• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties

Hawkish libertarian: Instapundit

Anyways, SD, your views on what a conservative is is kind of odd. I wouldn't say that all of them don't advocate separation of church and state at all levels of government;

I did not say that all conservatives are against the constitutional principle of a separation of church and state. However, I would imagine that most do not take the liberal and libertarian views on it. Just look through the archives on this forum when the subject has came up before, and you will notice that most self identified conservatives on here were against federal court rulings that banned religious monuments in courthouses and other government buildings.

I also think that many social conservatives - probably most, really - would be fine with leaving social issues to the state level.

Then why have they fought them at the national level for so long then? Even if they could be convinced to simply pursue these issues at the state and local level, they would still inevitably come into conflict with liberals and libertarians because even if your using the state government to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs, or to legislate morality, you are still trying to use the government to further a religious agenda or legislate morality. Thus, liberals and libertarians are still going to take to the federal courts, and its thus you are back to trying to fight this at the national level.

Right now you have Texas Social Conservatives trying to use the state's public school system to further their evangelical Christian beliefs. Even though those social conservatives are working at the state level, do you honestly think that it wont eventually be litigated in the federal court system?

And libertarians do sometimes disagree with conservatives when it comes to privacy and religious issues, but that is as ambiguous as I said everthing but drugs and gay marriage is.

Privacy and a separation of church and state are core to civil liberties, its not something that will be glossed over.
 
Ron Paul is a self-hating kook and he is no leader of the Tea Party movement. As a matter of fact, most Tea Party participants despise his radical leftwing Marxist views of American foreign policy, his compulsive vilification of America, and his conspiratorial view of America's intentions.

Moreover, if Ron Paul truly is the leader of the Tea Party movement, he most certainly would have received far more political support during the 2008 presidential elections than he did. However, most people including most Tea Party participants today see him for what he is, a bona fide and certified kook.

Finally, I resent Ron Paul kooks trying to hijack the Tea Party movement by vilifying everyone and anyone they disagree with as neo-cons. In fact, Ron Paul kooks are not members of the Tea Party movement, they are instead just kooks!
 
Traditional conservatives, like Ron Paul, are against welfare and an expanding central gov't while neo-cons find themselves supporting those causes if it helps them politically.
When neo-cons try to take over theses tea parties just to get their name in the press (see Palin) it bastardizes their original intent and devalues the tea party movement as a whole

Excuse me, but Ron Paul is not a traditional conservative. He is a self loathing kook!

Traditional conservatives, of course, champion smaller and less government, but also traditional conservatives are not self hating loons like Ron Paul and never vilify and demonize America and American foreign policy the same way that only Ron Paul and fellow Ron Paul kooks do. They all deserve to be marginalized, because they are kooks.

Moreover, I don't buy into the neo-conservative mantra, as, for instance, with the exceptions of religion and maybe tax cuts, there was nothing conservative about GWB. He was a progressive big government liberal from the very get go, and he surrounded himself with other progressive big government liberals.

He was also blinded by political correct multiculturalism exactly like the left, which is why he got so sidetracked in Afghanistan and jumped into the middle of a civil war in a very misguided fantasy based nation building mission to lift up Muslims out of poverty in an idiotic attempt to win their hearts and minds, which is absolutely impossible since Muslims are obligated to hate our guts, per their religion, no matter what.

Had he eradicated OBL and AQ ONLY instead and then left Afghanistan ASAP after the mission was accomplished leaving behind our death and destruction to serve as deterrence, he would have been a hero in America's eyes and obviously a traditional conservative. But he didn't and he wasn't.

Likewise, if he had got us out of Iraq, as soon as Iraq was scoured for WMD and Saddam was captured, instead of occupying the country like a loon to pursue another silly fantasy based nation building mission to lift up Muslims out of poverty and win their hearts and minds, which again is absolutely impossible, he would have not only created deterrence, but also at the same time demonstrated that he was a traditional conservative.

Moreover, if he would have eradicated the ruling Mullahs in Iran, their Syrian poodles, and obliterated the House of Saud instead of bogging us down for nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan, today he would be seen as one of the greatest of American Presidents.

Instead, I consider GWB to be the Jimmy Carter of the Republican Party, and he and another progressive, Juan McPane, were the reasons that I did not vote in the last presidential election, as I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils any longer because it enables the progressives to hijack and co-opt the Republican Party.

In fact, every time the Republican Party puts up another progressive for national office, from now own I will hold my nose and vote for what is considered to be the most evil, as I'm far more angry about the hijacking of the Republican Party by leftwing progressives than I am about the election of another leftwing loon like Barack Insane Obama.
 
Ron Paul is a self-hating kook and he is no leader of the Tea Party movement. As a matter of fact, most Tea Party participants despise his radical leftwing Marxist views of American foreign policy, his compulsive vilification of America, and his conspiratorial view of America's intentions.

Moreover, if Ron Paul truly is the leader of the Tea Party movement, he most certainly would have received far more political support during the 2008 presidential elections than he did. However, most people including most Tea Party participants today see him for what he is, a bona fide and certified kook.

Finally, I resent Ron Paul kooks trying to hijack the Tea Party movement by vilifying everyone and anyone they disagree with as neo-cons. In fact, Ron Paul kooks are not members of the Tea Party movement, they are instead just kooks!

So what you are saying, is that as a conservative, there is no way you could compromise your beliefs enough to accommodate a libertarian like Ron Paul?
 
I did not say that all conservatives are against the constitutional principle of a separation of church and state. However, I would imagine that most do not take the liberal and libertarian views on it. Just look through the archives on this forum when the subject has came up before, and you will notice that most self identified conservatives on here were against federal court rulings that banned religious monuments in courthouses and other government buildings.

That's really a non-issue though.


Then why have they fought them at the national level for so long then? Even if they could be convinced to simply pursue these issues at the state and local level, they would still inevitably come into conflict with liberals and libertarians because even if your using the state government to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs, or to legislate morality, you are still trying to use the government to further a religious agenda or legislate morality. Thus, liberals and libertarians are still going to take to the federal courts, and its thus you are back to trying to fight this at the national level.

Right now you have Texas Social Conservatives trying to use the state's public school system to further their evangelical Christian beliefs. Even though those social conservatives are working at the state level, do you honestly think that it wont eventually be litigated in the federal court system?

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. First you say that social conservatives are fighting social issues at the national level, then you say that they're actually fighting it at the state level, and it's brought to the federal level by liberals and libertarians. So which is it?

Privacy and a separation of church and state are core to civil liberties, its not something that will be glossed over.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the two concepts being important; what they disagree on are the details of what they actually mean.
 
I think the real point is that Ron Paul is often credited with reawakening Libertarianism and constitutionalism during the last election, with that movement leading into these tea parties and the ideals of that movement are being exploited for political gain by people who haven't necessarily conformed to those ideals in the past.

You are confusing Ron Paul Kookism with the Tea Party movement. Most Tea Party members see Ron Paul for what he really is, a self-loathing kook that pandered to 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy kooks for political support and the only thing Ron Paul can be credited with is trying to mainstream kookism.
 
That's really a non-issue though.

To you it is. However, you are pretty sheltered if you think its not a huge issue to millions of religious and social conservatives out there.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. First you say that social conservatives are fighting social issues at the national level, then you say that they're actually fighting it at the state level, and it's brought to the federal level by liberals and libertarians. So which is it?

They are fighting these issues at all levels of government. My point is that even if you could some how convince them to fight them only at the state and local level, they are going to wind up being fought at the national level anyway.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the two concepts being important; what they disagree on are the details of what they actually mean.

The "details" are what differentiate a Bernie Sanders and Jim Demint. The details are always what the battles are fought about.
 
So what you are saying, is that as a conservative, there is no way you could compromise your beliefs enough to accommodate a libertarian like Ron Paul?



