PDA

View Full Version : Red state hits Blumenthal for defending freedom




cindy25
11-01-2010, 05:24 AM
its posts like this make me wonder if its just out with the socialists, in with the fascists. Blumenthal is scum, no need to hit him on the one issue he is right on.


http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/10/29/chris-murphy-dick-blumenthal-and-the-terror-threats/

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2010, 05:26 AM
How many times do I have to tell you guys allying yourselves with the GOP is a death-sentence. /shrug

Run on the R or D name, but don't think they share any of your values of liberty and freedom.

amy31416
11-01-2010, 06:02 AM
Jesus. Have a look at the comments...all these conservative "manly men" criticizing the gov't because they aren't intruding enough to keep them "safe."

specsaregood
11-01-2010, 06:26 AM
Jesus. Have a look at the comments...all these conservative "manly men" criticizing the gov't because they aren't intruding enough to keep them "safe."

You should register and post that.

Also, last Iheardthey didnt actually discover any explosives. So what exactly did they keep us safe from?

MRoCkEd
11-01-2010, 06:58 AM
Erick has never been good on foreign policy or privacy.

We just have an alliance with him because he's a true fiscal conservative who despises RINOs.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Erick has never been good on foreign policy or privacy.

We just have an alliance with him because he's a true fiscal conservative who despises RINOs.

Bump. How the hell can you be a 'true' fiscal conservative if you advocate spending trillions on big gubmit military/surveillance/police State and Empire? That to me sounds like the opposite, unless of course, fiscal conservative today means big socialist/fascist. /shrug

MRoCkEd
11-01-2010, 10:53 AM
Bump. How the hell can you be a 'true' fiscal conservative if you advocate spending trillions on big gubmit military/surveillance/police State and Empire? That to me sounds like the opposite, unless of course, fiscal conservative today means big socialist/fascist. /shrug
You're right. I mean he's a DeMint-like conservative, meaning he is better than the rest of the GOP and likes to buck the establishment sometimes, but still has a long way to go.

Anti Federalist
11-01-2010, 10:55 AM
Jesus. Have a look at the comments...all these conservative "manly men" criticizing the gov't because they aren't intruding enough to keep them "safe."

No shit.

Running around, pissing their panties over Osama bin Toner.

FFS...

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2010, 10:57 AM
You're right. I mean he's a DeMint-like conservative, meaning he is better than the rest of the GOP and likes to buck the establishment sometimes, but still has a long way to go.

This is more akin to the truth.

Slutter McGee
11-01-2010, 11:27 AM
Bump. How the hell can you be a 'true' fiscal conservative if you advocate spending trillions on big gubmit military/surveillance/police State and Empire? That to me sounds like the opposite, unless of course, fiscal conservative today means big socialist/fascist. /shrug

Because the nocompromise principles of the libertarian party has taken it so far in the last 30 years.

Slutter McGee

gls
11-01-2010, 11:42 AM
Because the nocompromise principles of the libertarian party has taken it so far in the last 30 years.

Slutter McGee

LOL, yeah maybe if we "compromise" and support Republicans who hate civil liberties and love never ending, elective wars, maybe - just maybe - in a few years we can shrink the deficit by 10%. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2010, 11:50 AM
Because the nocompromise principles of the libertarian party has taken it so far in the last 30 years.

Slutter McGee

And where has the compromise conservatism taken us the last 70 years? Oh right...The very fact you compromise your principles means you LOSE. Hear that --- even if you win every election you still LOSE.

PS: I heard Joe Lieberman is a pretty good compromiser. :p

Slutter McGee
11-01-2010, 02:42 PM
And where has the compromise conservatism taken us the last 70 years? Oh right...The very fact you compromise your principles means you LOSE. Hear that --- even if you win every election you still LOSE.

PS: I heard Joe Lieberman is a pretty good compromiser. :p

Hypothetical

Lets say I don't believe in passing any new legislation at all. I make a deal that with another legislator that I will vote for an unneeded but constitutional bill costing 100 million as long as five unconstitutional bills costing 1 billion dollars are repealed.

Do you deny that such a compromise would be beneficial to liberty? Is this a violation of my principles since I do not believe in passing new bills?

Black and White is for the religious. Not the pratical.

Slutter McGee