I seem to remember Permabear's preferred candidate, Anyone But Obama, using self-defence to rationalise military aggression in the middle east.
Given that acts of exceptional patience are usually the preserve of saints, I'm not sure why you're so surprised.
This guy makes me want to puke!
Interestingly in terms of foreign policy Ron Paul is easily the best candidate for the Republicans and is better than Obama.
I read the caption in HIS voice. Impossible not to.
He's the presidential fruitcake that keeps on giving.
Here's Santorum speaking to an, er, overflow crowd in the town of ... wait for it ... Cumming.
Ironic really that JFK had to say such things because the Baptists and other nutters with whom Santorum is so cosy were unlikely to vote for a Catholic at that time.
Some old-school fractures in the unity of the Christian denominations in the US actually look appealing.
There's is a difference between not condoning something and actually taking physical steps to prevent it.
Imagine the many thousands of unemployed ex-US military combined with major weapons suppliers whose main employer/buyer has downscaled and it's not so ludicrous to see how these might come together.
I have many many problems with libertarianism but I'll try limit my reservations to those with relevance to the A&A forum. It might preach tolerance and freedom of expression but the flip-side of these freedoms is it permits bigotry, hatred and segregation to spread.
It's not a stretch of imagination to imagine schools, clubs, shops, communities, etc refusing to teach/deal with/permit/etc people based on their religion (or lack of). No amount of toothless condemnation from a libertarian federal government will change things at a local level.
You might be able to argue this, based on the fact that libertarians generally do not support state censorship of so-called "hate speech." Libertarians believe that groups such as neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan have every right to spread their ideas — as malignant and noxious as they might be — because they see any prospective downsides of free speech as minor issues when compared to the alternative, which is granting governments the power to regulate what kinds of speech, publications, and ideas can circulate in society.
It's not a stretch of the imagination at all. Libertarians don't believe that government should have the power to force private business owners to serve clientele that they don't want to serve. But neither do they believe that governments should prevent businesses from serving certain clientele (as they have done in the past with apartheid, Jim Crow laws, etc). In short, they oppose both state-mandated integration and state-mandated segregation.
If a woman wants to found a private gym that admits only women, or if a Muslim want to found a private school that admits only Muslims, do you believe they should have that right? Alternatively, do you believe that the government have the right to override the wishes of private business owners, forcing the gym to admit men and the school to admit children of all religions?
Who was that, by the way? Do you have a link?
Play a game of Khamenei or Santorum:
God didn't say anything.