Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Rove View Post
    Only because the voters would have run him out of his district if he didn't and on top of it he had to hold his nose to do it.
    Speculation won't be necessary. Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan. It's a historical fact that undermines your silly argument, which is why you are trying to dismiss and downplay it...

    Not to mention also that self-hating blame America first loon also blames 9/11 on the CIA's ouster of Mossadegh in 1953. Never mind the fact that the Dar al Islam has been pursuing jihad perpetually for almost 1400 years non-stop and they don't need an excuse to attack us or any other non-Muslim kafir infidels. Indeed, making Islam supreme in the world is Islam's highest mandate.

    Okay., why don't you go kiss that self hating kook's ass for us, Mr. Know-it-all.
    More ranting and raving. Come back when you actually know what non-interventionism is...

  2. #82
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Do you know what the word "advocate" means!?
    Prove that George Washington advocated non-interventionism. Please do? Better yet. Prove he practiced what he preached. Or are you going to base your entire argument on what he said instead of what he did in reality?

    Apparently not, because even if George Washington was the biggest hypocrite on the planet,
    Which he would be if we were to go by your complete lack of historical accuracy.

    it still wouldn't change the fact that he was one of the first advocates of non-interventionist foreign policy.
    Which he wasn't. Because you're thinking of Thomas Paine.

    And since Mr. Rove wants to liken Ron Paul's foreign policy views to Marxism,
    In that it is radical? Yes. I agree.

    I just figured I would point out that neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson were in fact Marxists.
    And Ron Paul wasn't a founding father. Just somebody old enough to have actually met them.

    But don't let facts get in the way of your bitter crusade against libertarianism and Ron Paul...
    I can't help disliking teenagers.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 02-12-10 at 11:26 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #83
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Start here :

    US Interventions

    1798-1800 France
    Undeclared naval war against France, marines land in Puerto Plata.

    1801-1805 Tripoli War with Tripoli (Libya), called "First Barbary War".
    1806 Spanish Mexico Military force enters Spanish territory in headwaters of the Rio Grande.
    Papers of George Washington

    Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness. Could Congress exert them for the detriment of the public without injuring themselves in an equal or greater proportion? Are not their interests inseperably connected with those of their constituents? By the rotation of appointment must they not mingle frequently with the mass of citizens? Is it not rather to be apprehended, if they were possessed of the powers before described, that the individual members would be induced to use them, on many occasions, very timidly & inefficatiously for fear of loosing their popularity & future election? We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals
    You can "advocate" as much as you want on paper. True advocating starts in actions. And regardless of how much you try to interpret what they might have meant, the reality is much different.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Prove that George Washington advocated non-interventionism. Please do?
    No problem!

    ...

    Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

    In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

    So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

    Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

    It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

    Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

    Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

    ...

    Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796
    Better yet. Prove he practiced what he preached. Or are you going to base your entire argument on what he said instead of what he did in reality?
    Like I said, even if George Washington was the biggest hypocrite ever, it wouldn't change the fact that he was one of the first advocates of non-interventionism and not a leftist Marxist. I wouldn't see him as being hypocritical, necessarily, because of his involvement in conflicts since Washingtonian/Jeffersonian "non-interventionism" is far more nuanced and complex than your sound-bite version...

    Which he would be if we were to go by your complete lack of historical accuracy.

    Which he wasn't. Because you're thinking of Thomas Paine.
    No, I'm thinking of George Washington, but thanks anyway.

    In that it is radical? Yes. I agree.
    Okay. Anytime I think something is radical I'll just compare it to Marxism, and I don't want to hear you bitching about it either.

    And Ron Paul wasn't a founding father. Just somebody old enough to have actually met them.
    Never said he was.

    Yes, Ron Paul is old.

    Anymore profound commentary for us?

    I can't help disliking teenagers.
    Yea, dude, you're so freaking bad-ass and mature. Your history here totally proves that...

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    02-13-10 @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    141

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Speculation won't be necessary. Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan. It's a historical fact that undermines your silly argument, which is why you are trying to dismiss and downplay it...
    It's also a historical fact that mentally unhinged loon also blamed 9/11 on the CIA ouster of Mossadegh in 1953, which is particularly disturbing since Mossadegh was secular and not a Muslim, and if he had been alive in 1979 when Khomeini took power thanks to another self-hating loon named Jimmy Carter, Mossadegh would have been one of the first kafir infidels that the Khomeini regime would have executed. Which should give any right thinking individual pause when considering how so out of touch with reality and mentally unhinged Ron Paul is.

    Not to mention that had Ron Paul not voted to give the President the right to invade Afghanistan, not only would he have been tarred and feathered and run out of his district, but he also would have been the only Republican Congressman that didn't vote for it.

    More ranting and raving. Come back when you actually know what non-interventionism is...
    Hey...it's not my fault that you are stuck on stupid apologizing for a bona fide and certified self-hating and mentally unhinged kook. By the way, who is responsible for 9/11?

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Rove View Post
    It's also a historical fact that mentally unhinged loon also blamed 9/11 on the CIA ouster of Mossadegh in 1953...
    He did? Or was it one of the many things he attributed to 9/11, namely, the accumulation of blow-back?

    Not to mention that had Ron Paul not voted to give the President the right to invade Afghanistan, not only would he have been tarred and feathered and run out of his district, but he also would have been the only Republican Congressman that didn't vote for it.
    Yea, that MUST be why he voted for it. Because if it were anything else, it would undermine your stupid argument, and we can't have that, can we?

    Hey...it's not my fault that you are stuck on stupid apologizing for a bona fide and certified self-hating and mentally unhinged kook.
    I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm simply pointing out your numerous misconceptions and inaccuracies.

    You're just ranting and raving because you want to win an internet argument. Do you feel like a bad-ass yet?




    By the way, who is responsible for 9/11?
    Al-Qaeda.

  7. #87
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Rove View Post
    And a loon! And they aren't holding the USA to higher ethical standards, but instead idiotically attempting to morally equate America with terrorists, which makes them mentally unhinged loons!

    Just like Ron Paul, you obviously are also a guilt filled self-hating blame America firster.
    No, after seeing a number of your posts, I would not equate them with the morals of the terrorists. Your posts are not quite up to their standards!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #88
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,686

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    On a side-note. I find it amusing I get the most thanks by defending Ron Paul, conservatives, and liberals, but no cheers for explaining what neoconservatism is.
    To get respect here, one must pucker up and ready to kiss some hairy man ass!
    It's not easy being green!
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 02-13-10 at 05:17 AM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    02-13-10 @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    141

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    He did? Or was it one of the many things he attributed to 9/11, namely, the accumulation of blow-back?
    Blow back is an exceedingly absurd theory under any circumstances and especially with respect to Islam, since, per their mandate, the Dar al Islam has been waging jihad with the non-Islamic world in one way or another continuously for the past almost 1400 years. Indeed, when Jefferson dispatched the Marines, it was to combat the same ongoing perpetual global jihad that is still very much alive today, thanks to the massive transfer of wealth from the West to the Dar al Islam because of oil.

    As a matter of fact, even when the Dar al Islam was at its weakest point ever during the early part of the 20th century after being carved up and divided into many different countries with many different leaders, the Dar al Islam maintained jihads with Israel, India, and many other non-Muslim countries as well, as conquering the world via the imposition of Sharia is the overriding highest mandate of Islam and, indeed, its sole purpose.

    Thus, applying the silly idiotic theory of blow black with respect to the Dar al Islam's perpetual global jihad is as about incompetent as it gets, considering the documented historical record of the Dar al Islam's perpetual global jihad, which is almost 1400 years old.

    Hence, it couldn't be more obvious that like you, that self-hating blame America first kook Ron Paul is totally ignorant of history and the perpetual global jihad. Which makes him totally unqualified to be anything other than a dog catcher. Why don't you go theorize with Ron Paul about how our government is responsible for 9/11?

    Nevertheless, though it is indeed part of the historical record and a documented fact that Ron Paul blamed 9/11on the CIA's ouster of Mossadegh, when Mossadegh was a non-Muslim kafir infidel and not a Muslim, and had he been alive in 1979, he would have been one of the first non-Muslim kafir infidels the Khomeini regime would have executed.

    Not to mention also that the ruling Mullahs are Shi'a and OBL and AQ are Sunnis and mortal enemies. Indeed, you self-hating Ron Paul groupies are totally oblivious. No wonder you buy into self-loathing theories like blow back!

    Yea, that MUST be why he voted for it. Because if it were anything else, it would undermine your stupid argument, and we can't have that, can we?
    Dude, Ron Paul held his nose and voted for the invasion of Afghanistan because of the pressure he felt of being the sole Republican not to vote for it, but he soon began publicly blaming 9/11 on the ouster of Mossadegh, at the same time that he also began pandering to the Truthers and other assorted kooks who believe that our government is responsible for 9/11.

    It couldn't be any more obvious that he had to hold his nose to vote for the invasion, which is the reason why only kooks support Ron Paul. I mean...Ron Paul couldn't be any more oblivious with respect to the threat emanating from the Dar al Islam, yet he talks and writes with complete certainty when it comes to blaming America first. The guy and his groupies are all narrow-minded self-hating blame America first kooks, as for as I'm concerned.

    I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm simply pointing out your numerous misconceptions and inaccuracies.
    Give me a break...go back and read your own posts. You have been apologizing for that loser for more than a few pages in this thread now and the only misconceptions and inaccuracies contained in this thread are the ones you supplied.

    You're just ranting and raving because you want to win an internet argument. Do you feel like a bad-ass yet?
    I'm ranting and raving because I can't stand that self-hating blame America first kook and his unhinged followers. Indeed, they and what they proliferate are a danger to America, and I'm also pissed off because they try to claim the mantle of conservatism for themselves, when they are really a group of loons and assorted kooks. Not only that, but the left uses those kooks, loons, and weirdos to demonize and vilify all conservatives as being unhinged, when the reality is they believe the same exact idiotic nonsense that Paul proliferates and Paul and his unhinged acolytes are a fringe group of weirdos.

  10. #90
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,732

    Re: Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    On a side-note. I find it amusing I get the most thanks by defending Ron Paul, conservatives, and liberals, but no cheers for explaining what neoconservatism is.
    To get respect here, one must pucker up and ready to kiss some hairy man ass!
    It's not easy being green!
    Defining Neoconservatism is easy. William Kristol already did. Just use his own words....

    A Neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.
    -William Kristol
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •