21 votes

Karl Rove: Justin Amash (and Libertarians) Are Too Liberal

Its a badge of honor to get some flack from one of most hated men in the US.


http://youtu.be/WoFfx7ddbT8

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Translation:

Translation: Constitutionalists like Justin Amash aren't fascist enough for Karl Rove.

Rove needs to cut back on the Tranya

Tranya

Reince Priebus Must Disagree

He says respect for the Constitution is "near and dear to the heart" of the RNC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7gwDl4zLY

Certainly he wouldn't be BS'ing us would he?

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Says the guy who backed the

Says the guy who backed the father of socialized medicine in Massachusetts...

Southern Agrarian

Justin Amash

is on the Horizon

:-)

Justin continues 100% since he started up until now. Talk about a man crush!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Misdirection from a great

Misdirection from a great illusionist.

Too bad there are a lot of people who think he is a good man. As I tell people, the problem in America is not Barack Obama or John McCain or Karl Rove for that matter, it is the uneducated electorate. If people could wake up and practiced eternal vigilance, no one would pay any mind to crazies like Mr. Rove.

Karl Rove is a Liar!!

Tired old tactic of lying about someone to get others to believe the lie he's saying about someone is true. The question, the question is why? Why is Karl Rove doing this??

Karl Rove just called

Ron Paul a liberal...HA!!

He is a classical liberal, in

He is a classical liberal, in the sense of other great classical liberals like Frederic Bastiat.

Rove essentially said:

"C'mon guys. These libertarians are too liberal. They don't want government involved in healthcare. Any true conservative wants some kind of government involvement in healthcare."

These kind of arguments are powerful among casual political

observers who aren't jacked in and visit Daily Paul everyday.

A strong counter would be that libertarians are happy to come to the table provided:

1. Health care is not decreed as a tax or coerced government type function, but a business type function being performed by government. This type of shit is done all the time. Look at a county annual financial report for a distinction between government type activities and business type activities.

2. It is a voluntary system where people can choose to participate in it or choose not to participate in it.

Sure, some libertarians might have some great ideas but if those two conditions don't exist who in the hell wants to compromise on expanding or increasing the size and scope of government?

No Karl, it's not about a perfect solution. It's about integrity. According to all the minarchists and many anarachists who used to be minarchists, government has very limited and specific roles to use coercive power if it has any legitimacy to exist at all. If you want government to do more than that then be honest about it. Don't pass it off as a government type activity which coerces everyone. Don't force everyone to pay for it. If people want government to run a health care system then fine, let's think up a system but keep it voluntary, don't force everyone to pay for it, and if it is a good system people will use it.

A strong counter argument to this kind of Karl BS is ... Yes, I believe government can't run shit well but I am willing to give government the benefit of the doubt and let government prove it can do a good job if congress is willing to make national health care a voluntary system paid for solely by those who use and benefit from it.

It's a safe bet to put the ball back in their court because I think many strongly feel corrupt ass politicians are not going to settle for any government program being voluntary.

Where in the

United States Constitution does it authorize the government to legislate and regulate healthcare?

Enlighten me.

Is that the argument you want to go with

when it has lost in American political history time and time again? Can you provide one political event in 225+ years where that argument has reduced the size or scope of government?

Is there any constitutional prohibition for government to not exercise power? If government engages in a voluntary business type activity which does not coerce is it exercising any power?

Government has already failed so many times the past two centuries and currently is bankrupt. It is utterly amazing people still even demand one.

If you want to talk about the constitution let's talk about a "rule of Naturalization." How can a government of limited and expressly delegated power become sovereign with national borders which are undefined in the federal constitution? Isn't sovereignty a concept of unlimited power which is the exact opposite of limited power? What authority does a sovereign nation of unlimited power possessing expressly delegated limited powers have to redefine the concept of naturalization which refers to allegiance to mean emigration or immigration which involves the movement of people? What authority does a sovereign nation of unlimited power possessing expressly delegated limited powers have to redefine the concept of a rule which is something that does not imply police power versus a law which does?

What about the fifth amendment in that no private property shall be taken or converted to a public use without just compensation? If my private name or title is my justly acquired private property by what authority does a government court take and convert it to a public use without my consent or just compensation?

Despite that I don't like taking up losing arguments I am curious if your support for the constitution includes parts you don't like or do you support the notion that a sovereign government of unlimited power possessing only expressly delegated limited power gets to define what the words mean regarding any parts you don't like?

How can Karl Rove be a

Conservative? He is more in line with Big Government Statism.

Carl Rove should throw himself into a wood chipper...

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

or under a bus.

.

Good idea, but

I don't think he would fit.

LOL

Thanks.

Séamusín

Karl Rove is a favorite speaker

of the NeoCon Republican Party Leaders in Nueces Co. TX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-fARjv3tFk

As far as I'm concerned, the Neocons have to go.

I wonder.

Is Carl in this because he has an agenda to absolutely destroy America, of just his personal gain?

My guess is the more America

My guess is the more America is destroyed the more Rove gains personally.

And

the smear continues......

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just well-informed

ah, good old Karl

He always was my favorite Slaad:

http://www.lomion.de/cmm/slaad.php

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

He Should Be Grateful They Are Libertarians

If someone is too conservative or too liberal, at least, as libertarians, they don't try to government mandate their views on him (I love English--so flexible).

Face it, there will always be people that are to liberal or too conservative: you might even marry one. But, that's why we need freedom: freedom brings us together.

I like a liberal cook and a conservative parachute packer.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Poor little Karl

His empire is built on people thinking Conservative or Liberal is all there is under the sun.

Defend Liberty!

Go Red team! Fuck the Blue

Go Red team! Fuck the Blue team! That's how we know right from wrong.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Demonize with labels designed to smear.

That's what political operatives are good for.

Free includes debt-free!

Sit, stay

Rover.( no disrespect to dogs).

puke

just heard jd Hayworth on savage discussing this

pathetic

to think he's bashing,,, one of the only bright future leaders of the repub party

because he's principled and won't sell his votes or compromise his principles apparently makes him bad in rove's eyes
what a joke!!!!!!!!!

Please: "one of the FEW",

Please: "one of the FEW", not "one of the ONLY".

(Unless you have an absolute number: "one of only five".)

Sorry to do a grammar comment, but this one drives me NUTS.

Let's leave ungrammatical language to the lefties - it makes them less effective.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.