The Libertarians I know don't vilify and demonize American foreign policy the same way that Ron Paul, 9/11 Truthers, and other conspiratorial kooks do. Thus, I don't see Ron Paul as a bona fide Libertarian, but instead as the self-hating kook he is.
 
The Libertarians I know don't vilify and demonize American foreign policy the same way that Ron Paul, 9/11 Truthers, and other conspiratorial kooks do. Thus, I don't see Ron Paul as a bona fide Libertarian, but instead as the self-hating kook he is.

Thank you. Dav, Zyphlin, I think this sufficiently proves my point. :2razz:
 
Thank you. Dav, Zyphlin, I think this sufficiently proves my point. :2razz:

I think this whole thread just cleared up for me while Ron Paul only got 10% of vote in the primaries.
 
Ron Paul's just throwing a hissy fit cause the Tea Party movement isn't falling in exactly as he believes they should. No deviation allowed.

The TP Movement is a fluid thing, and it moves as to the whims of those that cheer it on, that rally for it.

No Ron Paul is basically trying to prevent the tea party movement from being taken over by the right-wing Republican teabaggers.

Look....we all know what they did to the GOP. What's wrong with trying to stop them from destroying this as well?
 
No Ron Paul is basically trying to prevent the tea party movement from being taken over by the right-wing Republican teabaggers.
Look....we all know what they did to the GOP. What's wrong with trying to stop them from destroying this as well?

What a crock...........Every movement has some fr left or far right people in their movement.....Hell look at you and Cindy Sheehan..........:rofl
 
Ron Paul is a self-hating kook and he is no leader of the Tea Party movement. As a matter of fact, most Tea Party participants despise his radical leftwing Marxist views of American foreign policy, his compulsive vilification of America, and his conspiratorial view of America's intentions.

Moreover, if Ron Paul truly is the leader of the Tea Party movement, he most certainly would have received far more political support during the 2008 presidential elections than he did. However, most people including most Tea Party participants today see him for what he is, a bona fide and certified kook.

Finally, I resent Ron Paul kooks trying to hijack the Tea Party movement by vilifying everyone and anyone they disagree with as neo-cons. In fact, Ron Paul kooks are not members of the Tea Party movement, they are instead just kooks!

Non-interventionist foreign policy was first advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - hardly what I'd call "left-wing Marxists"...
 
You are confusing Ron Paul Kookism with the Tea Party movement. Most Tea Party members see Ron Paul for what he really is, a self-loathing kook that pandered to 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy kooks for political support and the only thing Ron Paul can be credited with is trying to mainstream kookism.

And you're confusing "right-wingers" with "conservatives". The latter do not support authoritarian and unconstitutional Federal drug laws, for one; right-wingers, however, have no problem forcing their morality on others, even if it expands the size and power of government beyond its Constitutional mandate. That's why the Sarah Palins of the world are nothing more than faux-conservatives; opportunistic parasites that cite the Constitution only when it suites their politics...
 
Last edited:
Non-interventionist foreign policy was first advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - hardly what I'd call "left-wing Marxists"...

Yeah right! Which is why, of course, Thomas Jefferson dispatched the marines half way around the world to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates, which, by the way, were also a part of the same perpetual global jihad we are still fighting today between the Islamic world and everybody else.

In any event, Ron Paul has been inculcated with the same brand of leftwing hatred of America as Marxists, which is why he always is very quick to blame America first while he spews old Soviet style agitprop verbatim while vilifying America and America's foreign policy. It's also the reason why only 9/11 Truthers, conspiracy theory nut cases, and other assorted kooks support that self-hating kook. Give me a break!
 
Yeah right! Which is why, of course, Thomas Jefferson dispatched the marines half way around the world to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates, which, by the way, were also a part of the same perpetual global jihad we are still fighting today between the Islamic world and everybody else.

In any event, Ron Paul has been inculcated with the same brand of leftwing hatred of America as Marxists, which is why he always is very quick to blame America first while he spews old Soviet style agitprop verbatim while vilifying America and America's foreign policy. It's also the reason why only 9/11 Truthers, conspiracy theory nut cases, and other assorted kooks support that self-hating kook. Give me a break!

I must say, you are doing a good job living up to your screen name.
 
Yeah right! Which is why, of course, Thomas Jefferson dispatched the marines half way around the world to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates, which, by the way, were also a part of the same perpetual global jihad we are still fighting today between the Islamic world and everybody else.

In any event, Ron Paul has been inculcated with the same brand of leftwing hatred of America as Marxists, which is why he always is very quick to blame America first while he spews old Soviet style agitprop verbatim while vilifying America and America's foreign policy. It's also the reason why only 9/11 Truthers, conspiracy theory nut cases, and other assorted kooks support that self-hating kook. Give me a break!

Just because he is quite a bit more critical of the US foreign policy (I don't agree with him much at all, including foreign policy) does not mean you can just label it Marxist when he is the antithesis of Marxism.
 
I must say, you are doing a good job living up to your screen name.

Not really, because while the real Karl is a cheerleader, he is not that ridiculous.
 
And you're confusing "right-wingers" with "conservatives". The latter do not support authoritarian and unconstitutional Federal drug laws, for one; right-wingers, however, have no problem forcing their morality on others, even if it expands the size and power of government beyond its Constitutional mandate. That's why the Sarah Palins of the world are nothing more than faux-conservatives; opportunistic parasites that cite the Constitution only when it suites their politics...

Excuse me dude, but right wingers and conservatives are the same thing. In fact, the two terms are synonymous. It is you who is obviously very confused. No right winger or conservative ever believes in expanding the size and power of the federal government. Indeed, you are confusing progressives with right wingers and conservatives.

President Bush was not a conservative. In fact, he didn't have a conservative bone in his very progressive body. He was in fact a very political correct multicultural stealth progressive, who only got elected because most conservative Republicans were forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

As a matter of fact, Juan McPane was also a stealth progressive masquerading as a conservative, and that's the reason why he lost the election because most conservative Republicans like me were appalled that the progressives were hijacking the Republican Party and refused to vote for him.

It's also the reason why I will never ever vote for the lesser of two evils ever again, as it ultimately enabled the progressives to hijack the Republican Party. Indeed, from now on if the Republican Party can't field a “real” conservative for national office, then I will hold my nose and vote for the most liberal candidate I can, since I'm more pissed off about the liberal corruption of the Republican Party than I am about the election of B. Hussein Obama or any other liberal.

In any event, it is obvious that you are confusing the terms progressive, right winger, and conservative, with kookism, which is what your idol Ron Paul and his followers are.
 
I must say, you are doing a good job living up to your screen name.

Not really. To be honest, I can't stand the man, because he sold us a stealth progressive and a very politically correct one at that. Indeed, I consider GWB to be the Jimmy Carter of the Republican Party.
 
Just because he is quite a bit more critical of the US foreign policy (I don't agree with him much at all, including foreign policy) does not mean you can just label it Marxist when he is the antithesis of Marxism.

Actually that blame America first self-hating kook Ron Paul spews old Soviet agitprop verbatim and it just don't get any more Marxist than that. When it comes to foreign policy and vilifying American foreign policy as evil incarnate, Ron Paul is a Marxist!
 
Yeah right!

Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were not the first advocates of non-interventionist foreign policy? If that is the case, then perhaps you should consult Wikipedia before continuing this discussion.

Which is why, of course, Thomas Jefferson dispatched the marines half way around the world to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates, which, by the way, were also a part of the same perpetual global jihad we are still fighting today between the Islamic world and everybody else.

The Barbary corsairs were attacking our ships and pirating important trading routes. In case you were wondering, that means it was okay to involve our military...

In any event, Ron Paul has been inculcated with the same brand of leftwing hatred of America as Marxists, which is why he always is very quick to blame America first while he spews old Soviet style agitprop verbatim while vilifying America and America's foreign policy. It's also the reason why only 9/11 Truthers, conspiracy theory nut cases, and other assorted kooks support that self-hating kook. Give me a break!

I agree that his views on foreign policy can be unrealistic and overly idealistic, but he has a consistent and principled philosophical stance on foreign policy which is based upon, in large part, the writings of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Ron Paul is too much of an idealist, but that doesn't make him an anti-American, self-loathing kook.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU&feature=related"]YouTube- Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex[/ame]

Eisenhower! What a kook!
 
Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were not the first advocates of non-interventionist foreign policy? If that is the case, then perhaps you should consult Wikipedia before continuing this discussion.

They weren't non-interventionists at all, they warned us about getting embroiled in other countries affairs we had no business getting into. That is something entirely different and common sense. However, when American national security was at stake, they were both hawks, as Thomas Jefferson demonstrated when he dispatched the Marines half way around the world to North Africa to put the Barbary Coast Pirates back in their place. Ron Paul is a loon and he is putting words in both those guys mouths.

The Barbary corsairs were attacking our ships and pirating important trading routes. In case you were wondering, that means it was okay to involve our military...

They weren't corsairs, they were Muslim jihadists, just like today's, who raided the coast of Europe for hundreds of years in the name of jihad and in the search of slaves and booty. Nevertheless, if what that self-hating kook Ron Paul claims about Washington and Jefferson were correct, then Jefferson never would have dispatched the Marines.

I agree that his views on foreign policy can be unrealistic and overly idealistic, but he has a consistent and principled philosophical stance on foreign policy which is based upon, in large part, the writings of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Don't belittle the names of Jefferson and Washington that way. That self-hating kook Ron Paul is deliberately taking what both Jefferson and Washington were saying out of context to score brownie points with 9/11 truthers and other assorted kooks. The reality is both Jefferson and Washington would roll over in their graves if they knew the way that kook is exploiting their good names.

Ron Paul is too much of an idealist, but that doesn't make him an anti-American, self-loathing kook.

He isn't an idealist, he's a fricking kook, that has made a career out of always blaming America first, spewing verbatim old warn out Soviet agitprop, and pandering to 9/11 Truthers and other assorted conspiratorial kooks.

Moreover, just like leftwing Marxist loons, Paul loves to take Eisenhower out of context too. So what else is new?
 
They weren't non-interventionists at all, they warned us about getting embroiled in other countries affairs we had no business getting into.

Non-interventionism does not mean "never intervene".

That is something entirely different and common sense. However, when American national security was at stake, they were both hawks, as Thomas Jefferson demonstrated when he dispatched the Marines half way around the world to North Africa to put the Barbary Coast Pirates back in their place. Ron Paul is a loon and he is putting words in both those guys mouths.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan, so you obviously have no idea what you're talking about...

They weren't corsairs, they were Muslim jihadists, just like today's, who raided the coast of Europe for hundreds of years in the name of jihad and in the search of slaves and booty. Nevertheless, if what that self-hating kook Ron Paul claims about Washington and Jefferson were correct, then Jefferson never would have dispatched the Marines.

You just don't know what "non-interventionism" is. You think it means "never intervene in another country's affairs", but it doesn't, which is why Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan, and why Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast.

Don't belittle the names of Jefferson and Washington that way. That self-hating kook Ron Paul is deliberately taking what both Jefferson and Washington were saying out of context to score brownie points with 9/11 truthers and other assorted kooks. The reality is both Jefferson and Washington would roll over in their graves if they knew the way that kook is exploiting their good names.

Huh!? What's he taking out of context?


He isn't an idealist, he's a fricking kook, that has made a career out of always blaming America first, spewing verbatim old warn out Soviet agitprop, and pandering to 9/11 Truthers and other assorted conspiratorial kooks.

Moreover, just like leftwing Marxist loons, Paul loves to take Eisenhower out of context too. So what else is new?

Okay, why don't you put Eisenhower's words into context for us, Mr. Know-it-all. Apparently, when he was warning against the influences of the military industrial complex, what he really meant to say was...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw"]YouTube- Team America World Police Theme America **** Yeah EXPLICIT WARNING[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom