Comments on: Vermont Wants Their Guard Troops Back

By: fe8fb4413fd9

fe8fb4413fd9 — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:00:09 +0000

fe8fb4413fd9…

fe8fb4413fd984be4775…

By: Free Grants Now Do Not

Free Grants Now Do Not — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:24:27 +0000

Grant Money Â– Is It Really Free?…

It’s true: The federal government hands out a great deal of money each year. It is awarded primarily through various types of grants. It is also true that a large percentage of this money that is appropriated for federal grants goes unawarded, because…

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:26:49 +0000

It was no disquisition on “philosopher-kings”.

It was a reference to the Born Again nonsense of “good steward” as president, which by the way they think Bush is, and the Straussians’ perversion of the Platonic “philosopher kings”, which in fact the Neo-Cons consider themselves to be.

You posit a hypothetical about a “moral president” and at the same time say you don’t follow a reference to “philosopher kings”?

My dear fellow, there is clearly some sort of disconnect here, and it is not mine.

By: R. Nelson

R. Nelson — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:03:26 +0000

Actually I was replying to Tim R. I don’t know why the post ended up down here.

Anyway, none of the above changes the simple observation that a moral president, which Bush is not, would not take advantage of congressional buffoons. I don’t see how my two-pronged criticism of Bush and the Congress can be turned into a disquisition on philosopher-kings.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:21:08 +0000

corr:”exoterically”

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:20:37 +0000

The only credibility Neo-Cons are interested in is the sort Goebbels mastered.

I say that strictly from observing them closely.

It is the essence of Straussianism that everything presented esoterically be no more than an ad hoc and persuasive lie.

That is also the Straussians’ and Neo-Cons’ only interest in conventional religion, that is, as a tool.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:14:20 +0000

Massachusetts seriously considered secession from the Union over the same issue, and earlier, in 1804, had threatened secession.

By: bread&circuses

bread&circuses — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:41:43 +0000

While the Israel lobby is only one of the factors to consider, the case was more than adequately made in The Israel Lobby by Walt & Mearsheimer. The argument is too lengthy to replicate here, but it is about as well researched a book as you will find on the topic of the Israel lobbyâ€™s undue influence over American foreign policy (which is why its critics have to resort to absurd logical fallacies to try and smear the book instead of dealing directly with its facts).

As everyone here knows, there is no possibility whatsoever you will read the book, so this response is not directed at you. It’s for others who are looking for an excellent resource on this important topic.

By: Tony B.

Tony B. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:22:57 +0000

Tim R. & others must be very young. Eisenhower was absolutely criminal when nationalizing the state militias. Totally outlaw. State militias are constitutional with the single purpose of defending the states from a federal government which gets too big for its britches. There was never any such thing as a “national guard” until Eisenhower’s criminal usurpation. The federal government is simply an employee of the sovereign states to do certain enumerated chores the states felt better done by them in concert than by each alone. The states are, by law, separate nations, the federal government is, again by our law (the constitution), merrily an agent – the child of the parent states. Usurpation, even when condoned by a dumbed down population, is still outlaw and the perpetrators (perpetraitors) are not heroes but criminals who must be brought to justice if there is to be any justice. We live under a totally outlaw government which ignores the constitution claiming that any damned statute they wish is law – while, by true law, every statute must adhere to the constitution or it is null and void. There hasn’t been a constitutional statute passed in congress since before WWI, is my guess. Tim & co. may like living under a criminal cabal but when criminals are allowed to function without paying for their crimes the whole nation soon becomes a corrupt hell. Look around you.

By: Tom Moore

Tom Moore — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:14:22 +0000

Liberal? I’m a Republican, buddy, a conservative one. Bite your tongue. I want no control over my life by a centralized power, Democrat or Republican.

To hell with King George. Yes, he is the commander in chief, however, this war is undeclared.