• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul's stand on Israel is popular...with Netanyahu!

The Prophet

The Prophet

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
425
Reaction score
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative


So it seems that the neo cons are the ones out of step.
 
Uh, I didn't see where Netanyahu said that the U.S. shouldn't give Israel military aid or support them in the event of a conflict. If he doesn't want our aid I'm sure that he's capable of saying so.
 
AdamT said:
Uh, I didn't see where Netanyahu said that the U.S. shouldn't give Israel military aid or support them in the event of a conflict. If he doesn't want our aid I'm sure that he's capable of saying so.
Click to expand...

Well I posted that video to show how Benny is 2 faced. He knows he can get away with practically anything. Before the American people, he says "no US meddling", but behind the scenes he gets his lobby to strongarm Obama into complacency.
 
Thunder said:
no, no he is not. The American people are silly...but we ain't THAT stupid.
Click to expand...

Well being as you're a liberal, wouldn't you say we are "that stupid", as we elected Bush not once, but twice.
 
Redress said:
And Paul is still not going to be president.
Click to expand...

I would love for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination, but I'm a realist. This is the party of the Patriot Act and the illegal wars, both of which Dr. Paul is opposed to. If they nominated him, they'd have to concede that those were mistakes, and the 4,000+ US soldiers died for a mistake. I don't think they would want to chance opening that bag of worms, I think they'd rather put up with 4 more years of Obama. But I remain optimistic.
 
The Prophet said:
I would love for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination, but I'm a realist. This is the party of the Patriot Act and the illegal wars, both of which Dr. Paul is opposed to. If they nominated him, they'd have to concede that those were mistakes, and the 4,000+ US soldiers died for a mistake. I don't think they would want to chance opening that bag of worms, I think they'd rather put up with 4 more years of Obama. But I remain optimistic.
Click to expand...

This is something I have always questioned. Why is Paul a republican? He does not agree with republican issues for the most part, so why is he part of their party?
 
Redress said:
This is something I have always questioned. Why is Paul a republican? He does not agree with republican issues for the most part, so why is he part of their party?
Click to expand...

Well he does. Republicans don't nation build, or take away your freedoms, neo cons do. The Republicans should absolutely love Ron Paul, but sadly, the neo conservatives have usurped the party. The "neo" movement is the only game in town, liberal and conservative are the two factions. They choose different paths to get us to the final destination, but it's the same place. A Ron Paul Presidency would severely undercut the elites' global plans, and set them back 50 years. Ron Paul has been consistent for 30 years; he proved he cannot be bought, and the globalist elites are panic stricken.
 
Redress said:
This is something I have always questioned. Why is Paul a republican? He does not agree with republican issues for the most part, so why is he part of their party?
Click to expand...

He's been less successful as a third party candidate. The GOP at least pretends to agree with Paul more than the Democrats. If the Republicans won't give him the time of day, what are the chances the Democrats will?
 
The Prophet said:
Well he does. Republicans don't nation build, or take away your freedoms, neo cons do. The Republicans should absolutely love Ron Paul, but sadly, the neo conservatives have usurped the party. The "neo" movement is the only game in town, liberal and conservative are the two factions. They choose different paths to get us to the final destination, but it's the same place. A Ron Paul Presidency would severely undercut the elites' global plans, and set them back 50 years. Ron Paul has been consistent for 30 years; he proved he cannot be bought, and the globalist elites are panic stricken.
Click to expand...

That doesn't work. You are saying that most republicans are not republicans, which is a failed argument since republican is whatever the people who belong make it to be.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
He's been less successful as a third party candidate. The GOP at least pretends to agree with Paul more than the Democrats. If the Republicans won't give him the time of day, what are the chances the Democrats will?
Click to expand...

So you are saying it is essentially a marriage of convenience? It's not a good match, but it gives him more than being a third party candidate would?
 
Redress said:
So you are saying it is essentially a marriage of convenience? It's not a good match, but it gives him more than being a third party candidate would?
Click to expand...

We are a two-party system. The GOP may be dominated by hawks now, but the party has traditionally had a very large non-interventionist wing. The GOP is closer to libertarian ideals than the Democrats are right now. That's not saying much, but the party has provided him with a good platform for spreading his ideas. If Paul ran as a third-party candidate, he would probably just be another name that everyone forgets, but when he runs in the Republican primary he has a much larger audience. That's the nature of a two-party system. It rarely matters how many people would agree with a third-party candidate, most would never hear of one or "waste" their vote.
 
Netanyahu is saying "Hey, we can defend ourselves, thank you very much." He's right. Unfortunately the extreme religious right in America equates "Israel can defend itself" with "Throwing Israel under the bus."
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
We are a two-party system. The GOP may be dominated by hawks now, but the party has traditionally had a very large non-interventionist wing. The GOP is closer to libertarian ideals than the Democrats are right now. That's not saying much, but the party has provided him with a good platform for spreading his ideas. If Paul ran as a third-party candidate, he would probably just be another name that everyone forgets, but when he runs in the Republican primary he has a much larger audience. That's the nature of a two-party system. It rarely matters how many people would agree with a third-party candidate, most would never hear of one or "waste" their vote.
Click to expand...

So they are just using each other. So much for Paul's famed integrity.
 
Redress said:
That doesn't work. You are saying that most republicans are not republicans, which is a failed argument since republican is whatever the people who belong make it to be.
Click to expand...

What a silly statement. So all one has to do is say they are a Republican and then they are, no matter what they believe? I believe what The Prophet means is that neo cons are in charge of the party, not that ALL Republicans are neo cons, which seems like a legit argument to me.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
What a silly statement. So all one has to do is say they are a Republican and then they are, no matter what they believe? I believe what The Prophet means is that neo cons are in charge of the party, not that ALL Republicans are neo cons, which seems like a legit argument to me.
Click to expand...

No. What the republican party is is what the people belonging to it make it. When it was formed, the republican party was the party of abolitionists. It is not now as the party has evolved due to what those who belong to it choose. If a majority of republicans woke up tomorrow and decided they support gay marriage, and make it a plank of the republican party platform, then it would be part of what being a republican is about. It is unlikely to happen like that, but both major parties have evolved since their inception, and will continue to do so.
 
Redress said:
No. What the republican party is is what the people belonging to it make it. When it was formed, the republican party was the party of abolitionists. It is not now as the party has evolved due to what those who belong to it choose. If a majority of republicans woke up tomorrow and decided they support gay marriage, and make it a plank of the republican party platform, then it would be part of what being a republican is about. It is unlikely to happen like that, but both major parties have evolved since their inception, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

It would be kind of silly for the Republicans to still be abolitionists after all these years....
 
rocket88 said:
It would be kind of silly for the Republicans to still be abolitionists after all these years....
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the point.
 
Redress said:
So they are just using each other. So much for Paul's famed integrity.
Click to expand...

Why does it undermine his credibility? He hasn't compromised his stances on the issues to gain popularity. The two parties in this country are meant to be catch-all, based upon coalitions of people that agree on some things but don't march in lock step. They're supposed to be diverse. Calling Paul a hypocrite is like calling every blue-dog Democrat, neo-conservative, or anyone else who doesn't buy their party platform 100% a hypocrite. Party platforms are not meant to be manifestos that one has to follow lockstep. If that was the case both parties would be much smaller than they are today.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Why does it undermine his credibility? He hasn't compromised his stances on the issues to gain popularity. The two parties in this country are meant to be catch-all, based upon coalitions of people that agree on some things but don't march in lock step. They're supposed to be diverse. Calling Paul a hypocrite is like calling every blue-dog Democrat, neo-conservative, or anyone else who doesn't buy their party platform 100% a hypocrite. Party platforms are not meant to be manifestos that one has to follow lockstep. If that was the case both parties would be much smaller than they are today.
Click to expand...

I did not say credibility, I said integrity. Paul is maybe, almost 50 % republican at best. Or in other words, he isn't a republican, but uses the party for his own attempts to get and keep power.
 
Redress said:
That doesn't work. You are saying that most republicans are not republicans, which is a failed argument since republican is whatever the people who belong make it to be.
Click to expand...

Redress, you seem to be stuck in the 2 party paradigm. Both the Democratic and Republican party are bought and paid for by the power brokers and global elite. Nation building and retracting our freedoms was not typical Republican policy prior to W. When Bush campaigned, he was cast as a "compassionate conservative". He championed conservative principles and won on them. He was successfull in making Clinton seem like a "warmonger" and said we need to mind our own business. The Republicans fell for his act and elected him. GHW Bush invaded Iraq, sure, but because Iraq was actively invading Kuwait. The neo conservatives are a totally different breed, and due to their sheer numbers, power and influence, they have suceeded in taking over the Republican moniker.

So not every single Republican is necessarily a neo conservative, and not every neo is by default a Republican. Example being Obama, he has started the most wars then any peace prize winner before him. He is a neo liberal.
 
The Prophet said:
Redress, you seem to be stuck in the 2 party paradigm. Both the Democratic and Republican party are bought and paid for by the power brokers and global elite. Nation building and retracting our freedoms was not typical Republican policy prior to W. When Bush campaigned, he was cast as a "compassionate conservative". He championed conservative principles and won on them. He was successfull in making Clinton seem like a "warmonger" and said we need to mind our own business. The Republicans fell for his act and elected him. GHW Bush invaded Iraq, sure, but because Iraq was actively invading Kuwait. The neo conservatives are a totally different breed, and due to their sheer numbers, power and influence, they have suceeded in taking over the Republican moniker.

So not every single Republican is necessarily a neo conservative, and not every neo is by default a Republican. Example being Obama, he has started the most wars then any peace prize winner before him. He is a neo liberal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, could you get a few more conspiracy theory buzzwords in there? Your forgot to mention the zionist bilderburg illuminati controlling the parties.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, could you get a few more conspiracy theory buzzwords in there? Your forgot to mention the zionist bilderburg illuminati controlling the parties.
Click to expand...

You're attempt at any type of humor falls flat on it's face and for sure is duly noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom