• 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

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!

So in your world someone that holds the US to a higher ethical standard than the terrorists, is a "blame America first self hating kook?"

I will try to avoid your world whenever possible, because while I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's positions, I think he wants what makes us more ethical than the terrorists. I have to admire him for that.
 
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.

George Washington fought in a war where the French, Spanish and Dutch intervened. So how the **** could he possibly approve of a non-interventionist foreign policy?
 
Ron Paul voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan, so you obviously have no idea what you're talking about...

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. 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 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...

Okay., why don't you go kiss that self hating kook's ass for us, Mr. Know-it-all.
 
So in your world someone that holds the US to a higher ethical standard than the terrorists, is a "blame America first self hating kook?"

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!

I will try to avoid your world whenever possible, because while I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's positions, I think he wants what makes us more ethical than the terrorists. I have to admire him for that.

Just like Ron Paul, you obviously are also a guilt filled self-hating blame America firster.
 
George Washington fought in a war where the French, Spanish and Dutch intervened. So how the **** could he possibly approve of a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Do you know what the word "advocate" means!? Apparently not, because even if George Washington was the biggest hypocrite on the planet, it still wouldn't change the fact that he was one of the first advocates of non-interventionist foreign policy. And since Mr. Rove wants to liken Ron Paul's foreign policy views to Marxism, I just figured I would point out that neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson were in fact Marxists.

But don't let facts get in the way of your bitter crusade against libertarianism and Ron Paul...
 
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...
 
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:
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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?

:lol:


By the way, who is responsible for 9/11?

Al-Qaeda.
 
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!
 
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. :lol:
To get respect here, one must pucker up and ready to kiss some hairy man ass!
It's not easy being green!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. :lol:
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
 
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. :lol:

Neo-con and neo-conservatism were hijacked terms used as an anti-Semitic straw-man attack by the very anti-Semitic Radical Left, Muslims, and Ron Paul kooks who are all very self-hating blame America first loons to insinuate that the Joos had hijacked America's foreign policy for the good of Israel and also to leverage the ignorance's of the masses in order to vilify and demonize the Bush administration, and to their credit it worked very well.

It was just another play on the same old Protocols of the Elders of Zion theme whereby the Joos somehow behind the scenes control the world, the money, and the news media. Yet, that sort of paranoia when combine with ignorance is very powerful propaganda.

Nevertheless, Bush was not a neo-con. He was a stealth big government progressive that masqueraded as being a conservative and who also surrounded himself with other big government progressives, and like all progressives they were also blinded by political correct multiculturalism, which also explains why both wars went off the tracks so badly.

Not to mention, for those loons that still believe that America's foreign policy was somehow hijacked by mysterious neo-con joos, Israel is by far worse off today than it was at the beginning of the Bush administration thanks in large part to Bush's political correctness and incompetent foreign policy.
 
Defining Neoconservatism is easy. William Kristol already did. Just use his own words....



-William Kristol

Again, that was Irving Kristol, and that became an insider's joke, not really a definition. It was a sort of back and forth intellectual's banter (I think it was between two journals) between two men, with the other man escaping my memory. At the end of the day it ended like this: A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who got mugged by reality but has not pressed charges.

That "definition" was problematic for many reasons to begin with, and then it became more complicated once the so-called neoconservatives had never gone through a supposed johnny-come-lately identity crisis and had been more or less identified with the conservative movement and the Republican Party their whole lives.
 
Last edited:
Neo-con and neo-conservatism were hijacked terms used as an anti-Semitic straw-man attack by the very anti-Semitic Radical Left, Muslims, and Ron Paul kooks who are all very self-hating blame America first loons to insinuate that the Joos had hijacked America's foreign policy for the good of Israel and also to leverage the ignorance's of the masses in order to vilify and demonize the Bush administration, and to their credit it worked very well.

It was just another play on the same old Protocols of the Elders of Zion theme whereby the Joos somehow behind the scenes control the world, the money, and the news media. Yet, that sort of paranoia when combine with ignorance is very powerful propaganda.

Nevertheless, Bush was not a neo-con. He was a stealth big government progressive that masqueraded as being a conservative and who also surrounded himself with other big government progressives, and like all progressives they were also blinded by political correct multiculturalism, which also explains why both wars went off the tracks so badly.

Not to mention, for those loons that still believe that America's foreign policy was somehow hijacked by mysterious neo-con joos, Israel is by far worse off today than it was at the beginning of the Bush administration thanks in large part to Bush's political correctness and incompetent foreign policy.

These things are hard to do, "Rove". Not all Neoconservatives care about the same issues, and if they do, this is not too much to allow us to declare that they universally like or dislike a policy or philosophy. Yes, a great deal of the time there is hints of anti-semitism, or an accusation that is at times used by neoconservatives too liberally. If we were two use Neoconservatism as foreign policy neoconservatism, then Bush fits one portion of the definition, while having a strange transformation that parallels the joke I mentioned above, due to the fact he was not an initial believer in it, but then later had a "mugged by reality moment".

Now, are Neoconservatives largely okay with big government? Yes and no. Historically, there was a tendency to be skeptical of government's ability to improve things through ambitious legislation or government programs. It doesn't mean that they were all automatically against that, or could be unified in which programs were okay to support and which ones were not.

Yes, multiculturalism is largely something Neoconservatives have had a hard time coming to terms with. Now, but I remind you, Nathan Glazer (that handsome looking old devil as my avatar) came to terms with multiculturalism in the 1990s. Now, does multiculturalism really come into play with the foreign policy aspect? Not so much. Most foreign policy Neoconservatives who spoke out against the implementation of the so-called Neoconservative foreign policy did so out of awareness that the President and has administration were not putting out the desired amount of troops on the ground, or other matters troubled them greatly. Other neoconservatives can completely speak out against the war, that's no terrible issue, because it happened with Vietnam while at the same time maintaining their label.
 
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!

I don't buy into Ron Paul's theory of blow-back. I think he overstates its effect on the Jihadists' motivations, but I don't think it can be entirely discounted either.

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.

You can speculate all you want about his motivations. Fact is, he voted to invade Afghanistan, and even submitted legislation to grant letters of marque and reprisal...

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

He obviously understood the threat posed by AQ, and wanted to neutralize that threat in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

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.

Yea, you're right. American interventionism has absolutely no negative effects on anything. Everything foreign policy decision we make exists in a total vacuum.

America!!! **** yeah!!!

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.

No. I've been trying to educate you on the actual definition of Jeffersonian and Washingtonian non-interventionism. Since you seem to think Jefferson's war with th Barbary pirates was inconsistent with non-interventionism, it's obvious that you have no idea what non-interventionism actually is, and prefer to think of it in overly simplistic terms that do no fully encompass its nuances and complexities.

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.

Right...kooks, unhinged, weirdos, etc...
 
This thread is crap.......There are many differences between Paul and the Tea Party movement

Ron Paul started the tea-parties!!!!

............Especially social ones.......

Are the tea-party people on "your side" pro-freedom or anti-freedom?

A good Tea Party member would never appear on a fruit cakes program like Rachel Maddow like Paul did.....Paul is desperate for publicity.......

Ron Paul isn't the type of person who runs and hides from interviews. He has been on Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, Bill O' Reilly, Freedom Watch, Fox and Friends, various shows on Russia Today and MSNBC as well as CNN.
 
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. :lol:
To get respect here, one must pucker up and ready to kiss some hairy man ass!
It's not easy being green!

I thanked you. Still, since then it's been fun watching the conservatives tear into each other. Whilst those on the left know we are riven asunder with schism (despite some of our opponents whose limited intellects cannot compute further than "you're all commies"), conservatives too often live with the illusion that everyone's a conservative and they all agree with them.

I mean we've got Holocaust deniers like Pat Buchanan, internationalist interventionists like Ronald Reagan, political opportunists like George W Bush, career blue bloods like GHW Bush, thugs like John Boulton, French speaking intellectuals like Richard Perle, "maverick" lightweights like John McCain, American Power exceptionalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld, moderates like Colin Powell, big government moralizers like Irving Kristol, international civil servants like Paul Wolwowitz, paleoconservatives with decency like Mike Huckabee and populist rabble rousers like Sarah Palin. But what about the Tea Party goers? To me it would seem like they would choose "none of the above" if given the choice.

The Tea Party, at least by reputation, is an isolationist, nationalist, protectionist movement that is anti government and was not roused to anger until a black liberal President was elected to the White House. Despite this they are sworn enemies of the Bush administration's fiscal policy, particularly the rescuing of the global economy. In the Tea Party world...small and very small town American, hostile to big corporations, international trade ... the global economy can very well go and collapse rather than put US debt up to 10% of GDP. Economics is of no concern to them, either because it makes their brains hurt or because they cannot see the conncection between the collapse of global finance and international supply chains and their small town, small business suburban lives. On the edges of this are the anti secularist Tory activists who have always been there, trashing Enlightenment values and urging theocracy on the American way of life. This is a movement that openly trashes America's twentieth century global hero Roosevelt at their Nashville conference and that has to bribe its keynote speaker to talk for them, even as they deny that she is their leader.

How Ron Paul can say that there is something "neoconservative" about this movement is beyond me. He is usually a clever commentator. How does Irvine Kristol's tolerance of deficits and preference for social engineering (albeit for conservative ends) come into the Tea Party? This is largely a rabble of anti intellectual grunts who's political philosophy rarely goes beyond "the President is a commie". Hardly a match for the party of Leo Strauss, and the philosophy of the Cave. I'm not sure how the "noble lie" goes down at the screamfests, unless its the confusion of a movement that sought representation in 1773 with one that rails against elected representatives in 2010. Do they discuss Plato at the Tea Parties? Is the exploration of the Theory of Forms de rigeur in Tea Party circles?

Quite clearly the conservatives who get into power...the ones who know how the world works under capitalism, what you need to do to sustain that, and that the big bad world out there is actually something important that will not go away because you wish it to...are quiet now. Yet again they let the thugs, ignoramuses and zealots do their oppositioning for them. And the most elitist of these eltists are the neocons. They are the quietest of all. Can you really see the worldly Paul Wolwowitz at a Tea Party rally? But if these elitists are calculating that when push comes to shove they can step in, take over and restore conservativism to the clever people, like they have always done before, they may have miscalculated. This Tea Party has all the populism and zeal of a Peronist movement. It is a well organized and well funded counter revolutionary Tory movement. Of course the American people may flirt with folksy isolationism, but they know that only when America leads can it truly flourish. That is the result of every election. Those who are perceived to be international leaders will prevail. The "head for the hills, baton down the hatches, let the sky fall in rather than bail out the banks" numskulls are not this. They are though a guarantor of a second term for President Obama.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom