists believe in redistributing wealth! *GASP*

[cclasby]

Taxes? Uh, not at all. Paleos would always cut taxes because the government wouldn't be doing such big things like MAKING WAR, while the Neos just say they will reduce taxes, reduce them for their base in the super rich and "delusional that they will become super rich" in the upper middle class, and meanwhile squeeze the middle class into poverty with taxes.

Abortion you are right, Judges possibly, but I would be surprised if they came out the same.

[maxime32]

Buchanan and Paul are still VERY different. Buchanan is a right-wing nationalist and would be a hard right-winger in any European country. He is not anti-Social Security or anti-Medicare and I am confident he would compromise on tax structure. Paul is semi-libertarian constitutionalist, a phenomenon that is far from the radar in Europe. He is not theoretically opposed to free trade and would focus on eliminating govt programmes, not on culture-wars.

[sarjil]

not really outside of trade issues where buchanan is nationalist and paul is for free trade. there's not much differnce betwenn them at all. even in financial matters outside of trade they agree in theory.

[maxime32]

I just cannot agree. I recall when Buchanan ran for president and he made some criticisms of the Republican Congress, not on tax, but on entitlement cuts. He is a cultural conservative and his views on the constitution are aimed to preserve traditions while Paul's is actual ideological (classic) liberalism. Buchanan would compromise on the size of the State while Paul would not.

[GBanville]

Glad to see that you do know the true meaning of liberal, and can distinguish it from socialist.

I'm unsure to what extent I am a conservative, and to what extent I am a liberal, but I know that I am neither of them as they are described in contemporary politics.

[ColonelSanders6543]

antoher great video, I realize now that I am a paleoconservative and not a contemporary conservative

[billycarr]

great and informative video

[Italiasalbion]

I thought that Buckley dude was kinda goofy.

[hagiaadrasteia]

Fantastic video! There is so much misinformation and double-speak in today's information society. I agree completely with your astute commentary. Far from revitalizing traditional conservative philosphy, Buckley de facto was a prime mover in dismantling it. It is our great hope that there are still "dyed-in-the-wool" true conservatives like Dr. Paul and Buchanan though they are marginalized and misrepresented in the party that was founded on their positions. Hopefully America will discover this.

[VoteYourConsience]

grest vid. thx SA

[MSfeller]

Hey nigger faggot, as you like to be called, huh, reckon I was right calling you a fag, just saw the gay ass video you have on your page. Yeah, very fucking nice, using little young kids to promote your sick gay agenda. Fuck you man.

[MSfeller]

Ok faggot nigger, suit yourself.

[hagiaadrasteia]

With all due respect, is this supposed to qualify for a point of debate? It would more interesting and relevant to debate points of view about the commentary presented not personal bashing. That does not serve anyone.

[MSfeller]

And there's nothing worse than Communism, it's even worse than Nazism (real Nazism from Nazi Germany). The claims are that Hitler killed 6 million people, while Stalin, the Communist, killed 9 million. So if Reagan supported dictators in South America, the Taliban and all those numb nuts, well, at least he stopped Communism. I'm not defending Reagan all the way, kissing where he walks, but anyone who stops Communism is a good politician on my book. Like I said, there's nothing worse on earth.

[MSfeller]

Burn the constitution? The only idiots that are destroying the constitution are the damn liberals who ain't nothing but modern Communists, socialists and aging hippies disguised as politicians. Every idiot knows that conservatives are always way more patriotic than any liberal alive. Yeah, and shaving my head, very nice, I'm a freaking neo-Nazi now, huh? Liberals are so freaking predictable that is laughable. Or you are one of them, or you are a Nazi. Oh please. I'm not even German blooded, sir.

[Silvsilvchan]

My God, MSfeller and your riveting unbelievable commentaries on actual conservatism have completely changed my life. I think I will shave my head and help you burn the constitution while pissing on Reagan's grave and digging up Barry Goldwater's skull and fucking it.

Then I will shave my head and become a monk in a monastery. Or the military. I would love to come home in a box, weeee!

[MSfeller]

Get a life, hippie douche. Nothing worse than a Texas liberal. Go listen to your Dixie Chicks CD while you bash the president and Southern heritage, you faggot.

[Silvsilvchan]

To reiterate what I said below this, fuck you and fuck your compassionate conservatism, you liberal fascist fuck wad.

[Robo1415]

By Jove,I think he has it.....:)...The Neo-cons control the GOP even though there have been valiant attempts to change their direction by Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul....we will see what happens when the November McCain Collapse comes....

[chewbaca1989]

Thanks for percolating the information and making such a strong brew.

Great video Southernavenger

[Silvsilvchan]

To clarify, when I refer to 'evil big government' I am speaking in large part of the post-Wilson big government, larger part of the post-FDR government, and LARGEST post-LBJ (Johnson, worse president ever? Wilson and he are in close running for that in my eyes) government. Carter, the Bushes, and the Clintons have just been a terrifying icing on the cake. Meaning, I do find the big government advocated by say, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson to be acceptable. Maintain a balance.

[wilfredsnipple]

Silvsilvchan

"Johnson worst president ever?" ...right behind Lincoln.

[Silvsilvchan]

*grin* I hate Wilson more than both of them. But I dislike them all for different reasons.

Lincoln at best is over rated, at worse one of the biggest threats to American freedom and liberty (ironic as he is responsible for the eventual end of slavery, though it occurred well after his death and I doubt was his main agenda) to ever reside in the white house. But like FDR people love him with a blind devotion and we are racists for even suggesting he was anything less than a saint.

[Hunterkirk]

G. W. Bush seems to be focusing on terrorism and the nations that support it. Terrorism being defined as Islamic Extremism or Expansionism. Iraq supported Hama's a known terrorist group, like wise Afghanistan support Bin Laden thusly they came under the gun because they refused to back down from that support. Syria and Iran are in the same boat.

The Clintons targeted "social justice" which resulted in WACO, Ruby Ridge, and The supporting of Ablanian Muslims seperatist in Kosovo.

[eecummingscsa]

@hunterkirk

it would seem that the neocons, too, support "Ablanian Muslims seperatist in Kosovo"[sic]. perhaps this will serve as a "road to damascus" event for you.

one can only hope.

[judoskeleton]

This is the straight truth. The party lines are now a circle.

[flyingbird0214]

Excellent video! I may not be a fan, but recognize a five stars video when I see one.

[neothomist1275]

"they wouldn't be conservative at all: they'd be liberals"

That's because Liberalism and Leftism are essentially opposites -- as it is still generally acknowledged in Europe today.

Enlightened self-interest and commercial/contractual society are Liberal notions.

[conspiracy777]

Once again, EXCELLENT WORK!

Some one who "gets it" , how refreshing.

[slavophile1]

O'Reilly says he 'doesn't need a history lesson,' but he definately needs this history lesson.

[shiftstart]

O'Reilly is no conservative.

[julianhpike]

damn ... thanks for the history lesson SA.

[airborne373]

Wow, that was the most cogent review of Mr. Buckley. He was certainly a mixed bag.

[shiftstart]

Buckley thought he could have both. He was wrong and later in his life came to regret it.

[shiftstart]

SA, great commentary. You're a true scholar sir. Perhaps Buckley's message of embracing the left path to secure the right path was his undoing.

[AmericanJoe1973]

Awesome Truth!!

[greengriffin1]

I prefer the term "Ron Paul Republican" over paleo-conservative.

[AntonBatey]

Buckley got his ass handed to him by Chomsky.

[vilaboastream]

We should fight to defend our people and our land and not for any other reason

[hartshornguy]

this is our fork in the road as consevratives at large, either we repect the idea that the world will not stand up and defend itself so we must do so with our power and try to keep to our roots with small govt. we can still have a large army and still have limited govt controll. we must stop righting between the two factions of our group i.e the ron paul group or the limbaugh group and mesh together.

[Iownall794]

SA, I love your video's. I watch and rate all your video's. I use a lot of them in arguement's on other website's. Thank you for the video's!

[HungryDingo]

The error he made was assuming that people would remember the "old conservatism" once the Soviet Union had collapsed. It took decades for them to fold, I guess by the time it had collapsed "old conservatism" had been long forgotten.

[wilfredsnipple]

HungryDingo

If you think that the Soviet Union collapsed you are dillusional. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[Silvsilvchan]

Communism collapsed and was replaced by the same kind of socialism the western leftists practiced. HOWEVER Yeltsin was a corrupt mafioso who allowed crime to run rampant in free Russia. This is why Putin is so popular there, he stopped that. It's also why they don't seem to mind his assault on their basic liberties. Sad really. But the point remains, you are generalizing. After 1991 we should have shut down the bases over seas. Instead we shut them down at HOME and built MORE.

[wilfredsnipple]

Silvsilvchan

The point is that people now use names for gov't etc. that are typically misnomers. The idea that the Soviet Union "collapsed" and is now a "democracy" would reason that they should be friendly because we are a "democracy". This is simply not true. I happened to serve in the Army and stood at the East German wall before it came down. The base that I served at is no longer there, but the "threat" remains. Americans like to throw around the word superpower but what does it mean?

[Silvsilvchan]

*rubs chin* I do agree with the notion that a democracy or a republic automatically gets along with other democracies or republics (Do the Iranians or do the Iranians not hold elections? =P). I do think there was a strong hope that they would indeed get along with us and even did until the last decade. What I will say is I think foreign bases tend to provoke negative reactions. However, the USSR DID break up, as in, split up.

[Hunterkirk]

We have had Issolationist presidents whoms main goals were to stay out of world affairs. Like President Arthur and Taft whom main concerns were domestic and did little over seas. These presidents by default allow dangers overseas to grow. These presidents tend to go unremembered because of their lack of activities and few changes they created.

So the question becomes "what is you major concern" if it is the 'getting along with the world' then you choose a president whom is a follwer of the UN

[axisboldas]

Give Buckley some credit for libertarianism though.

[jackspratt409]

ouch. that just about sums up WFB, Jr pretty succinctly.

[jclayton59466]

I like how people use the word isolationist to describ Dr. Paul.

Have they forgotten the "Axis of evil" Speach by our current president. Nothing is more isolating than nameing a nation who had just offered their support, a nation of evil.

In doing so Bush closed the door of open communication with Iran for a long time to come.

[Hunterkirk]

Then I'm happy to be a member of the "new conservative". The trouble I have with the "old conservatives" is that they are isolationistic. They seem to honestly think the world outside the USA will never effect the USA, that somehow we can be totally seperated from it. They seem to think we dont need a strong military and would happly reduce the military to near third world level. They are against people whom want to make a profit in their lives, and in that aspect they are similar to socialists.

[philippe1985]

The new conservatives are just a pack of commies.

Tell where you found that the 'old conservatives' are against strong national defense and against keeping the fruit of your labor.

Neo-coservatives have absolutly no problem with stealing the fruit of the labor of someone else and beside the fact they say they are for a strong national defense, they do the exact opposite.

So no Sir, you're are the closest to socialism with your big government weflare-warfare views

[Hunterkirk]

"stealing the fruit of the labor" Is that why you old conservative are so against big companies? Yet by demanding action against them you are in fact "stealing the fruit of THEIR labor" and by your own methods of logic would make you the "pack of commies".

[hartshornguy]

you need a strong national defense to fight gloabl terroize. the idea of old consevrative is half dead. i can agree with the old but not on national defense.

[wilfredsnipple]

hartshornguy

They idea of national defense starts at home. How dow you keep a secure home with an open door? The new conservative aka neo -conservative advocates open borders which in no way contributes to national defense. I know that the old conservative(true conservative) would not advocate an open border policy.

[hartshornguy]

i want the border closed. im not for open borders at all. i hate title but im apparently an old conservative besides the fact that we need to be a factor over seas. no "neo cons" want open borders.john mccain is not a conservative, the huckster,and bush arnt. we need to sercure the border if not close it. but at the same time we need to shut down islam extremists if not curve muslim influence. either security with closed borders and abroad or moan and groan about a larger army.

[Hunterkirk]

I think I am in agreement with in, I dont consider Bush a pure conservative old or new. Bush and Huckster are Social Conservatives. McCain is a Blue Blood Conservative (Military Conservative) and none are small government conservatives (Old Time Conservatives).

For myself I am a Social Conservative First, National Defense Conservative Second, and Thirdly Small Government Conservative.

[shiftstart]

Which makes you clearly a Wilsonian Democrat.

[wilfredsnipple]

harthornguy

Firstly the term neocon is code word for liberal. Bush and co. invented this term. With the exception of Ron Paul every candidate within the republican nomer are neo conservatives. He is the only one who actually advocates going after the individuals responsible for 911. We knew that Iraq had nothing to do with it-period. With our rediculous intervention policies we will turn all of Islam against us. When we finally realize that we cannot fix the whole world it might be too late.

[shiftstart]

I've said it before, true conservatism died years ago. Of course Paul and Buchanan and few others are the exception to the rule. They are the last of their kind and liberalism has eroded anything that was. Take McCain, his been rubbing elbows with democrats for so long, that this elephant walks with a donkeys tails. The moment any "conservative" embraces government and authority is the moment a dark chapter in the conservative philosophy is written.

[Hunterkirk]

Well said, it seems the title Isolationst may well be a very good description of these people on this forum. Seeing how any comment supporting any military action over seas is attacked by them.

I for one would like to know how they would fix the issue of terrorism, so far no answer is forth coming.

[southernavenger]

Hunterkirk - At least your honest. You support both big government overseas and at home, even at the expense of national security and increasing Al Quada. Neconservative Norman Podhoretz urged conservatives to preserve the welfare state. He considers it "conservative." Also, dismissing the Old Right or the paleos today as "isolationist" would be like dismissing today's neocons and mainstream "conservatives" as nothing but "warmongers." It's overly simplistic - and no one would stand for it.

[Hunterkirk]

Generalizations are unavoidable in the field of discussing politics, and the simplistic ones are best. I happen to think the main job of government is to keep the peace and protect the nation from attack. I dont think in this modern age of travel it is possable to protect the nation only at its points of entry. So yes I support military action over seas.

[Hunterkirk]

I dont support the welfare state and disagree with efforts that expanded or maintain it. I bleave capitalism works and government regulation/taxes limits growth. I have no problem with big companies making money as long as there is no government effort to restrict competition in the economy.

[philippe1985]

But when big companies work hand in hand with the government, what you get is not free market. The free market is not about being pro-private sector. It just means no government interference. Either it is taxes, or regulation of the money supply.

No FED means no IRS no welfare state but also no warfare state. Only a humble foreign policy and no waste of money.

[Hunterkirk]

Some degree of government working with companies is going to happen. After all the government has employees, buildings, etc. As a person whom know of many whom are career government and the outlined the process that contracts are handled. You would be surprised how free market it is.

What concerns me is the regulations that make it such that it makes it nearly impossable for new companies to challenge the older ones.

[shiftstart]

Well I guess you can say with big business in collusion with government clearly don't want competition. These same businesses without government's authority wouldn't have a chance of a day to compete if the market was truly free. And once they have control they don't give it up.

[cryptorick]

Hunterkirk: "What concerns me is the regulations that make it such that it makes it nearly impossable [sic] for new companies to challenge the older ones."

So much for the free market! Doesn't this belie your previous comment of "You would be surprised how free market it is"?

I think you are finally starting to get it.

[philippe1985]

They are going to work with a government that is ready to be big and powerful.

A small federal government that is only taking care of national defense isn't going to work hand in hand with big companies.

The neo-conservatives don't have faith in the free market economy. The only way to avoid monopolies is to lower taxes, have a sound money (regulated by the market, not the government), and a balanced budget. And the prescription drug program or no child left behind are just of proof of it

[philippe1985]

Maybe this is also why they (neo-conservatives) have so much faith in Islamist terrorist. They think a Islamist-fascist nation can become huge and powerful and could wipe out America if America doesn't stop them now.

The truth is that most of these terrorist can barely place America on a map and are for most of them not a threat to America

[Hunterkirk]

Are you suggesting that we not have highways or major bridges? Are you suggesting that we not have weapons beyond that of Indonesia in tech level? Are you suggesting that we not have public education?

What exactly would the country look like if you were in power?

[philippe1985]

Highways and bridge don't have to be the matter of the Federal government. That is a conservative value. It has to be either private or financed by more local government. So does 'public education'.

If I was in power of the USA it would be more like during the time of Jefferson. Very few and low taxes, strong national defense, minimum laws, the constitution.

[Hunterkirk]

So there would be no highways or major bridges or damns. We would have little more the rifles and jeeps with a few hand me down USSR russia aircraft. We would have smalled public school system and less people educated. On the bright side we would have a large cheep labor force like India's.

What exactly do YOU think it was like during jeffersons time?

[philippe1985]

I consider that the federal government should only wonder about national defense. This means financing huge programs, like the f-22, stealth helicopter, super-soldiers etc.

You on the other hand, you are not. You prefer spending this money, financing military dictator and run unnecessary wars over seas as we saw during the bush administration.

Bridges can be build by the private sector and/or more local government.

Schools are already financed locally. The department of education is useless.

[philippe1985]

I think that if America kept the Jefferson tradition (except for slavery), America would be much wealthier and safer.

you keep on thinking that the federal government should be the babysitter of all citizens from birth to death. I think you don't see a limit between the private and the public sector.

This just confirm that neo-conservatives should be called neo-Trotskyst

[Hunterkirk]

Did you remember a massive spending by Jefferson to buy land and the taxes that the purchase required and the dictator in France he paid with the millions (today would be trillions)?

[vonPeterhof]

The Louisiana Purchase required a lot of money, yet the Jefferson administration still managed to pay for it without introducing an income tax with a vast bureaucratic network to enforce its collection. This is definitely not the case with modern day government spending.

[Hunterkirk]

Yet he, Jefferson, paid these millions to a dictator whom was trying to take over Europe and Russia. As for the other issue of where the funds came from I would need to do more research as I think it was highly unlikely we simply had that much money laying around.

[Silvsilvchan]

And Reagan (who I like) funded Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, and several dictators in South America all in the name of fighting communism. And he's hardly the only one to do such things. Clinton and both Bushes followed his foot steps well, and he was following in an obviously steeped and debatabley flawed American tradition. Remember the war of 1812? The Brits are fighting Napoleon. And we declare war on them. Opportunistic? Perhaps. Though we are hardly the only nation...

[Hunterkirk]

You make a lot of good points. Yes it is true that there isnt a single leader whom didnt work with elements that we would later call foes. I feel that political leaders tend to focus on one major issue during their terms in office and spend most of there efforts behind those goals. They will turn a blind eye to other dangers if it helps them toward their goal.

Reagan fought the USSR and thusly was willing to turn a blind eye to some shady groups he worked with to undermine the USSR.

[Silvsilvchan]

You think modern America is educated? What fantasy land have you been living in? The average American can't even tell me the three major Central powers in World War I, or even tell me what the bill of rights consisted of. Federalized Public Education has done jack shit.

You also think that we should build a 200 million dollar bridge connecting a small island of 50 people to the Alaskan mainland, or do you feel that should be ALASKA'S duty?

[philippe1985]

If you think that the federal government should be involved in education and building bridges and highways.

Can you answer this :

Why not healthcare, creating money, building houses and cars, fighting global warming,making clothes, planning the food supplies etc. ? where is the limit?

Why not giving those charges to an even more global government? like the UN or an NAU?

[Hunterkirk]

Between state transportation is the expressed role of the federal government, otherwise roads that cross state borders would not occur, or would be in very poor condition. Large scale things like The Lousiana Purchase, Hoover Damn, Nuclear Program, and NASA, Mexician American War, The purchase of California, The Civil War, WW1 and WW2 all require a larger Fed government.

The reason I dont support Univer Health Care is due to the failure it is in other countries. Global Warming is a fraud etc

[Silvsilvchan]

Lousiana Purchase, MexicanAmerican War, and purchase of California all took place in pre-Income Tax America, as did the SpanishAmerican, Filipino War, and the Panama Canal where Ted Roosevelt PAID each member of the Colombian army fifty dollars ($1250 modern currency) to lay down their weapons. WWI and the Hoover Damn also took place in a pre-FDR environment. You make no sense, and apparently don't see the nine trillion dollar deficit your spending policies have produced even WITH an income tax.

[Hunterkirk]

income tax alone isnt that standard of what big government is. That is where your missing the boat and not making sense. The very core of big government is the centralization of power in to the federal government over that of the state government. All the above moves required a strong and big central government.

[Silvsilvchan]

While that is true that is also where YOU are missing the boat. The important thing is keeping a balance between the central government and local and state powers and MORE importantly individual powers. This is where your ideals are deeply flawed. Most of the things I listed were performed with out things like the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, or big government. Income tax is part of big government, while it isn't the standard it is a catalyst that allows it it's power.

[Hunterkirk]

I am confuse what in the sam hill is a Warfare state?

[hillbillybeachboy]

You think being in Iraq while 70% of the population is against it would have anything to do with a "warfare state?" We, as a Nation, are collectively 9 tril in the hole. I would like to have my cut of what they are spending (paying to Halliburton) in Iraq when they call on us to pay our debt.

[hagiaadrasteia]

That would be what we currently are...

[Hunterkirk]

So simply being at war ever is a Warfare state... so your a peacenik?

[hagiaadrasteia]

"peacenik"? Is supposed to be an insult? There are reasons why it is necessary to go to war to defend the country. Oil and weapons industry profiteering is not one of them. A state is not a warfare state simply by being at war-it is warfare state when the economy is dependant on the profits of war and, therefore, must constantly be at war.

As for for terrorism-it is a product of US manipulation of inner politics of other nations for our own hidden agendas. That would fix part of the problem.

[Hunterkirk]

So you agree with the far left anti war liberals whom think all of our problems oversea is due to the hells the USA has inflicted upon them?

Would be safe to say your for a smaller military? If so what makes you any different from the Clinton's in this world?

[VoteYourConsience]

being anti illegal war is a conservative value. Cheering illegal wars is a value of neo-cons who are actually extreme neo-liberal big Government trotskyites that infiltrated the Republican party

[Hunterkirk]

illegal war? How is Iraq a "Illegal War", as I recall congress approved it and that is the only constitutional standard I am aware for defining if a war is legal or not.

[VoteYourConsience]

it was a meritless immoral war. You are mistaken. Congress did not make a "declaration of war". But they approved the funding and allowed the president to have his war which is unconstitutional. It was a war built on lies. Neo-cons believe in no morals as long as their objectives are achived through intent justify means. so I do not expect them to look at it morally or debate if it was a just war. Are you a neocon?

[VoteYourConsience]

Conservatives arent pro small military. Infact they are pro Strong Military and a strong National defence, that do not pander to the profit concerned Military Industrial complex

[utubehayter]

"Would be safe to say your for a smaller military?"

On 9/11 did the largest and most powerful military force keep Americans safe?

When liberals advocate their welfare state measures, you require evidence and evaluation. Where is yours?

A large military force does not by default keep you safe - it might even make you more unsafe than you would be - without any military force. Just ask the taxpaying gun owners of New Orleans.

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter We have not been invaded.

Think of terrorist like ww2 espionage agents who like to kill themselves. They are not a issue about the military more so a issue about security and intelligence. The success or failure of them say nothing about the need for more or less military.

[utubehayter]

Agreed on the modus operandi - however, that does not mean that terrorism has nothing to do with safety either.. does it?

At billions of dollars of CIA expenditure per year - and the failure to nab the 16 hijackers - you have enough evidence that big does not mean better.

Also, so the military is to defend against invasion.. not terrorism. So why is it being used in Iraq? Afghanistan? Yemen? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter If the issue you have is that we are spending too much in the CIA and Home Land Security & that it can be done better and for less then we can have that discuss. But again that has nothing at all to do with military spending or size.

I agree that security can be done better. The sad truth is security has been politicized and special interests including social justice have shaped the current system. Another problem is terrorist only have to succeed once, security has to win always.

[utubehayter]

No I don't have an issue with the spending - on anything. I have an issue with how the money is acquired to continue that spending.

As for your odds - Cancer has to win just once.. but chemo has to win always. Does this mean you put the cancer patient on more and more and more chemo - and ignore that he is smoking all the time, and living in asbestos dust?

Thankfully, all that spending is going to crush the American empire. Hopefully good will come out of the crash.

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter Well if your goal is the destruction of the USA then you are correct that all that spending will destroy the USA. Military and Intelligence spend is by far not the greatest spending in the USA. Social Program are about 60% of government spending and will very likely even go higher.

As for the Destruction of the USA being a good thing. Most often the destruction of a large central government bring about large scale bloody civil wars in which people like you may well be a victim.

[utubehayter]

"Most often the destruction of a large central government bring about large scale bloody civil wars in which people like you may well be a victim."

This is actually not substantiated by history.. nor do I fit your assumption to be an unarmed pacifist. Most often destruction of belligerent central govt has brought peace, low taxes and prosperity to the people over whom formerly empire ruled.

And yes, one added benefit of a crash would be instant dissolution of the "social programs".

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter "nor do I fit your assumption to be an unarmed pacifist." Never said you were, but unless you have a private army with tanks and such at your command it is very likely no matter how "tough ass" you think you are that a rogue military unite would put you down in the name of stablizing the anarchy.

[utubehayter]

Well, the reason I would not have a tank or a gunship is because your so-called protection agency has been confiscating income from me and buying those tanks. Understand that every single dollar spent on defense was first earned in the productive economy. If you like to pretend that the military hardware of the US military is somehow a gift from god or outer space, at least have the decency to admit that the US govt is responsible for actively disarming the people!

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter Sorry the reason you don't have a private army is because you very likely could not afford one. People have bought tanks in the USA. In fact one private collect owns 30 such types of vehicles.

The role of government at the very core is defense of the nation. Now we can argue what level of military is needed and what level of defense you want, but if it is the spending of too much money you should focus on the social programs first as they are over 60% & growing of the budget.

[utubehayter]

I will make this short -

Here is how this conversation will go. I will cite a bunch of economic laws, some propositions of how things can be done better with private protection agencies, cite historical accounts etc.

Those will either convince you or not.

If it does convince you - you will then realize that you do not have ANY actual control military spending. i.e. take that good sense and shove it.

Or you keep repeating how you can't see it happening. i.e. LALALALALA I can't hear you!

[Hunterkirk]

The problem we are not discussing economics. We are discussing the government and exactly how much if any is needed and what it's roles should be. So the only thing of value in your post was the "private protection agencies" remark.

As to history you already showed you were not aware of what happened after the Roman government failed. I am all for a smaller government but I see and have seen no evidence that no government would work well.

[utubehayter]

Maybe that is what you are discussing. I am not interested in defining roles of govt. I am not deluded enough to imagine that I have the power to tell a govt - "hey, you can't do that!" without risk of facing violence - terrible violence. You can try to do that, when you succeed then you can get back to me - we can talk about sensible/reasonable things to do.

Arguing about a role you have no power over, is futile at best. We might as well be arguing of what colors should be in a rainbow.

[utubehayter]

You should also remember that the last carnage of over 600,000 able bodied American men and 50,000 women and children was perpetrated in the US by a tyrant named Abraham Lincoln and enabled by the relatively smaller empire. It is ironic that you suggest that the central govt is somehow protecting anyone from bloody civil wars!

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter You are mistaken. I said the civil war conflict as a result of a collapse of the government. In both the Civil and Revolutionary wars the Government was stable and the a faction desired to separate from that stable government. What you seem to want is a total collapse of the US government. In that case you are talking about forming a new government not out of a movement but out of a anarchy. The result of those types of things are consistently dictatorships of the strongest force.

[utubehayter]

Actually I don't want anything - its just a predictable consequence of empire building - i.e. empire collapse. AS for "result" - please cite examples. Soviet union collapse, Roman empire collapse, British empire collapse. Gee no one took over Britain or Rome or USSR, did they?

You see the problem here is that you rather believe in myths than actual history. It is the basis for your fear of "anarchy"- which roughly translates to every man at each others throat- also known as Hobbesian myth

[Hunterkirk]

@utubehayter Ok lets start with Romes fall and the war zone that their empire became between different tribes for one. Second consider the conflicts in Somalia which occurred after the fall of its government.

As to the idea that "Empires collapse" well so do non-Empires, so what is your point? Everything can fail including your beloved anarchy. Consider the looting when the police are not present. Consider the looting in New Orleans when the government effectively disappeared.

[utubehayter]

You should probably read more Roman history.. and learn a bit more than watching news about Somalia.. a history of somalia, if you will. We can always discuss this after that. Apparently most Americans are so gullible they assume they know everything about Somalia based on "black hawk down" - hope you aren't one of them.

[Hunterkirk]

I have for a long time and clearly you don't know what you are talking about. So this is a waste of time. Have a good day.

[utubehayter]

You are right. This is a waste of time. Clearly the Somalis should not have rebelled against a ultra socialist govt, instead they should have died off due to starvation - that would have been way better for them. Also, I should ignore the fact that the African Union, the UN and the US are trying to force a govt on the free somali people using military force - and yet the "anarchic" Somali people have successfully resisted the occupation thus far - giving a far superior army a bloody nose.

[hartshornguy]

im a mix of new and old but the old need to rethink the threat of gloabl terror. none of the old conservatives saw this besides russia which is a country not a liquidis horde. both need to blend toegther.

[Silvsilvchan]

I will partially agree. However the threat of global terrorism is being undermined by the leaders of the neo-conservative movement. How many of the hijackers came from one of our 'allies'. How much money did this 'ally' give to Al-Quadia or however you spell their goofy ass name? How many foreign bombers in Iraq come from this 'friend' of ours? I am not advocating war with the Saudis, but I don't think the Neo-cons have their priorities set, and I find them fraudulent.

[Hunterkirk]

The how would you handle the Saudis? From what I have gathered by Ron Paul he would simply cease to interact with them... how would that fix the problem of their homeland being a breeding ground of islamic extremism.

If you have watched the news you would know that these Islamic Extremist have turned on the Saudi government because they are siding with us (at least when dealing with them). Remember the bombings in Saudi?

[Silvsilvchan]

No. No. While I support going after Osama Bin Laden, that is definitely not what we are doing. What we ARE doing is really screwing up the middle east (even more so than when we entered) making ourselves look like asses and giving the Russians a good reason to gear up for war. Most of them think we are pulling a Napoleon here. You can argue rather we are or not all you like, but that is what THEY think. And that is a bad thing. I fear we are headed to a second cold war, if not a third world war.

[anyusmoon1]

Genius! You speak my mind in all ways my mouth fails me. Thank you southernavenger.

Go Dr. Paul! Please wake up America, become a delegate for Ron Paul and run for office in your localities.

[wasuretta]

Peace to you Southern Avenger.

Our government is not what it seems. Wilson was a puppet of the oligarchs. Same as FDR, Newt, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Hitler (his mom was a maid impregnated in the house of Rothschild), Lenin (lie, cheat, steal, murder, grab power for the oligarchs and enslave everyone), Julie-Annie, Rumpknee, Hick-I-B, Reagan (sorry, he was CFR), Ford, LBJ, Clitton (bof 'ems), Obama bin Oligarch'in since November '07, and all the rest. If Washington were alive, he would attack.

[anyusmoon1]

Pls show me any proof that Reagan was CFR, thank you.

P.S. I'm very interested in any ligitimate member list you are refering to and to personally review such a list.

[wasuretta]

I have only seen photos with him at the meetings.

[wasuretta]

Google it, there is lots of evidence including the 300 plus CFR members he put in positions of power and his membership in the freemasons. Plus his hand signals which are the ultimate proof - not the ones you think - the ones Obama uses in every speech as well since joining CFR October 2007.

[anyusmoon1]

I've googled for member lists many times and none have listed Ronald Reagan.

Bush Sr., a listed CFR member, was reluctantly brought on as a running mate.

[wasuretta]

Look at the back of the US dollar. Look at the eagle. Make your hand like the eagles head. Can you see it?

Now, watch Obama. Search YouTube for Obama October 2007 and then anything after CFR bootcamp. Watch his hands. It is just like the eagles head now when "making a point" right? Now check the freemason Reagan. George Washington would have attacked Reagan. He would have crossed freezing rivers in the Winter to do so. This is because Reagan served the enemy he was fighting.

[wasuretta]

Erata:  Hitler's grandmother was a maid in the house of Rothschild when she got impregnated with his father.

[merrygoboy]

LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS!! :o))

[merrygoboy]

long live the CONSTITUTIONALISTS!!! :o))

[ramjet73]

Wow, thank you S.A. Nicely done analysis. It proves the point that what are really pro-American/human values, goes far beyond party affiliation. Whether paleo-conservatives or modern liberals, those who value the quality of life over personal financial gain represent the true American/human spirit.

[slavophile1]

Long live the paleos!

[stodles]

This is fantastic.